Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico and Turkey: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 60827-60831 [2013-23983]

Download as PDF 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 http://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: http://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 http://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: http://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