Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Final Affirmative Determination and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances, in Part, 35326-35329 [2016-12971]

Download as PDF 35326 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2016 / Notices purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2016–12967 Filed 6–1–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–475–833] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Final Affirmative Determination and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances, in Part Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (‘‘corrosion-resistant steel’’) from Italy as provided in section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section of this notice. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. DATES: Effective Date: June 2, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Palmer, Irene Gorelik, and Katie Marksberry, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202.482.9068, 202.482.6905, and 202.482.7906, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES The Department published the Preliminary Determination on November 6, 2015,1 published the Preliminary Critical Circumstances on November 5, 2015,2 and placed the PostPreliminary Analysis on the record of this investigation on April 13, 2016.3 A 1 See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, 80 FR 68839 (November 6, 2015) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (‘‘Prelim Decision Memo’’). 2 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 68504 (November 5, 2015) (‘‘Preliminary Critical Circumstances’’). 3 See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, re: ‘‘Post-Preliminary Analysis of Countervailing Duty VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 238001 summary of the events that occurred since the post-preliminary analysis, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memo.4 The Issues and Decision Memo is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://trade.gov/enforcement. The signed Issues and Decision Memo and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memo are identical in content. As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final determination is now May 24, 2016.5 Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are corrosion-resistant steel products from Italy. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix II. Scope Comments In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,6 the Department Investigation: Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel from Italy,’’ dated April 13, 2016 (‘‘Post-Preliminary Analysis’’). 4 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel from Italy,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Issues and Decision Memo’’). 5 See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,’’ dated January 27, 2016. 6 See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People’s Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated December 21, 2015 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of this final determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.7 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice. Methodology The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.8 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memo. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memo. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memo, is attached to this notice at Appendix I. Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department shall apply ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if: (1) Necessary information is not on the record; or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a (‘‘Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum’’). See also Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Certain CorrosionResistant Steel Products From the People’s Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Correction to Preliminary Determination Scope Memorandum,’’ dated January 29, 2016. 7 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,’’ dated concurrently with this notice. 8 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM 02JNN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2016 / Notices proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. In this case, the Department twice requested information with respect to the Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92, Technological Innovation Grants and Loans Under Law 46/82, Certain Social Security Reductions and Exemptions (‘‘Sgravi’’ Benefits), and Equalization Fund from the Government of Italy. The Government of Italy withheld necessary information with respect to each of these programs, failed to provide information in the form and manner requested, and did not provide requested information by the deadlines for submission of the information, as explained in more detail in the Prelim Decision Memo and the Issues and Decisions Memo. Furthermore, the Department has concluded that the Government of Italy did not cooperate to the best of its ability in providing the requested information. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, we have determined that for each of these programs, the application of adverse facts available is warranted. For the Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92 and Technological Innovation Grants and Loans Under Law 46/82, and Equalization Fund programs, we have determined as adverse facts available that these programs are de facto specific, in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. For the Sgravi Benefits, we have determined that the reduced tax revenue due to the Government of Italy under these provisions constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act as revenue forgone. We have also determined that the revenue forgone under the Sgravi Benefits, is either de facto specific, in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(ii) of the Act, or regionally specific, in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. More specifically, we find that Laws 53/2000 and 167/2011 are de facto specific accordance with 771(5A)(iii) of the Act, and that Law 223/91 is regionally VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 238001 specific, in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iv).9 In addition, one company selected as a mandatory respondent, Ilva S.p.A. (‘‘Ilva’’), did not respond to the Department’s questionnaires or participate in the investigation. Accordingly, as adverse facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b), we have determined that Ilva benefitted from certain countervailable programs during the POI and calculated a rate for Ilva based on those programs.10 For further information, see the section ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences’’ in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memo. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to Ilva’s subsidy rate calculations since the Preliminary Determination. Additionally we have modified our analysis of the Equalization Fund and now determine that an adverse inference is warranted in determining whether the program is specific. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memo. Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part On July 23, 2015, Petitioners 11 filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Italy.12 We preliminarily determined that critical circumstances did not exist for Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A. (‘‘Arvedi’’), Marcegaglia S.p.A. (‘‘Marcegaglia’’), and the all-others companies, but did exist for Ilva. That determination remains unchanged and a discussion of our final critical circumstances determination can be found in the Issues and Decision Memo 9 See Prelim Decision Memo. sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. 11 United States Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics Inc., California Steel Industries, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, and AK Steel Corporation (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 12 See Letter from Petitioners, ‘‘CorrosionResistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Critical Circumstances Allegations,’’ July 23, 2015. 10 See PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 35327 at the section, ‘‘Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part.’’ Final Determination In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual rate for each producer/ exporter of the subject merchandise individually investigated. In accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, we apply an ‘‘all-others’’ rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as mandatory respondents by those companies’ exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(i) of the Act, the allothers rate excludes zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated as well as rates based entirely on facts otherwise available. Where the rates for the individually investigated companies are all zero or de minimis, or determined entirely using facts otherwise available, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act instructs the Department to establish an all-others rate using ‘‘any reasonable method.’’ Where the countervailable subsidy rates for all of the individually investigated respondents are zero or de minimis or are based on AFA, the Department’s practice, pursuant to 705(c)(5)(A)(ii), is to calculate the all others rate based on a simple average of the zero or de minimis margins and the margins based on AFA. Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not calculated the ‘‘all-others’’ rate by weight averaging the rates of the two individually investigated respondents and the rate based on AFA, because Ilva failed to report volume data that would enable the Department to determine the all-others rate based on a weightedaverage. Therefore, and consistent with the Department’s practice, for the ‘‘allothers’’ rate, we calculated a simple average of the two responding firms’ de minimis rates and the AFA rate for the non-responsive company.13 13 See, e.g., Countervailing Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Determination, 79 FR 10097 (February 24, 2014); see also, Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From Taiwan: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 79 FR 61602 (October 14, 2014) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo at VIII. Calculation of the All Others Rate. E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM 02JNN1 35328 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2016 / Notices Subsidy rate (percent) Exporter/producer Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A., Finarvedi S.p.A., Arvedi Tubi Acciaio S.p.A., Euro-Trade S.p.A., and Siderurgica Triestina Srl., collectively, the Arvedi Group. Marcegaglia S.p.A. and Marfin S.p.A., the Marcegaglia Group .............................................................................................. Ilva S.p.A ................................................................................................................................................................................. All Others ................................................................................................................................................................................. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to suspend liquidation of appropriate entries of merchandise under consideration from Italy 14 that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on November 6, 2015, or after August 7, 2015 (for those entities for which we found critical circumstances exist), which is 90 days before the publication date in the Federal Register of the Preliminary Determination. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after March 5, 2016, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from August 7, 2015 or November 6, 2015, as relevant, through March 4, 2016. If the U.S. International Trade Commission (the ‘‘ITC’’) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above, other than those produced and/ or exported by Arvedi and Marcegaglia because those companies rates are de minimis. Because Arvedi and Marcegaglia were found to receive de minimis subsidies, they would be excluded from the CVD order. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are 14 Other than entries produced and/or exported by Arvedi and Marcegaglia for which we calculated de minimis rates in the Preliminary Determination. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 238001 making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition 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 subject to sanction. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: May 24, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part IV. Scope of the Investigation V. List of Issues VI. Subsidies Valuation VII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VIII. Analysis of Programs IX. Calculation of the All-Others Rate X. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether White Certificates Are Countervailable Comment 2: Whether the Program To Purchase Ferriera Di Servola Is Not Countervailable or Not Used During the POI Comment 3: Whether To Include Countervailable Programs From the PostPreliminary Memo in Ilva’s AFA Rate PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 0.48 (de minimis). 0.07 (de minimis). 38.51 13.02 XI. Recommendation Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosionresistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’ (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above: (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular crosssection, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies. Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM 02JNN1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2016 / Notices • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium. For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (‘‘IF’’)) steels and high strength low alloy (‘‘HSLA’’) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (‘‘AHSS’’) and Ultra High Strength Steels (‘‘UHSS’’), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels. Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/ or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation: • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tin free steel’’), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating; • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosionresistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 238001 item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2016–12971 Filed 6–1–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–863] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (‘‘corrosion-resistant steel’’) from India is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ section of this notice. AGENCY: DATES: Effective Date: June 2, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kabir Archuletta or Ryan Mullen, AD/ CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2593 or (202) 482– 5260, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 4, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) investigation.1 The following 1 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 63 (January 4, 2016) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 35329 events occurred since the Preliminary Determination was issued. In April 2016, the Department received revised databases from JSW 2 and Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. (‘‘Uttam Galva’’), the mandatory respondents in this investigation. Additionally, in April 2016, Petitioners,3 JSW, and Uttam Galva submitted case briefs 4 and rebuttal briefs.5 A hearing was held on May 4, 2016. Also, as explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its authority to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government.6 As a consequence, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final results is now May 24, 2016. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is corrosion-resistant steel from the India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this notice. Scope Comments In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,7 the Department 2 We refer to JSW Steel Ltd. (‘‘JSWSL’’) and its wholly-owned affiliate JSW Steel Coated Products Limited (‘‘JSCPL’’) collectively as ‘‘JSW.’’ 3 Petitioners are United States Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA, AK Steel Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and California Steel Industries, Inc. 4 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners, ‘‘Case Brief of Petitioners’’ (April 18, 2016); Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from JSW, ‘‘JSW’s Resubmitted Case Brief’’ (April 21, 2016); and Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Uttam Galva, ‘‘Uttam Galva Steels Limited’s Case Brief’’ (April 19, 2016). 5 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners, ‘‘Petitioners’ Rebuttal Brief’’ (April 25, 2016); Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from JSW, ‘‘JSW’s Rebuttal Brief’’ (April 25, 2016); and Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Uttam Galva, ‘‘Uttam Galva Steels Limited’s Rebuttal Brief’’ (April 25, 2016) . 6 See Memorandum to the File from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas’’ dated January 27, 2016. 7 See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People’s Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,’’ dated December 21, 2015 (‘‘Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum’’). See also Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Certain CorrosionResistant Steel Products From the People’s Republic E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM Continued 02JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35326-35329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12971]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-475-833]


Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel Products From Italy: Final Affirmative Determination and Final 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, in Part

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') determines 
that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and 
exporters of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (``corrosion-
resistant steel'') from Italy as provided in section 705 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''). For information on the estimated 
subsidy rates, see the ``Final Determination'' section of this notice. 
The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 
2014.

DATES: Effective Date: June 2, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Palmer, Irene Gorelik, and Katie 
Marksberry, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
202.482.9068, 202.482.6905, and 202.482.7906, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Determination on November 
6, 2015,\1\ published the Preliminary Critical Circumstances on 
November 5, 2015,\2\ and placed the Post-Preliminary Analysis on the 
record of this investigation on April 13, 2016.\3\ A summary of the 
events that occurred since the post-preliminary analysis, as well as a 
full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final 
determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memo.\4\ The 
Issues and Decision Memo is a public document and is on file 
electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``ACCESS''). 
ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and 
is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of 
the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete 
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly 
at https://trade.gov/enforcement. The signed Issues and Decision Memo 
and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memo are 
identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Preliminary Affirmative 
Determination, 80 FR 68839 (November 6, 2015) (``Preliminary 
Determination'') and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum 
(``Prelim Decision Memo'').
    \2\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of 
Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's 
Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary 
Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 68504 (November 5, 
2015) (``Preliminary Critical Circumstances'').
    \3\ See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance, re: ``Post-Preliminary Analysis of 
Countervailing Duty Investigation: Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel 
from Italy,'' dated April 13, 2016 (``Post-Preliminary Analysis'').
    \4\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, 
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative 
Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain 
Corrosion Resistant Steel from Italy,'' dated concurrently with this 
notice (``Issues and Decision Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary 
for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its 
discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the closure of 
the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding 
have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the 
final determination is now May 24, 2016.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding 
``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government 
Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,'' dated January 27, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are corrosion-resistant 
steel products from Italy. For a complete description of the scope of 
this investigation, see Appendix II.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,\6\ the 
Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope 
issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 
``Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's 
Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: 
Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Determinations,'' dated December 21, 2015 (``Preliminary Scope 
Decision Memorandum''). See also Memorandum to the File, ``Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of 
China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Correction 
to Preliminary Determination Scope Memorandum,'' dated January 29, 
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal 
responses submitted to the record of this final determination, and 
accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, 
see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.\7\ The Final Scope Decision 
Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 
``Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,'' 
dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methodology

    The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (``CVD'') 
investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of 
the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is 
a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ``authority'' that 
gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is 
specific.\8\ For a full description of the methodology underlying our 
conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding 
financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding 
benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in 
the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are 
discussed in the Issues and Decision Memo. A list of the issues that 
parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision 
Memo, is attached to this notice at Appendix I.

Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, subject to section 782(d) 
of the Act, the Department shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' 
if: (1) Necessary information is not on the record; or (2) an 
interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has 
been requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines 
established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, 
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) 
significantly impedes a

[[Page 35327]]

proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as 
provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Furthermore, section 776(b) of 
the Act provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in 
applying the facts otherwise available when a party fails to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information.
    In this case, the Department twice requested information with 
respect to the Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92, 
Technological Innovation Grants and Loans Under Law 46/82, Certain 
Social Security Reductions and Exemptions (``Sgravi'' Benefits), and 
Equalization Fund from the Government of Italy. The Government of Italy 
withheld necessary information with respect to each of these programs, 
failed to provide information in the form and manner requested, and did 
not provide requested information by the deadlines for submission of 
the information, as explained in more detail in the Prelim Decision 
Memo and the Issues and Decisions Memo. Furthermore, the Department has 
concluded that the Government of Italy did not cooperate to the best of 
its ability in providing the requested information. Accordingly, 
pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, we have determined that 
for each of these programs, the application of adverse facts available 
is warranted. For the Industrial Development Grants Under Law 488/92 
and Technological Innovation Grants and Loans Under Law 46/82, and 
Equalization Fund programs, we have determined as adverse facts 
available that these programs are de facto specific, in accordance with 
section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. For the Sgravi Benefits, we have 
determined that the reduced tax revenue due to the Government of Italy 
under these provisions constitutes a financial contribution within the 
meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act as revenue forgone. We have 
also determined that the revenue forgone under the Sgravi Benefits, is 
either de facto specific, in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(ii) of 
the Act, or regionally specific, in accordance with section 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. More specifically, we find that Laws 53/2000 
and 167/2011 are de facto specific accordance with 771(5A)(iii) of the 
Act, and that Law 223/91 is regionally specific, in accordance with 
section 771(5A)(D)(iv).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Prelim Decision Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, one company selected as a mandatory respondent, Ilva 
S.p.A. (``Ilva''), did not respond to the Department's questionnaires 
or participate in the investigation. Accordingly, as adverse facts 
available, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b), we have determined that 
Ilva benefitted from certain countervailable programs during the POI 
and calculated a rate for Ilva based on those programs.\10\ For further 
information, see the section ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 
Adverse Inferences'' in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from 
parties, we made certain changes to Ilva's subsidy rate calculations 
since the Preliminary Determination. Additionally we have modified our 
analysis of the Equalization Fund and now determine that an adverse 
inference is warranted in determining whether the program is specific. 
For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memo.

Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    On July 23, 2015, Petitioners \11\ filed a timely critical 
circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Italy.\12\ We 
preliminarily determined that critical circumstances did not exist for 
Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A. (``Arvedi''), Marcegaglia S.p.A. 
(``Marcegaglia''), and the all-others companies, but did exist for 
Ilva. That determination remains unchanged and a discussion of our 
final critical circumstances determination can be found in the Issues 
and Decision Memo at the section, ``Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, In Part.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ United States Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel 
Dynamics Inc., California Steel Industries, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, 
and AK Steel Corporation (collectively, ``Petitioners'').
    \12\ See Letter from Petitioners, ``Corrosion-Resistant Steel 
Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the 
Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Critical Circumstances Allegations,'' 
July 23, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 
calculated an individual rate for each producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise individually investigated. In accordance with section 
705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, for companies not individually 
investigated, we apply an ``all-others'' rate, which is normally 
calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies 
selected as mandatory respondents by those companies' exports of the 
subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(i) of 
the Act, the all-others rate excludes zero and de minimis rates 
calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated as 
well as rates based entirely on facts otherwise available. Where the 
rates for the individually investigated companies are all zero or de 
minimis, or determined entirely using facts otherwise available, 
section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act instructs the Department to 
establish an all-others rate using ``any reasonable method.'' Where the 
countervailable subsidy rates for all of the individually investigated 
respondents are zero or de minimis or are based on AFA, the 
Department's practice, pursuant to 705(c)(5)(A)(ii), is to calculate 
the all others rate based on a simple average of the zero or de minimis 
margins and the margins based on AFA. Notwithstanding the language of 
section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not calculated the ``all-
others'' rate by weight averaging the rates of the two individually 
investigated respondents and the rate based on AFA, because Ilva failed 
to report volume data that would enable the Department to determine the 
all-others rate based on a weighted-average. Therefore, and consistent 
with the Department's practice, for the ``all-others'' rate, we 
calculated a simple average of the two responding firms' de minimis 
rates and the AFA rate for the non-responsive company.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Countervailing Duty Investigation of Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final 
Antidumping Determination, 79 FR 10097 (February 24, 2014); see 
also, Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From Taiwan: Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination, 79 FR 61602 (October 14, 2014) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo at VIII. Calculation of 
the All Others Rate.

