Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy, India, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 37228-37235 [2015-16061]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37228-37235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16061]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-832, A-533-863, A-570-026, A-580-878, A-583-856]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy, India, the 
People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: 
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

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

DATES: Effective Date: June 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Hancock or Susan Pulongbarit at 
(202) 482-1394 and (202) 482-4031, respectively (Italy), Alexis 
Polovina at (202) 482-3927 (India); David Lindgren at (202) 482-3870 
(the People's Republic of China (PRC)); David Lindgren at (202) 482-
3870 (the Republic of Korea (Korea)); or Brendan Quinn or Paul Stolz at 
(202) 482-5848 and (202) 482-4474, respectively (Taiwan), AD/CVD 
Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On June 3, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain 
corrosion-resistant steel products (corrosion-resistant steel) from 
Italy, India, the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan, filed in proper form on 
behalf of United States Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, 
ArcelorMittal USA, AK Steel Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and 
California Steel Industries, Inc., (Petitioners).\1\ The AD petitions 
were accompanied by five countervailing duty (CVD) petitions.\2\ 
Petitioners are domestic producers of corrosion-resistant steel.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy, 
India, the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan, dated June 3, 2015 (the 
Petitions).
    \2\ See the Petitions for the Imposition of Countervailing 
Duties on Imports of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from 
Italy, India, the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan, dated June 3, 2015.
    \3\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2, and Exhibit I-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 9, 2015, and June 10, 2015, the Department requested 
additional information and clarification of certain areas of the 
Petitions.\4\ Petitioners filed

[[Page 37229]]

responses to these requests on June 12, 2015.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled ``Re: 
Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy, India, the 
PRC, Korea, and Taiwan, and Countervailing Duties on Imports of 
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy, India, the 
PRC, Korea, and Taiwan: Supplemental Questions'' dated June 9, 2015, 
and June 10, 2015; (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire), and 
Letters from the Department to Petitioners entitled ``Re: Petition 
for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from {country{time} : 
Supplemental Questions'' on each of the country-specific records, 
dated June 9, 2015.
    \5\ See Response to the Department's June 9, 2015 Questionnaire 
Regarding Volume I of the Petitions for the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties, dated June12, 2015 (General Issues 
Supplement); see also Response to the Department's June 9, 2015 
Questionnaires Regarding Volumes II, IV, VI, VIII, X, of the 
Petitions for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, dated June 
12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that imports of corrosion-
resistant steel from Italy, India, the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan, are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair 
value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such 
imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an 
industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) 
of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably 
available to Petitioners supporting their allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested 
parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also 
finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with 
respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioners are 
requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periods of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on June 3, 2015, the periods of 
investigation (POI) are, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), as follows: 
April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015, for Italy, India, Korea, and 
Taiwan, and October 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015, for the PRC.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is corrosion-resistant 
steel from Italy, India, the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan. 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, 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also 
General Issues Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, 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 Tuesday, July 14, 
2015, which is 21 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 Friday, July 24, 2015, 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 each of the concurrent 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 (ACCESS).\8\ 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 18022, 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 ACCESS can be found at 
https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at 
https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of corrosion-resistant steel 
to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and 
costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate 
product-comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, although there 
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers 
to describe corrosion-resistant steel, it may be that only a select few 
product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful 
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment 
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in 
matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most 
important physical characteristics first and the least important 
characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments must be 
filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, July 14, 2015, which is 21 calendar 
days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must 
be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, July 21, 2015. All comments and 
submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using 
ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the Italy, India, the 
PRC, Korea, and Taiwan less-than-fair-value investigations.

