Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico and Turkey: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 60827-60831 [2013-23983]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Notices
Dated: September 28, 2013.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–24114 Filed 10–1–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–844, A–489–818]
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From
Mexico and Turkey: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective October 2, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Moore at (202) 482–3692
(Mexico); George McMahon at (202)
482–1167 (Turkey), AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petitions
On September 4, 2013, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) received antidumping
duty (‘‘AD’’) petitions 1 concerning
imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar
(‘‘rebar’’) from Mexico and Turkey filed
in proper form on behalf of the Rebar
Trade Action Coalition (‘‘RTAC’’) and
its individual members (collectively,
‘‘Petitioners’’).2 Petitioners are domestic
producers of rebar. On September 10–
11, 2013, the Department requested
additional information and clarification
of certain areas of the Petitions.3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1 See
Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from
Mexico and Turkey and the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bar from Turkey, dated September 4, 2013 (‘‘the
Petitions’’).
2 Petitioners are RTAC and its individual
members: Byer Steel Group, Inc., Schnitzer Steel
Industries d/b/a Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.,
Commercial Metals Company, Gerdau Ameristeel
U.S. Inc., and Nucor Corporation.
3 See letters from the Department titled,
‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey and
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey:
Supplemental Questions,’’ (A–201–844, A–489–
818, and C–489–819), dated September 10, 2013;
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from
Mexico: Supplemental Questions, (A–201–844),
dated September 10, 2013; ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of
Turkey: Supplemental Questions, (A–489–818),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Oct 01, 2013
Jkt 232001
Petitioners filed responses to these
requests on September 13, 2013.4
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
‘‘Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports of
rebar from Mexico and Turkey are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value
within the meaning of section 731 of the
Act and that such imports are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury
to, an industry in the United States.
Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1)
of the Act, the Petitions are
accompanied by information reasonably
available to Petitioners supporting their
allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed these Petitions on behalf of the
domestic industry because Petitioners
are interested parties as defined in
sections 771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the
Act. The Department also finds that
Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
initiation of the AD investigations that
Petitioners are requesting. See the
‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions’’ section below.
Period of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on
September 4, 2013, the period of
investigation (‘‘POI’’) for the Mexico and
Turkey investigations is July 1, 2012,
through June 30, 2013.5
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these
investigations is steel concrete
reinforcing bar from Mexico and
Turkey. For a full description of the
scope of the investigations, see the
‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the
dated September 10, 2013; ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of
Turkey: Supplemental Questions, (C–489–819),
dated September 10, 2013; and ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of
Turkey: Additional Supplemental Questions, (C–
489–819), dated September 11, 2013; see also letter
from the Department titled, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and the
Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on
Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the
Republic of Turkey: Request for Extension.’’
4 See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico:
Supplement to the Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties, dated September 13, 2013
(‘‘Mexico AD Supplement’’); see also ‘‘Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey: Supplement
to the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties,’’ dated September 13, 2013 (‘‘Turkey AD
Supplement’’); see also ‘‘Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey:
Supplement to the Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties’’ dated
September 13, 2013 (‘‘General Issues Supplement’’).
5 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60827
Appendix of this notice.6 Petitioners
note that, in addition to the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings included in the
scope, it is possible that rebar
previously entered under HTSUS
numbers 7222.30.0011 and
7222.11.0056; however, these HTSUS
numbers are no longer in effect.
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, we
discussed the scope with Petitioners to
ensure that it is an accurate reflection of
the product for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the
regulations,7 we are setting aside a
period for interested parties to raise
issues regarding product coverage.
All comments must be filed on the
record of both the Mexico and the
Turkey AD investigations and the
companion Turkey Countervailing Duty
rebar investigation by 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time on Tuesday, October 15,
2013. All comments and submissions to
the Department must be filed
electronically using Import
Administration’s Antidumping
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’).8 An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the Department’s
electronic records system, IA ACCESS,
by the time and date noted above.
Documents excepted from the electronic
submission requirements must be filed
manually (i.e., in paper form) with
Import Administration’s APO/Dockets
Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230,
and stamped with the date and time of
receipt by the deadline noted above.
The period of scope comments is
intended to provide the Department
with ample opportunity to consider all
comments and to consult with parties
prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determinations.
6 See Memorandum to the File titled, ‘‘Petitions
for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from
Mexico and the Republic of Turkey and
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey: Scope
Clarification,’’ dated September 18, 2013.
