Certain Steel Nails From India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 36014-36019 [2014-14870]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36014
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2014 / Notices
Methodology
The Department conducted this
review in accordance with section
751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). For each of the
subsidy programs found
countervailable, we preliminarily
determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a
government-provided financial
contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that
gives rise to a benefit to the recipient,
and that the subsidy is specific.1
In making these findings, we relied on
facts available and, because Bestpak and
the Government of the PRC did not act
to the best of their ability to respond to
the Department’s requests for
information, we have drawn adverse
inferences in selecting from among the
facts otherwise available.2 For further
information, see ‘‘Use of Facts
Otherwise Available and Adverse
Inferences’’ in the Preliminary Decision
Memorandum.
For a full description of the
methodology underlying our
conclusions, see the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum.
Preliminary Results of the Review
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an
individual subsidy rate for Bestpak for
the period January 1, 2012, through
December 31, 2012.
We preliminarily find that the net
subsidy rate for Bestpak is as follows:
Producer/exporter
Net subsidy
rate
(percent)
Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts &
Crafts Co., Ltd ...................
51.02
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Disclosure and Public Comment
All calculations for the preliminary
results of this review are contained in
the Preliminary Decision Memorandum
and have been thereby disclosed.3 Case
briefs may be submitted to IA ACCESS
by no later than 30 days after the day
on which these preliminary results are
published in the Federal Register.4
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited
to issues raised in case briefs, may be
submitted by no later than five days
after the deadline for case briefs.5
1 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act
regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E)
of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of
the Act regarding specificity.
2 See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.
3 19 CFR 351.224(b) calls for the Department to
disclose calculations performed in connection with
the preliminary results of an administrative review
within five days after the publication of the
preliminary results.
4 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
5 See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
Parties who submit case briefs or
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding should
submit with each argument: (1) A
statement of the issue; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a
table of authorities.6 The summary
should be limited to five pages total,
including footnotes.
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, U.S.
Department of Commerce within 30
days after the date of publication of this
notice.7 Requests should contain the
party’s name, address, and telephone
number, the number of participants, and
a list of the issues to be discussed. If a
request for a hearing is made, the
Department intends to hold the hearing
at the U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230, on a date
and at a time and location to be
determined. Parties will be notified of
the date, time and location of any
hearing.
Parties are reminded that briefs and
hearing requests must be filed
electronically using IA ACCESS and
that electronically filed documents must
be received successfully in their entirety
by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Unless the deadline is extended
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act, the Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
including our analysis of and responses
to issues raised by the parties in their
comments, within 120 days after issuing
these preliminary results.
Assessment Rates
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon
issuance of the final results, the
Department shall determine, and the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties
on all appropriate entries covered by
this review. We intend to issue
instructions to CBP 15 days after
publication of the final results of this
review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
If the final results of this review are
the same as these preliminary results,
the Department also intends to instruct
CBP to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties in the
amount shown above for Bestpak. For
all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct
CBP to continue to collect cash deposits
of estimated countervailing duties at the
6 See
7 See
PO 00000
19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
19 CFR 351.310(c).
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
most recent company-specific or allothers rate applicable to the company.
These cash deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
This administrative review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213.
Dated: June 18, 2014.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Appendix
List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum
A. Background
B. Scope of the Order
C. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and
Adverse Inferences
D. Supporting Information for AFA Findings
E. Subsidy Rate Chart
F. Disclosure and Public Comment
[FR Doc. 2014–14890 Filed 6–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–533–860, C–580–875, C–557–817, C–523–
809, C–583–855, C–489–821, C–552–819]
Certain Steel Nails From India, the
Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the
Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, the
Republic of Turkey, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of
Countervailing Duty Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
Formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
DATES:
Effective: June 25, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Cordell at (202) 482–0408 (India);
Yasmin Nair at (202) 482–3813
(Malaysia); Joseph Shuler at (202) 482–
1293 (the Republic of Korea (Korea));
Joshua Morris at (202) 482–1779 (the
Sultanate of Oman (Oman)); Sandra
Dreisonstok at (202) 482–0768 (Taiwan);
Ilissa Shefferman at (202) 482–4684
(Turkey); Thomas Schauer at (202) 482–
0410 (the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(Vietnam)), AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On May 29, 2014, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) received
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions
concerning imports of certain steel nails
from India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman,
Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam filed in
proper form on behalf of Mid Continent
Steel & Wire (Petitioner). The CVD
petitions were accompanied by seven
antidumping duty (AD) petitions.1
Petitioner is a domestic producer of
certain steel nails. On June 3, 2014, the
Department requested information and
clarification for certain areas of the
Petitions.2 Petitioner filed responses to
these requests on June 6, 2014.3
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), Petitioner alleges that the
Governments of India (GOI), Korea
(GOK), Malaysia (GOM), Oman (GOO),
Taiwan (GOTa), Turkey (GOTu), and
Vietnam (GOV) are providing
countervailable subsidies (within the
meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of
the Act) to imports of certain steel nails
from India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman,
Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam, and that
such imports are materially injuring, or
threaten to cause material injury to, the
domestic industry producing certain
steel nails in the United States pursuant
to section 701 of the Act. Also,
consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the
Act, the Petitions are accompanied by
information reasonably available to
Petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioner
filed the Petitions on behalf of the
domestic industry because Petitioner is
an interested party as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act, and that Petitioner
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the initiation of
the investigations Petitioner is
requesting.4
1 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duties on Certain Steel Nails
from India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the
Sultanate Oman, Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, dated May
29, 2014 (Petitions).
