Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 71705-71709 [2016-25178]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2016 / Notices
respect to the production and sale of the
subject merchandise, the new company
operates as the same business entity as
the prior company, the Department will
assign the new company the cash
deposit rate of its predecessor.8
In its August 26, 2016 submission,
Navigator provided documentation
demonstrating that Navigator is the
successor in interest to Portucel in that
no major changes occurred with respect
to management, production process,
customer base, or suppliers.9
According to the information
provided, no material changes in
management,10 operations,11 or
ownership 12 have occurred in the
businesses as a result of the name
change from Portucel to Navigator.
Navigator’s General Managers, Board of
Directors, and shareholders have not
materially changed from Portucel’s
following its name change.13 Navigator’s
production facilities and production of
subject merchandise remain the same as
Portucel.14 Navigator has maintained
Portucel’s business model as a vertically
integrated producer such that there are
no material changes in its suppliers.15
Navigator continues to export to the
same sole customer in the United States
as Portucel, thus there are no material
changes between Portucel’s and
Navigator’s customer bases.16
Should our final results remain the
same as these preliminary results,
effective the date of publication of the
final results, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to assign
entries of subject merchandise exported
by Navigator the antidumping duty
cash-deposit rate applicable to Portucel.
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
8 See,
e.g.,Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel
Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstance Review,
70 FR 17063, 17064 (April 4, 2005); Fresh and
Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final Results
of Changed Circumstances Administrative Review,
64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999).
9 See, generally, CCR Request.
10 Id. at Attachment 2 and 4 (showing any
changes in Board of Directors to be routine and
unrelated to the successor-in-interest claim).
11 Id. at Attachment 1, 6, and 7.
12 Id. at Attachment 8; see also Certain Pasta from
Turkey: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty
Changed Circumstances Review, 74 FR 47225
(September 15, 2009) (unchanged in final) (‘‘the
types of changes that we normally consider to be
significant {. . . does not include. . .} regular
buying and selling of publicly owned shares held
by a broad array of investors’’).
13 CCR Request at 3–4 and Attachments 2, 4, 6,
and 7.
14 Id. at Attachments 1, 6, and 7.
15 Id. at Attachment 9.
16 Id. at Attachment 10 (showing Navigator’s U.S.
affiliate’s customers for fiscal year 2015 and January
through July of 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:19 Oct 17, 2016
Jkt 241001
Case briefs or other written comments
may be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance no later than 14 days after
the date of publication of this notice,
and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues
raised in case briefs, may be submitted
no later than five days after the deadline
date for case briefs.17 Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties
who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs
in this proceeding are encouraged to
submit with each argument: (1) A
statement of the issue; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a
table of authorities.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c),
interested parties who wish to request a
hearing must submit a written request to
the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce. All documents must be filed
electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically-filed request must be
received successfully in its entirety by
ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time, within 14 days after the date of
publication of this notice.18 Requests
should contain the party’s name,
address, and telephone number, the
number of participants, and a list of the
issues to be discussed. If a request for
a hearing is made, the Department
intends to hold the hearing at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and
date to be determined.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e),
we will issue the final results of this
changed circumstances review no later
than 270 days after the date on which
this review was initiated or within 45
days of publication of these preliminary
results if all parties agree to our
preliminary finding.
We are issuing and publishing this
initiation and preliminary results notice
in accordance with sections 751(b)(1)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
Dated: October 7, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–25172 Filed 10–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
17 See
18 See
PO 00000
19 CFR 351.309.
19 CFR 351.310(c).
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
71705
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–489–830]
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From
the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of
Countervailing Duty Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective October 11, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kaitlin M. Wojnar at (202) 482–3857,
AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petition
On September 20, 2016, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) received a countervailing
duty (CVD) petition concerning imports
of steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar)
from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey),1
filed in proper form, on behalf of the
Rebar Trade Action Coalition and its
individual members (collectively,
Petitioners).2 The CVD petition was
accompanied by antidumping duty (AD)
petitions concerning imports of rebar
from Japan, Taiwan, and the Turkey.3
Petitioners are domestic producers of
rebar.
On September 22 and 23, 2016, the
Department requested additional
information and clarification of certain
aspects of the Petition.4 Petitioners
responded to these requests on between
September 27 and October 5, 2016.5
1 See Letter from Petitioners, ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan,
Taiwan, and the Republic of Turkey,’’ September
20, 2016 (Petition), at Volume V.