7 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties;
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
8 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the Department’s
electronic filing requirements, which went into
effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using
IA ACCESS can be found at https://iaaccess.
trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Hand
book%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20
Procedures.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM
02OCN1
60828
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Notices
Comments on Product Characteristics
for Antidumping Questionnaires
The Department requests comments
from interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of
rebar to be reported in response to the
Department’s AD questionnaires. This
information will be used to identify the
key physical characteristics of the
subject merchandise in order to report
the relevant factors and costs of
production accurately as well as to
develop appropriate productcomparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any
information or comments that they feel
are relevant to the development of an
accurate list of physical characteristics.
Specifically, they may provide
comments as to which characteristics
are appropriate to use as: (1) General
product characteristics and (2) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is
not always appropriate to use all
product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products.
In other words, while there may be
some physical product characteristics
utilized by manufacturers to describe
steel concrete reinforcing bar, it may be
that only a select few product
characteristics take into account
commercially meaningful physical
characteristics. In addition, interested
parties may comment on the order in
which the physical characteristics
should be used in matching products.
Generally, the Department attempts to
list the most important physical
characteristics first and the least
important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of
interested parties in developing and
issuing the AD questionnaires, we must
receive comments on product
characteristics by October 15, 2013.
Rebuttal comments must be received by
October 25, 2013. All comments and
submissions to the Department must be
filed electronically using IA ACCESS, as
referenced above.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (i) At least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Oct 01, 2013
Jkt 232001
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) Poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method to poll the
industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The U.S.
International Trade Commission
(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for
determining whether ‘‘the domestic
industry’’ has been injured, must also
determine what constitutes a domestic
like product in order to define the
industry. While both the Department
and the ITC must apply the same
statutory definition regarding the
domestic like product,9 they do so for
different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department’s
determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this
may result in different definitions of the
like product, such differences do not
render the decision of either agency
contrary to law.10
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
which is like, or in the absence of like,
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, Petitioners do not offer a
definition of domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigations. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that rebar,
as defined in the scope of the
investigations, constitutes a single
9 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988),
aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
10 See
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
domestic like product and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of
that domestic like product.11
In determining whether Petitioners
have standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered
the industry support data contained in
the Petitions with reference to the
domestic like product as defined in the
‘‘Scope of Investigations’’ section above.
To establish industry support,
Petitioners provided their production of
the domestic like product in 2012, and
compared this to the estimated total
production of the domestic like product
for the entire domestic industry.12
Petitioners estimated total 2012
production of the domestic like product
using their knowledge of the industry
and data from the ITC.13 We have relied
upon data Petitioners provided for
purposes of measuring industry
support.14
Based on information provided in the
Petitions, supplemental submission, and
other information readily available to
the Department, we determine that
Petitioners have met the statutory
criteria for industry support under
section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.15 Based on information
provided in the Petitions, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions
account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petitions. Accordingly, the
Department determines that the
Petitions were filed on behalf of the
11 See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from
Mexico (‘‘Mexico AD Initiation Checklist’’), at
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the
Petitions Covering Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey
(‘‘Attachment II’’), and Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey
(‘‘Turkey AD Initiation Checklist’’), at Attachment
II. These checklists are dated concurrently with this
notice and on file electronically via IA ACCESS.
Access to documents filed via IA ACCESS is also
available in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’),
Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce
building.
12 See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–3,
and General Issues Supplement, at 2–3 and Exhibits
I–Supp–1 through I–Supp–7.
13 Id.
14 See Mexico AD Initiation Checklist and Turkey
AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
15 Id.
E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM
02OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Notices
domestic industry within the meaning
of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.16
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the Petitions on behalf of the
domestic industry because they are
interested parties as defined in sections
771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the Act and
they have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
antidumping duty investigations that
they are requesting the Department
initiate.17
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product is being materially injured, or is
threatened with material injury, by
reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal
value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.18
Petitioners contend that the industry’s
injured condition is illustrated by
reduced market share; underselling and
price depression or suppression; lost
sales and revenues; hindered
production efforts, shipments, and
capacity utilization; and decline in
financial performance.19 We have
assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury,
threat of material injury, and causation,
and we have determined that these
allegations are properly supported by
adequate evidence and meet the
statutory requirements for initiation.20
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value
The following is a description of the
allegations of sales at less-than-fairvalue upon which the Department based
its decision to initiate an investigation
of imports of rebar from Mexico and
Turkey. The sources of data for the
deductions and adjustments relating to
U.S. price and NV are discussed in
greater detail in the Mexico AD
Initiation Checklist and the Turkey AD
Initiation Checklist.
