Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 67419-67423 [2014-26897]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Notices
• Import Tariff and Value-Added Tax
(VAT) Exemptions for FIEs and Certain
Domestic Enterprises Using Imported
Equipment in Encouraged Industries
• Export Incentive Payments Characterized
as ‘‘VAT Rebates’’
• VAT Rebates to Welfare Enterprises
• Provision of Green Tubes for LTAR
• Provision of Steel Rounds for LTAR
• Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel for LTAR
• Provision of Coking Coal for LTAR
• Provision of Land-Use Rights Within
Designated Geographical Areas for LTAR
• Provision of Land to SOEs for LTAR
• Provision of Electricity at LTAR To Drill
Pipe Producers Located in Jiangsu
Province
• Provision of Water at LTAR To Drill Pipe
Producers Located in Jiangsu Province
• Technology To Improve Trade R&D Fund
• Outstanding Growth Private Enterprise
and Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises
• Development in Jiangyin Fund
• GOC and Sub-Central Government
Grants, Loans, and Other Incentives for
Development of Famous Brands and
China World Top Brands
• Scientific Innovation Award
• Development Fund Grant
• State Key Technology Project Fund
• Export Assistance Grants
• Programs To Rebate Antidumping Legal
Fees
• Grants and Tax Benefits to Loss-Making
SOEs at National and Local Level
• Subsidies Provided To Drill Pipe
Producers Located in Economic and
Technological Development Zones
(ETDZs) in Tianjin Binhai New Area
• Subsidies Provided To Drill Pipe
Producers Located in ETDZs in Tianjin
Economic and Technological
Development Areas
• Subsidies Provided To Drill Pipe
Producers Located in High-Tech
Industrial Development Zones
8. Conclusion
[FR Doc. 2014–26787 Filed 11–12–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–580–877, C–489–823]
Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of
Korea and the Republic of Turkey:
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: November 13,
2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebecca Trainor at (202) 482–4007 or
Reza Karamloo at (202) 482–4470
(Republic of Korea); Elizabeth Eastwood
at (202) 482–3874 or Dennis McClure at
(202) 482–5973 (Republic of Turkey),
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Nov 12, 2014
Jkt 235001
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 October 16, 2014, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) received
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions
concerning imports of welded line pipe
from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and
the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) filed in
proper form on behalf of American Cast
Iron Pipe Company, Energex (a division
of JMC Steel Group), Maverick Tube
Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company,
Stupp Corporation (a division of Stupp
Bros., Inc.), Tex-Tube Company, TMK
IPSCO, and Welspun Tubular LLC USA
(collectively, the petitioners). The CVD
petitions were accompanied by two
antidumping duty (AD) petitions.1 The
petitioners are domestic producers of
welded line pipe.2
On October 21, 2014, the Department
requested information and clarification
for certain areas of the Petitions.3 The
petitioners filed responses to these
requests on October 24, 2014, and
October 29, 2014.4 On October 27 and
October 31, 2014, we received
submissions from United States Steel
Corporation (U.S. Steel), a domestic
producer of welded line pipe, in
support of the Petitions.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the petitioners allege that the
1 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duties: Welded API Line Pipe
from South Korea and Turkey, dated October 16,
2014 (the Petitions).
2 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2–3.
3 See Letter from the Department to the
petitioners entitled ‘‘Re: Petitions for the Imposition
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on
Imports of Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of
Korea and the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental
Questions,’’ dated October 21, 2014 (General Issues
Supplemental Questionnaire), Letter from the
Department to the petitioners entitled ‘‘Re: Petition
for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on
Imports of Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of
Korea: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 21,
2014, and Letter from the Department to the
petitioners entitled ‘‘Re: Petition for the Imposition
of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Welded Line
Pipe from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental
Questions,’’ dated October 21, 2014.
