Phosphor Copper From the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 19552-19557 [2016-07801]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19552
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Notices
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 June
6, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response
to material submitted during the
foregoing period may be submitted
during the subsequent 15-day period to
June 20, 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 Camille Evans at
Camille.Evans@trade.gov or (202) 482–
2350.
Dated: March 31, 2016.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016–07778 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–979]
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells,
Whether or Not Assembled Into
Modules, From the People’s Republic
of China: Rescission of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review; 2014–2015
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from
Anji DaSol Solar Energy Science &
Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Anji DaSol’’), the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) initiated a new shipper
review of the antidumping duty order
on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells,
whether or not assembled into modules,
(‘‘solar cells’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the
period December 1, 2014 through
November 30, 2015.1 On March 21,
2016, Anji DaSol timely withdrew its
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
1 See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells,
Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 81 FR
5711 (February 3, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
request for a new shipper review.2
Accordingly, the Department is
rescinding the new shipper review with
respect to Anji DaSol.
DATES: Effective Date: April 5, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara
Lofaro, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV,
Enforcement & Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–5720.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Rescission of New Shipper Review
On February 3, 2016, the Department
initiated a new shipper review for Anji
DaSol, and on March 21, 2016, Anji
DaSol withdrew its new shipper review
request. Section 351.214(f)(1) of the
Department’s regulations provides that
the Department may rescind a new
shipper review if the party that
requested the review withdraws its
request for review no later than 60 days
after the date of publication of the
notice of initiation of the requested
review. Given that Anji DaSol timely
withdrew its request for a new shipper
review, the Department is rescinding the
new shipper review of the antidumping
duty order on solar cells from the PRC
with respect to Anji DaSol.
Consequently, Anji DaSol will remain
part of the PRC-wide entity.
Assessment
Because we are rescinding the new
shipper review of Anji DaSol, we are not
making a determination as to whether
Anji DaSol qualifies for a separate rate.
Therefore, Anji DaSol remains part of
the PRC-wide entity and any entries
covered by this new shipper review will
be assessed at the PRC-wide rate. The
PRC-wide entity is not under review in
the ongoing administrative review
covering the 2014–2015 period of
review, and therefore, Anji DaSol is not
under review in the concurrent
administrative review.3 Accordingly,
the Department intends to issue
liquidation instructions for any entries
by Anji DaSol 15 days after publication
of this rescission notice.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to
discontinue the option of posting a bond
or security in lieu of a cash deposit for
entries of subject merchandise from Anji
DaSol.4 Because we did not calculate a
dumping margin for Anji DaSol or grant
Anji DaSol a separate rate in this new
shipper review, Anji DaSol continues to
be part of the PRC-wide entity. The cash
deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity is
238.95 percent. These cash deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notifications to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties. This notice also serves as a
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
of their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3).
Timely written notification of the return
or destruction of APO materials, or
conversion to judicial protective order,
is hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
This rescission and notice are
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.214(f)(3).
Dated: March 29, 2016.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2016–07776 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Cash Deposit
Effective upon publication of the
rescission of the new shipper review of
Anji DaSol, the Department will instruct
[A–580–885]
2 See Letter from Anji DaSol to the Secretary of
Commerce, ‘‘Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells,
Whether or not Assembled Into Modules, from the
People’s Republic of China; Withdrawal of New
Shipper Review Request,’’ dated March 21, 2016.
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR
6832 (February 9, 2016).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Phosphor Copper From the Republic
of Korea: Initiation of Less-Than-FairValue Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
4 See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’); see also 19 CFR
351.214(e).
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Notices
DATES:
Effective Date: March 29, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Robinson or Eric Greynolds, at
(202) 482–3797 or (202) 482–6071, AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
On March 9, 2016, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) received an
antidumping duty (AD) petition
concerning imports of phosphor copper
from the Republic of Korea (Korea), filed
in proper form on behalf of
Metallurgical Products Company
(Metallurgical) (Petitioner).1 Petitioner
is a domestic producer of phosphor
copper.2
On March 14 and 18, 2016, the
Department requested additional
information and clarification of certain
areas of the Petition.3 Petitioner filed
responses on March 16, 21, and 22,
2016.4
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of
phosphor copper from Korea 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 Petition is accompanied
by information reasonably available to
Petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioner
filed this Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because Petitioner is
an interested party as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department
also finds that Petitioner demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect
1 See the Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Phosphor
Copper from the Republic of Korea, dated March 9,
2016 (the Petition).