2 See letters from the Department to petitioner
entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel
Nails from {Country}: Supplemental Questions’’ on
each of the country-specific records, dated June 3,
2014.
3 See ‘‘Certain Steel Nails from India, the
Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman,
Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Petitioner’s Response to the
Department’s June 3, 2014 Supplemental Questions
on Volume I of the Petition,’’ dated June 6, 2014
and ‘‘Certain Steel Nails from {country}:
Petitioner’s Response to the Department’s June 3,
2014 Supplemental Questions on Volume {countryspecific volume} of the Petition,’’ dated June 6,
2014.
4 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions’’ below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
Period of Investigations
The period of the investigations is
January 1, 2013, through December 31,
2013.
Scope of Investigations
The product covered by these CVD
investigations is certain steel nails from
India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan,
Turkey and Vietnam. For a full
description of the scope of these
investigations, see the ‘‘Scope of
Investigations’’ in Appendix I of this
notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the
Department issued questions to, and
received responses from, Petitioner
pertaining to the proposed scope to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petitions would be an accurate
reflection of the products for which the
domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations,5 we are
setting aside a period for interested
parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage (scope). The period for 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 determination. If scope
comments include factual information
(see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such
factual information should be limited to
public information. All such comments
must be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time (EDT) on July 8, 2014,
which is 20 calendar days from the
signature date of this notice. Any
rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information, must be filed by
5:00 p.m. EDT on July 18, which is 10
calendar days after the initial
comments. The Department requests
that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of the
investigation be submitted during this
time period. However, if a party
subsequently finds that additional
factual information pertaining to the
scope of the investigation may be
relevant, the party may contact the
Department and request permission to
submit the additional information. All
comments must be filed on the records
of the India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman,
Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam CVD
investigations, as well as the concurrent
India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan,
Turkey and Vietnam AD investigations.
5 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36015
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using IA
ACCESS.6 An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the time and date when
it is due. 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 applicable deadline.
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of
the Act, the Department invited
representatives of GOI, GOK, GOM,
GOO, GOTa, GOTu, and GOV for
consultations with respect to the
Petitions.7 Consultations were held with
the GOM on June 10, 2014, the GOO on
June 13, 2014, the GOTa on June 16,
2014, the GOTu on June 17, 2014, and
the GOK on June 17, 2014.8 All
memoranda are on file electronically via
IA ACCESS.9
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 702(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
6 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.
7 See letters of invitation regarding Countervailing
Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from
{Country}, dated May 30, 2014.
8 See ‘‘Ex-Parte Meeting with Officials from the
Government of Malaysia on the Countervailing Duty
Petition on Certain Steel Nails from Malaysia,’’
dated June 13, 2014; ‘‘Ex-Parte Meeting with
Officials from the Government of Oman on the
Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails
from Oman,’’ dated June 17, 2014; Ex-Parte
Memorandum, ‘‘Ex-Parte Meeting with Taipei
Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the
United States on the Countervailing Duty Petition
on Certain Steel Nails from Taiwan,’’ dated June 16,
2014; ‘‘Ex-Parte Meeting with Officials from the
Government of Turkey on the Countervailing Duty
Petition on Certain Steel Nails from Turkey,’’ dated
June 18, 2014, and ‘‘Ex-Parte Meeting with Officials
from the Government of Korea on the
Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails
from Korea,’’ dated June 18, 2014.
9 See supra note 6 for information pertaining to
IA ACCESS.
