Antidumping Duty Investigations of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands and Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 76444-76447 [2015-31083]

Download as PDF 76444 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices the Calexico U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry. The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone to include existing Sites 1 through 5 and 7 through 14 as ‘‘magnet’’ sites and existing Sites 6, 15 and 16 as ‘‘usage-driven’’ sites. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the ‘‘sunset’’ time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 1 be so exempted. No new subzones/usagedriven sites are being requested at this time. In accordance with the FTZ Board’s regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board’s Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 8, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to February 22, 2016. A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the FTZ Board’s Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at Christopher.Kemp@trade.gov or (202) 482–0862. Dated: December 3, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015–31079 Filed 12–8–15; 8:45 am] mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th International Trade Administration Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) [A–602–809, A–351–845, A–588–874, A–421– 482–0665, and (202) 482–1690, 813, C–351–846] respectively. Antidumping Duty Investigations of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products Background From Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2), the Netherlands and Countervailing Duty petitioners requested that the Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Department issue a preliminary Steel Flat Products From Brazil: affirmative determination of critical Preliminary Determinations of Critical circumstances on an expedited basis. In Circumstances accordance with sections 703(e)(1) and AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 733(e)(1) of the Act, because the International Trade Administration, petitioners submitted their critical Department of Commerce. circumstances allegations more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the SUMMARY: On August 11, 2015, the final determination, the Department Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty must promptly issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations. (AD) petitions concerning imports of Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides certain hot-rolled steel flat products that the Department will determine that (hot-rolled steel) from Australia, Brazil, critical circumstances exist in CVD Japan, and the Netherlands, and a investigations if there is a reasonable countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning hot-rolled steel from Brazil.1 basis to believe or suspect: (A) That ‘‘the alleged countervailable subsidy’’ is On October 23, 2015, the Department inconsistent with the Agreement on received timely allegations, pursuant to Subsidies and Countervailing Measures sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), (SCM Agreement) of the World Trade Organization, and (B) that ‘‘there have and 19 CFR 351.206, that critical been massive imports of the subject circumstances exist with respect to merchandise over a relatively short imports of the merchandise under period.’’ Section 733(e)(1) of the Act investigation.2 Based on information provided by the petitioners, data placed provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical on the record of these investigations by circumstances exist in AD investigations the mandatory respondents, and data collected by the Department from Global if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A)(i) That ‘‘there is a history Trade Atlas (GTA), the Department of dumping and material injury by preliminarily determines that critical reason of dumped imports in the United circumstances exist for imports of hotStates or elsewhere of the subject rolled steel from certain producers and merchandise,’’ or (ii) that ‘‘the person by exporters from Brazil and Japan. whom, or for whose account, the DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2015. merchandise was imported knew or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: should have known that the exporter Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, was selling the subject merchandise at AD/CVD Operations, Office I, less than its fair value and that there Enforcement and Compliance, was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales,’’ and (B) that 1 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping ‘‘there have been massive imports of the Duties on Imports of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat subject merchandise over a relatively Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, short period.’’ Section 351.206(h)(2) of dated August 11, 2015, and Petitions for the the Department’s regulations provides Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of that, generally, imports must increase by Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, at least 15 percent during the ‘‘relatively Korea, and Turkey, dated August 11, 2015 (collectively, the petitions). The petitioners for short period’’ to be considered these investigations are AK Steel Corporation, ‘‘massive’’ and section 351.206(i) ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor Corporation, SSAB defines a ‘‘relatively short period’’ as Enterprises, LLC, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and United normally being the period beginning on States Steel Corporation (the petitioners). 2 See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the Australia, Brazil, Japan and the Netherlands— date the petition is filed) 3 and ending at Critical Circumstances Allegations, October 23, least three months later.4 The 2105, and Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE From Australia, Brazil, Japan and the Netherlands— Critical Circumstances Allegations, November 2, 2015 (making public certain information in Attachment 2 of original submission) (collectively, Critical Circumstances Allegation). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:38 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(40) (providing that a proceeding begins on the date of the filing of a petition). 