2 See Volume I of the Petition, at 1.
3 See Letter from the Department to Petitioner
entitled ‘‘Re: Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Phosphor
Copper from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental
Questions’’ dated March 14, 2016 and
Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Phone Call with Counsel
to Petitioner,’’ dated March 18, 2016.
4 See letter from Petitioner entitled ‘‘Phosphor
Copper from the Republic of Korea: Response to the
Department’s Supplemental Questions,’’ dated
March 16, 2016 (Petition Supplement 1); see also
‘‘Phosphor Copper from the Republic of Korea:
Response to the Department’s Supplemental
Questions,’’ dated March 21, 2016 (Petition
Supplement 2); and ‘‘Phosphor Copper from the
Republic of Korea: Supplemental Submission
Regarding Scope and Domestic Like Product,’’
dated March 22, 2016 (Scope Supplement).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
to the initiation of the AD investigation
that Petitioner is requesting.5
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on
March 9, 2016, the period of
investigation (POI) is, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.204(b)(1), January 1, 2015,
through December 31, 2015.
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this
investigation is phosphor copper from
Korea. For a full description of the
scope of this investigation, see the
‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ in
Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, the
Department issued questions to, and
received responses from, the Petitioner
pertaining to the proposed scope to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petition would be an accurate reflection
of the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief.6
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations,7 we are
setting aside a period for interested
parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage (scope). The Department will
consider all comments received from
parties and, if necessary, will 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. In order to facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests all interested
parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday,
April 18, 2016, which is 20 calendar
days from the signature date of this
notice. Any rebuttal comments, which
may include factual information, must
be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday,
April 28, 2016, which is 10 calendar
days after the initial comments
deadline.
The Department requests that any
factual information the parties consider
relevant to the scope of the investigation
be submitted during this time period.
However, if a party subsequently finds
that additional factual information
pertaining to the scope of the
investigation may be relevant, the party
may contact the Department and request
permission to submit the additional
information.
5 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition’’ section below.
6 See Petition Supplement 1 and 2 and Scope
Supplement.
7 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19553
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.
Comments on Product Characteristics
for AD Questionnaires
The Department requests comments
from interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of
phosphor copper 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) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is
not always appropriate to use all
product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products.
In other words, although there may be
some physical product characteristics
utilized by manufacturers to describe
phosphor copper, it may be that only a
select few product characteristics take
into account commercially meaningful
physical characteristics. In addition,
8 See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing
requirements); see also Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing
Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also
Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic
Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20,
2014) 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%20
Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
19554
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Notices
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 April 18, 2016, which is twenty
calendar days from the signature date of
this notice. Any rebuttal comments
must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on April
25, 2016. All comments and
submissions to the Department must be
filed electronically using ACCESS, as
explained above, on the record of this
Korea less-than-fair-value investigation.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
which is like, or in the absence of like,
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the Petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, Petitioner does not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that
phosphor copper, as defined in the
scope, constitutes a single domestic like
product and we have analyzed industry
support in terms of that domestic like
product.11
In determining whether Petitioner has
standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of
the Act, we considered the industry
support data contained in the Petition
with reference to the domestic like
product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this
notice. To establish industry support,
Petitioner provided its production of the
domestic like product in 2015, as well
as estimated total production of the
domestic like product for the entire
domestic industry.12 We relied on data
in the Petition for purposes of
measuring industry support.13
9 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
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)).
11 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Phosphor Copper
from the Republic of Korea (Korea AD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Antidumping Duty Petition
Covering Phosphor Copper from the Republic of
Korea (Attachment II). This checklist is dated
concurrently with this notice and is 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.
12 See Volume I of the Petition, at 2–3, and at
Exhibit I–3.
13 Id. For a further discussion, see Korea AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
10 See
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Our review of the data provided in the
Petition and other information readily
available to the Department indicates
that Petitioner has established industry
support.14 First, the Petition 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).15
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 the Petition
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.16 Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
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 Petition.17 Accordingly, the
Department determines that the Petition
was filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section
732(b)(1) of the Act.