16 Id.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17 Id.
18 See General Issues Supplement, at 6–7 and
Exhibit I–Supp–8.
19 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 16–51 and
Exhibits I–6 and I–8 through I–26; see also General
Issues Supplement, at 1, 6–7, Revised Exhibit I–
12B, and Exhibits I–Supp–1 and I–Supp–8.
20 See Mexico AD Initiation Checklist and Turkey
AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis
of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Petitions Covering Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and the Republic of
Turkey.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Oct 01, 2013
Jkt 232001
60829
Export Price
Turkey
Mexico
Sales-Below-Cost Allegation
Petitioners provided information
demonstrating reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that sales of rebar in
the Turkish market were made at prices
below the fully-absorbed cost of
production (‘‘COP’’), within the
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act,
and requested that the Department
conduct a country-wide sales-belowcost investigation. The Statement of
Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’)
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, states that an allegation
of sales below COP need not be specific
to individual exporters or producers.25
The SAA states that ‘‘Commerce will
consider allegations of below-cost sales
in the aggregate for a foreign country,
just as Commerce currently considers
allegations of sales at less than fair value
on a country-wide basis for purposes of
initiating an antidumping
investigation.’’ 26 Further, the SAA
provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the
Act retains the requirement that the
Department have ‘‘reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect’’ that below-cost
sales have occurred before initiating
such an investigation. Reasonable
grounds exist when an interested party
provides specific factual information on
costs and prices, observed or
constructed, indicating that sales in the
foreign market in question are at belowcost prices.27
Petitioners calculated export prices
(‘‘EP’’) based on sales-specific
information that is contemporaneous
with the POI.21 To derive the ex-factory
prices, Petitioners made deductions to
U.S. price for foreign inland freight
charges, Mexican brokerage and
handling, international freight and
insurance, and U.S. inland freight
expenses, where such expenses were
incurred by the seller.
Turkey
Petitioners calculated EP based on
sales-specific information that is
contemporaneous with the POI.22 The
data serving as the basis for EP are based
on transactions which represent an exfactory export price. To be conservative,
Petitioners made no adjustments for
movement expenses, customs duties,
brokerage and handling, or port
expenses in estimating the ex-factory
EP.
Normal Value
Mexico
Petitioners provided home market
prices for rebar in Mexico. Petitioners
calculated home market prices based on
sales information that is
contemporaneous with the POI.23 To
derive the ex-factory price, Petitioners
made deductions from the delivered
prices for inland freight charges and
brokerage and handling.
Cost of Production
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the
Act, COP consists of the cost of
manufacturing (‘‘COM’’); selling, general
Turkey
and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses;
Petitioners calculated home market
financial expenses; and packing
prices based on price quotes for rebar
expenses. Petitioners calculated COM
produced by Habas Sinai ve Tibbi
¸
(except factory overhead) and packing
¨
Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (‘‘Habas’’) expenses based on the input factors of
and Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve
production from a U.S. producer of
Ulasim San AS (‘‘ICDAS’’),24 and sold or rebar adjusted for known differences
offered for sale to customers in Turkey
between the Turkish and U.S. industries
during the POI. To calculate the exduring the prospective POI. The input
factory normal value (‘‘NV’’), Petitioners factors of production were valued using
deducted from the delivered prices
publicly-available data on costs specific
inland freight charges and value-added
to Turkey.
tax, where applicable.
To determine factory overhead,
SG&A, and financial expense rates,
21 The source of the sales-specific details is
Petitioners relied on the fiscal year
considered business proprietary information. See
(‘‘FY’’) ended December 31, 2012
Mexico AD Checklist for additional details.
audited financial statements of a
22 The source of the sales-specific details is
Turkish producer of comparable
considered business proprietary information. See
merchandise. We revised Petitioners’
Turkey AD Checklist for additional details.
23 The source of the sales-specific details is
overhead expense rate because it
considered business proprietary information. See
appears Petitioners may have double
Mexico AD Checklist for additional details.
counted energy costs by including them
24
Petitioners claim Habas and ICDAS represent
two of the largest Turkish manufacturers and
exporters of rebar to the United States during the
POI. See Volume III of the Petitions, at 3 and
Exhibit III–2.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25 See
SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 at 833 (1994).