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
36016
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2014 / Notices
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 702(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, or
those producers whose collective output
of a domestic like product constitutes a
major proportion of the total domestic
production of the 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 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 (see section
771(10) of the Act), 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, Petitioner does not offer a
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)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
definition of the 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 certain
steel nails constitute a single domestic
like product and we have analyzed
industry support in terms of that
domestic like product.11
In determining whether Petitioner has
standing under section 702(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 the
Investigations,’’ in Appendix I of this
notice. To establish industry support,
Petitioner provided its own production
of the domestic like product in 2013, as
well as the 2013 production of
companies that support the Petitions.12
Petitioner compared the total
production of itself and supporters of
the Petitions to the estimated total
production of the domestic like product
for the entire domestic industry.13
Petitioner estimated 2013 production of
the domestic like product by nonpetitioning companies based on its
knowledge of the industry and the
production capabilities and market
shares of U.S. producers.14 We have
relied upon data Petitioner provided for
11 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Steel
Nails from India (India CVD Initiation Checklist) at
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Certain Steel Nails from India, the
Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman,
Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (Attachment II);
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of
Korea (Korea CVD Initiation Checklist), at
Attachment II; Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Steel Nails from
Malaysia (Malaysia CVD Initiation Checklist), at
Attachment II; Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Steel Nails from the
Sultanate of Oman (Oman CVD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II; Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Steel
Nails from Taiwan (Taiwan CVD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II; Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Steel
Nails from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey CVD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; and
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam CVD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are
dated concurrently with this notice and are 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 5 and Exhibit
General-1
13 Id., at Exhibit General-1; see also General Issues
Supplement, at 7 and Exhibit General Supp-4.
14 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
purposes of measuring industry
support.15
Based on information provided in the
Petitions, supplemental submissions,
and other information readily available
to the Department, we determine that
Petitioner has met the statutory criteria
for industry support under section
702(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.16 Based on
information provided in the Petitions,
the domestic producers (or workers)
have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section
702(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 domestic industry
within the meaning of section 702(b)(1)
of the Act.17
The Department finds that Petitioner
filed the Petitions on behalf of the
domestic industry because it is an
interested party as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act and it has
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the CVD
investigations that it is requesting the
Department initiate.18
Injury Test
Because India, Korea, Malaysia,
Oman, Taiwan, Turkey, and Vietnam
are ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’
within the meaning of section 701(b) of
the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to these investigations.
Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject
merchandise from India, Korea,
Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey, and
Vietnam materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
Petitioner alleges that imports of the
subject merchandise are benefitting
from countervailable subsidies and that
such imports are causing, or threaten to
cause, material injury to the U.S.
15 See India CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD
Initiation Checklist, Malaysia CVD Initiation
Checklist, Oman CVD Initiation Checklist, Taiwan
CVD Initiation Checklist, Turkey CVD Initiation
Checklist, and Vietnam CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2014 / Notices
industry producing the domestic like
product.19 With regard to Korea, Oman,
Taiwan, and Vietnam, Petitioner alleges
that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold of three percent
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of
the Act.20
In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(A)–
(B) of the Act provides that imports of
subject merchandise from developing
countries must exceed the negligibility
threshold of four percent. Malaysia and
India have been designated as
developing countries.21 Therefore,
imports from Malaysia and India must
exceed the negligibility threshold of
four percent. With regard to Malaysia,
the allegedly subsidized imports exceed
the negligibility threshold provided
under section 771(24)(B) of the Act.22
With regard to India and Turkey,
while the allegedly subsidized imports
from these two countries do not meet
the statutory negligibility thresholds of
four and three percent, respectively,23
Petitioner alleges and provides
supporting evidence that these imports
will imminently exceed the negligibility
thresholds and, therefore, are not
negligible.24 Petitioner’s arguments are
consistent with the statutory criteria for
‘‘negligibility in threat analysis’’ under
section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which
provides that imports shall not be
treated as negligible if there is a
potential that subject imports from a
country will imminently exceed the
statutory requirements for negligibility.
Petitioner contends that the industry’s
injured condition is illustrated by
reduced market share; underselling and
price suppression or depression; lost
sales and revenues; underutilized
capacity; shut downs and plant
closures; reduced employment; and
reduced profitability.25 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.26
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
19 See
Volume I of the Petition at 3.
20 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 29 and Exhibit
Injury-5.
21 See section 771(36)(A)–(B) of the Act.
22 Id.
23 See sections 771(24)(A)–(B) and 771(36)(B) of
the Act.
24 Id., at 29–32 and Exhibits Injury-2, Injury-5,
Injury-6, and Injury-8 through Injury-13.
25 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 32–58 and
Exhibits General-6 and Injury-1 through Injury-26;
see also General Issues Supplement, at 1 and
Exhibit General Supp-1.
26 See India CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD
Initiation Checklist, Malaysia CVD Initiation
Checklist, Oman CVD Initiation Checklist, Taiwan
CVD Initiation Checklist, Turkey CVD Initiation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigations
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
the Department to initiate a CVD
investigation whenever an interested
party files a CVD petition on behalf of
an industry that: (1) Alleges the
elements necessary for an imposition of
a duty under section 701(a) of the Act;
and (2) is accompanied by information
reasonably available to the petitioner
supporting the allegations. In the
Petitions, Petitioner alleges that
producers of certain steel nails in India,
Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey
and Vietnam benefited from
countervailable subsidies bestowed by
their respective governments. The
Department examined the Petitions and
finds that they comply with the
requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the
Act. Therefore, in accordance with
section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are
initiating CVD investigations to
determine whether manufacturers,
producers, or exporters of certain steel
nails from India, Korea, Malaysia,
Oman, Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam
receive countervailable subsidies from
their respective governments.