[[Page 35328]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Exporter/producer                 Subsidy rate (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A., Finarvedi         0.48 (de minimis).
 S.p.A., Arvedi Tubi Acciaio S.p.A., Euro-
 Trade S.p.A., and Siderurgica Triestina
 Srl., collectively, the Arvedi Group.
Marcegaglia S.p.A. and Marfin S.p.A., the   0.07 (de minimis).
 Marcegaglia Group.
Ilva S.p.A................................  38.51
All Others................................  13.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to 
section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of appropriate entries of 
merchandise under consideration from Italy \14\ that were entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on November 6, 2015, or 
after August 7, 2015 (for those entities for which we found critical 
circumstances exist), which is 90 days before the publication date in 
the Federal Register of the Preliminary Determination. In accordance 
with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to 
discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after March 5, 
2016, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from 
August 7, 2015 or November 6, 2015, as relevant, through March 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Other than entries produced and/or exported by Arvedi and 
Marcegaglia for which we calculated de minimis rates in the 
Preliminary Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (the ``ITC'') issues a 
final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and 
will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of 
the Act and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such 
entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above, other 
than those produced and/or exported by Arvedi and Marcegaglia because 
those companies rates are de minimis. Because Arvedi and Marcegaglia 
were found to receive de minimis subsidies, they would be excluded from 
the CVD order. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of 
material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and 
all estimated duties deposited as a result of the suspension of 
liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent 
of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, 
this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an 
APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition 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 subject to sanction.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: May 24, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I--List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum

I. Summary
II. Background
III. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part
IV. Scope of the Investigation
V. List of Issues
VI. Subsidies Valuation
VII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
VIII. Analysis of Programs
IX. Calculation of the All-Others Rate
X. Analysis of Comments
    Comment 1: Whether White Certificates Are Countervailable
    Comment 2: Whether the Program To Purchase Ferriera Di Servola 
Is Not Countervailable or Not Used During the POI
    Comment 3: Whether To Include Countervailable Programs From the 
Post-Preliminary Memo in Ilva's AFA Rate
XI. Recommendation

Appendix II--Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-
rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with 
corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, 
aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated 
or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other 
non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The 
products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or 
greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively 
superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products 
covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight 
lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 
mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The 
products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in 
straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width 
exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The 
products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or 
other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-
rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved 
subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been 
``worked after rolling'' (e.g., products which have been beveled or 
rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness 
requirements referenced above:
    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is 
within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual 
measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions 
set forth above, and
    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product 
(e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-
section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, 
etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.
    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are 
products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of 
the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or 
less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds 
the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

 2.50 percent of manganese, or
 3.30 percent of silicon, or
 1.50 percent of copper, or
 1.50 percent of aluminum, or
 1.25 percent of chromium, or
 0.30 percent of cobalt, or
 0.40 percent of lead, or
 2.00 percent of nickel, or
 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or

[[Page 35329]]

 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or
 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or
 0.30 percent of vanadium, or
 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this 
scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum 
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-
free (``IF'')) steels and high strength low alloy (``HSLA'') steels. 
IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying 
levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to 
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized 
as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, 
copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength 
Steels (``AHSS'') and Ultra High Strength Steels (``UHSS''), both of 
which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation 
steels.
    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that 
has been further processed in a third country, including but not 
limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, 
cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would 
not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the 
investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-
scope corrosion resistant steel.
    All products that meet the written physical description, and in 
which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted 
element levels listed above, are within the scope of this 
investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products 
are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this 
investigation:
     Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with 
tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (``terne 
plate''), or both chromium and chromium oxides (``tin free steel''), 
whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other 
non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;
     Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more 
in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and 
measures at least twice the thickness; and
     Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are 
three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less 
than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled 
steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-
20% ratio.
    The products subject to the investigation are currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 
7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 
7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 
7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 
7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.
    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under 
the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 
7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 
7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 
7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 
7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 
7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.
    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the 
investigation is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2016-12971 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.