26 Id.
27 Id.
E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM
02OCN1
60830
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Notices
as a part of the overhead rate calculated
from the Turkish producer’s financial
statements and also including energy
costs as a distinct line item in the
calculation of the COP and constructed
value (‘‘CV’’). To be conservative and
avoid the possibility of double counting
energy costs, we recalculated the
overhead rate from the Turkish
producer’s financial statements.28
Based upon a comparison of the
prices of the foreign like product in the
home market to the calculated COP of
the most comparable product, we find
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that sales of the foreign like product
were made below the COP, within the
meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the
Act. Accordingly, the Department is
initiating a country-wide cost
investigation.
Normal Value Based on Constructed
Value
Because they alleged sales below cost,
pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b)
and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioners
calculated NV based on CV. Petitioners
calculated CV using the same average
COM, SG&A, financial expense, and
packing figures used to compute the
COP. Petitioners relied on the same FY
ended December 31, 2012 audited
financial statements used as the basis
for the factory overhead, SG&A, and
financial expense rates to calculate the
profit rate.29
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by
Petitioners, there is reason to believe
that imports of rebar in Mexico and
Turkey are being, or are likely to be,
sold in the United States at less than fair
value. Based on comparisons of EP to
home market prices for Mexico and EP
to CV for Turkey, in accordance with
section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the
estimated dumping margins for rebar
from Mexico and Turkey range from
48.82–66.70 percent,30 and 35.01–36.99
percent,31 respectively.
Initiation of Antidumping
Investigations
Based upon the examination of the
Petitions on rebar from Mexico and
Turkey, we find that the Petitions meet
the requirements of section 732 of the
Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD
investigations to determine whether
imports of concrete reinforcing bar from
28 See Turkey AD Initiation Checklist at
Attachment V.
29 See Turkey AD Initiation Checklist at
Attachment V.
30 See Mexico AD Supplement at Exhibit II-Supp7; see also Mexico AD Initiation Checklist.
31 See Turkey AD Initiation Checklist.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Oct 01, 2013
Jkt 232001
Mexico and Turkey are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value. In accordance with
section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed,
we will make our preliminary
determinations no later than 140 days
after the date of this initiation.
Turkey are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, a U.S.
industry. A negative ITC determination
for any country will result in the
investigation being terminated with
respect to that country; otherwise, these
investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.35
Respondent Selection
Following standard practice in AD
investigations involving market
economy countries, in the event the
Department determines that the number
of known exporters or producers for this
investigation is large, the Department
may select respondents based on U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
data for U.S. imports of rebar from
Mexico or Turkey under all Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
subheadings identified in Scope of the
Investigation.32 We intend to release the
CBP data under Administrative
Protective Order (‘‘APO’’) to all parties
with access to information protected by
APO within five days of publication of
this Federal Register notice.
The Petitions identified 10 producers
and/or exporters of rebar in Mexico,33
and 41 producers and/or exporters of
rebar in Turkey.34
We intend to make our decision
regarding respondent selection within
20 days of publication of this notice.
The Department invites comments
regarding the CBP data and respondent
selection within seven days of
publication of this Federal Register
notice for Mexico and Turkey.
Submission of Factual Information
On April 10, 2013, the Department
published Definition of Factual
Information and Time Limits for
Submission of Factual Information:
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10,
2013), which modified two regulations
related to AD and countervailing duty
(‘‘CVD’’) proceedings: the definition of
factual information (19 CFR
351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for
the submission of factual information
(19 CFR 351.301). The final rule
identifies five categories of factual
information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21),
which are summarized as follows: (i)
evidence submitted in response to
questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted
in support of allegations; (iii) publicly
available information to value factors
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure
the adequacy of remuneration under 19
CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed
on the record by the Department; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). The final rule
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted and, if the information is
submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on
the record that the factual information
seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The
final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301
so that, rather than providing general
time limits, there are specific time limits
based on the type of factual information
being submitted. These modifications
are effective for all proceeding segments
initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and
thus are applicable to these
investigations. Please review the Final
Rule, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
frn/2013/1304frn/2013–08227.txt prior
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version
of the Petitions have been provided to
the Governments of Mexico and Turkey
via IA ACCESS. To the extent
practicable, we will attempt to provide
a copy of the public version of the
Petitions to each exporter named in the
Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR
351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine
no later than October 21, 2013, whether
there is a reasonable indication that
imports of rebar from Mexico and
32 See Appendix I of this notice for a listing of
the HTSUS subheadings in the Scope of the
Investigation.