India
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation of 28 alleged programs.
For a full discussion of the basis for our
decision to initiate or not initiate on
each program, see India CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Korea
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation of 18 alleged programs.
For a full discussion of the basis for our
decision to initiate or not initiate on
each program, see Korea CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Malaysia
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation of 8 alleged programs. For
a full discussion of the basis for our
decision to initiate or not initiate on
each program, see Malaysia CVD
Initiation Checklist.
Checklist, and Vietnam CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Certain Steel Nails from India, the
Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman,
Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36017
Oman
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation of 10 alleged programs.
For a full discussion of the basis for our
decision to initiate or not initiate on
each program, see Oman CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Taiwan
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation of 9 alleged programs. For
a full discussion of the basis for our
decision to initiate or not initiate on
each program, see Taiwan CVD
Initiation Checklist.
Turkey
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation of 25 alleged programs.
For a full discussion of the basis for our
decision to initiate or not initiate on
each program, see Turkey CVD
Initiation Checklist.
Vietnam
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation of 26 alleged programs.
For a full discussion of the basis for our
decision to initiate or not initiate on
each program, see Vietnam CVD
Initiation Checklist.
A public version of the initiation
checklist for each investigation is
available on IA ACCESS and at https://
trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
Respondent Selection
Petitioner named 22 companies as
producers/exporters of certain steel
nails from India, 40 from Korea, 44 from
Malaysia, 7 from Oman, 135 from
Taiwan, and 12 from Turkey.27
Following standard practice in CVD
investigations, the Department will,
where appropriate, select respondents
based on U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of
certain steel nails during the period of
investigation under the following
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) numbers:
7317.00.5502; 7317.00.5503;
7317.00.5505; 7317.00.5507;
7317.00.5508; 7317.00.5511;
7317.00.5518; 7317.00.5519;
7317.00.5520; 7317.00.5530;
7317.00.5540; 7317.00.5550;
7317.00.5560; 7317.00.5570;
27 See
the Petition at Volume I, Exhibit General-
5.
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
36018
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2014 / Notices
7317.00.5580; 7317.00.5590;
7317.00.6530; 7317.00.6560; and
7317.00.7500. We intend to release CBP
data under Administrative Protective
Order (APO) to all parties with access to
information protected by APO shortly
after the announcement of these case
initiations. The Department invites
comments regarding CBP data and
respondent selection within five
calendar days of publication of this
Federal Register notice. Comments
must be filed electronically using IA
ACCESS. An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the Department’s
electronic records system, IA ACCESS,
by 5 p.m. Eastern time by the date noted
above. We intend to make our decision
regarding respondent selection within
20 days of publication of this Federal
Register notice. 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.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version
of the Petitions have been provided to
the representatives of the GOI, GOK,
GOM, GOO, GOTa, GOTu, and GOV. To
the extent practicable, we will attempt
to provide a copy of the public version
of the Petitions to each known exporter
(as named in the Petitions), as provided
in 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 702(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petitions were filed, whether there
is a reasonable indication that imports
of certain steel nails from India, Korea,
Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey and
Vietnam are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, a U.S.
industry.28 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.
Submission of Factual Information
On April 10, 2013, the Department
published Definition of Factual
28 See
19:41 Jun 24, 2014
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.29 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.
29 See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR
57790 (September 20, 2013).
section 703(a) of the Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
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: the
definition of factual information (19
CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits
for the submission of factual
information (19 CFR 351.301). The final
rule identifies five categories of factual
information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21),
which are summarized as follows: (i)
Evidence submitted in response to
questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted
in support of allegations; (iii) publicly
available information to value factors
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure
the adequacy of remuneration under 19
CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed
on the record by the Department; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). The final rule
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted and, if the information is
submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on
the record that the factual information
seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The
final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301
so that, rather than providing general
time limits, there are specific time limits
based on the type of factual information
being submitted. These modifications
are effective for all proceeding segments
initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and
thus are applicable to these
investigations. Please review the final
rule, available at https://enforcement.
trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/201308227.txt, prior to submitting factual
information in these investigations.
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 19
CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 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 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 untimelyfiled requests for the extension of time
limits. These modifications are effective
for all segments initiated on or after
October 21, 2013 and, accordingly,
apply to these investigations. Review
Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule,
available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/201322853.htm, prior to submitting factual
information in these investigations.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.30
Parties are hereby reminded that the
Department issued a final rule with
respect to certification requirements,
effective August 16, 2013.31 Parties are
hereby reminded that revised
certification requirements are in effect
for company/government officials as
well as their representatives. All
segments of any AD or CVD proceedings
initiated on or after August 16, 2013,
including this investigation, should use
the formats for the revised certifications
provided at the end of the Final Rule.32
30 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
Certification of Factual Information To
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also the frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at the
following: https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/
notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
32 Id.
31 See
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2014 / Notices
The Department intends to reject factual
submissions if the submitting party does
not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
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)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: June 18, 2014.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Attachment I
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these
investigations is certain steel nails
having a nominal shaft length not
exceeding 12 inches.33 Certain steel
nails include, but are not limited to,
nails made from round wire and nails
that are cut from flat-rolled steel.