2 The Rebar Trade Action Coalition includes
Bayou Steel Group, Byer Steel Group, Inc.,
Commercial Metals Company, Gerdau Ameristeel
U.S. Inc., Nucor Corporation, and Steel Dynamics,
Inc. Id., Volume I at 1.
3 See Petition, Volumes II–IV.
4 See Letter from the Department, ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of
Turkey: Supplemental Questions,’’ September 22,
2016; see also Letter from the Department,
‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Turkey
and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of
Turkey: Supplemental Questions,’’ September 23,
2016 (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire).
5 See Letter from Petitioners, ‘‘Supplement to the
Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties
on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the
Republic of Turkey: Response to the Department’s
Continued
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
71706
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2016 / Notices
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), Petitioners allege that the
Government of Turkey (the GOT) is
providing countervailable subsidies,
within the meaning of sections 701 and
771(5) of the Act, to manufacturers,
producers, or exporters of rebar from
Turkey and that imports of such rebar
are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, an industry in the
United States. Additionally, consistent
with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the
Petition is accompanied by information
reasonably available to Petitioners
supporting their allegations of programs
in Turkey on which we are initiating a
CVD investigation.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because Petitioners
are interested parties, as defined by
section 771(9)(C) of the Act. As
discussed in the ‘‘Determination of
Industry Support for the Petition’’
section, below, the Department also
finds that Petitioners demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect
to initiation of the requested CVD
investigation.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is January
1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.6
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this
investigation is rebar from Turkey. For
a full description of the scope of this
investigation, see the Appendix to this
notice.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Comments on the Scope of the
Investigation
During our review of the Petition, the
Department issued questions to, and
received responses from, Petitioners
pertaining to the proposed scope to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petition accurately reflected the
products for which the domestic
Supplemental Questions,’’ September 27, 2016; see
also Letter from Petitioners, ‘‘Supplement to the
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties on Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of
Turkey: Response to the Department’s
Supplemental Questions,’’ September 28, 2016
(General Issues Supplement); Letter from
Petitioners, ‘‘Supplement to the Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from
Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Turkey:
Response to the Department’s Supplemental
Questions,’’ October 4, 2016 (Second General Issues
Supplement); Letter from Petitioners, ‘‘Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and
the Republic of Turkey: Revised Scope,
Amendment to the Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,’’ October
5, 2016.
6 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:19 Oct 17, 2016
Jkt 241001
industry is seeking relief.7 As a result of
those exchanges, the scope of the
Petition was modified to clarify the
description of merchandise covered by
the Petition. The class or kind of
merchandise covered by this initiation,
as described in the Appendix to this
notice, reflects that clarification.
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations,8 we are
setting aside a period of time for
interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).
The Department will consider all
comments received and, if necessary,
consult with parties prior to the
issuance of the preliminary
determinations. If scope comments
include factual information,9 all such
factual information should be limited to
public information. In order to facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests that all interested
parties submit scope comments by 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on October 31,
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 November 10, 2016,
which is 10 calendar days after the
deadline for initial comments.
The Department requests that any
factual information parties consider
relevant to the scope of the
investigations be submitted during this
time period. However, if a party
subsequently finds that additional
factual information pertaining to the
scope may be relevant, the party may
contact the Department and request
permission to submit the additional
information. All such comments and
information must be filed on the record
of this CVD investigation, as well as the
record of each of the concurrent AD
investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using
Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(ACCESS).10 An electronically-filed
7 See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire;
see also General Issues Supplement.
8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 2007).
9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).
10 See 19 CFR 351.303 (describing general filing
requirements); see also Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing
Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) (detailing
the Department’s electronic filing requirements,
which went into effect on August 5, 2011). Helpful
information on using ACCESS can be found at
https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and the ACCESS
handbook is available at https://access.trade.gov/
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
document must be successfully
received, in its entirety, by the date and
time it is due. Any document 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, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230, and
stamped with the date and time of
receipt by the applicable deadline.
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A) of the
Act, the Department notified
representatives of the GOT of its receipt
of the Petition and provided them with
the opportunity for consultations
regarding the CVD allegations.11 On
October 6, 2016, the Department held
consultations with the GOT.12 All letters
and memoranda pertaining to these
consultations are available via ACCESS.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (i) At least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and (ii) more than
50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) Poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method to poll the
‘‘industry.’’