The Department finds that Petitioner
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because it is an
interested party as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act and it has
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the AD
investigation that it is requesting the
Department initiate.18
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
Petitioner alleges 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, Petitioner
alleges that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.19
14 See Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
15 See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
16 See Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
17 Id.
18 See Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
19 See Volume I of the Petition, at 7–8 and at
Exhibit I–9.
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Notices
Petitioner contends that the industry’s
injured condition is illustrated by
reduced market share, underselling and
price suppression or depression, lost
sales and revenues, and impacts on
production, capacity utilization,
commercial shipments, and financial
performance.20 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.21
Allegation of Sales at Less-Than-Fair
Value
The following is a description of the
allegation of sales at less-than-fair value
upon which the Department based its
decision to initiate the investigation of
imports of phosphor copper from Korea.
The sources of data for the deductions
and adjustments relating to U.S. price
and NV are discussed in greater detail
in the initiation checklist.
Export Price
Petitioner based U.S. prices on a 2015
Korean producer’s price offerings to its
customers in the United States for
phosphor copper produced in, and
exported from, Korea during the POI.22
Where applicable, Petitioner made
deductions from U.S. price for
movement expenses consistent with the
delivery terms, including foreign and
U.S. inland freight, foreign and U.S.
brokerage and handling fees, ocean
freight, marine insurance, and U.S.
harbor maintenance fees and
merchandise processing fees.23
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Normal Value
Petitioner provided home market
price information based on sales, or
offers for sale, in Korea of merchandise
identical or similar to the product being
imported into the United States during
the POI.24 Petitioner made certain
adjustments to the price quotes,
including deductions for inland freight
charges (where applicable).25
Petitioner provided information
indicating that sales of phosphor copper
in Korea were made at prices below the
20 See Volume I of the Petition, at 7–8, 12–25 and
at Exhibits I–9 and I–11 through I–17.
21 See Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Phosphor
Copper from the Republic of Korea.
22 See Korea AD Initiation Checklist; see also
Volume II of the Petition, at 3 and Exhibit II–3.
23 See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
24 See Volume II of the Petition, at 9–10 and
Exhibit II–3; see also Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
25 See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
cost of production (COP) and, as a
result, also calculated NV based on
constructed value (CV).26 For further
discussion of COP and NV based on CV,
see below.27
Normal Value Based on Constructed
Value
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. Petitioner calculated COM
based on a U.S. producer’s experience
during the proposed POI.28 Using
publicly-available data to value copper
and U.S. price data for phosphorus,
Petitioner multiplied the usage
quantities by the submitted value of the
inputs used to manufacture phosphor
copper in Korea.29 Petitioner derived
labor and electricity rates from publicly
available sources multiplied by the
product-specific usage rates.30
Petitioner relied on a U.S. producer’s
experience to determine factory
overhead.31 Petitioner relied on the
financial statements of Bongsan Co.,
Ltd. (Bongsan), a Korean producer of
identical merchandise, to determine the
SG&A rate.32 We revised the SG&A rate
to exclude income and expenses related
to investments.33 Because Bongsan’s
financial statements show that financial
income exceeded financial expenses,
26 On June 29, 2015, the President of the United
States signed into law the Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD law. See Trade
Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114–27,
129 Stat. 362 (2015). The 2015 law does not specify
dates of application for those amendments. On
August 6, 2015, the Department published an
interpretative rule, in which it announced the
applicability dates for each amendment to the Act,
except for amendments contained in section 771(7)
of the Act, which relate to determinations of
material injury by the ITC. See Dates of Application
of Amendments to the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade
Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793
(August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). The
amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782
of the Act are applicable to all determinations made
on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to
this AD investigation. See id at 46794–95. The 2015
amendments may be found at https://
www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/
1295/text/pl.
27 In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade
Preferences Extension Act of 2015, amending
section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for this investigation,
the Department will request information necessary
to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether
there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that sales of the foreign like product have been
made at prices that represent less than the COP of
the product. The Department no longer requires a
COP allegation to conduct this analysis.