[[Page 37230]]

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product,\9\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a 
separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's 
determination is subject to limitations of time and information. 
Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, 
such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary 
to law.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \10\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
Petitions).
    With regard to the domestic like product, 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 corrosion-resistant steel 
constitutes 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 Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, 
Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Petitions Covering Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 
from the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of 
Korea, and Taiwan (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 
from India (India AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; 
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy (Italy AD Initiation 
Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 
from the Republic of Korea (Korea AD Initiation Checklist), at 
Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan 
(Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist). These checklists are dated 
concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. 
Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the 
Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce 
building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of 
this notice. Petitioners provided their shipments of the domestic like 
product in 2014, and estimated total shipments of the domestic like 
product for the entire domestic industry using data from the American 
Iron and Steel Institute and the ITC.\12\ To establish industry 
support, Petitioners compared their own shipments to estimated total 
shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic 
industry.\13\ Because data regarding total production of the domestic 
like product are not reasonably available to Petitioners and 
Petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for 
production, we have relied on the shipment data provided by Petitioners 
for purposes of measuring industry support.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3 and Exhibits I-3 to 
I-5; see also General Issues Supplement, at 12-14 and Exhibits Supp. 
I-3, Supp. I-40 to Supp. I-42, and Supp. I-45.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ For further discussion, see PRC AD Initiation Checklist, 
India AD Initiation Checklist, Italy AD Initiation Checklist, Korea 
AD Initiation Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2015, we received a submission from Thomas Steel Strip 
Corporation (Thomas) and Apollo Metals, Ltd. (Apollo), domestic 
producers of corrosion-resistant steel. In the submission, Thomas and 
Apollo state that they support the Petitions for the imposition of 
antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel from 
the PRC, Korea, Italy and Taiwan. Thomas and Apollo do not express a 
view with respect to the Petitions for the imposition of antidumping 
and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel from India. In 
addition, Thomas and Apollo provide their 2014 production of the 
domestic like product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Letter to the Department from Thomas Steel Strip 
Corporation and Apollo Metals, Ltd., entitled ``Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel Products from the People's Republic of China, the Republic of 
Korea, Italy, and Taiwan: Statement of Support for the Petitions and 
Comments Concerning Nickel-Plated Steel Products,'' dated June 12, 
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have relied on the data provided by Petitioners, Thomas, and 
Apollo for purposes of measuring industry support.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Italy AD Initiation Checklist, India AD Initiation 
Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues 
Supplement, submission from Thomas and Apollo, and other information 
readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have 
established industry support for all of the Petitions.\17\ First, the 
Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) 
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to 
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling).\18\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) 
of the Act for all of the Petitions because the domestic producers (or 
workers) who support each of the Petitions account for

[[Page 37231]]

at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product.\19\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) 
of the Act for all of the Petitions because the domestic producers (or 
workers) who support each of 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.\20\ Accordingly, the Department determines that the 
Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Italy AD Initiation Checklist, India AD Initiation 
Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \18\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Italy AD 
Initiation Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD 
Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, and Taiwan AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \19\ See Italy AD Initiation Checklist, India AD Initiation 
Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that 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 AD investigations that they are 
requesting the Department initiate.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioners allege 
that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for 
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\22\ Petitioners contend that the 
industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; 
underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and 
revenues; oversupply and inventory overhang in the U.S. market; and 
adverse impact on domestic industry performance.\23\ 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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 24 (footnote 87) and 
Exhibit I-27.
    \23\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 17-19, 24-43 and Exhibits 
I-5, I-12 and I-18 through I-27; see also General Issues Supplement, 
at 1 and Exhibits Supp. I-18, Supp. I-25, Supp. I-26, and Supp. I-
28.
    \24\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, India AD Initiation 
Checklist, Italy AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the 
People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and 
Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-
than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate investigations of imports of corrosion-resistant steel from 
Italy, India, the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan. The sources of data for the 
deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed 
in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