33 See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–5A.
34 Id., at Exhibit I–5B.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35 On September 20, 2013, the Department
modified its regulation concerning the extension of
time limits for submissions in antidumping (AD)
and countervailing duty (CVD) proceedings. See
Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September
20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties
may request an extension of time limits before any
time limit established under Part 351 expires. This
modification also requires that an extension request
must be made in a separate, stand-alone
submission, and clarifies the circumstances under
which the Department will grant untimely-filed
requests for the extension of time limits.
E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM
02OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Notices
to submitting factual information in
these investigations.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department
published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures;
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate
in these investigations should ensure
that they meet the requirements of these
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.36
Parties are hereby reminded that the
Department issued a final rule with
respect to certification requirements,
effective August 16, 2013. Parties are
hereby reminded that revised
certification requirements are in effect
for company/government officials as
well as their representatives. All
segments of any antidumping duty or
countervailing duty proceedings
initiated on or after August 16, 2013,
should use the formats for the revised
certifications provided at the end of the
Final Rule.37 The Department intends to
reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with
the applicable revised certification
requirements.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: September 24, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise subject to these
investigations is steel concrete reinforcing
bar imported in either straight length or coil
form (‘‘rebar’’) regardless of metallurgy,
length, diameter, or grade. The subject
merchandise is classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (‘‘HTSUS’’) primarily under item
numbers 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and
7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may
also enter under other HTSUS numbers
36 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
Certification of Factual Information To
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’); see also the frequently
asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available
at the following: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/tlei/notices/
factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
37 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Oct 01, 2013
Jkt 232001
including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000,
7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045,
7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059,
7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6085,
7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000. Specifically
excluded are plain rounds (i.e., nondeformed or smooth rebar). HTSUS numbers
are provided for convenience and customs
purposes; however, the written description of
the scope remains dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2013–23983 Filed 10–1–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–489–819]
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From
Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing
Duty Investigation
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Copyak at (202) 482–2209, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
AGENCY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The Petition
On September 4, 2013, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) received a countervailing
duty (‘‘CVD’’) petition 1 concerning
imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar
(‘‘rebar’’) from the Republic of Turkey
(‘‘Turkey’’), filed in proper form on
behalf of the Rebar Trade Action
Coalition (‘‘RTAC’’) and its individual
members (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’).2
The CVD petition was accompanied by
two antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’)
petitions.3 Petitioners are domestic
producers of rebar. On September 10–
11, 2013, the Department requested
additional information and clarification
of certain areas of the Petitions.4
1 See Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from the Republic of Turkey, dated September 4,
2013.
2 Petitioners are RTAC and its individual
members: Byer Steel Group, Inc., Schnitzer Steel
Industries d/b/a Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.,
Commercial Metals Company, Gerdau Ameristeel
U.S. Inc., and Nucor Steel Corporation.
3 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from the Republic of Turkey and Mexico and
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey, dated
September 4, 2013 (‘‘the Petitions’’).
4 See letters from the Department titled,
‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60831
Petitioners filed responses to these
requests on September 13, 2013.5
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘the Act’’), Petitioners allege that
manufacturers, producers, or exporters
of rebar from Turkey received
countervailable subsidies within the
meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of
the Act, and that such imports
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, the domestic industry
producing rebar in the United States
pursuant to section 701 of the Act.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because Petitioners
are interested parties as defined in
section 771(9)(C), (E) and (F) of the Act.
The Department also finds that the
Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
initiation of the investigation Petitioners
are requesting. See ‘‘Determination of
Industry Support for the Petition’’
below.
Period of Investigation
The period of the investigation is
January 1, 2012, through December 31,
2012.
Scope of Investigation
The product covered by this CVD
investigation is steel concrete
reinforcing bar from Turkey. For a full
Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey and
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey:
Supplemental Questions,’’ (A–201–844, A–489–
818, and C–489–819), dated September 10, 2013;
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from
Mexico: Supplemental Questions, (A–201–844),
dated September 10, 2013; ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of
Turkey: Supplemental Questions, (A–489–818),
dated September 10, 2013; ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of
Turkey: Supplemental Questions, (C–489–819),
dated September 10, 2013; and ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of
Turkey: Additional Supplemental Questions, (C–
489–819), dated September 11, 2013; see also letter
from the Department titled, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and the
Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on
Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the
Republic of Turkey: Request for Extension.’’