28 See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Id. at Attachment V.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19555
Petitioner, conservatively, set financial
expenses to zero.34
Because certain home market prices
fell below COP, pursuant to sections
773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act,
as noted above, Petitioner also
calculated NVs based on CV.35 Pursuant
to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists
of the COM, SG&A, financial expenses,
packing expenses, and profit. Petitioner
calculated CV using the same average
COM and SG&A expenses used to
calculate COP.36 Petitioner relied on the
financial statements of the same
producer that Petitioner used for
calculating the SG&A rate to calculate
the profit rate.37 We adjusted
Petitioner’s calculated profit rate to
exclude the investment and expenses
items we excluded from SG&A.38
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by
Petitioner, there is reason to believe that
imports of phosphor copper from Korea
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less-than-fair value.
Based on comparisons of export price
(EP) to NV in accordance with sections
772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated
dumping margin(s) for phosphor copper
for Korea ranges from 12.55 to 66.54
percent.39
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigation
Based upon the examination of the
AD Petition on phosphor copper from
Korea, we find that the Petition meets
the requirements of section 732 of the
Act. Therefore, we are initiating a lessthan-fair-value investigation to
determine whether imports of phosphor
copper from Korea 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
determination no later than 140 days
after the date of this initiation.
Respondent Selection
The Department normally relies on
import data from Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to select a limited
number of producers/exporters for
individual examination in market
economy AD investigations where the
number of exporters/producers is
determined to be large. In this case the
34 See
Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 See
Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
38 Id.
39 See Petition Supplement 1 at Exhibit SQ–II–5.
See also Korea AD Initiation Checklist at
attachment 5.
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
19556
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Notices
Petitioner identified only one company
as a producer/exporter of phosphor
copper in Korea, Bongsan Co., Ltd.
(Bongsan).40 Petitioner supports its
claim with information from Bongsan’s
corporate Web site, where Bongsan
describes itself as the ‘‘exclusive firm in
Korea’ that has challenged copper
master alloy production.’’ 41
Furthermore, we know of no additional
producers/exporters of merchandise
under consideration from Korea.
Therefore, consistent with our past
practice, the Department intends to
examine all known producers/exporters
in this investigation, i.e., Bongsan.42
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. EST by the
date noted above.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version
of the Petition have been provided to
the government of Korea via ACCESS.
To the extent practicable, we will
attempt to provide a copy of the public
version of the Petition to the exporter
named in the Petition, as provided
under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petition was filed, whether there is
a reasonable indication that imports of
phosphor copper from Korea are
materially injuring or threatening
material injury to a U.S. industry.43 A
negative ITC determination will result
in the investigation being terminated; 44
otherwise, the investigation will
proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
40 See
Volume I of the Petition at 6–7 and Exhibit
I–8.
41 See
Volume II of the Petition at 2 and Exhibit
II–2.
42 See, e.g., Certain Uncoated Paper from
Australia, Brazil, the People’s Republic of China,
Indonesia, and Portugal: Initiation of Less-ThanFair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 8614 (February 18,
2015).
43 See section 733(a) of the Act.
44 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
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). Any party, when
submitting factual information, must
specify under which subsection of 19
CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is
being submitted 45 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.46 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 this investigation.
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
time limit established under 19 CFR
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 19 CFR 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. ET
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-201309-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to
45 See
46 See
PO 00000
19 CFR 351.301(b).
19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
submitting factual information in this
investigation.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.47
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.48 The
Department intends to reject factual
submissions if the submitting party does
not comply with applicable revised
certification requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order (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 this investigation 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: March 29, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is master alloys 49 of copper
containing between five percent and 17
percent phosphorus by nominal weight,
regardless of form (including but not limited
to shot, pellet, waffle, ingot, or nugget), and
regardless of size or weight. Subject
merchandise consists predominantly of
copper (by weight), and may contain other
elements, including but not limited to iron
47 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration during Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
49 A ‘‘master alloy’’ is a base metal, such as
copper, to which a relatively high percentage of one
or two other elements is added.
48 See
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Notices
(Fe), lead (Pb), or tin (Sn), in small amounts
(up to one percent by nominal weight).