Export Price

    For Italy, India, Korea, the PRC and Taiwan, Petitioners based EP 
U.S. prices on price quotes/offers for sales of corrosion-resistant 
steel produced in, and exported from, the subject country.\25\ 
Petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses 
consistent with the delivery terms.\26\ Where applicable, Petitioners 
also deducted from U.S. price trading company/distributor/reseller 
mark-ups estimated using Petitioners' knowledge of the U.S. 
industry.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Italy AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation 
Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; PRC AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    For Italy, India, Korea, and Taiwan Petitioners provided home 
market price information obtained through market research for 
corrosion-resistant steel produced in and offered for sale in each of 
these countries.\28\ For each country, Petitioners provided an 
affidavit or declaration from a market researcher for the price 
information.\29\ Additionally, Petitioners made deductions for movement 
expenses consistent with the terms of delivery, where applicable.\30\ 
For India, Petitioners made a distributor mark-up adjustment to the 
price.\31\ Petitioners made no other adjustments to the prices. For 
India, Petitioners based NV on the adjusted price. For Italy, Korea and 
Taiwan, Petitioners alleged that sales of corrosion-resistant steel in 
the respective home markets were made at prices below the cost of 
production. See below for discussion of NV based on constructed value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See AD Italy Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation 
Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist.
    \29\ Id; see also Memorandum to the File, ``Telephone Call to 
Foreign Market Researcher,'' on each of the country-specific 
records, dated June 10, 2015.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ See AD India Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the PRC, Petitioners stated that the Department has 
long treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country.\32\ In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of 
NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The 
presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the 
Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the 
initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is 
appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a 
surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties, and the 
public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information 
related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of 
separate rates to individual exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners claim that South Africa is an appropriate surrogate 
country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer 
of the merchandise under consideration, and the data for valuing FOPs, 
factory overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses 
and profit are both available and reliable.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information provided by Petitioners, we believe it is 
appropriate to use South Africa as a surrogate country for initiation 
purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit 
comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled 
date of the preliminary determination.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Note that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i) is the revised regulation 
published on April 1, 2013. See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title19-vol3/html/CFR-2013-title19-vol3.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factors of Production

    Petitioners based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on a 
petitioning U.S. producer's consumption rates for producing corrosion-
resistant steel as they did not have access to the consumption rates of 
PRC producers of the subject

[[Page 37232]]

merchandise.\35\ Petitioners note that the selected U.S. producer was 
chosen because, like the Chinese producer of the U.S. price offers, the 
U.S. producer is a large, integrated producer of subject 
merchandise.\36\ Petitioners value the estimated factors of production 
using surrogate values from South Africa.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at Exhibit II-14 (page 1).
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id., at Exhibit II-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Raw Materials

    Petitioners valued the FOPs for raw materials (e.g., coke, iron 
ore, aluminum, zinc) using reasonably available, public import data for 
South Africa from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the period of 
investigation.\38\ Petitioners excluded all import values from 
countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly 
available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries 
previously determined by the Department to be NME countries. In 
addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the average 
import value excludes imports that were labeled as originating from an 
unidentified country. The Department determines that the surrogate 
values used by Petitioners are reasonably available and, thus, are 
acceptable for purposes of initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at Exhibit II-14(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Labor

    Petitioners valued labor using South African labor data published 
by the International Labor Organization (ILO).\39\ Specifically, 
Petitioners relied on industry-specific wage rate data from Chapter 5A 
of the ILO's ``Labor Cost in Manufacturing'' publication as South 
African wage information was not available in Chapter 6A of the ILO's 
``Yearbook of Labor Statistics'' publication.\40\ As the South African 
wage data are monthly data from 2012 in South African Rand, Petitioners 
converted the wage rates to hourly, adjusted for inflation and then 
converted to U.S. Dollars using the average exchange rate during the 
POI.\41\ Petitioners then applied that resulting labor rate to the 
labor hours expended by the U.S. producer of corrosion-resistant 
steel.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id., at Exhibit II-14 (page 5 and Exhibit II-14(E)).
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id., at Exhibit II-14(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Energy

    Petitioners used public information, as compiled by Eskom (a South 
African electricity producer), to value electricity.\43\ This 2014-2015 
Eskom price information was converted to U.S. Dollars and from kilowatt 
hours to thousand kilowatt hours in order to be compared to the U.S 
producer factor usage rates.\44\ The cost of natural gas in South 
Africa was calculated from the average unit value of imports of liquid 
natural gas for the period, as reported by GTA.\45\ Using universal 
conversion factors, Petitioners converted that cost to the U.S. 
producer-reported factor unit of million British thermal units to 
ensure the proper comparison.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id., at Exhibit II-14(F).
    \44\ Id., at Exhibit II-14 (page 7 and Exhibit II-14(F)).
    \45\ Id., at Exhibit II-14(G).
    \46\ Id., at Exhibit II-14 (page 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative 
Expenses, and Profit

    Petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (i.e., 
manufacturing overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit) using the 2013 
audited financial statement of EVRAZ Highveld Steel and Vanadium, a 
South African producer of comparable merchandise (i.e., flat-rolled 
steel).\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id., at Exhibit II-14 (page 8 and Exhibit II-14(H)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sales-Below-Cost Allegation

    For Italy, Korea, and Taiwan, Petitioners provided information 
demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of 
corrosion-resistant steel in the respective home markets were made at 
prices below the fully-absorbed COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct country-
wide sales-below-cost investigations.\48\ For India, Petitioners did 
not make a sales-below-cost allegation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Italy AD Initiation Checklist; Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to sales-below-cost allegations in the context of 
investigations, the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act states that an allegation 
of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or 
producers.\49\ The SAA states further that ``Commerce will consider 
allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign country 
. . . on a country-wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping 
investigation.'' \50\ Consequently, the Department intends to consider 
Petitioners' allegations on a country-wide basis for each respective 
country for purposes of this initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 833 (1994).
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act 
retains the requirement that the Department have ``reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that below-cost sales have occurred before 
initiating such an investigation.'' \51\ ``Reasonable grounds'' will 
exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on 
costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the 
foreign market in question are at below-cost prices.\52\ As explained 
below, we find reasonable grounds exist that indicate home market sales 
in Italy, Korea, and Taiwan, were at below-cost prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of Production

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost 
of manufacturing (COM); SG&A expenses; financial expenses; and packing 
expenses. Petitioners calculated COM based on Petitioners' experience 
adjusted for known differences between their industry in the United 
States and the industries of the respective country (i.e., Italy, 
Korea, and Taiwan), during the proposed POI.\53\ Using publicly-
available data to account for price differences, Petitioners multiplied 
their usage quantities by the submitted value of the inputs used to 
manufacture corrosion-resistant steel in each country.\54\ For Italy 
and Korea, to determine factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense 
rates, Petitioners relied on financial statements of producers of 
comparable merchandise operating in the respective foreign country.\55\ 
For Taiwan, Petitioners used the factory overhead rate experienced at 
its own factory. To determine SG&A and financial expense rates for 
Taiwan, Petitioners relied on financial statements of a producer of 
comparable merchandise operating in Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Italy AD Initiation Checklist; Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
    \54\ Id.
    \55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign like product 
in the home market to the calculated COP of the most comparable 
product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of 
the foreign like products were made at prices that are below the COP, 
within the meaning of section

[[Page 37233]]

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating 
country-wide cost investigations on sales of corrosion-resistant steel 
from Italy, Korea, and Taiwan.

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For Italy, Korea, and Taiwan, because they alleged sales below 
cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, 
Petitioners calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). Petitioners 
calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, and financial expenses, 
to calculate COP.\56\ Petitioners relied on the financial statements of 
the same producers that they used for calculating manufacturing 
overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses to calculate the profit 
rate.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Id.
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Italy, India, 
the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan, are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV 
in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margin(s) for corrosion-resistant steel range from: (1) Italy range 
from 119.68 to 126.75 percent; \58\ (2) India is 71.09 percent; \59\ 
(3) Korea range from 46.80 to 86.34 percent; \60\ (4) Taiwan is 86.17 
percent.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Italy AD Initiation Checklist.
    \59\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
    \60\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
    \61\ See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) 
of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for corrosion-resistant steel 
from the PRC range from 114.06 to 126.34 percent.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on corrosion-
resistant steel from Italy, India, the PRC, Korea, and Taiwan, we find 
that Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. 
Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether 
imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Italy, India, the PRC, Korea, 
and Taiwan, are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States 
at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our 
preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of 
this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    Petitioners named seven companies from Italy, 26 companies from 
India, 11 companies from Korea, and eight companies from Taiwan, as 
producers/exporters of corrosion-resistant steel.\63\ Following 
standard practice in AD investigations involving ME countries, the 
Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate 
HTSUS numbers listed in the ``Scope of Investigations'' section above. 
We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order 
(APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within 
five days of publication of this Federal Register notice and make our 
decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication 
of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See the Volume I of the Petitions, at 15 and Exhibit 1-8 
through I-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We invite interested parties to comment on this issue. Parties 
wishing to comment must do so within five days of the publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. Comments must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be 
received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic 
records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EDT by the date noted above.
    With respect to the PRC, Petitioners named 147 companies as 
producers/exporters of corrosion-resistant steel.\64\ In accordance 
with our standard practice for respondent selection in cases involving 
NME countries, we intend to issue quantity-and-value (Q&V) 
questionnaires to each potential respondent and base respondent 
selection on the responses received. In addition, the Department will 
post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the 
Enforcement and Compliance Web site at https://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See the Volume I of the Petitions, at 15 and Exhibit 1-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exporters/producers of corrosion-resistant steel from the PRC that 
do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response 
to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and 
Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by all PRC 
exporters/producers no later than July 7, 2015, which is two weeks from 
the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed 
electronically via ACCESS.