4 See 19 CFR 351.206(i). E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices regulations also provide, however, that, if the Department ‘‘finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely,’’ the Department ‘‘may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time.’’ 5 Alleged Countervailable Subsidies Are Inconsistent With the SCM Agreement To determine whether an alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, in accordance with section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department considered the evidence currently on the record of the Brazil CVD investigation. Specifically, as determined in our initiation checklist, the following subsidy programs, alleged in the petition and supported by information reasonably available to the petitioners, appear to be either export contingent or contingent upon the use of domestic goods over imported goods, which would render them inconsistent with the SCM Agreement: Reduction of Tax on Industrialized Products (IPI) for Machines and Equipment,6 Brazil’s Export Financing Program (PROEX),7 Reintegra Program,8 RECAP: Special Regime for the Acquisition of Capital Goods for Export Companies,9 Integrated Drawback Scheme,10 Export Credit Insurance and Guarantees,11 Export Guarantee Fund,12 Export Promotion and Marketing Assistance,13 Banco do Brasil and Banco Nacional de ˆ Desenvolvimento Economico e Social (BNDES) ExIm loans,14 FINAME loans,15 and Automatic BNDES.16 Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines for purposes of this critical circumstances determination that there are alleged subsidies in the Brazil CVD investigation that are inconsistent with the SCM Agreement. History of Dumping and Material Injury/Knowledge of Sales Below Fair Value and Material Injury In order to determine whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department generally considers current mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 5 Id. 6 See Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, August 31, 2015, at 7. 7 Id., at 12. 8 Id. 9 Id., at 13. 10 Id., at 14. 11 Id., at 15. 12 Id., at 16. 13 Id., at 17. 14 Id., at 34. 15 Id., at 35. 16 Id., at 38. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 238001 or previous AD orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders imposed by other countries with regard to imports of the same merchandise.17 The Department has previously issued AD orders on hotrolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products from Japan 18 and Brazil.19 Moreover, there are current AD orders imposed by other World Trade Organization members against hotrolled steel products from Brazil and Japan.20 Certain HTS numbers subject to these Brazil and Japan orders overlap with HTS numbers listed in the scope of these hot-rolled steel investigations. Therefore, there is evidence of a history of dumping of subject merchandise exported from Brazil and Japan. To determine whether importers knew or should have known that exporters were selling at less than fair value, we typically consider the magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in petitions.21 The Department has found margins of 15 to 25 percent (depending on whether sales are export price sales or constructed export price sales) to be sufficient for this purpose.22 The 17 See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 59117, 59120 (November 17, 2009) unchanged in Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010). 18 See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain HotRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Japan, 64 FR 34778 (June 29, 1999). 19 See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain HotRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 67 FR 11093 (March 12, 2002). 20 See Attachment 1 of Critical Circumstances Allegation (containing ‘‘Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement’’ from Australia to World Trade Organization depicting ‘‘Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures in Force, as of December 31, 2014’’ which lists Hot Rolled Steel Coil from, Japan, et.al.; Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement’’ from Canada to World Trade Organization depicting ‘‘Definitive AntiDumping Measures in Force, as of December 31, 2014’’ which lists Certain Flat Hot-Rolled Carbon and Alloy Steel Sheet and Strip from Brazil, et.al.; and ‘‘Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement’’ from Thailand to World Trade Organization depicting ‘‘Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures in Force, as of December 31, 2014’’ which lists Flat Hot Rolled Steel in Coils and not in Coils from Japan, et.al.). 21 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, the People’s Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation, 67 FR 19157, 19158 (April 18, 2002) (unchanged in the final determination). 22 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 76445 Department initiated these AD investigations based on the following estimated dumping margins: 99.20 percent (Australia); 34.28 percent (Brazil); 16.15 to 34.53 percent (Japan); and 55.21 to 173.17 percent (Netherlands). All of these margins are above the 15 to 25 percent threshold.23 Therefore, on that basis, we preliminarily conclude that importers knew or should have known that exporters in all four countries were selling subject merchandise at less than fair value. To determine whether importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury, we typically consider the preliminary injury determinations of the International Trade Commission (ITC).24 If the ITC finds material injury (rather than the threat of injury), we normally find that the ITC’s determination provided importers with sufficient knowledge of injury. In these investigations, the ITC’s finding of material injury by reason of imports of hot-rolled steel from, inter alia, Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands is sufficient to impute knowledge of the likelihood of material injury for each of these countries.25 Massive Imports In determining whether there have been ‘‘massive imports’’ over a ‘‘relatively short period,’’ pursuant to sections 703(e)(1)(B) and 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the ‘‘base Steel Plate from the People’s Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997) (unchanged in the final determination) and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672 (July 16, 2004) (unchanged in the final determination). 23 See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 54261, 54265 (September 9, 2015). 24 See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010), unchanged in Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377 (June 1, 2010). 