4 See ‘‘Welded API Line Pipe from Korea and
Turkey: Response to Supplemental Questions,’’
dated October 24, 2014 (General Issues
Supplement), ‘‘Welded Line Pipe from the Republic
of Korea: Response to the Department’s
Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 24, 2014,
‘‘Welded API Line Pipe from Turkey: Response to
Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 24, 2014,
and ‘‘Welded API Line Pipe from Korea and Turkey:
Submission of CSI Letter of Support with 2013
Production and Revised Scope Language,’’ dated
October 29, 2014 (Second General Issues
Supplement).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67419
Government of Korea (GOK) and the
Government of Turkey (GOT) are
providing countervailable subsidies
(within the meaning of sections 701 and
771(5) of the Act) to imports of welded
line pipe from Korea and Turkey,
respectively, and that such imports are
materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, an industry in the
United States. Also, consistent with
section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the
Petitions are accompanied by
information reasonably available to the
petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because the
petitioners are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act.
The Department also finds that the
petitioners demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
initiation of the CVD investigations that
the petitioners are requesting.5
Periods of Investigation
The period of the investigation for
both Korea and Turkey is January 1,
2013, through December 31, 2013.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these
investigations is welded line pipe from
Korea and Turkey. For a full description
of the scope of these investigations, see
the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations’’ in
Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of the
Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the
Department issued questions to, and
received responses from, the petitioners
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.6
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations,7 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
5 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions’’ section below.
6 See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire;
see also General Issues Supplement.
7 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties;
Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
67420
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Notices
Standard Time (EST) on November 25,
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. EST on December 5, 2014,
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
investigations be submitted during this
time period. However, if a party
subsequently finds that additional
factual information pertaining to the
scope of the investigations may be
relevant, the party may contact the
Department and request permission to
submit the additional information. All
such comments must be filed on the
records of the Korea and Turkey AD and
CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using
Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(IA ACCESS).8 An electronically-filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the time and date 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 deadlines.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of
the Act, the Department notified
representatives of the GOK and the GOT
of the receipt of the Petitions. Also, in
accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii)
of the Act, the Department provided
representatives of the GOK and the GOT
the opportunity for consultations with
respect to the Petitions.9 Consultations
were held separately with the GOK and
GOT on November 4, 2014.10 All
8 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the Department’s
electronic filing requirements, which went into
effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using
IA ACCESS can be found at https://iaaccess.trade.
gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at
https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on
%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
9 See Letters of invitation from the Department to
the GOK and the GOT, both dated October 17, 2014.
10 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Consultations
with Officials from the Government of the Republic
of Korea Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition
Concerning Welded Line Pipe,’’ dated November 5,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Nov 12, 2014
Jkt 235001
memoranda are on file electronically via
IA ACCESS.11
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
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,12 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
2014; see also Memorandum to the File,
‘‘Consultations with Officials from the Government
of the Republic of Turkey Regarding the
Countervailing Duty Petition Concerning Welded
Line Pipe,’’ dated November 4, 2014.
11 See supra note 8 for information pertaining to
IA ACCESS.
12 See section 771(10) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
render the decision of either agency
contrary to law.13
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
which is like, or in the absence of like,
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, the petitioners do not offer a
definition of 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 welded
line pipe, as defined in the scope of the
investigations, constitutes a single
domestic like product and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of
that domestic like product.14
In determining whether the
petitioners have 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, the petitioners
provided their production of the
domestic like product in 2013, as well
as the production of a company that
supports the Petitions, and compared
this to the total production of the
domestic like product for the entire
domestic industry.15
On October 27, 2014, we received a
submission from U.S. Steel, a domestic
producer of welded line pipe. In the
submission, U.S. Steel states that it
supports the AD and CVD petitions on
welded line pipe from Korea and
13 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)).
14 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Welded Line Pipe
from the Republic of Korea (Korea CVD Initiation
Checklist) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Petitions Covering Welded Line Pipe from the
Republic of Korea and the Republic of Turkey
(Attachment II); and Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Welded Line Pipe
from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey 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, Room 7046 of the main Department
of Commerce building.
15 See General Issues Supplement, at 3–5 and
Exhibits 3 and 4; see also Second General Issues
Supplement, at Attachment 1.