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.\65\ 
The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in 
the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, 
which is available on the Department's Web site at https://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate 
application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation 
notice.\66\ Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate 
application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be 
eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they 
respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory 
respondents. The Department requires that respondents from the PRC 
submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate 
application by their respective deadlines in order to receive 
consideration for separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 
https://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 
05.1).
    \66\ Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, 
consistent with section 351.301 (a) of the Department's regulations, 
which states that ``the Secretary may request any person to submit 
factual information at any time during a proceeding,'' this deadline 
is now 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Combination Rates

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

    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise 
to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both 
to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated 
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms 
receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. 
This practice is referred to as the application of ``combination 
rates'' because such rates apply to specific combinations of 
exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned 
to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the 
firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 
during the period of investigation.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).

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

[[Page 37234]]

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the Taiwan Authorities and the governments of Italy, India, 
the PRC, and Korea via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will 
attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to 
each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 
351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

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

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Italy, India, 
the PRC, Korean, and/or Taiwan are materially injuring or threatening 
material injury to a U.S. industry.\68\ A negative ITC determination 
for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with 
respect to that country; \69\ otherwise, these investigations will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (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 regulation 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. Time limits for the 
submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, 
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to 
submitting factual information in these investigations.

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise 
specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time 
limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions that 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. 
Under certain circumstances, we 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, we 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. An extension request 
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited 
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension 
of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 
information in this segment.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\70\ 
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.\71\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \71\ 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 procedures 
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 
351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: June 23, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are certain flat-
rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with 
corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, 
aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated 
or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other 
non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The 
products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or 
greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively 
superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products 
covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight 
lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 
mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The 
products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in 
straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width 
exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The 
products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or 
other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-
rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved 
subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been 
``worked after rolling'' (e.g., products which have been beveled or 
rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness 
requirements referenced above:
    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is 
within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual 
measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions 
set forth above, and
    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product 
(e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-
section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, 
etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.
    Steel products included in the scope of these investigations are 
products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each

[[Page 37235]]

of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent 
or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below 
exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
     2.50 percent of manganese, or
     3.30 percent of silicon, or
     1.50 percent of copper, or
     1.50 percent of aluminum, or
     1.25 percent of chromium, or
     0.30 percent of cobalt, or
     0.40 percent of lead, or
     2.00 percent of nickel, or
     0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or
     0.80 percent of molybdenum, or
     0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or
     0.30 percent of vanadium, or
     0.30 percent of zirconium
    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this 
scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum 
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-
free (IF)) steels and high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels. IF 
steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying 
levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to 
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized 
as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, 
copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength 
Steels (AHSS) and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS), both of which 
are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.
    All products that meet the written physical description, and in 
which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted 
element levels listed above, are within the scope of these 
investigations unless specifically excluded. The following products 
are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of these 
investigations:
     Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with 
tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (``terne 
plate''), or both chromium and chromium oxides (``tin free steel''), 
whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other 
non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;
     Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more 
in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and 
measures at least twice the thickness; and
     Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are 
three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less 
than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled 
steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-
20% ratio.
    The products subject to the investigations are currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 
7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 
7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 
7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 
7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.
    The products subject to the investigations may also enter under 
the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 
7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 
7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 
7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 
7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 
7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the 
investigations is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2015-16061 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P