25 See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701– TA–545–547 and 731–TA–1291–1297 (Prelim), USITC Pub. 4570 (Oct. 2015) at 1. E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 76446 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices period’’) to a comparable period of at least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the ‘‘comparison period’’). Imports normally will be considered massive when imports during the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during the base period. Based on evidence provided by the petitioners, the Department finds that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(i), importers, exporters or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the filing of the petition, that a proceeding was likely. Specifically, the Department concludes that the available factual information provided by the petitioners indicates that by June 2015, importers, exporters or producers had reason to believe that a proceeding was likely. The Department finds the following information relevant from the press articles the petitioners provided to support their claim of ‘‘early knowledge’’: • On May 11, 2015, American Metal Market issued an article acknowledging an industry analyst at Morgan Stanley Equity Research indicating that ‘‘flatrolled steel trade cases could move forward soon due to congressional bickering surrounding Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).’’ 26 That article included statements about the past and current state of hot-rolled coil prices, thereby indicating that the potential trade cases included hot-rolled steel.27 • On May 29, 2015, another industry source, Steel Business Briefer, indicated that an informant of a service center executive stated that he was 90 percent sure that a filing on flat-rolled products will take place next week (i.e., in June). According to the informant, ‘‘US sheet mills are waiting . . . to finish data collection . . . and that {one} mill has already contacted him to gather information. {US mills are} having trouble with their customers finding out how much import they’re buying.’’ 28 The article also included assessments on hot-rolled and cold-rolled coil prices, thereby demonstrating that the potential trade cases concerned both hot-rolled and cold-rolled products.29 • On June 4, 2015, a day after trade cases were filed on corrosion-resistant steel products, American Metal Market issued an article stating that this case was the ‘‘first of many expected across U.S. steel markets in the coming weeks and months.’’ Additionally, an industry 26 See Critical Circumstances Allegation at Attachment 2. 27 Id. 28 Id. 29 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 238001 analyst at Morgan Stanley Equity Research was quoted as saying that he believed that ‘‘the {U.S} industry is also working on cold-rolled and potentially hot-rolled cases as well.’’ 30 • On June 9, 2015, American Metal Market issued an article providing commentary from the chairman, president, and chief executive officer (CEO) of AK Steel Corporation (one of the petitioning companies in this investigation), confirming that the trade cases on hot-rolled and cold-rolled coil were likely to come shortly after the already-filed trade case on corrosionresistant steel. In particular, the author indicated that, according to the CEO, ‘‘{d}omestic steelmakers are considering trade petitions against imports of hotrolled and cold-rolled coil.’’ Further, the CEO was quoted as saying, ‘‘All aspects of the carbon product are being analyzed. Whether (hot-rolled coil) is the next case or the third case, all three are being looked at and one has been filed. . . The others are being evaluated . . . At this point, we look to our advisors and our lawyers to give us the go-ahead. . .’’ 31 The above references, by industry specialists and authorities, to the impending trade cases on hot-rolled steel indicate that steel importers, exporters, and producers had, by the end of June 2015, sufficiently credible reasons to believe that forthcoming petitions were likely.32 30 Id. 31 Id. 32 In its November 3, 2015, submission, a Japanese producer, Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, commented that the Department has previously rejected the mere presence of rumors in press articles as being too speculative to form a basis for imputing knowledge that a petition was likely. Similarly, in its November 13, 2015, comments, a Dutch producer, Tata Steel IJmuiden B.V., commented that none of the articles the petitioners cited rise to anything above speculation, claiming that the strongest characterization of the articles that could be made concerning hot-rolled steel is that the U.S. industry was looking into whether a case could be brought, not that a case would be initiated and that such an initiation was imminent. In its November 2, 2015, submission, an Australian producer/exporter, BlueScope Steel Ltd. (BlueScope) asserted that ‘‘the existence of one or two uncorroborated rumors reported in the press articles in June 2015, hardly constitutes a ‘reason to believe’ that a case against hot-rolled steel . . . was ‘likely,’ as required by the regulations.’’ On the basis of the information in various industry articles it submitted, BlueScope notes that, in many months leading up to the filing of a case against imports of coated steel in June 2015, a case against imports of hot-rolled steel had not been mentioned since the time it was first rumored in July 2014; and cases against imports of cold-rolled and coated steel had been repeatedly rumored but not filed. BlueScope argues that, given the repeated unreliability of rumors in the past, importers would have been understandably skeptical of any reports emerging in June 2015 of a case against imports of hot-rolled steel. We do not find interested parties’ arguments persuasive. The records of these investigations PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Thus, in order to determine whether there has been a massive surge in imports for each cooperating mandatory respondent, the Department compared the total volume of shipments during the period June 2015 through October 2015 (all months for which data was available) with the volume of shipments during the preceding five-month period of January 2015 through May 2015. For ‘‘all others,’’ the Department compared GTA data for the period June 2015 through September 2015 (the last month for which GTA data is currently available) with data for the preceding four-month period of February 2014 through May 2015.33 We subtracted shipments reported by the mandatory respondents from the GTA data. With respect to Australia and the Netherlands, the shipment data do not demonstrate massive surges in imports for any producers/exporters. Therefore, we are reaching a preliminary negative critical circumstances determination with respect to Australia and the Netherlands. With respect to Brazil and Japan, we preliminarily determine the following producers/exporters had massive surges in imports.34 • Brazil (A–351–845 and C–351–846): Companhia Siderugica Nacional (CSN), Usinas Siderurgicas da Minas Gerais S.A. (Usiminas); show that rumors on trade cases against imports of corrosion-resistant, cold-rolled, and hot-rolled steels cases had been circulating as far back as 2014. The records also show that these three cases were often referenced collectively, or were simply referred to as ‘‘flat rolled’’ cases. When trade cases were actually filed on imports of corrosion-resistant steel in early June 2015, we find that this solidified rumors into the expectation among steel importers, exporters, and producers that forthcoming petitions on the remaining products (i.e., cold-rolled and hotrolled steels) were inevitable. This is corroborated by the statements from the CEO of AK Steel Corporation in the June 9, 2015, article by American Metal Market, which illuminated the imminence of trade cases on imports of cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel, stating that the requisite data were ‘‘available’’ and that other cases are ‘‘going to follow’’ pending legal approval. 