Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 11077-11082 [2014-04345]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11077-11082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04345]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-012]


Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the People's 
Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: February 27, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith and Terre Keaton 
Stefanova, Office II, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-1766 and (202) 482-1280, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    On January 31, 2014, the Department of Commerce (Department) 
received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of carbon 
and certain alloy steel wire rod (steel wire rod) from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC), officially filed in proper form on behalf of 
ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Charter Steel, Evraz Pueblo (formerly Evraz 
Rocky Mountain Steel), Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., Keystone Consolidated 
Industries, Inc., and Nucor Corporation (collectively, ``the 
petitioners'').\1\ The petitioners are domestic producers of steel wire 
rod. The AD Petition was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) 
petition concerning imports of steel wire rod from the PRC. On February 
4, 2014, the Department requested additional information and 
clarification of certain areas of the Petition, and on February 7 and 
10, 2014, the petitioners filed a response to each request, 
respectively.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod 
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated January 31, 2014 
(hereafter referred to as the ``Petition''); and the petitioners' 
February 10, 2014, filing titled, ``Petitioners' Response to 
Commerce Department Antidumping Supplemental Questionnaire--Carbon 
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the People's Republic of 
China'' (PRC AD Supplement), at 1.
    \2\ See the petitioners' February 7, 2014, filing titled, 
``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the People's Republic 
of China: Response to General Supplemental Questions'' (General 
Issues Supplement); see also PRC AD Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the ``Act''), the petitioners allege that imports of steel 
wire rod from the PRC 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 Petition is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners in 
support of their allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed this Petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested 
parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also 
finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support 
with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that the 
petitioners are requesting.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' 
section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2013, through December 
31, 2013, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is steel wire rod from 
the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, 
please see the ``Scope of the Investigation'' in the appendix to this 
notice.

[[Page 11078]]

Comments on the Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, we solicited information from 
the petitioners to ensure that the proposed scope language is an 
accurate reflection of the product for which the domestic industry is 
seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the 
Department's regulations,\4\ we are setting aside a period for 
interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The 
Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by 
March 12, 2014, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of 
this notice. All comments must be filed on the record of the AD 
investigation, as well as the concurrent CVD investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on the Product Characteristics for the AD Questionnaire

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of steel wire rod to be 
reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaire. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the merchandise under consideration 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 believe are relevant to the 
development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. 
Specifically, interested parties 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 wire rod, 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 questionnaire, we must receive comments 
on product characteristics no later than March 12, 2014. Rebuttal 
comments must be received no later than March 19, 2014.

Filing Requirements

    All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed 
electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 
An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by IA ACCESS by 5 p.m. on the due date. Documents excepted 
from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually 
(i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance'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 established by the 
Department.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1). For assistance with IA ACCESS, please 
visit https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx. The IA Access handbook 
can be found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filing%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    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) if there is a large number of producers in 
the industry, the Department may 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,\6\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a 
separate and distinct statutory 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \7\ 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)); see 
also Algoma Steel, 688. F. Supp. at 644 (``This division of labor 
has been upheld even where it has resulted in decisions which are 
difficult to reconcile, as when the class of merchandise found by 
ITA to be sold at LTFV affects several industries, not all of which 
are found by ITC to be materially injured.'') (internal citation 
omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, the petitioners do not 
offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we determined that steel wire rod, as defined in the 
scope of the investigation, constitutes a single domestic like product 
and we analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like 
product.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the People's Republic 
of China (AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of 
Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Petitions Covering Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the 
People's Republic of China (Attachment II). This checklist is 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, Room 7046 of the main Department of 
Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section

[[Page 11079]]

732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above. To 
establish industry support, the petitioners provided the production of 
the domestic like product in 2013 of all supporters of the Petition, 
and compared this to the total production of the domestic like product 
for the entire domestic industry.\9\ We relied upon data the 
petitioners provided for purposes of measuring industry support.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 4-5 and Exhibit GEN-1.
    \10\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental 
submission, and other information readily available to the Department, 
we find that the domestic producers who support the Petition account 
for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product, in accordance with section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act.\11\ We 
further find that the domestic producers who support the Petition 
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 Petition, in accordance with section 
732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act.\12\ Accordingly, the Department determines 
that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within 
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that 
they are requesting the Department initiate.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The 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, the 
petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 13 and Exhibit INJ-1; see 
also General Issues Supplement, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression 
or suppression; lost sales and revenues; reduced production and 
shipments; anemic capacity utilization; decline in employment 
variables; and decline in financial performance.\16\ We assessed the 
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat 
of material injury, and causation, and we determined that these 
allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the 
statutory requirements for initiation.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 9-20 and Exhibits GEN-6, 
and INJ-1 through INJ-5; see also General Issues Supplement, at 6 
and Exhibit INJ-6.
    \17\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of 
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate an investigation of imports of steel wire rod from the PRC. 
The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. 
price and normal value are discussed in greater detail in the AD 
Initiation Checklist.