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers, as a
whole, of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20
Filing%20Procedures.pdf.
11 See Letter from the Department, ‘‘Petition for
Countervailing Duties on Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bar from the Republic of Turkey,’’ September 21,
2016.
12 See Department Memorandum,
‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey,’’
October 6, 2016.
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2016 / Notices
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,13 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.14
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, Petitioners do 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 rebar,
as defined in the scope, constitutes a
single domestic like product, and we
have analyzed industry support in terms
of that domestic like product.15
In determining whether Petitioners
have standing under section
702(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 the
Appendix to this notice. To establish
industry support, Petitioners provided
13 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)).
15 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey (CVD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, ‘‘Analysis of
Industry Support for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and
the Republic of Turkey.’’ The CVD Initiation
Checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and
on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to
documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the
Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main
Department of Commerce building.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
14 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:19 Oct 17, 2016
Jkt 241001
their 2015 shipments of the domestic
like product, and compared their
shipments to estimated total shipments
of the domestic like product for the
entire domestic industry.16 Because
production data for the U.S. rebar
industry for 2015 is not reasonably
available to Petitioners, and Petitioners
have established that shipments are a
reasonable proxy for production data,17
we have relied upon the shipment data
provided by Petitioners for purposes of
measuring industry support.
Our review of the data provided in the
Petition, General Issues Supplement,
and other information readily available
to the Department indicates that
Petitioners have established industry
support.18 First, the Petition established
support from domestic producers and
workers accounting for more than 50
percent of the total shipments of the
domestic like product,19 and, as such,
the Department is not required to take
further action in order to evaluate
industry support (e.g., polling).20
Second, the domestic producers and
workers have met the statutory criteria
for industry support under section
702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the
domestic producers and workers who
support the Petition account for at least
25 percent of the total shipments of the
domestic like product.21 Finally, the
domestic producers and workers have
met the statutory criteria for industry
support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of
the Act because the domestic producers
and workers who support the Petition
account for more than 50 percent of the
shipments of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petition.22 Accordingly, the
Department determines that the Petition
was filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section
702(b)(1) of the Act.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because they are
interested parties, as defined in sections
771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act, and they
16 See Petition, Volume I at 3, Exhibit I–4, and
Exhibit I–31; see also General Issues Supplement at
3–6, Exhibit I–Supp–4, and Exhibit I–Supp–7.
17 See General Issues Supplement at 5, Exhibit I–
Supp–4, and Exhibit I–Supp–5.
18 See CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
19 As discussed above, Petitioners established that
shipments are a reasonable proxy for production
data. Section 351.203(e)(1) of the Department’s
regulations states, ‘‘production levels may be
established by reference to alternative data that the
Secretary determines to be indicative of production
levels.’’
20 See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
21 See CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
22 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71707
have demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the CVD
investigation that they are requesting
the Department initiate.23
Injury Test
Because Turkey is a ‘‘Subsidies
Agreement Country’’ within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act,
section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to
this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC
must determine whether imports of the
subject merchandise from Turkey
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that imports of the
subject merchandise are benefitting
from countervailable subsidies and that
such imports are causing, or threaten to
cause, material injury to the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product. In addition, Petitioners allege
that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.24
Petitioners contend that the industry’s
injured condition is illustrated by
reduced market share; underselling and
price suppression or depression; lost
sales and revenues; declines in
production, capacity utilization, and
U.S. shipments; negative impact on
employment variables; and decline in
financial performance.25 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.26
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
the Department to initiate a CVD
investigation whenever an interested
party files a CVD petition on behalf of
an industry that (1) alleges the elements
necessary for the imposition of a duty
under section 701(a) of the Act and (2)
is accompanied by information
23 Id.
24 See General Issues Supplement at 6–8, Exhibit
I–Supp–8, and Exhibit I–Supp–9; see also Second
General Issues Supplement at 1–2.
25 See Petition, Volume I at 14, 18–48, Exhibit I–
5, Exhibit I–8, Exhibit I–20, and Exhibits I–23
through I–59; see also General Issues Supplement
at 6–8, Exhibit I–Supp–7, Exhibit I–Supp–8, Exhibit
I–Supp–9 and Exhibit I–Supp–10; Second General
Issues Supplement at 1–2.
26 See CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III,
‘‘Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and
the Republic of Turkey.’’
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
71708
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2016 / Notices
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
reasonably available to Petitioners
supporting the allegations.