33 The Department gathered GTA data under the following harmonized tariff schedule numbers: 7208.10.1500, 7208.10.3000, 7208.10.6000, 7208.25.3000, 7208.25.6000, 7208.26.0030, 7208.26.0060, 7208.27.0030, 7208.27.0060, 7208.36.0030, 7208.36.0060, 7208.37.0030, 7208.37.0060, 7208.38.0015, 7208.38.0030, 7208.38.0090, 7208.39.0015, 7208.39.0030, 7208.39.0090, 7208.40.6030, 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000, 7208.54.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0090, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.3000, 7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7530, 7211.19.7560, 7211.19.7590, 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.30.3050, 7225.30.7000, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9030, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, and 7226.91.8000. 34 See respective preliminary critical circumstances memoranda for each proceeding, dated concurrently with this notice. E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices • Japan (A–588–874): Nippon Steel & Sumikin Bussan Corporation (Nippon), JFE Steel Corporation (JFE); Conclusion Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances 76447 exist with respect to imports of hotrolled steel shipped by certain producers/exporters. Our findings are summarized as follows. Country Case No. Affirmative preliminary critical circumstances determinations Negative preliminary critical circumstances determinations Australia ......................................... A–602–809 ................................... None ............................................. Brazil .............................................. A–351–845 C–351–846 A–588–874 A–421–813 CSN; Usiminas ............................. BlueScope; all other producers/ exporters. All other producers/exporters. Japan ............................................. Netherlands .................................... Final Critical Circumstances Determinations We will issue final determinations concerning critical circumstances when we issue our final countervailing duty and less than fair value determinations. All interested parties will have the opportunity to address these determinations in case briefs to be submitted after completion of the preliminary countervailing duty and less than fair value determinations. ITC Notification In accordance with sections 703(f) and 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determinations. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 703(e)(2) of the Act, because we have preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to exports made by certain producers and/ or exporters, if we make an affirmative preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies have been provided to these same producers/ exporters at above de minimis rates,35 we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from these producers/ exporters that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date that is 90 days prior to the effective date of ‘‘provisional measures’’ (e.g., the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of an affirmative preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies have been provided at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated preliminary subsidy rates reflected in the preliminary determination published in the Federal 35 The preliminary determination in the countervailing duty investigation for Brazil is currently scheduled for January 8, 2016. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 238001 ................................... ................................... ................................... ................................... Nippon; JFE .................................. None ............................................. Register. This suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, because we have preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to exports made by certain producers and/ or exporters, if we make an affirmative preliminary determination that sales at less than fair value have been made by these same producers/exporters at above de minimis rates,36 we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from these producers/exporters that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date that is 90 days prior to the effective date of ‘‘provisional measures’’ (e.g., the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated preliminary dumping margins reflected in the preliminary determination published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2). Dated: December 2, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2015–31083 Filed 12–8–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 36 The preliminary determinations concerning sales at less than fair value are due on March 8, 2016. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 All other producers/exporters. Tata; all other producers/exporters. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–201–837; A–570–954] Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From Mexico and the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 3, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) initiated the first fiveyear (‘‘sunset’’) review of the antidumping duty orders on certain magnesia carbon bricks (‘‘MCBs’’) from Mexico and the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’).1 On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response, filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, as well as a lack of response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty orders, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the Orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hawkins, Enforcement and Compliance, Office V, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and AGENCY: 1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 80 FR 45945 (August 3, 2015) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’); see also Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from Mexico and the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Orders, 75 FR 57257 (September 20, 2010) (‘‘Orders’’). E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76444-76447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31083]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-602-809, A-351-845, A-588-874, A-421-813, C-351-846]