5 See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico:
Supplement to the Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties, dated September 13, 2013
(‘‘Mexico AD Supplement’’); see also ‘‘Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey: Supplement
to the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties,’’ dated September 13, 2013 (‘‘Turkey AD
Supplement’’); see also ‘‘Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey:
Supplement to the Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties’’ dated
September 13, 2013 (‘‘General Issues Supplement’’).
E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM
02OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60827-60831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23983]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-844, A-489-818]
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico and Turkey: Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective October 2, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore at (202) 482-3692
(Mexico); George McMahon at (202) 482-1167 (Turkey), AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On September 4, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') received antidumping duty (``AD'') petitions \1\
concerning imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar (``rebar'') from
Mexico and Turkey filed in proper form on behalf of the Rebar Trade
Action Coalition (``RTAC'') and its individual members (collectively,
``Petitioners'').\2\ Petitioners are domestic producers of rebar. On
September 10-11, 2013, the Department requested additional information
and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.\3\ Petitioners
filed responses to these requests on September 13, 2013.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and Turkey and the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bar from Turkey, dated September 4, 2013 (``the Petitions'').
\2\ Petitioners are RTAC and its individual members: Byer Steel
Group, Inc., Schnitzer Steel Industries d/b/a Cascade Steel Rolling
Mills, Inc., Commercial Metals Company, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc.,
and Nucor Corporation.
\3\ See letters from the Department titled, ``Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey and
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,'' (A-201-844,
A-489-818, and C-489-819), dated September 10, 2013; ``Petition for
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Supplemental Questions, (A-201-844),
dated September 10, 2013; ``Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from
the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions, (A-489-818), dated
September 10, 2013; ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the
Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions, (C-489-819), dated
September 10, 2013; and ``Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from the Republic of Turkey: Additional Supplemental Questions, (C-
489-819), dated September 11, 2013; see also letter from the
Department titled, ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and
the Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey: Request for
Extension.''
\4\ See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Supplement
to the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties, dated
September 13, 2013 (``Mexico AD Supplement''); see also ``Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey: Supplement to the Petition for
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties,'' dated September 13, 2013
(``Turkey AD Supplement''); see also ``Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey: Supplement to the
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties'' dated September 13, 2013 (``General Issues Supplement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the ``Act''), Petitioners allege that imports of rebar from
Mexico and Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the
Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent
with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by
information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting their
allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed these Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested
parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the Act. The
Department also finds that Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD
investigations that Petitioners are requesting. See the ``Determination
of Industry Support for the Petitions'' section below.
Period of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on September 4, 2013, the period
of investigation (``POI'') for the Mexico and Turkey investigations is
July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is steel concrete
reinforcing bar from Mexico and Turkey. For a full description of the
scope of the investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,''
in the Appendix of this notice.\6\ Petitioners note that, in addition
to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
subheadings included in the scope, it is possible that rebar previously
entered under HTSUS numbers 7222.30.0011 and 7222.11.0056; however,
these HTSUS numbers are no longer in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Memorandum to the File titled, ``Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey and
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from the Republic of Turkey: Scope Clarification,'' dated September
18, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with
Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the product
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the regulations,\7\ we are setting aside a
period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments must be filed on the record of both the Mexico and the
Turkey AD investigations and the companion Turkey Countervailing Duty
rebar investigation by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Tuesday,
October 15, 2013. All comments and submissions to the Department must
be filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA
ACCESS'').\8\ An electronically filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records
system, IA ACCESS, by the time and date noted above. Documents excepted
from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually
(i.e., in paper form) with Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit,
Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of
receipt by the deadline noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect
on August 5, 2011. Information on help using IA ACCESS can be found
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The period of scope comments is intended to provide the Department
with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.