Petitioners allege that exporters/
producers of rebar in Turkey benefited
from countervailable subsidies
bestowed by the GOT. The Department
examined the Petition and finds that it
complies with the requirements of
section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore,
in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of
the Act, we are initiating a CVD
investigation to determine whether
manufacturers, producers, and/or
exporters of rebar from Turkey not
covered by an existing CVD order on
rebar from Turkey receive
countervailable subsidies from the GOT.
On June 29, 2015, the President of the
United States signed the Trade
Preferences Extension Act of 2015
(TPEA) into law, which made numerous
amendments to the Act.27 The TPEA
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.28 The amendments to sections 776
and 782 of the Act are applicable to all
determinations made on or after August
6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this
CVD investigation.29
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on 21 of 23 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision to initiate or not
initiate on each program, see CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of
the initiation checklist for this
investigation is available on ACCESS.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1),
unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determination in this
investigation no later than 65 days after
the date of initiation.
27 See TPEA, Public Law 114–27, 129 Stat. 362
(2015).
28 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 2015 amendments may be found at https://
www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/
1295/text/pl.
29 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), at
46794–95. The 2015 amendments may be found at
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/
house-bill/1295/text/pl.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:19 Oct 17, 2016
Jkt 241001
Respondent Selection
Petitioners named one company as an
exporter/producer of rebar from Turkey
that is not currently subject to an
existing CVD order on imports of rebar
from Turkey.30 Following standard
practice in CVD investigations, the
Department will, where appropriate,
select respondents based on U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
data for U.S. imports of rebar from
Turkey during the period of
investigation. We intend to release CBP
data under Administrative Protective
Order (APO) to all parties with access to
information protected by APO within
five business days of publication of this
Federal Register notice.
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b).
Instructions for filing such applications
may be found on the Department’s Web
site at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version
of the Petition has been provided to the
GOT via ACCESS. To the extent
practicable, we will attempt to provide
a copy of the public version of the
Petition to each known exporter/
producer, as named in the Petition,31
consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 702(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
Within 45 days of the date on which
the Petition was filed, the ITC will
preliminarily determine whether there
is a reasonable indication that imports
of rebar from Turkey are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury
to, a U.S. industry.32 A negative ITC
determination will result in the
investigation being terminated.33
Otherwise, this investigation will
proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
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
30 See
Petition, Volume V at 1.
Petition, Volume I at Exhibit I–19.
32 See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
33 See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
31 See
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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) through (iv). The
regulation requires any party, when
submitting factual information, to
specify under which subsection of 19
CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is
being submitted and, if the information
is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on
the record that the factual information
seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.
Specific time limits for submission of
factual information, based on the type of
factual information being submitted, are
provided at 19 CFR 351.301. Parties
should review the regulations prior to
submitting factual information in this
investigation.
Extension of Time Limits
Parties may request the extension of a
time limit established under 19 CFR
351.301, or as otherwise specified by the
Secretary, before the applicable time
limit has expired. In general, an
extension request will be considered
untimely if it is filed after the expiration
of the time limit. 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 deadline after
which extension requests will be
considered untimely for submissions
that are due from multiple parties
simultaneously. In such a case, we will
inform parties in the letter or
memorandum establishing the
applicable time limit. An extension
request must be made in a separate,
stand-alone submission. In limited
circumstances, we will grant untimelyfiled extension requests.34
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify the accuracy
and completeness of that information.35
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
34 See 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/201322853.htm.
35 See section 782(b) of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2016 / Notices
August 16, 2013, should use the revised
certification formats provided at the end
of the Final Rule.36 The Department
intends to reject factual submissions if
the submitting party does not comply
with the applicable revised certification
requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department
published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures;
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate
in this investigation should ensure that
they meet the requirements of these
procedures (e.g., filing letters of
appearance, as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: October 11, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
[FR Doc. 2016–25178 Filed 10–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Appendix
RIN 0648–XE937
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise subject to this
investigation is steel concrete reinforcing bar
imported in either straight length or coil form
(rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length,
diameter, or grade or lack thereof. Subject
merchandise includes deformed steel wire
with bar markings (e.g., mill mark, size, or
grade) and which has been subjected to an
elongation test.
The subject merchandise includes rebar
that has been further processed in the subject
country or a third country, including but not
limited to cutting, grinding, galvanizing,
painting, coating, 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 rebar.