Antidumping Duty Investigations of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands and 
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products From Brazil: Preliminary Determinations of Critical 
Circumstances

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

SUMMARY: On August 11, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports 
of certain hot-rolled steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from 
Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands, and a countervailing 
duty (CVD) petition concerning hot-rolled steel from Brazil.\1\ On 
October 23, 2015, the Department received timely allegations, pursuant 
to sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.206, that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under 
investigation.\2\ Based on information provided by the petitioners, 
data placed on the record of these investigations by the mandatory 
respondents, and data collected by the Department from Global Trade 
Atlas (GTA), the Department preliminarily determines that critical 
circumstances exist for imports of hot-rolled steel from certain 
producers and exporters from Brazil and Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, 
Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United 
Kingdom, dated August 11, 2015, and Petitions for the Imposition of 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products from Brazil, Korea, and Turkey, dated August 11, 2015 
(collectively, the petitions). The petitioners for these 
investigations are AK Steel Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, 
Nucor Corporation, SSAB Enterprises, LLC, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and 
United States Steel Corporation (the petitioners).
    \2\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Australia, 
Brazil, Japan and the Netherlands--Critical Circumstances 
Allegations, October 23, 2105, and Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan and the Netherlands--Critical 
Circumstances Allegations, November 2, 2015 (making public certain 
information in Attachment 2 of original submission) (collectively, 
Critical Circumstances Allegation).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0665, and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2), the petitioners requested that 
the Department issue a preliminary affirmative determination of 
critical circumstances on an expedited basis. In accordance with 
sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Act, because the petitioners 
submitted their critical circumstances allegations more than 20 days 
before the scheduled date of the final determination, the Department 
must promptly issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations.
    Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
determine that critical circumstances exist in CVD investigations if 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A) That ``the 
alleged countervailable subsidy'' is inconsistent with the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) of the World 
Trade Organization, and (B) that ``there have been massive imports of 
the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.'' Section 
733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily 
determine that critical circumstances exist in AD investigations if 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A)(i) That ``there 
is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports 
in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise,'' or (ii) 
that ``the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was 
imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the 
subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales,'' and (B) that 
``there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a 
relatively short period.'' Section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's 
regulations provides that, generally, imports must increase by at least 
15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' to be considered 
``massive'' and section 351.206(i) defines a ``relatively short 
period'' as normally being the period beginning on the date the 
proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) \3\ and ending 
at least three months later.\4\ The

[[Page 76445]]

regulations also provide, however, that, if the Department ``finds that 
importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some 
time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was 
likely,'' the Department ``may consider a period of not less than three 
months from that earlier time.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(40) (providing that a proceeding 
begins on the date of the filing of a petition).
    \4\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alleged Countervailable Subsidies Are Inconsistent With the SCM 
Agreement

    To determine whether an alleged countervailable subsidy is 
inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, in accordance with section 
703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department considered the evidence 
currently on the record of the Brazil CVD investigation. Specifically, 
as determined in our initiation checklist, the following subsidy 
programs, alleged in the petition and supported by information 
reasonably available to the petitioners, appear to be either export 
contingent or contingent upon the use of domestic goods over imported 
goods, which would render them inconsistent with the SCM Agreement: 
Reduction of Tax on Industrialized Products (IPI) for Machines and 
Equipment,\6\ Brazil's Export Financing Program (PROEX),\7\ Reintegra 
Program,\8\ RECAP: Special Regime for the Acquisition of Capital Goods 
for Export Companies,\9\ Integrated Drawback Scheme,\10\ Export Credit 
Insurance and Guarantees,\11\ Export Guarantee Fund,\12\ Export 
Promotion and Marketing Assistance,\13\ Banco do Brasil and Banco 
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econ[ocirc]mico e Social (BNDES) ExIm 
loans,\14\ FINAME loans,\15\ and Automatic BNDES.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, August 31, 2015, at 7.
    \7\ Id., at 12.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id., at 13.
    \10\ Id., at 14.
    \11\ Id., at 15.
    \12\ Id., at 16.
    \13\ Id., at 17.
    \14\ Id., at 34.
    \15\ Id., at 35.
    \16\ Id., at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines for purposes of 
this critical circumstances determination that there are alleged 
subsidies in the Brazil CVD investigation that are inconsistent with 
the SCM Agreement.