Certain steel nails may be of one piece
construction or constructed of two or
more pieces. Certain steel nails may be
produced from any type of steel, and
may have any type of surface finish,
head type, shank, point type and shaft
diameter. Finishes include, but are not
limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc
(galvanized, including but not limited to
electroplating or hot dipping one or
more times), phosphate, cement, and
paint. Certain steel nails may have one
or more surface finishes. Head styles
include, but are not limited to, flat,
projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless,
double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank
styles include, but are not limited to,
smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring
shank and fluted. Screw-threaded nails
subject to this proceeding are driven
using direct force and not by turning the
nail using a tool that engages with the
head. Point styles include, but are not
limited to, diamond, needle, chisel and
blunt or no point. Certain steel nails
may be sold in bulk, or they may be
33 The shaft length of certain steel nails with flat
heads or parallel shoulders under the head shall be
measured from under the head or shoulder to the
tip of the point. The shaft length of all other certain
steel nails shall be measured overall.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:01 Jun 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
collated in any manner using any
material. If packaged in combination
with one or more non-subject articles,
certain steel nails remain subject
merchandise if the total number of nails
of all types, in aggregate regardless of
size, is equal to or greater than 25.
Excluded from the scope of these
investigations are certain steel nails
packaged in combination with one or
more non-subject articles, if the total
number of nails of all types, in aggregate
regardless of size, is less than 25.
Also excluded from the scope of these
investigations are steel nails that meet
the specifications of Type I, Style 20
nails as identified in Tables 29 through
33 of ASTM Standard F1667 (2013
revision).
Also excluded from the scope of these
investigations are nails suitable for use
in powder-actuated hand tools, whether
or not threaded, which are currently
classified under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings 7317.00.20.00 and
7317.00.30.00.
Also excluded from the scope of these
investigations are nails having a case
hardness greater than or equal to 50 on
the Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a
carbon content greater than or equal to
0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary
reduced-diameter raised head section, a
centered shank, and a smooth
symmetrical point, suitable for use in
gas-actuated hand tools.
Also excluded from the scope of these
investigations are corrugated nails. A
corrugated nail is made up of a small
strip of corrugated steel with sharp
points on one side.
Also excluded from the scope of these
investigations are thumb tacks, which
are currently classified under HTSUS
7317.00.10.00.
Certain steel nails subject to these
investigations are currently classified
under HTSUS subheadings
7317.00.55.02, 7317.00.55.03,
7317.00.55.05, 7317.00.55.07,
7317.00.55.08, 7317.00.55.11,
7317.00.55.18, 7317.00.55.19,
7317.00.55.20, 7317.00.55.30,
7317.00.55.40, 7317.00.55.50,
7317.00.55.60, 7317.00.55.70,
7317.00.55.80, 7317.00.55.90,
7317.00.65.30, 7317.00.65.60 and
7317.00.75.00. Certain steel nails subject
to these investigations also may be
classified under HTSUS subheading
8206.00.00.00.
While the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of these investigations is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2014–14870 Filed 6–24–14; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–859, A–580–874, A–557–816, A–523–
808, A–583–854, A–489–820, A–552–818]
Certain Steel Nails From India, the
Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the
Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, the
Republic of Turkey, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of LessThan-Fair-Value Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: June 25, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan Hill at (202) 482–3518 (India);
Drew Jackson at (202) 482–4406 (the
Republic of Korea (Korea)); Dena
Crossland at (202) 482–3362 (Malaysia);
Trisha Tran at (202) 482–4852 (the
Sultanate of Oman (Oman)); Brian Davis
at (202) 482–7924 (Taiwan); Ericka
Ukrow at (202) 482–0405 (the Republic
of Turkey (Turkey)); or Edythe Artman
at (202) 482–3931 (the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)), AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petitions
On May 29, 2014, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) received
antidumping duty (AD) petitions
concerning imports of certain steel nails
from India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman,
Taiwan, Turkey, and Vietnam filed in
proper form on behalf of Mid Continent
Steel & Wire, Inc. (Petitioner). The AD
petitions were accompanied by seven
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions.1
Petitioner is a domestic producer of
certain steel nails.2
On June 3, 2014, the Department
requested additional information and
clarification of certain areas of the
Petitions.3 Petitioner filed responses to
1 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duties: Certain Steel Nails from
India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the
Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey,
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, dated May
29, 2014 (Petitions).
2 See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit
General-1.