Specifically excluded are plain rounds
(i.e., nondeformed or smooth rebar). Also
excluded from the scope is deformed steel
wire meeting ASTM A1064/A1064M with no
bar markings (e.g., mill mark, size, or grade)
and without being subject to an elongation
test.
At the time of the filing of the petition,
there was an existing countervailing duty
order on steel reinforcing bar from the
Republic of Turkey. Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey,
79 FR 65,926 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 6, 2014)
(2014 Turkey CVD Order). The scope of this
36 See Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’). Answers to frequently
asked questions regarding the Final Rule are
available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/
notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
countervailing duty investigation with regard
to rebar from Turkey covers only rebar
produced and/or exported by those
companies that are excluded from the 2014
Turkey CVD Order. At the time of the
issuance of the 2014 Turkey CVD Order,
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal
Endustrisi A.S. was the only excluded
Turkish rebar producer or exporter.
The subject merchandise is classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) primarily under item
numbers 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and
7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may
also enter under other HTSUS numbers
including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000,
7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 7221.00.0030,
7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057,
7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080,
7227.90.6030, 7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040,
7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000.
HTSUS numbers are provided for
convenience and customs purposes;
however, the written description of the scope
remains dispositive.
13:19 Oct 17, 2016
Jkt 241001
Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Fisheries Research
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for
Letters of Authorization; request for
comments and information.
AGENCY:
NMFS’ Office of Protected
Resources has received a request from
the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science
Center (AFSC) for authorization to take
small numbers of marine mammals
incidental to conducting fisheries
research, over the course of five years
from the date of issuance. Pursuant to
regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
is announcing receipt of the AFSC’s
request for the development and
implementation of regulations
governing the incidental taking of
marine mammals. NMFS invites the
public to provide information,
suggestions, and comments on the
AFSC’s application and request.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than November 17,
2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the
applications should be addressed to
Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71709
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service. Physical comments
should be sent to 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and
electronic comments should be sent to
ITP.Laws@noaa.gov.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. Comments received
electronically, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF
file formats only. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted online at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/research.htm without
change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben
Laws, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
An electronic copy of the AFSC’s
application may be obtained online at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/research.htm. The AFSC has
separately released a draft
Environmental Assessment (EA),
prepared pursuant to requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act,
for the conduct of their fisheries
research. A copy of the draft EA, which
would also support our proposed
rulemaking under the MMPA, is
available at the same Web site.
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary
of Commerce (Secretary) 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) if certain findings
are made and regulations are issued.
Incidental taking shall be allowed if
NMFS finds that the taking will have a
negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) affected and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
taking for subsistence uses, and if the
permissible methods of taking and
requirements pertaining to the
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71705-71709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25178]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-489-830]
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey:
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective October 11, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kaitlin M. Wojnar at (202) 482-3857,
AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On September 20, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of
steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from the Republic of Turkey
(Turkey),\1\ filed in proper form, on behalf of the Rebar Trade Action
Coalition and its individual members (collectively, Petitioners).\2\
The CVD petition was accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions
concerning imports of rebar from Japan, Taiwan, and the Turkey.\3\
Petitioners are domestic producers of rebar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Letter from Petitioners, ``Petition for the Imposition
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Turkey,'' September 20,
2016 (Petition), at Volume V.
\2\ The Rebar Trade Action Coalition includes Bayou Steel Group,
Byer Steel Group, Inc., Commercial Metals Company, Gerdau Ameristeel
U.S. Inc., Nucor Corporation, and Steel Dynamics, Inc. Id., Volume I
at 1.
\3\ See Petition, Volumes II-IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 22 and 23, 2016, the Department requested additional
information and clarification of certain aspects of the Petition.\4\
Petitioners responded to these requests on between September 27 and
October 5, 2016.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Letter from the Department, ``Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental
Questions,'' September 22, 2016; see also Letter from the
Department, ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and
the Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental
Questions,'' September 23, 2016 (General Issues Supplemental
Questionnaire).