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Notices
Turkey.16 In an additional submission
on October 31, 2014, U.S. Steel
provided its 2013 production of the
domestic like product.17
We have relied upon data that the
petitioners and U.S. Steel provided for
purposes of measuring industry
support.18
Based on information provided in the
Petitions, supplemental submissions,
and other information readily available
to the Department, we determine that
the petitioners have 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.19 Based on information
provided in the Petitions, supplemental
submissions, and submissions from U.S.
Steel, 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.20
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because they
are interested parties as defined in
section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they
have demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the CVD
investigations that they are requesting
the Department initiate.21
Injury Test
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Because Korea and Turkey 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 Korea and Turkey
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
16 See Letter from U.S. Steel, dated October 27,
2014, at 1–2.
17 See Letter from U.S. Steel to the Department
entitled ‘‘Re: Welded Line Pipe from the Republic
of Korea and the Republic of Turkey,’’ dated
October 31, 2014.
18 See Korea CVD Initiation Checklist and Turkey
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Nov 12, 2014
Jkt 235001
67421
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
governments of these countries,
respectively.
The petitioners allege 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.
industry producing the domestic like
product. In addition, the petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.22
The petitioners contend that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share,
underselling and price depression or
suppression, lost sales and revenues,
declining shipments, reduced
production capacity, and a decline in
financial performance.23 We assessed
the allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury, threat of
material injury, and causation, and we
determined that these allegations are
properly supported by adequate
evidence and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation.24
Korea
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation of 22 of the 23 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.
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, the petitioners allege
that producers/exporters of welded line
pipe in Korea and Turkey benefited
from countervailable subsidies
bestowed by the governments of these
countries, respectively. The Department
has 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 welded line pipe from
Korea and Turkey receive
countervailable subsidies from the
22 See General Issues Supplement, at 6 and
Exhibit 7.
23 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14–18, 21–27,
and Exhibits I–2, I–6, and I–8 through I–10; see also
General Issues Supplement, at 6–7 and Exhibits 7
and 8.
24 See Korea CVD Initiation Checklist and Turkey
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Welded
Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and the
Republic of Turkey.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Turkey
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation of 16 of the 18 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.
A public version of the initiation
checklist for each investigation is
available on IA ACCESS and at https://
trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1),
unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determinations no later
than 65 days after the date of this
initiation.
Respondent Selection
The petitioners named 13 companies
as producers/exporters of welded line
pipe from Korea and 13 companies as
producers/exporters of welded line pipe
from Turkey.25 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 welded line
pipe during the period of investigation
under the following Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
numbers: 7305.11.10.30, 7305.11.50.00,
7305.12.10.30, 7305.12.50.00,
7305.19.10.30, 7306.19.10.10,
7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and
7306.19.51.50. 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
25 See
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–4.
13NON1
67422
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Notices
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 GOK and GOT via IA ACCESS.
Because of the particularly large number
of producers/exporters identified in the
Petitions, the Department considers the
service of the public version of the
Petitions to the foreign producers/
exporters to be satisfied by the provision
of the public version of the Petitions to
the GOK and GOT, consistent with 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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 welded line pipe from Korea and/or
Turkey are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, a U.S.
industry.26 A negative ITC
determination for either country will
result in the investigation being
terminated with respect to that
country; 27 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
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
26 See
section 703(a) of the Act.
17:16 Nov 12, 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.28 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 information 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
28 See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR
57790 (September 20, 2013).
27 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
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. Interested parties should
review the final rule, available at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/
1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to
submitting factual information in these
investigations.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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. Interested parties
should 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.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.29
Parties are hereby reminded that revised
certification requirements are in effect
for company/government officials, as
well as their representatives.
