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 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 http:// 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 http:// 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 http://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 http://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: http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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: http://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