\5\ See Letter from Petitioners, ``Supplement to the Petition
for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey: Response to the
Department's Supplemental Questions,'' September 27, 2016; see also
Letter from Petitioners, ``Supplement to the Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of
Turkey: Response to the Department's Supplemental Questions,''
September 28, 2016 (General Issues Supplement); Letter from
Petitioners, ``Supplement to the Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Turkey: Response to the
Department's Supplemental Questions,'' October 4, 2016 (Second
General Issues Supplement); Letter from Petitioners, ``Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of
Turkey: Revised Scope, Amendment to the Petition for the Imposition
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,'' October 5, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 71706]]
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that the Government of Turkey
(the GOT) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of
sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to manufacturers, producers, or
exporters of rebar from Turkey and that imports of such rebar are
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in
the United States. Additionally, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of
the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably
available to Petitioners supporting their allegations of programs in
Turkey on which we are initiating a CVD investigation.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties, as
defined by section 771(9)(C) of the Act. As discussed in the
``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' section, below,
the Department also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to initiation of the requested CVD
investigation.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through December
31, 2015.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is rebar from Turkey. For
a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the Appendix
to this notice.
Comments on the Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions
to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition accurately
reflected the products for which the domestic industry is seeking
relief.\7\ As a result of those exchanges, the scope of the Petition
was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the
Petition. The class or kind of merchandise covered by this initiation,
as described in the Appendix to this notice, reflects that
clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also
General Issues Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\8\ we
are setting aside a period of time for interested parties to raise
issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will
consider all comments received and, if necessary, consult with parties
prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope
comments include factual information,\9\ all such factual information
should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests that all
interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET)
on October 31, 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 November 10, 2016, which
is 10 calendar days after the deadline for initial comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27323 (May 19, 2007).
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department requests that any factual information parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope may be relevant,
the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit
the additional information. All such comments and information must be
filed on the record of this CVD investigation, as well as the record of
each of the concurrent AD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\10\ An electronically-
filed document must be successfully received, in its entirety, by the
date and time it is due. Any document 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, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 19 CFR 351.303 (describing general filing
requirements); see also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective
Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) (detailing the
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect
on August 5, 2011). Helpful information on using ACCESS can be found
at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and the ACCESS handbook is
available at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filing%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act, the Department
notified representatives of the GOT of its receipt of the Petition and
provided them with the opportunity for consultations regarding the CVD
allegations.\11\ On October 6, 2016, the Department held consultations
with the GOT.\12\ All letters and memoranda pertaining to these
consultations are available via ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Letter from the Department, ``Petition for
Countervailing Duties on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the
Republic of Turkey,'' September 21, 2016.
\12\ See Department Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Petition
on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey,''
October 6, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
[[Page 71707]]
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,\13\
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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\14\ 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, Petitioners do 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 rebar, as defined in the scope,
constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed
industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of
Turkey (CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, ``Analysis of
Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Petitions Covering Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan,
Taiwan, and the Republic of Turkey.'' The CVD Initiation Checklist
is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically
via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available
in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of
Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section
702(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 the Appendix to
this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their
2015 shipments of the domestic like product, and compared their
shipments to estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for
the entire domestic industry.\16\ Because production data for the U.S.
rebar industry for 2015 is not reasonably available to Petitioners, and
Petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for
production data,\17\ we have relied upon the shipment data provided by
Petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Petition, Volume I at 3, Exhibit I-4, and Exhibit I-31;
see also General Issues Supplement at 3-6, Exhibit I-Supp-4, and
Exhibit I-Supp-7.
\17\ See General Issues Supplement at 5, Exhibit I-Supp-4, and
Exhibit I-Supp-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues
Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support.\18\
First, the Petition established support from domestic producers and
workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total shipments of
the domestic like product,\19\ and, as such, the Department is not
required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support
(e.g., polling).\20\ Second, the domestic producers and workers have
met the statutory criteria for industry support under section
702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers and workers
who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total
shipments of the domestic like product.\21\ Finally, the domestic
producers and workers have met the statutory criteria for industry
support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic
producers and workers who support the Petition account for more than 50
percent of the shipments of the domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the
Petition.\22\ Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition
was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of
section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
\19\ As discussed above, Petitioners established that shipments
are a reasonable proxy for production data. Section 351.203(e)(1) of
the Department's regulations states, ``production levels may be
established by reference to alternative data that the Secretary
determines to be indicative of production levels.''