3 See Letter from the Department to Petitioner
entitled ‘‘Re: Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Steel
Nails from India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia,
the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, the Republic of
Turkey, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Supplemental Questions’’ dated June 3, 2014
(General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire), and
Letters from the Department to Petitioner entitled
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
Continued
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
36019
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 122 (Wednesday, June 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36014-36019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14870]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-533-860, C-580-875, C-557-817, C-523-809, C-583-855, C-489-821, C-
552-819]
Certain Steel Nails From India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia,
the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey, and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective: June 25, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cordell at (202) 482-0408
(India); Yasmin Nair at (202) 482-3813 (Malaysia); Joseph Shuler at
(202) 482-1293 (the Republic of Korea (Korea)); Joshua Morris at (202)
482-1779 (the Sultanate of Oman (Oman)); Sandra Dreisonstok at (202)
482-0768 (Taiwan); Ilissa Shefferman at (202) 482-4684 (Turkey); Thomas
Schauer at (202) 482-0410 (the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(Vietnam)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On May 29, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received
[[Page 36015]]
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of certain steel
nails from India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam
filed in proper form on behalf of Mid Continent Steel & Wire
(Petitioner). The CVD petitions were accompanied by seven antidumping
duty (AD) petitions.\1\ Petitioner is a domestic producer of certain
steel nails. On June 3, 2014, the Department requested information and
clarification for certain areas of the Petitions.\2\ Petitioner filed
responses to these requests on June 6, 2014.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties on Certain Steel Nails from India, the
Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Sultanate Oman, Taiwan, the
Republic of Turkey and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, dated May
29, 2014 (Petitions).
\2\ See letters from the Department to petitioner entitled
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Certain Steel Nails from {Country{time} : Supplemental Questions''
on each of the country-specific records, dated June 3, 2014.
\3\ See ``Certain Steel Nails from India, the Republic of Korea,
Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey, and
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Petitioner's Response to the
Department's June 3, 2014 Supplemental Questions on Volume I of the
Petition,'' dated June 6, 2014 and ``Certain Steel Nails from
{country{time} : Petitioner's Response to the Department's June 3,
2014 Supplemental Questions on Volume {country-specific
volume{time} of the Petition,'' dated June 6, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that the Governments of India
(GOI), Korea (GOK), Malaysia (GOM), Oman (GOO), Taiwan (GOTa), Turkey
(GOTu), and Vietnam (GOV) are providing countervailable subsidies
(within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to imports
of certain steel nails from India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan,
Turkey and Vietnam, and that such imports are materially injuring, or
threaten to cause material injury to, the domestic industry producing
certain steel nails in the United States pursuant to section 701 of the
Act. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions
are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner
supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that Petitioner
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation
of the investigations Petitioner is requesting.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions''
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigations
The period of the investigations is January 1, 2013, through
December 31, 2013.
Scope of Investigations
The product covered by these CVD investigations is certain steel
nails from India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam.
For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the
``Scope of Investigations'' in Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions
to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an
accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is
seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\5\ we
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (scope). The period for 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 determination. If scope comments include factual
information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information
should be limited to public information. All such comments must be
filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on July 8, 2014, which
is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any
rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed
by 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 18, which is 10 calendar days after the
initial comments. The Department requests that any factual information
the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be
submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently
finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of
the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department
and request permission to submit the additional information. All
comments must be filed on the records of the India, Korea, Malaysia,
Oman, Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam CVD investigations, as well as the
concurrent India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam AD
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using IA ACCESS.\6\ An electronically filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due.
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 applicable deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department
invited representatives of GOI, GOK, GOM, GOO, GOTa, GOTu, and GOV for
consultations with respect to the Petitions.\7\ Consultations were held
with the GOM on June 10, 2014, the GOO on June 13, 2014, the GOTa on
June 16, 2014, the GOTu on June 17, 2014, and the GOK on June 17,
2014.\8\ All memoranda are on file electronically via IA ACCESS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See letters of invitation regarding Countervailing Duty
Petition on Certain Steel Nails from {Country{time} , dated May 30,
2014.
\8\ See ``Ex-Parte Meeting with Officials from the Government of
Malaysia on the Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails
from Malaysia,'' dated June 13, 2014; ``Ex-Parte Meeting with
Officials from the Government of Oman on the Countervailing Duty
Petition on Certain Steel Nails from Oman,'' dated June 17, 2014;
Ex-Parte Memorandum, ``Ex-Parte Meeting with Taipei Economic and
Cultural Representative Office in the United States on the
Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from Taiwan,''
dated June 16, 2014; ``Ex-Parte Meeting with Officials from the
Government of Turkey on the Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain
Steel Nails from Turkey,'' dated June 18, 2014, and ``Ex-Parte
Meeting with Officials from the Government of Korea on the
Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from Korea,''
dated June 18, 2014.