History of Dumping and Material Injury/Knowledge of Sales Below Fair 
Value and Material Injury

    In order to determine whether there is a history of dumping 
pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department 
generally considers current or previous AD orders on subject 
merchandise from the country in question in the United States and 
current orders imposed by other countries with regard to imports of the 
same merchandise.\17\ The Department has previously issued AD orders on 
hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products from Japan \18\ 
and Brazil.\19\ Moreover, there are current AD orders imposed by other 
World Trade Organization members against hot-rolled steel products from 
Brazil and Japan.\20\ Certain HTS numbers subject to these Brazil and 
Japan orders overlap with HTS numbers listed in the scope of these hot-
rolled steel investigations. Therefore, there is evidence of a history 
of dumping of subject merchandise exported from Brazil and Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 
FR 59117, 59120 (November 17, 2009) unchanged in Certain Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final Determination of 
Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010).
    \18\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 
Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Japan, 64 FR 34778 (June 29, 
1999).
    \19\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 
Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 67 FR 11093 (March 12, 
2002).
    \20\ See Attachment 1 of Critical Circumstances Allegation 
(containing ``Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the 
Agreement'' from Australia to World Trade Organization depicting 
``Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures in Force, as of December 31, 
2014'' which lists Hot Rolled Steel Coil from, Japan, et.al.; Semi-
Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement'' from Canada to 
World Trade Organization depicting ``Definitive Anti-Dumping 
Measures in Force, as of December 31, 2014'' which lists Certain 
Flat Hot-Rolled Carbon and Alloy Steel Sheet and Strip from Brazil, 
et.al.; and ``Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the 
Agreement'' from Thailand to World Trade Organization depicting 
``Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures in Force, as of December 31, 
2014'' which lists Flat Hot Rolled Steel in Coils and not in Coils 
from Japan, et.al.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that 
exporters were selling at less than fair value, we typically consider 
the magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in 
petitions.\21\ The Department has found margins of 15 to 25 percent 
(depending on whether sales are export price sales or constructed 
export price sales) to be sufficient for this purpose.\22\ The 
Department initiated these AD investigations based on the following 
estimated dumping margins: 99.20 percent (Australia); 34.28 percent 
(Brazil); 16.15 to 34.53 percent (Japan); and 55.21 to 173.17 percent 
(Netherlands). All of these margins are above the 15 to 25 percent 
threshold.\23\ Therefore, on that basis, we preliminarily conclude that 
importers knew or should have known that exporters in all four 
countries were selling subject merchandise at less than fair value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Australia, the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of 
Korea, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation, 67 FR 19157, 
19158 (April 18, 2002) (unchanged in the final determination).
    \22\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the 
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997) 
(unchanged in the final determination) and Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672 (July 16, 2004) 
(unchanged in the final determination).
    \23\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, 
Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic 
of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-
Value Investigations, 80 FR 54261, 54265 (September 9, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that there 
was likely to be material injury, we typically consider the preliminary 
injury determinations of the International Trade Commission (ITC).\24\ 
If the ITC finds material injury (rather than the threat of injury), we 
normally find that the ITC's determination provided importers with 
sufficient knowledge of injury. In these investigations, the ITC's 
finding of material injury by reason of imports of hot-rolled steel 
from, inter alia, Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands is 
sufficient to impute knowledge of the likelihood of material injury for 
each of these countries.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 
24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010), unchanged in Certain Potassium Phosphate 
Salts from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical 
Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377 (June 1, 2010).
    \25\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, 
Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United 
Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-545-547 and 731-TA-1291-1297 (Prelim), 
USITC Pub. 4570 (Oct. 2015) at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Massive Imports

    In determining whether there have been ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to sections 703(e)(1)(B) and 
733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import 
volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months 
immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the ``base

[[Page 76446]]