[[Page 60828]]
Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Questionnaires
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding
the appropriate physical characteristics of rebar to be reported in
response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will
be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject
merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of
production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-
comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may
be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to
describe steel concrete reinforcing bar, it may be that only a select
few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in
matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most
important physical characteristics first and the least important
characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, we must receive comments
on product characteristics by October 15, 2013. Rebuttal comments must
be received by October 25, 2013. All comments and submissions to the
Department must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS, as referenced
above.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a
statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission
(``ITC''), which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic
industry'' has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a
domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the
Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition
regarding the domestic like product,\9\ they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to law.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\10\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the
investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on
the record, we have determined that rebar, as defined in the scope of
the investigations, constitutes a single domestic like product and we
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like
product.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico (``Mexico AD Initiation
Checklist''), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the
Petitions Covering Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and
the Republic of Turkey (``Attachment II''), and Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from the Republic of Turkey (``Turkey AD Initiation Checklist''), at
Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with this
notice and on file electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to documents
filed via IA ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit
(``CRU''), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigations'' section above. To
establish industry support, Petitioners provided their production of
the domestic like product in 2012, and compared this to the estimated
total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry.\12\ Petitioners estimated total 2012 production of the
domestic like product using their knowledge of the industry and data
from the ITC.\13\ We have relied upon data Petitioners provided for
purposes of measuring industry support.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-3, and General
Issues Supplement, at 2-3 and Exhibits I-Supp-1 through I-Supp-7.
\13\ Id.
\14\ See Mexico AD Initiation Checklist and Turkey AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided in the Petitions, supplemental
submission, and other information readily available to the Department,
we determine that Petitioners have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for
at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like
product.\15\ Based on information provided in the Petitions, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the Petitions. Accordingly, the Department determines
that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the
[[Page 60829]]
domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the
Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined
in sections 771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the Act and they have
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the
antidumping duty investigations that they are requesting the Department
initiate.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise
sold at less than normal value (``NV''). In addition, Petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See General Issues Supplement, at 6-7 and Exhibit I-Supp-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression
or suppression; lost sales and revenues; hindered production efforts,
shipments, and capacity utilization; and decline in financial
performance.\19\ We have assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly
supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 16-51 and Exhibits I-6
and I-8 through I-26; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 6-7,
Revised Exhibit I-12B, and Exhibits I-Supp-1 and I-Supp-8.
\20\ See Mexico AD Initiation Checklist and Turkey AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence
of Material Injury and Causation for the Petitions Covering Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-
than-fair-value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate an investigation of imports of rebar from Mexico and Turkey.
The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S.
price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Mexico AD
Initiation Checklist and the Turkey AD Initiation Checklist.
Export Price
Mexico
Petitioners calculated export prices (``EP'') based on sales-
specific information that is contemporaneous with the POI.\21\ To
derive the ex-factory prices, Petitioners made deductions to U.S. price
for foreign inland freight charges, Mexican brokerage and handling,
international freight and insurance, and U.S. inland freight expenses,
where such expenses were incurred by the seller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The source of the sales-specific details is considered
business proprietary information. See Mexico AD Checklist for
additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turkey
Petitioners calculated EP based on sales-specific information that
is contemporaneous with the POI.\22\ The data serving as the basis for
EP are based on transactions which represent an ex-factory export
price. To be conservative, Petitioners made no adjustments for movement
expenses, customs duties, brokerage and handling, or port expenses in
estimating the ex-factory EP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The source of the sales-specific details is considered
business proprietary information. See Turkey AD Checklist for
additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Mexico
Petitioners provided home market prices for rebar in Mexico.
Petitioners calculated home market prices based on sales information
that is contemporaneous with the POI.\23\ To derive the ex-factory
price, Petitioners made deductions from the delivered prices for inland
freight charges and brokerage and handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The source of the sales-specific details is considered
business proprietary information. See Mexico AD Checklist for
additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turkey
Petitioners calculated home market prices based on price quotes for
rebar produced by Haba[scedil] Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal
End[uuml]strisi A.S. (``Habas'') and Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve
Ulasim San AS (``ICDAS''),\24\ and sold or offered for sale to
customers in Turkey during the POI. To calculate the ex-factory normal
value (``NV''), Petitioners deducted from the delivered prices inland
freight charges and value-added tax, where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Petitioners claim Habas and ICDAS represent two of the
largest Turkish manufacturers and exporters of rebar to the United
States during the POI. See Volume III of the Petitions, at 3 and
Exhibit III-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turkey
Sales-Below-Cost Allegation
Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect that sales of rebar in the Turkish market were
made at prices below the fully-absorbed cost of production (``COP''),
within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the
Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. The
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, states that an allegation of sales below COP need
not be specific to individual exporters or producers.\25\ The SAA
states that ``Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in
the aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently
considers allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-
wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.''
\26\ Further, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act
retains the requirement that the Department have ``reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect'' that below-cost sales have occurred before
initiating such an investigation. Reasonable grounds exist when an
interested party provides specific factual information on costs and
prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign
market in question are at below-cost prices.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 833 (1994).