\9\ See supra note 6 for information pertaining to IA ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(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
[[Page 36016]]
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 702(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, or those producers
whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major
proportion of the total domestic production of the 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 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 (see section 771(10) of the Act),
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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, Petitioner does not offer
a definition of the 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 certain steel nails constitute a
single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in
terms of that domestic like product.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Certain Steel Nails from India (India CVD Initiation
Checklist) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Steel
Nails from India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Sultanate of
Oman, Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam (Attachment II); Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Korea
(Korea CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Countervailing
Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Steel Nails from
Malaysia (Malaysia CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II;
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain
Steel Nails from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman CVD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II; Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Steel Nails from Taiwan (Taiwan CVD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Steel Nails from the
Republic of Turkey (Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment
II; and Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam
CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are
dated concurrently with this notice and are 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 Petitioner has standing under section
702(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 the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of
this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its own
production of the domestic like product in 2013, as well as the 2013
production of companies that support the Petitions.\12\ Petitioner
compared the total production of itself and supporters of the Petitions
to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the
entire domestic industry.\13\ Petitioner estimated 2013 production of
the domestic like product by non-petitioning companies based on its
knowledge of the industry and the production capabilities and market
shares of U.S. producers.\14\ We have relied upon data Petitioner
provided for purposes of measuring industry support.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 5 and Exhibit General-1
\13\ Id., at Exhibit General-1; see also General Issues
Supplement, at 7 and Exhibit General Supp-4.
\14\ Id.
\15\ See India CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD Initiation
Checklist, Malaysia CVD Initiation Checklist, Oman CVD Initiation
Checklist, Taiwan CVD Initiation Checklist, Turkey CVD Initiation
Checklist, and Vietnam CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided in the Petitions, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department,
we determine that Petitioner has met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 702(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.\16\ Based on information provided in the Petitions, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 702(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 domestic industry within
the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that it is
requesting the Department initiate.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey, and Vietnam
are ``Subsidies Agreement Countries'' within the meaning of section
701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these
investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of
the subject merchandise from India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan,
Turkey, and Vietnam materially injure, or threaten material injury to,
a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S.
[[Page 36017]]
industry producing the domestic like product.\19\ With regard to Korea,
Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Petitioner alleges that subject imports
exceed the negligibility threshold of three percent provided for under
section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Volume I of the Petition at 3.
\20\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 29 and Exhibit Injury-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(A)-(B) of the Act provides that
imports of subject merchandise from developing countries must exceed
the negligibility threshold of four percent. Malaysia and India have
been designated as developing countries.\21\ Therefore, imports from
Malaysia and India must exceed the negligibility threshold of four
percent. With regard to Malaysia, the allegedly subsidized imports
exceed the negligibility threshold provided under section 771(24)(B) of
the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See section 771(36)(A)-(B) of the Act.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to India and Turkey, while the allegedly subsidized
imports from these two countries do not meet the statutory
negligibility thresholds of four and three percent, respectively,\23\
Petitioner alleges and provides supporting evidence that these imports
will imminently exceed the negligibility thresholds and, therefore, are
not negligible.\24\ Petitioner's arguments are consistent with the
statutory criteria for ``negligibility in threat analysis'' under
section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which provides that imports shall
not be treated as negligible if there is a potential that subject
imports from a country will imminently exceed the statutory
requirements for negligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See sections 771(24)(A)-(B) and 771(36)(B) of the Act.
\24\ Id., at 29-32 and Exhibits Injury-2, Injury-5, Injury-6,
and Injury-8 through Injury-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression
or depression; lost sales and revenues; underutilized capacity; shut
downs and plant closures; reduced employment; and reduced
profitability.\25\ 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.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 32-58 and Exhibits
General-6 and Injury-1 through Injury-26; see also General Issues
Supplement, at 1 and Exhibit General Supp-1.
\26\ See India CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD Initiation
Checklist, Malaysia CVD Initiation Checklist, Oman CVD Initiation
Checklist, Taiwan CVD Initiation Checklist, Turkey CVD Initiation
Checklist, and Vietnam CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Certain Steel Nails from India, the Republic of Korea,
Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey, and
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on
behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner
supporting the allegations. In the Petitions, Petitioner alleges that
producers of certain steel nails in India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman,
Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam benefited from countervailable subsidies
bestowed by their respective governments. The Department examined the
Petitions and finds that they comply with the requirements of section
702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Act, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether
manufacturers, producers, or exporters of certain steel nails from
India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam receive
countervailable subsidies from their respective governments.
India
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 28 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to
initiate or not initiate on each program, see India CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Korea
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 18 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to
initiate or not initiate on each program, see Korea CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Malaysia
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 8 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to
initiate or not initiate on each program, see Malaysia CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Oman
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 10 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to
initiate or not initiate on each program, see Oman CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Taiwan
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 9 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to
initiate or not initiate on each program, see Taiwan CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Turkey
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 25 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to
initiate or not initiate on each program, see Turkey CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Vietnam
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 26 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to
initiate or not initiate on each program, see Vietnam CVD Initiation
Checklist.