period'') to a comparable period of at least three months following the 
filing of the petition (i.e., the ``comparison period''). Imports 
normally will be considered massive when imports during the comparison 
period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during 
the base period.
    Based on evidence provided by the petitioners, the Department finds 
that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(i), importers, exporters or producers 
had reason to believe, at some time prior to the filing of the 
petition, that a proceeding was likely. Specifically, the Department 
concludes that the available factual information provided by the 
petitioners indicates that by June 2015, importers, exporters or 
producers had reason to believe that a proceeding was likely. The 
Department finds the following information relevant from the press 
articles the petitioners provided to support their claim of ``early 
knowledge'':
     On May 11, 2015, American Metal Market issued an article 
acknowledging an industry analyst at Morgan Stanley Equity Research 
indicating that ``flat-rolled steel trade cases could move forward soon 
due to congressional bickering surrounding Trade Promotion Authority 
(TPA).'' \26\ That article included statements about the past and 
current state of hot-rolled coil prices, thereby indicating that the 
potential trade cases included hot-rolled steel.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Critical Circumstances Allegation at Attachment 2.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On May 29, 2015, another industry source, Steel Business 
Briefer, indicated that an informant of a service center executive 
stated that he was 90 percent sure that a filing on flat-rolled 
products will take place next week (i.e., in June). According to the 
informant, ``US sheet mills are waiting . . . to finish data collection 
. . . and that {one{time}  mill has already contacted him to gather 
information. {US mills are{time}  having trouble with their customers 
finding out how much import they're buying.'' \28\ The article also 
included assessments on hot-rolled and cold-rolled coil prices, thereby 
demonstrating that the potential trade cases concerned both hot-rolled 
and cold-rolled products.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On June 4, 2015, a day after trade cases were filed on 
corrosion-resistant steel products, American Metal Market issued an 
article stating that this case was the ``first of many expected across 
U.S. steel markets in the coming weeks and months.'' Additionally, an 
industry analyst at Morgan Stanley Equity Research was quoted as saying 
that he believed that ``the {U.S{time}  industry is also working on 
cold-rolled and potentially hot-rolled cases as well.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On June 9, 2015, American Metal Market issued an article 
providing commentary from the chairman, president, and chief executive 
officer (CEO) of AK Steel Corporation (one of the petitioning companies 
in this investigation), confirming that the trade cases on hot-rolled 
and cold-rolled coil were likely to come shortly after the already-
filed trade case on corrosion-resistant steel. In particular, the 
author indicated that, according to the CEO, ``{d{time} omestic 
steelmakers are considering trade petitions against imports of hot-
rolled and cold-rolled coil.'' Further, the CEO was quoted as saying, 
``All aspects of the carbon product are being analyzed. Whether (hot-
rolled coil) is the next case or the third case, all three are being 
looked at and one has been filed. . . The others are being evaluated . 
. . At this point, we look to our advisors and our lawyers to give us 
the go-ahead. . .'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above references, by industry specialists and authorities, to 
the impending trade cases on hot-rolled steel indicate that steel 
importers, exporters, and producers had, by the end of June 2015, 
sufficiently credible reasons to believe that forthcoming petitions 
were likely.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In its November 3, 2015, submission, a Japanese producer, 
Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, commented that the 
Department has previously rejected the mere presence of rumors in 
press articles as being too speculative to form a basis for imputing 
knowledge that a petition was likely. Similarly, in its November 13, 
2015, comments, a Dutch producer, Tata Steel IJmuiden B.V., 
commented that none of the articles the petitioners cited rise to 
anything above speculation, claiming that the strongest 
characterization of the articles that could be made concerning hot-
rolled steel is that the U.S. industry was looking into whether a 
case could be brought, not that a case would be initiated and that 
such an initiation was imminent. In its November 2, 2015, 
submission, an Australian producer/exporter, BlueScope Steel Ltd. 
(BlueScope) asserted that ``the existence of one or two 
uncorroborated rumors reported in the press articles in June 2015, 
hardly constitutes a `reason to believe' that a case against hot-
rolled steel . . . was `likely,' as required by the regulations.'' 
On the basis of the information in various industry articles it 
submitted, BlueScope notes that, in many months leading up to the 
filing of a case against imports of coated steel in June 2015, a 
case against imports of hot-rolled steel had not been mentioned 
since the time it was first rumored in July 2014; and cases against 
imports of cold-rolled and coated steel had been repeatedly rumored 
but not filed. BlueScope argues that, given the repeated 
unreliability of rumors in the past, importers would have been 
understandably skeptical of any reports emerging in June 2015 of a 
case against imports of hot-rolled steel. We do not find interested 
parties' arguments persuasive. The records of these investigations 
show that rumors on trade cases against imports of corrosion-
resistant, cold-rolled, and hot-rolled steels cases had been 
circulating as far back as 2014. The records also show that these 
three cases were often referenced collectively, or were simply 
referred to as ``flat rolled'' cases. When trade cases were actually 
filed on imports of corrosion-resistant steel in early June 2015, we 
find that this solidified rumors into the expectation among steel 
importers, exporters, and producers that forthcoming petitions on 
the remaining products (i.e., cold-rolled and hot-rolled steels) 
were inevitable. This is corroborated by the statements from the CEO 
of AK Steel Corporation in the June 9, 2015, article by American 
Metal Market, which illuminated the imminence of trade cases on 
imports of cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel, stating that the 
requisite data were ``available'' and that other cases are ``going 
to follow'' pending legal approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in order to determine whether there has been a massive surge 
in imports for each cooperating mandatory respondent, the Department 
compared the total volume of shipments during the period June 2015 
through October 2015 (all months for which data was available) with the 
volume of shipments during the preceding five-month period of January 
2015 through May 2015. For ``all others,'' the Department compared GTA 
data for the period June 2015 through September 2015 (the last month 
for which GTA data is currently available) with data for the preceding 
four-month period of February 2014 through May 2015.\33\ We subtracted 
shipments reported by the mandatory respondents from the GTA data. With 
respect to Australia and the Netherlands, the shipment data do not 
demonstrate massive surges in imports for any producers/exporters. 
Therefore, we are reaching a preliminary negative critical 
circumstances determination with respect to Australia and the 
Netherlands. With respect to Brazil and Japan, we preliminarily 
determine the following producers/exporters had massive surges in 
imports.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Department gathered GTA data under the following 
harmonized tariff schedule numbers: 7208.10.1500, 7208.10.3000, 
7208.10.6000, 7208.25.3000, 7208.25.6000, 7208.26.0030, 
7208.26.0060, 7208.27.0030, 7208.27.0060, 7208.36.0030, 
7208.36.0060, 7208.37.0030, 7208.37.0060, 7208.38.0015, 
7208.38.0030, 7208.38.0090, 7208.39.0015, 7208.39.0030, 
7208.39.0090, 7208.40.6030, 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000, 
7208.54.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.14.0030, 
7211.14.0090, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.3000, 
7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7530, 7211.19.7560, 
7211.19.7590, 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.30.3050, 
7225.30.7000, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000, 
7226.11.9030, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 
7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, and 7226.91.8000.
    \34\ See respective preliminary critical circumstances memoranda 
for each proceeding, dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Brazil (A-351-845 and C-351-846): Companhia Siderugica 
Nacional (CSN), Usinas Siderurgicas da Minas Gerais S.A. (Usiminas);