Export Price

    The petitioners based export price (EP) on three U.S. price quotes 
for steel wire rod produced in the PRC and offered for sale to U.S. 
customers during the POI. To derive the ex-factory price, the 
petitioners made deductions to U.S. price, where applicable, for U.S. 
inland freight and insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, 
U.S. customs duties, international freight and insurance, foreign 
brokerage and handling, and foreign inland freight.\18\ The petitioners 
also made an adjustment to U.S. price for the unrebated portion of the 
value-added tax charged on steel wire rod in the PRC, consistent with 
the Department's methodological change concerning treatment of VAT in 
non-market economy proceedings.\19\ The petitioners made no other 
adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See AD Initiation Checklist.
    \19\ Id.; see also Methodological Change for Implementation of 
Section 772(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended, In 
Certain Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings, 77 FR 36481 
(June 19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners estimated U.S. inland freight (inclusive of 
insurance) based on industry knowledge supported by a declaration 
(i.e., barge rates) and/or information obtained from 
www.freightrateindex.com (i.e., truck rates). The petitioners also 
estimated U.S. brokerage and handling expenses based on industry 
knowledge supported by a declaration. The petitioners calculated 
international freight (inclusive of insurance) based on data obtained 
from publicly available U.S. import statistics for the average unit 
value of insurance and freight for imports of steel wire rod from the 
PRC during the POI. The petitioners calculated U.S. port fees 
(inclusive of harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees) by 
applying the port fee percentage to the U.S. price (net of all freight 
and insurance charges). The petitioners calculated foreign brokerage 
and handling and foreign inland freight using average charges 
(inclusive of document fees, terminal handling and port charges, and 
customs clearance charges) for exports from the surrogate country 
Indonesia,\20\ as published in Doing Business 2014: Indonesia by the 
World Bank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See ``Normal Value'' section below for further discussion 
of the selection of the surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    The petitioners state that the Department has treated the PRC as a 
non-market economy (NME) country in every proceeding in which the PRC 
has been involved.\21\ The presumption of NME status for the PRC has 
not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, in accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, remains in effect for purposes of the 
initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product 
for the investigation is appropriately based on factors of production 
valued in a surrogate market-economy country in accordance with section 
773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties 
will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to 
the issues of the PRC's NME status and granting of separate rates to 
individual exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners contend that Indonesia is the appropriate surrogate 
country for the PRC because: (1) It is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the PRC; and (2) it is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise.\22\ Based on the information 
provided by the petitioners, we conclude that it is appropriate to use 
Indonesia as a surrogate country for initiation purposes.\23\ After 
initiation of this investigation, interested parties will have the 
opportunity to submit

[[Page 11080]]

comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly 
available information to value factors of production (FOPs) within 30 
days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. at 1-2 and Exhibit PRC-2.
    \23\ See AD Initiation Checklist.
    \24\ See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i). Note that this is the revised 
regulation published on April 10, 2013. See https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners calculated NV using the Department's NME 
methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 
351.408. The petitioners based NV on the production experience of a 
major U.S. producer, adjusted for known differences, during the time 
period July-December 2013.\25\ The petitioners assert that, to the best 
of their knowledge, their consumption rates are similar to the 
consumption of PRC producers.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 6 and Exhibit PRC-8, and 
PRC AD Supplement, at Exhibit PRC-S8.
    \26\ See AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners valued the factors of production using reasonably 
available, public surrogate country data, specifically, Indonesian 
import data from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the period April 2013 
through September 2013, the most recent six months of data available 
for Indonesia at the time of filing the Petition.\27\ The petitioners 
excluded from these GTA import statistics imports from NME countries, 
countries that maintain broadly available export subsidies, and any 
imports from ``unspecified'' countries.\28\ The petitioners added to 
the Indonesian import values an average inland freight charge reported 
for importing goods into Indonesia, as reported in Doing Business 2014: 
Indonesia published by the World Bank. The Department determines that 
the surrogate values used by the petitioners are reasonably available 
and, thus, are acceptable for purposes of initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit PRC-12, and PRC 
AD Supplement, at Exhibit PRC-S12.
    \28\ See PRC AD Supplement, at Exhibit PRC-S12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners determined direct and packing materials costs from 
Indonesian import data from the GTA.\29\ The petitioners applied 
certain conversion factors to align the units of measure with its own 
FOPs.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id. at 6-7 and Exhibit PRC-12.
    \30\ Id. at Exhibit PRC-12, and PRC AD Supplement, at Exhibit 
PRC-S12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners calculated labor using a 2008 Indonesian wage rate 
from LABORSTA, a labor database compiled by the International Labor 
Organization, and adjusted this rate for inflation using the consumer 
price index (CPI) data for Indonesia published by the International 
Monetary Fund (IMF).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibit PRC-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners valued electricity using a 2011 Indonesian industry 
electricity rate from the 2012 Handbook of Energy & Economic Statistics 
of Indonesia, and adjusted the rate for inflation using the wholesale 
price index (WPI) data for Indonesia published by the IMF.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See PRC AD Supplement, at 10 and Exhibit PRC-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners valued natural gas using a 2012 value from LNG 
World News and used data from www.chemlink.com to convert the value and 
adjusted the value to the POI using CPI data from the IMF.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id. at 10 and Exhibit PRC-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners did not include water in their cost calculations 
because they were unable to determine the quantity usage amount.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners calculated financial ratios (i.e., factory overhead 
expenses, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit) 
based on the financial statements of Betonjaya Manunggal Tbk. 
(Betonjaya), an Indonesian manufacturer of steel round bar (a product 
that the petitioners claim is comparable to steel wire rod), for the 
year ending December 31, 2012.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 8-9 and Exhibit PRC-14, 
and PRC AD Supplement, at Exhibit PRC-S14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of steel wire rod from the PRC are being, or are 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based 
on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the 
Act, the petitioners calculated the estimated dumping margins to be 
99.32 to 110.25 percent with respect to imports of steel wire rod from 
the PRC.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See PRC AD Supplement, at Exhibit PRC-S15A through S15E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of AD Investigation