A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation
is available on IA ACCESS and at https://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
Respondent Selection
Petitioner named 22 companies as producers/exporters of certain
steel nails from India, 40 from Korea, 44 from Malaysia, 7 from Oman,
135 from Taiwan, and 12 from Turkey.\27\ Following standard practice in
CVD investigations, the Department will, where appropriate, select
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for
U.S. imports of certain steel nails during the period of investigation
under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) numbers: 7317.00.5502; 7317.00.5503; 7317.00.5505;
7317.00.5507; 7317.00.5508; 7317.00.5511; 7317.00.5518; 7317.00.5519;
7317.00.5520; 7317.00.5530; 7317.00.5540; 7317.00.5550; 7317.00.5560;
7317.00.5570;
[[Page 36018]]
7317.00.5580; 7317.00.5590; 7317.00.6530; 7317.00.6560; and
7317.00.7500. We intend to release CBP data under Administrative
Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information
protected by APO shortly after the announcement of these case
initiations. The Department invites comments regarding CBP data and
respondent selection within five calendar days of publication of this
Federal Register notice. Comments must be filed electronically using IA
ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA
ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern time by the date noted above. We intend to
make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of
publication of this Federal Register notice. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See the Petition at Volume I, Exhibit General-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been
provided to the representatives of the GOI, GOK, GOM, GOO, GOTa, GOTu,
and GOV. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy
of the public version of the Petitions to each known exporter (as named
in the Petitions), as provided in 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of certain steel nails from India, Korea,
Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.\28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See section 703(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: the definition of
factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for
the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule
identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted
in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of
allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration
under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the
Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described
in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual
information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)
the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted
to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already
on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or
correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather
than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits
based on the type of factual information being submitted. These
modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or
after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations.
Please review the final rule, available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to
submitting factual information in these investigations.
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.\29\ 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 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of
remuneration under 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 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 and, accordingly, apply
to these investigations. 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 these
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 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.\30\
Parties are hereby reminded that the Department issued a final rule
with respect to certification requirements, effective August 16,
2013.\31\ Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification
requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as
their representatives. All segments of any AD or CVD proceedings
initiated on or after August 16, 2013, including this investigation,
should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the
end of the Final Rule.\32\
[[Page 36019]]
The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting
party does not comply with the applicable revised certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\31\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also the
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
the following: https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
\32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO 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)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: June 18, 2014.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Attachment I
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these investigations is certain steel
nails having a nominal shaft length not exceeding 12 inches.\33\
Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made from
round wire and nails that are cut from flat-rolled steel. Certain steel
nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or more
pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and
may have any type of surface finish, head type, shank, point type and
shaft diameter. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in
vinyl, zinc (galvanized, including but not limited to electroplating or
hot dipping one or more times), phosphate, cement, and paint. Certain
steel nails may have one or more surface finishes. Head styles include,
but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless,
double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles include, but are not
limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted.
Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct
force and not by turning the nail using a tool that engages with the
head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, needle,
chisel and blunt or no point. Certain steel nails may be sold in bulk,
or they may be collated in any manner using any material. If packaged
in combination with one or more non-subject articles, certain steel
nails remain subject merchandise if the total number of nails of all
types, in aggregate regardless of size, is equal to or greater than 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The shaft length of certain steel nails with flat heads or
parallel shoulders under the head shall be measured from under the
head or shoulder to the tip of the point. The shaft length of all
other certain steel nails shall be measured overall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded from the scope of these investigations are certain steel
nails packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, if
the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of
size, is less than 25.
Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are steel
nails that meet the specifications of Type I, Style 20 nails as
identified in Tables 29 through 33 of ASTM Standard F1667 (2013
revision).
Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are nails
suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not
threaded, which are currently classified under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7317.00.20.00 and
7317.00.30.00.
Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are nails
having a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 on the Rockwell
Hardness C scale (HRC), a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5
percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head
section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for
use in gas-actuated hand tools.
Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are corrugated
nails. A corrugated nail is made up of a small strip of corrugated
steel with sharp points on one side.
Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are thumb
tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.10.00.
Certain steel nails subject to these investigations are currently
classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.55.02, 7317.00.55.03,
7317.00.55.05, 7317.00.55.07, 7317.00.55.08, 7317.00.55.11,
7317.00.55.18, 7317.00.55.19, 7317.00.55.20, 7317.00.55.30,
7317.00.55.40, 7317.00.55.50, 7317.00.55.60, 7317.00.55.70,
7317.00.55.80, 7317.00.55.90, 7317.00.65.30, 7317.00.65.60 and
7317.00.75.00. Certain steel nails subject to these investigations also
may be classified under HTSUS subheading 8206.00.00.00.
While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these
investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2014-14870 Filed 6-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