[[Page 76447]]

     Japan (A-588-874): Nippon Steel & Sumikin Bussan 
Corporation (Nippon), JFE Steel Corporation (JFE);

Conclusion

    Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect 
to imports of hot-rolled steel shipped by certain producers/exporters. 
Our findings are summarized as follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Affirmative preliminary    Negative preliminary
               Country                         Case No.         critical  circumstances  critical  circumstances
                                                                     determinations           determinations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia............................  A-602-809..............  None...................  BlueScope; all other
                                                                                          producers/exporters.
Brazil...............................  A-351-845..............  CSN; Usiminas..........  All other producers/
                                       C-351-846..............                            exporters.
Japan................................  A-588-874..............  Nippon; JFE............  All other producers/
                                                                                          exporters.
Netherlands..........................  A-421-813..............  None...................  Tata; all other
                                                                                          producers/exporters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Critical Circumstances Determinations

    We will issue final determinations concerning critical 
circumstances when we issue our final countervailing duty and less than 
fair value determinations. All interested parties will have the 
opportunity to address these determinations in case briefs to be 
submitted after completion of the preliminary countervailing duty and 
less than fair value determinations.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with sections 703(f) and 733(f) of the Act, we have 
notified the ITC of our determinations.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(e)(2) of the Act, because we have 
preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to 
exports made by certain producers and/or exporters, if we make an 
affirmative preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies 
have been provided to these same producers/exporters at above de 
minimis rates,\35\ we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from 
these producers/exporters that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date that is 90 days prior 
to the effective date of ``provisional measures'' (e.g., the date of 
publication in the Federal Register of the notice of an affirmative 
preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies have been 
provided at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated 
preliminary subsidy rates reflected in the preliminary determination 
published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The preliminary determination in the countervailing duty 
investigation for Brazil is currently scheduled for January 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, because we have 
preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to 
exports made by certain producers and/or exporters, if we make an 
affirmative preliminary determination that sales at less than fair 
value have been made by these same producers/exporters at above de 
minimis rates,\36\ we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of subject merchandise from these producers/exporters that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date that is 90 days prior to the effective date of ``provisional 
measures'' (e.g., the date of publication in the Federal Register of 
the notice of an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at less 
than fair value at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated 
preliminary dumping margins reflected in the preliminary determination 
published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The preliminary determinations concerning sales at less 
than fair value are due on March 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2).

    Dated: December 2, 2015.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-31083 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P