Phosphor copper is frequently produced to
JIS H2501 and ASTM B–644, Alloy 3A
standards or higher; however, merchandise
covered by this investigation includes all
phosphor copper, regardless of whether the
merchandise meets, fails to meet, or exceeds
these standards.
Merchandise covered by this investigation
is currently classified in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
under subheading 7405.00.1000. This HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience and
customs purposes; the written description of
the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The
mailbox address for providing email
comments is itp.fiorentino@noaa.gov.
Comments sent via email, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. NMFS is not
responsible for comments sent to
addresses other than those provided
here.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/ without change. All Personal
Identifying Information (for example,
name, address, etc.) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
Confidential Business Information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
RIN 0648–XE435
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[FR Doc. 2016–07801 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Site
Characterization Surveys Off the Coast
of Massachusetts
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received an
application from DONG Energy
Massachusetts (U.S.) LLC (DONG
Energy) for an Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) to take marine
mammals, by harassment, incidental to
high-resolution geophysical (HRG) and
geotechnical survey investigations
associated with marine site
characterization activities off the coast
of Massachusetts in the area of the
Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands
for Renewable Energy Development on
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS–A
0500) (the Lease Area). Pursuant to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments
on its proposal to issue an IHA to DONG
Energy to incidentally take, by Level B
harassment only, small numbers of
marine mammals during the specified
activities.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than May 5, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments on DONG
Energy’s IHA application (the
application) should be addressed to
Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
John
Fiorentino, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
An electronic copy of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a
list of the references cited in this
document, may be obtained by visiting
the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please call
the contact listed above.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
The Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to
evaluate the issuance of wind energy
leases covering the entirety of the
Massachusetts Wind Energy Area
(including the OCS–A 0500 Lease Area),
and the approval of site assessment
activities within those leases (BOEM,
2014). NMFS intends to adopt BOEM’s
EA, if adequate and appropriate.
Currently, we believe that the adoption
of BOEM’s EA will allow NMFS to meet
its responsibilities under NEPA for the
issuance of an IHA to DONG Energy for
HRG and geotechnical survey
investigations in the Lease Area. If
necessary, however, NMFS will
supplement the existing analysis to
ensure that we comply with NEPA prior
to the issuance of the final IHA.
Comments on this proposed IHA will be
considered in the development of any
additional NEPA analysis or documents
(i.e., NMFS’ own EA) should they be
deemed necessary. BOEM’s EA is
available on the internet at: https://
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19557
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/energy_other.htm.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock(s), will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible
methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an
impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely
to, adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.’’
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, the MMPA
defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering [Level B
harassment].
Summary of Request
On December 4, 2015, NMFS received
an application from DONG Energy for
the taking of marine mammals
incidental to Spring 2016 geophysical
survey investigations off the coast of
Massachusetts in the OCS–A 0500 Lease
Area, designated and offered by the U.S.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM), to support the development of
an offshore wind project. NMFS
determined that the application was
adequate and complete on January 27,
2016. On January 20, 2016, DONG
Energy submitted a separate request for
the taking of marine mammals
incidental to proposed geotechnical
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19552-19557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07801]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-885]
Phosphor Copper From the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Less-
Than-Fair-Value Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
[[Page 19553]]
DATES: Effective Date: March 29, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Robinson or Eric Greynolds, at
(202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-6071, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On March 9, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of
phosphor copper from the Republic of Korea (Korea), filed in proper
form on behalf of Metallurgical Products Company (Metallurgical)
(Petitioner).\1\ Petitioner is a domestic producer of phosphor
copper.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Imports of Phosphor Copper from the Republic of Korea, dated March
9, 2016 (the Petition).
\2\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 14 and 18, 2016, the Department requested additional
information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.\3\
Petitioner filed responses on March 16, 21, and 22, 2016.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled ``Re:
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Phosphor Copper from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions''
dated March 14, 2016 and Memorandum to the File, ``Phone Call with
Counsel to Petitioner,'' dated March 18, 2016.