Investigations initiated on the basis of
petitions filed on or after August 16,
2013, and other segments of any AD or
CVD proceedings initiated on or after
August 16, 2013, should use the formats
for the revised certifications provided at
the end of the Final Rule.30 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
29 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 frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
30 See
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Notices
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: November 5, 2014.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these
investigations is circular welded carbon and
alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipe of
a kind used for oil or gas pipelines (welded
line pipe), not more than 24 inches in
nominal outside diameter, regardless of wall
thickness, length, surface finish, end finish,
or stenciling. Welded line pipe is normally
produced to the American Petroleum
Institute (API) specification 5L, but can be
produced to comparable foreign
specifications, to proprietary grades, or can
be non-graded material. All pipe meeting the
physical description set forth above,
including multiple-stenciled pipe with an
API or comparable foreign specification line
pipe stencil is covered by the scope of these
investigations.
The welded line pipe that is subject to
these investigations is currently classifiable
in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) under subheadings
7305.11.1030, 7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030,
7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, 7305.19.5000,
7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110,
and 7306.19.5150. The subject merchandise
may also enter in HTSUS 7305.11.1060 and
7305.12.1060. While the HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of these investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2014–26897 Filed 11–12–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–941]
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of Expedited
First Sunset Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 1, 2014, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) published the notice of
initiation of the first five-year (‘‘sunset’’)
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain kitchen appliance shelving
and racks (‘‘KASR’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Nov 12, 2014
Jkt 235001
as amended (the ‘‘Act’’).1 As a result of
this sunset review, the Department finds
that revocation of the antidumping duty
order on KASR from the PRC would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping. The magnitude
of the dumping margins likely to prevail
is indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of
Review’’ section of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: November 13,
2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–6905.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
As noted above, on August 1, 2014,
the Department published the initiation
of the first sunset review of KASR from
the PRC.2 On August 18, 2014,
Nashville Wire Products, Inc.
(‘‘Nashville Wire’’) and SSW Holding
Company, Inc. (‘‘SSW’’) (collectively,
‘‘Petitioners’’) timely notified the
Department of their intent to participate
within the deadline specified in 19 CFR
351.218(d)(1)(i), claiming domestic
interested party status under section
771(9)(C) of the Act.3 On September 2,
2014, the Department received an
adequate substantive response from
Petitioners within the deadline
specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).4
We received no responses from
respondent interested parties. As a
result, the Department conducted an
expedited (120-day) sunset review of the
order, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of
the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2).
Scope of the Order
The scope of the order consists of
shelving and racks for refrigerators,
freezers, combined refrigerator-freezers,
other refrigerating or freezing
equipment, cooking stoves, ranges, and
ovens (‘‘certain kitchen appliance
shelving and racks’’ or ‘‘the
merchandise under order’’).
The merchandise subject to the order
is currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical
reporting numbers 8418.99.8050,
8418.99.8060, 7321.90.5000,
7321.90.6090, 8516.90.8000 and
1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 79
FR 44743 (August 1, 2014).
2 Id.
3 See Petitioners’ August 18, 2014, submission.
4 See Petitioners’ September 2, 2014, submission.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67423
8419.90.9520. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.5
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in this sunset review
are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum. The issues discussed in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
include the likelihood of continuation
or recurrence of dumping and the
magnitude of the margins likely to
prevail if the order were to be revoked.
Parties may find a complete discussion
of all issues raised in the review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum which is on file
electronically via Enforcement and
Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). IA ACCESS is available to
registered users at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all
parties in the Central Records Unit,
room 7046 of the main Department of
Commerce building. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Internet at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
The signed and electronic versions of
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
Pursuant to section 752(c) of the Act,
the Department determines that
revocation of the order would be likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping at weighted-average margins
up to 95.99 percent.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
of their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Timely notification of the return of
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
5 For the full scope of the Order, see ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Expedited First
Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from
the People’s Republic of China’’ from Christian
Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K.
Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently
with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (‘‘Issues
and Decision Memorandum’’).