    Based on our examination of the Petition on steel wire rod from the 
PRC, the Department finds that the Petition meets the requirements of 
section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD 
investigation to determine whether imports of steel wire rod from the 
PRC are being, or 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 issue our preliminary 
determination no later than 140 days after the publication date of this 
initiation. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation 
determination, see the AD Initiation Checklist which accompanies this 
notice.

Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value Questionnaire

    In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection 
in AD investigations involving NME countries, we intend to issue 
quantity and value questionnaires to each potential respondent named in 
the Petition,\37\ and will base respondent selection on the responses 
received. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value 
questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Enforcement and 
Compliance Web site (https://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp). Exporters 
and producers of steel wire rod from the PRC that do not receive 
quantity and value questionnaires via mail may still submit a quantity 
and value response, and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and 
Compliance Web site. The quantity and value questionnaire must be 
submitted by all PRC exporters/producers no later than March 13, 2014. 
All quantity and value questionnaires must be filed electronically 
using IA ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See General Issues Supplement, at Exhibit GEN-S5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME AD investigation, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application.\38\ 
The specific requirements for submitting the separate rate application 
in the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application 
itself, which will be available on the Department's Web site at https://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp on the date of publication of this 
initiation notice in the Federal Register. The separate rate 
application will be due 60 days after the publication of this 
initiation notice. For exporters and producers who submit a separate 
rate status application and have been selected as mandatory 
respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible 
for consideration for separate rate status unless they respond to all 
parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory

[[Page 11081]]

respondents. The Department requires that the PRC respondents submit a 
response to the separate rate application by the deadline referenced 
above in order to receive consideration for separate rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate--Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate 
Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin), available on the Department's 
Web site at https://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME 
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin 
states:

{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates 
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now 
assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers 
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the 
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period 
of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory 
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as 
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is 
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such 
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more 
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply 
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and 
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin at 6 
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been 
provided to the Government of the PRC. Because of the particularly 
large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition, the 
Department considers the service of the public version of the Petition 
to the foreign producers/exporters to be satisfied by the provision of 
the public version of the Petition to the Government of the PRC, 
consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of steel wire rod from the PRC materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.\40\ A negative 
ITC determination will result in the investigation being 
terminated.\41\ Otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 CVD proceedings: (1) The definition of 
factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and (2) 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 this investigation. 
Please review the final rule, available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to 
submitting factual information for this investigation.

Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation 
concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD 
proceedings.\42\ The modification clarifies that parties may request an 
extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 
expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an 
extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the 
time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which 
are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will 
be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. 
Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, 
filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value 
factors under section 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of 
remuneration under section 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the 
selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) 
comments concerning U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) data; and 
(5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the 
Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which 
extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which 
are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the 
Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting 
forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension 
requests must be filed to be considered timely. 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. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on 
or after October 21, 2013. Please review Extension of Time Limits; 
Final Rule, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this 
segment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Extension of Time Limits, Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 
(September 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\43\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials as well as their 
representatives in all AD or CVD investigations or proceedings 
initiated on or after August 16, 2013, including this 
investigation.\44\ The

[[Page 11082]]

formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the 
Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \44\ See Certifications of Factual Information To Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such 
applications may be found on the Department's Web site at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo/.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: February 20, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is certain hot-
rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of 
approximately circular cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual 
solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel 
products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and 
meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel 
steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and 
rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free 
machining steel) products (i.e., products that contain by weight one 
or more of the following elements: 0.1 percent or more of lead, 0.05 
percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more 
than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, 
or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). All products meeting the 
physical description of subject merchandise that are not 
specifically excluded are included in this scope.
    The products under investigation are currently classifiable 
under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 
7213.91.3093; 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 
7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 
7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under 
subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be 
included in this scope if they meet the physical description of 
subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2014-04345 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P