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Production
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost
of manufacturing (``COM''); selling, general and administrative
(``SG&A'') expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses.
Petitioners calculated COM (except factory overhead) and packing
expenses based on the input factors of production from a U.S. producer
of rebar adjusted for known differences between the Turkish and U.S.
industries during the prospective POI. The input factors of production
were valued using publicly-available data on costs specific to Turkey.
To determine factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates,
Petitioners relied on the fiscal year (``FY'') ended December 31, 2012
audited financial statements of a Turkish producer of comparable
merchandise. We revised Petitioners' overhead expense rate because it
appears Petitioners may have double counted energy costs by including
them
[[Page 60830]]
as a part of the overhead rate calculated from the Turkish producer's
financial statements and also including energy costs as a distinct line
item in the calculation of the COP and constructed value (``CV''). To
be conservative and avoid the possibility of double counting energy
costs, we recalculated the overhead rate from the Turkish producer's
financial statements.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Turkey AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign like product
in the home market to the calculated COP of the most comparable
product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of
the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of
section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is
initiating a country-wide cost investigation.
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
Because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to sections
773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioners calculated NV
based on CV. Petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM,
SG&A, financial expense, and packing figures used to compute the COP.
Petitioners relied on the same FY ended December 31, 2012 audited
financial statements used as the basis for the factory overhead, SG&A,
and financial expense rates to calculate the profit rate.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Turkey AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of rebar in Mexico and Turkey are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based
on comparisons of EP to home market prices for Mexico and EP to CV for
Turkey, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated
dumping margins for rebar from Mexico and Turkey range from 48.82-66.70
percent,\30\ and 35.01-36.99 percent,\31\ respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Mexico AD Supplement at Exhibit II-Supp-7; see also
Mexico AD Initiation Checklist.
\31\ See Turkey AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Antidumping Investigations
Based upon the examination of the Petitions on rebar from Mexico
and Turkey, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section
732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to
determine whether imports of concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico and
Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of
this initiation.
Respondent Selection
Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market
economy countries, in the event the Department determines that the
number of known exporters or producers for this investigation is large,
the Department may select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') data for U.S. imports of rebar from Mexico or
Turkey under all Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
subheadings identified in Scope of the Investigation.\32\ We intend to
release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (``APO'') to
all parties with access to information protected by APO within five
days of publication of this Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Appendix I of this notice for a listing of the HTSUS
subheadings in the Scope of the Investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petitions identified 10 producers and/or exporters of rebar in
Mexico,\33\ and 41 producers and/or exporters of rebar in Turkey.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-5A.
\34\ Id., at Exhibit I-5B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection
within 20 days of publication of this notice. The Department invites
comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within seven
days of publication of this Federal Register notice for Mexico and
Turkey.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been
provided to the Governments of Mexico and Turkey via IA ACCESS. To the
extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public
version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as
provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than October 21,
2013, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of rebar
from Mexico and Turkey are materially injuring, or threatening material
injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any
country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect
to that country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according
to statutory and regulatory time limits.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its
regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions
in antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) proceedings. See
Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The
modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time
limits before any time limit established under Part 351 expires.
This modification also requires that an extension request must be
made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the
circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed
requests for the extension of time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information:
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two
regulations related to AD and countervailing duty (``CVD'')
proceedings: the definition of factual information (19 CFR
351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual
information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories
of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized
as follows: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii)
evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than
factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any
party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on the record that the factual
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also
modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time
limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual
information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all
proceeding segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and thus are
applicable to these investigations. Please review the Final Rule,
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt
prior
[[Page 60831]]
to submitting factual information in these investigations.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO
Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to
participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the
requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\36\
Parties are hereby reminded that the Department issued a final rule
with respect to certification requirements, effective August 16, 2013.
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials as well as their
representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing
duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final
Rule.\37\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\37\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (``Final Rule''); see also
the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available
at the following: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: September 24, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise subject to these investigations is steel
concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil
form (``rebar'') regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or
grade. The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') primarily under
item numbers 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The
subject merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS numbers
including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030,
7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059,
7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6085, 7228.20.1000, and
7228.60.6000. Specifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non-
deformed or smooth rebar). HTSUS numbers are provided for
convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description
of the scope remains dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2013-23983 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