\4\ See letter from Petitioner entitled ``Phosphor Copper from
the Republic of Korea: Response to the Department's Supplemental
Questions,'' dated March 16, 2016 (Petition Supplement 1); see also
``Phosphor Copper from the Republic of Korea: Response to the
Department's Supplemental Questions,'' dated March 21, 2016
(Petition Supplement 2); and ``Phosphor Copper from the Republic of
Korea: Supplemental Submission Regarding Scope and Domestic Like
Product,'' dated March 22, 2016 (Scope Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of phosphor copper
from Korea 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 Petition is accompanied by
information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its
allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed this Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that
Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the
initiation of the AD investigation that Petitioner is requesting.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petition'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on March 9, 2016, the period of
investigation (POI) is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), January 1,
2015, through December 31, 2015.
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is phosphor copper from
Korea. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see
the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions
to, and received responses from, the Petitioner pertaining to the
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Petition Supplement 1 and 2 and Scope Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\7\ we
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all
comments received from parties and, if necessary, will 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.
In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, April 18, 2016, which is 20
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal
comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00
p.m. ET on Thursday, April 28, 2016, which is 10 calendar days after
the initial comments deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department requests that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during
this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and
request permission to submit the additional information.
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 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); see
also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic
Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of
Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) 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 phosphor copper 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 phosphor copper, it may be that only a select few product
characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical
characteristics. In addition,
[[Page 19554]]
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 April 18, 2016, which is twenty calendar days
from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be
filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on April 25, 2016. All comments and submissions
to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as
explained above, on the record of this Korea less-than-fair-value
investigation.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
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
Petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer
a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of
the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted
on the record, we have determined that phosphor copper, as defined in
the scope, 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:
Phosphor Copper from the Republic of Korea (Korea AD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the
Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Phosphor Copper from the Republic
of Korea (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with
this notice and is 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 Petitioner has standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this
notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its
production of the domestic like product in 2015, as well as estimated
total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry.\12\ We relied on data in the Petition for purposes of
measuring industry support.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 2-3, and at Exhibit I-3.
\13\ Id. For a further discussion, see Korea AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other
information readily available to the Department indicates that
Petitioner has established industry support.\14\ First, the Petition
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).\15\
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 the Petition because the domestic producers (or workers) who
support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product.\16\ Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry
support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic
producers (or workers) who support the Petition 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 Petition.\17\ Accordingly, the Department determines that the
Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\15\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Korea AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\16\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is
requesting the Department initiate.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioner alleges 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, Petitioner alleges
that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 7-8 and at Exhibit I-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19555]]
Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price suppression
or depression, lost sales and revenues, and impacts on production,
capacity utilization, commercial shipments, and financial
performance.\20\ 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 7-8, 12-25 and at Exhibits
I-9 and I-11 through I-17.
\21\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Phosphor Copper
from the Republic of Korea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegation of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less-
than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate the investigation of imports of phosphor copper from Korea.
The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S.
price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the initiation
checklist.
Export Price
Petitioner based U.S. prices on a 2015 Korean producer's price
offerings to its customers in the United States for phosphor copper
produced in, and exported from, Korea during the POI.\22\ Where
applicable, Petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for movement
expenses consistent with the delivery terms, including foreign and U.S.
inland freight, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling fees, ocean
freight, marine insurance, and U.S. harbor maintenance fees and
merchandise processing fees.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of
the Petition, at 3 and Exhibit II-3.
\23\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Petitioner provided home market price information based on sales,
or offers for sale, in Korea of merchandise identical or similar to the
product being imported into the United States during the POI.\24\
Petitioner made certain adjustments to the price quotes, including
deductions for inland freight charges (where applicable).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 9-10 and Exhibit II-3;
see also Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
\25\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner provided information indicating that sales of phosphor
copper in Korea were made at prices below the cost of production (COP)
and, as a result, also calculated NV based on constructed value
(CV).\26\ For further discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see
below.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed
into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made
numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law. See Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). The
2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments.
On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule,
in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to
the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the
Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.
See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act
of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). The
amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are
applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015,
and, therefore, apply to this AD investigation. See id at 46794-95.