\20\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also CVD
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
\21\ See CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties, as
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act, and they have
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD
investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Turkey is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject merchandise from Turkey materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry
producing the domestic like product. In addition, Petitioners allege
that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See General Issues Supplement at 6-8, Exhibit I-Supp-8, and
Exhibit I-Supp-9; see also Second General Issues Supplement at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression
or depression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production,
capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; negative impact on employment
variables; and decline in financial performance.\25\ 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.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Petition, Volume I at 14, 18-48, Exhibit I-5, Exhibit
I-8, Exhibit I-20, and Exhibits I-23 through I-59; see also General
Issues Supplement at 6-8, Exhibit I-Supp-7, Exhibit I-Supp-8,
Exhibit I-Supp-9 and Exhibit I-Supp-10; Second General Issues
Supplement at 1-2.
\26\ See CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, ``Analysis
of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of
Turkey.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on
behalf of an industry that (1) alleges the elements necessary for the
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) is
accompanied by information
[[Page 71708]]
reasonably available to Petitioners supporting the allegations.
Petitioners allege that exporters/producers of rebar in Turkey
benefited from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOT. The
Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the
requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD
investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, and/or
exporters of rebar from Turkey not covered by an existing CVD order on
rebar from Turkey receive countervailable subsidies from the GOT.
On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA) into law, which made
numerous amendments to the Act.\27\ The TPEA 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.\28\ The amendments to
sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations
made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD
investigation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See TPEA, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
\28\ 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 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
\29\ 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), at
46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 21 of 23
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate or not initiate on each program, see CVD Initiation
Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this
investigation is available on ACCESS.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determination in this investigation no later than 65 days after the
date of initiation.
Respondent Selection
Petitioners named one company as an exporter/producer of rebar from
Turkey that is not currently subject to an existing CVD order on
imports of rebar from Turkey.\30\ Following standard practice in CVD
investigations, the Department will, where appropriate, select
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for
U.S. imports of rebar from Turkey during the period of investigation.
We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order
(APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within
five business days of publication of this Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Petition, Volume V at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such
applications may be found on the Department's Web site at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been
provided to the GOT via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will
attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each
known exporter/producer, as named in the Petition,\31\ consistent with
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Petition, Volume I at Exhibit I-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
Within 45 days of the date on which the Petition was filed, the ITC
will preliminarily determine whether there is a reasonable indication
that imports of rebar from Turkey are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.\32\ A negative ITC
determination will result in the investigation being terminated.\33\
Otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
\33\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) through (iv). The regulation
requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify
under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is
being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify,
or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an
explanation identifying the information already on the record that the
factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Specific time
limits for submission of factual information, based on the type of
factual information being submitted, are provided at 19 CFR 351.301.
Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual
information in this investigation.
Extension of Time Limits
Parties may request the extension of a time limit established under
19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary, before the
applicable time limit has expired. In general, an extension request
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the
time limit. 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 deadline after which
extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions that are
due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will
inform parties in the letter or memorandum establishing the applicable
time limit. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-
alone submission. In limited circumstances, we will grant untimely-
filed extension requests.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify the accuracy and completeness of that information.\35\
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
[[Page 71709]]
August 16, 2013, should use the revised certification formats provided
at the end of the Final Rule.\36\ The Department intends to reject
factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the
applicable revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\36\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (``Final Rule''). Answers
to frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available
at https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should
ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g.,
filing letters of appearance, as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: October 11, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise subject to this investigation is steel concrete
reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form
(rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or lack
thereof. Subject merchandise includes deformed steel wire with bar
markings (e.g., mill mark, size, or grade) and which has been
subjected to an elongation test.
The subject merchandise includes rebar that has been further
processed in the subject country or a third country, including but
not limited to cutting, grinding, galvanizing, painting, coating, 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 rebar.
Specifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e., nondeformed or
smooth rebar). Also excluded from the scope is deformed steel wire
meeting ASTM A1064/A1064M with no bar markings (e.g., mill mark,
size, or grade) and without being subject to an elongation test.
At the time of the filing of the petition, there was an existing
countervailing duty order on steel reinforcing bar from the Republic
of Turkey. Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of
Turkey, 79 FR 65,926 (Dep't Commerce Nov. 6, 2014) (2014 Turkey CVD
Order). The scope of this countervailing duty investigation with
regard to rebar from Turkey covers only rebar produced and/or
exported by those companies that are excluded from the 2014 Turkey
CVD Order. At the time of the issuance of the 2014 Turkey CVD Order,
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. was the only
excluded Turkish rebar producer or exporter.
The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) primarily under item numbers
7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject
merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS numbers including
7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018,
7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057,
7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6030,
7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000.
HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes;
however, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2016-25178 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