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67419-67423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26897]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-580-877, C-489-823]
Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea and the Republic of
Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: November 13, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor at (202) 482-4007 or
Reza Karamloo at (202) 482-4470 (Republic of Korea); Elizabeth Eastwood
at (202) 482-3874 or Dennis McClure at (202) 482-5973 (Republic of
Turkey), 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 October 16, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of
welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and the Republic of
Turkey (Turkey) filed in proper form on behalf of American Cast Iron
Pipe Company, Energex (a division of JMC Steel Group), Maverick Tube
Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company, Stupp Corporation (a division of
Stupp Bros., Inc.), Tex-Tube Company, TMK IPSCO, and Welspun Tubular
LLC USA (collectively, the petitioners). The CVD petitions were
accompanied by two antidumping duty (AD) petitions.\1\ The petitioners
are domestic producers of welded line pipe.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties: Welded API Line Pipe from South Korea and
Turkey, dated October 16, 2014 (the Petitions).
\2\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 21, 2014, the Department requested information and
clarification for certain areas of the Petitions.\3\ The petitioners
filed responses to these requests on October 24, 2014, and October 29,
2014.\4\ On October 27 and October 31, 2014, we received submissions
from United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), a domestic producer
of welded line pipe, in support of the Petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Letter from the Department to the petitioners entitled
``Re: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and
the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,'' dated October 21,
2014 (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire), Letter from the
Department to the petitioners entitled ``Re: Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Welded Line Pipe
from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions,'' dated October
21, 2014, and Letter from the Department to the petitioners entitled
``Re: Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on
Imports of Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey:
Supplemental Questions,'' dated October 21, 2014.
\4\ See ``Welded API Line Pipe from Korea and Turkey: Response
to Supplemental Questions,'' dated October 24, 2014 (General Issues
Supplement), ``Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Response
to the Department's Supplemental Questions,'' dated October 24,
2014, ``Welded API Line Pipe from Turkey: Response to Supplemental
Questions,'' dated October 24, 2014, and ``Welded API Line Pipe from
Korea and Turkey: Submission of CSI Letter of Support with 2013
Production and Revised Scope Language,'' dated October 29, 2014
(Second General Issues Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of Korea
(GOK) and the Government of Turkey (GOT) are providing countervailable
subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to
imports of welded line pipe from Korea and Turkey, respectively, and
that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material
injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with
section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by
information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their
allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested
parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also
finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support
with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigations that the
petitioners are requesting.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periods of Investigation
The period of the investigation for both Korea and Turkey is
January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is welded line pipe
from Korea and Turkey. For a full description of the scope of these
investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations'' in Appendix I
of this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions
to, and received responses from, the petitioners 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also
General Issues Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\7\ 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
[[Page 67420]]
Standard Time (EST) on November 25, 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. EST on
December 5, 2014, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department requests that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department
and request permission to submit the additional information. All such
comments must be filed on the records of the Korea and Turkey AD and
CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).\8\ An
electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety by the time and date 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 deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect
on August 5, 2011. Information on help using IA ACCESS can be found
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department
notified representatives of the GOK and the GOT of the receipt of the
Petitions. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the
Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOK and the GOT the
opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.\9\
Consultations were held separately with the GOK and GOT on November 4,
2014.\10\ All memoranda are on file electronically via IA ACCESS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Letters of invitation from the Department to the GOK and
the GOT, both dated October 17, 2014.
\10\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Consultations with Officials
from the Government of the Republic of Korea Regarding the
Countervailing Duty Petition Concerning Welded Line Pipe,'' dated
November 5, 2014; see also Memorandum to the File, ``Consultations
with Officials from the Government of the Republic of Turkey
Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition Concerning Welded Line
Pipe,'' dated November 4, 2014.