The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
\27\ In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for
this investigation, the Department will request information
necessary to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether there are
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign
like product have been made at prices that represent less than the
COP of the product. The Department no longer requires a COP
allegation to conduct this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
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. Petitioner calculated COM based on a U.S. producer's
experience during the proposed POI.\28\ Using publicly-available data
to value copper and U.S. price data for phosphorus, Petitioner
multiplied the usage quantities by the submitted value of the inputs
used to manufacture phosphor copper in Korea.\29\ Petitioner derived
labor and electricity rates from publicly available sources multiplied
by the product-specific usage rates.\30\ Petitioner relied on a U.S.
producer's experience to determine factory overhead.\31\ Petitioner
relied on the financial statements of Bongsan Co., Ltd. (Bongsan), a
Korean producer of identical merchandise, to determine the SG&A
rate.\32\ We revised the SG&A rate to exclude income and expenses
related to investments.\33\ Because Bongsan's financial statements show
that financial income exceeded financial expenses, Petitioner,
conservatively, set financial expenses to zero.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id.
\31\ Id.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Id. at Attachment V.
\34\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because certain home market prices fell below COP, pursuant to
sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above,
Petitioner also calculated NVs based on CV.\35\ Pursuant to section
773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A, financial expenses,
packing expenses, and profit. Petitioner calculated CV using the same
average COM and SG&A expenses used to calculate COP.\36\ Petitioner
relied on the financial statements of the same producer that Petitioner
used for calculating the SG&A rate to calculate the profit rate.\37\ We
adjusted Petitioner's calculated profit rate to exclude the investment
and expenses items we excluded from SG&A.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id.
\36\ Id.
\37\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of phosphor copper from Korea are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based
on comparisons of export price (EP) to NV in accordance with sections
772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margin(s) for phosphor
copper for Korea ranges from 12.55 to 66.54 percent.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Petition Supplement 1 at Exhibit SQ-II-5. See also
Korea AD Initiation Checklist at attachment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation
Based upon the examination of the AD Petition on phosphor copper
from Korea, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section
732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a less-than-fair-value
investigation to determine whether imports of phosphor copper from
Korea 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 determination no later than 140 days after the date of this
initiation.
Respondent Selection
The Department normally relies on import data from Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to select a limited number of producers/
exporters for individual examination in market economy AD
investigations where the number of exporters/producers is determined to
be large. In this case the
[[Page 19556]]
Petitioner identified only one company as a producer/exporter of
phosphor copper in Korea, Bongsan Co., Ltd. (Bongsan).\40\ Petitioner
supports its claim with information from Bongsan's corporate Web site,
where Bongsan describes itself as the ``exclusive firm in Korea' that
has challenged copper master alloy production.'' \41\ Furthermore, we
know of no additional producers/exporters of merchandise under
consideration from Korea. Therefore, consistent with our past practice,
the Department intends to examine all known producers/exporters in this
investigation, i.e., Bongsan.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Volume I of the Petition at 6-7 and Exhibit I-8.
\41\ See Volume II of the Petition at 2 and Exhibit II-2.
\42\ See, e.g., Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil,
the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: Initiation
of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 8614 (February 18,
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. EST by the date noted above.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been
provided to the government of Korea via ACCESS. To the extent
practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of
the Petition to the exporter named in the Petition, as provided under
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of phosphor copper from Korea are materially
injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.\43\ A
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being
terminated; \44\ otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
\44\ 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). Any party, when submitting
factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted \45\ 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.\46\ 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 this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\46\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 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 19 CFR 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. ET 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 investigation.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\47\
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.\48\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\48\ 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
administrative protective order (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 this investigation 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: March 29, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is master alloys
\49\ of copper containing between five percent and 17 percent
phosphorus by nominal weight, regardless of form (including but not
limited to shot, pellet, waffle, ingot, or nugget), and regardless
of size or weight. Subject merchandise consists predominantly of
copper (by weight), and may contain other elements, including but
not limited to iron
[[Page 19557]]
(Fe), lead (Pb), or tin (Sn), in small amounts (up to one percent by
nominal weight). Phosphor copper is frequently produced to JIS H2501
and ASTM B-644, Alloy 3A standards or higher; however, merchandise
covered by this investigation includes all phosphor copper,
regardless of whether the merchandise meets, fails to meet, or
exceeds these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ A ``master alloy'' is a base metal, such as copper, to
which a relatively high percentage of one or two other elements is
added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merchandise covered by this investigation is currently
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) under subheading 7405.00.1000. This HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written
description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2016-07801 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