\11\ See supra note 8 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 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,\12\ 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\13\ 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, the petitioners do 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 welded line pipe, as
defined in the scope of the investigations, constitutes a single
domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of
that domestic like product.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea (Korea CVD
Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support
for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering
Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and the Republic of
Turkey (Attachment II); and Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey
(Turkey 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, Room 7046 of
the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioners have 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, the petitioners provided
their production of the domestic like product in 2013, as well as the
production of a company that supports the Petitions, and compared this
to the total production of the domestic like product for the entire
domestic industry.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See General Issues Supplement, at 3-5 and Exhibits 3 and 4;
see also Second General Issues Supplement, at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 27, 2014, we received a submission from U.S. Steel, a
domestic producer of welded line pipe. In the submission, U.S. Steel
states that it supports the AD and CVD petitions on welded line pipe
from Korea and
[[Page 67421]]
Turkey.\16\ In an additional submission on October 31, 2014, U.S. Steel
provided its 2013 production of the domestic like product.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Letter from U.S. Steel, dated October 27, 2014, at 1-2.
\17\ See Letter from U.S. Steel to the Department entitled ``Re:
Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and the Republic of
Turkey,'' dated October 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have relied upon data that the petitioners and U.S. Steel
provided for purposes of measuring industry support.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Korea CVD Initiation Checklist and Turkey 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 the petitioners have 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.\19\ Based on information provided in the Petitions,
supplemental submissions, and submissions from U.S. Steel, 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that
they are requesting the Department initiate.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Korea and Turkey 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 Korea and
Turkey materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S.
industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege 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. industry
producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See General Issues Supplement, at 6 and Exhibit 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depression
or suppression, lost sales and revenues, declining shipments, reduced
production capacity, and a decline in financial performance.\23\ We
assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material
injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we determined
that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and
meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-18, 21-27, and
Exhibits I-2, I-6, and I-8 through I-10; see also General Issues
Supplement, at 6-7 and Exhibits 7 and 8.
\24\ See Korea CVD Initiation Checklist and Turkey CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Welded Line Pipe from the
Republic of Korea and the Republic of Turkey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, the petitioners allege that producers/exporters
of welded line pipe in Korea and Turkey benefited from countervailable
subsidies bestowed by the governments of these countries, respectively.
The Department has 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 welded line pipe from Korea and Turkey receive
countervailable subsidies from the governments of these countries,
respectively.
Korea
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 22 of the 23
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.
Turkey
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 16 of the 18
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.
A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation
is available on IA ACCESS and at https://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Respondent Selection
The petitioners named 13 companies as producers/exporters of welded
line pipe from Korea and 13 companies as producers/exporters of welded
line pipe from Turkey.\25\ 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 welded line pipe during the period of investigation
under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) numbers: 7305.11.10.30, 7305.11.50.00, 7305.12.10.30,
7305.12.50.00, 7305.19.10.30, 7306.19.10.10, 7306.19.10.50,
7306.19.51.10, and 7306.19.51.50. 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
[[Page 67422]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 GOK and GOT via IA ACCESS. Because of the particularly
large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petitions, the
Department considers the service of the public version of the Petitions
to the foreign producers/exporters to be satisfied by the provision of
the public version of the Petitions to the GOK and GOT, consistent with
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 welded line pipe from Korea and/or Turkey
are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S.
industry.\26\ A negative ITC determination for either country will
result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that
country; \27\ otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See section 703(a) of the Act.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information:
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two
regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: 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.
Interested parties should 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.\28\ 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 information
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. Interested parties should 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 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.\29\
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final
Rule.\30\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\30\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 67423]]
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: November 5, 2014.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these investigations is circular
welded carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipe of a
kind used for oil or gas pipelines (welded line pipe), not more than
24 inches in nominal outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness,
length, surface finish, end finish, or stenciling. Welded line pipe
is normally produced to the American Petroleum Institute (API)
specification 5L, but can be produced to comparable foreign
specifications, to proprietary grades, or can be non-graded
material. All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above,
including multiple-stenciled pipe with an API or comparable foreign
specification line pipe stencil is covered by the scope of these
investigations.
The welded line pipe that is subject to these investigations is
currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7305.11.1030, 7305.11.5000,
7305.12.1030, 7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, 7305.19.5000,
7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, and 7306.19.5150. The
subject merchandise may also enter in HTSUS 7305.11.1060 and
7305.12.1060. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope of these investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2014-26897 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
