Utility Scale Wind Towers From Canada, Indonesia, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 38216-38221 [2019-16887]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
38216
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2019 / Notices
hereby adopted by this notice.7 A list of
the topics discussed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum is attached as an
Appendix to this notice. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum 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 to all parties in the
Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of
the main Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum can
be accessed on the internet at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed
Issues and Decision Memorandum and
the electronic version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
IV. History of the Order
V. Legal Framework
VI. Discussion of the Issues
1. Likelihood of Continuation or
Recurrence of Dumping
2. Magnitude of the Margin of Dumping
Likely to Prevail
VII. Final Results of Sunset Review
VIII. Recommendation
Final Results of Sunset Review
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1),
752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce
determines that revocation of the Order
would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping, and that the
magnitude of the dumping margins
likely to prevail would be weightedaverage dumping margins up to 101.10
percent.
AGENCY:
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Timely notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials, or
conversion to judicial protective, orders
is hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
Notification to Interested Parties
We are issuing and publishing these
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of
the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19
CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Dated: July 30, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Appendix
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
7 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
[FR Doc. 2019–16755 Filed 8–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–122–868, C–560–834, C–552–826]
Utility Scale Wind Towers From
Canada, Indonesia, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of
Countervailing Duty Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable July 29, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tyler Weinhold at (202) 482–1121
(Canada); Alex Wood at (202) 482–1959
(Indonesia); Julie Geiger at (202) 482–
2057 (Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(Vietnam)), AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On July 9, 2019, the U.S. Department
of Commerce (Commerce) received
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions
concerning imports of utility scale wind
towers (wind towers) from Canada,
Indonesia, and Vietnam, filed in proper
form on behalf of the Wind Tower Trade
Coalition (the petitioner).1 The Petitions
were accompanied by antidumping duty
(AD) petitions concerning imports of
wind towers from Canada, Indonesia,
the Republic of Korea, and Vietnam.
During the period July 12 through 18,
2019, Commerce requested
supplemental information pertaining to
certain aspects of the Petitions in
separate supplemental questionnaires.2
1 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada,
Indonesia, The Republic of Korea, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam,’’ dated July 9, 2019 (the
Petitions).
2 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, Indonesia,
the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam and Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, Indonesia,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The petitioner filed responses to the
supplemental questionnaires between
July 16 and 19, 2019.3
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the petitioner alleges that the
Governments of Canada, Indonesia, and
Vietnam (GOC, GOI, and GOV,
respectively) are providing
countervailable subsidies, within the
meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of
the Act, to producers of wind towers in
Canada, Indonesia and Vietnam, and
that imports of such products are
materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, the domestic wind
tower industry in the United States.
Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those
alleged programs on which we are
initiating CVD investigations, the
Petitions are accompanied by
information reasonably available to the
petitioner supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner
filed the Petitions on behalf of the
domestic industry, because the
petitioner is an interested party, as
defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act.
Commerce also finds that the petitioner
demonstrated sufficient industry
support necessary for the initiation of
the requested CVD investigations.4
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Supplemental Questions’’ (General Issues
Supplemental Questionnaire), ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada:
Supplemental Questions,’’ ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Utility Scale Wind Towers from Indonesia:
Supplemental Questions,’’ and ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Supplemental Questions,’’
dated July 12, 2019; see also Memorandum, ‘‘Phone
Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated July 18,
2019 (July 18, 2019 Memorandum).
3 See Petitioner’s Letters, ‘‘Utility Scale Wind
Towers from Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of
Korea, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Responses to First Supplemental Questions on
Common Issues and Injury Volume I of the
Petition,’’ dated July 16, 2019 (General Issues
Supplemental); ‘‘Utility Scale Wind Towers from
Canada: Response to First Supplemental Questions
on Canada CVD Volume III {sic} of the Petition,’’
(Canada CVD Supplement Response), ‘‘Utility Scale
Wind Towers from {Indonesia}: Response to First
Supplemental Questions on Indonesia CVD Volume
VII of the Petition,’’ (Indonesia CVD Supplement
Response), and ‘‘Utility Scale Wind Towers from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Response to First
Supplemental Questions on Vietnam CVD Volume
VIII of the Petition’’ (Vietnam CVD Supplement
Response), each dated July 17, 2019; and, ‘‘Utility
Scale Wind Towers from Canada, Indonesia, the
Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Responses to Second Supplemental
Questions on Common Issues and Injury Volume I
of the Petition,’’ dated July 19, 2019 (Scope
Supplement).
4 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition’’ section, infra.
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2019 / Notices
Period of Investigations
Because the Petitions were filed on
July 9, 2019, the period of investigation
is January 1, 2018 through December 31,
2018.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these
investigations is wind towers from
Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam. For a
full description of the scope of these
investigations, see the Appendix to this
notice.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Scope Comments
During our review of the Petitions, we
contacted the petitioner regarding the
proposed scope to ensure that the scope
language in the Petitions is an accurate
reflection of the products for which the
domestic industry is seeking relief.5 As
a result, the scope of the Petitions was
modified to clarify the description of
merchandise covered by the Petitions.
The description of the merchandise
covered by these investigations, as
described in the Appendix to this
notice, reflects these clarifications.
As discussed in the Preamble to
Commerce’s regulations, we are setting
aside a period for interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage
(i.e., scope).6 Commerce will consider
all comments received from interested
parties and, if necessary, will consult
with interested parties prior to the
issuance of the preliminary
determination. If scope comments
include factual information,7 all such
factual information should be limited to
public information. To facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires,
Commerce requests that all interested
parties submit such comments by 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on August 19,
2019, which is 20 calendar days from
the signature date of this notice.8 Any
rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information, must be filed by
5:00 p.m. ET on August 29, 2019 which
is 10 calendar days from the initial
comment deadline.9
Commerce requests that any factual
information parties consider relevant to
the scope of the investigations be
submitted during this period. However,
if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information
5 See General Issues Supplement; and July 18,
2019 Memorandum.
6 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)
(Preamble).
7 See 19 CFR 351.102(b) (21) (defining ‘‘factual
information’’).
8 Because the deadline falls on a Sunday (i.e.,
August 18, 2019), the deadline becomes the next
business day (i.e., August 19, 2019).
9 See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party
may contact Commerce and request
permission to submit the additional
information. All such submissions must
be filed on the records of the concurrent
AD and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to Commerce must be
filed electronically via Enforcement and
Compliance’s Antidumping Duty and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS).10
An electronically filed document must
be received successfully in its entirety
by the time and date it is due.
Documents exempted 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 deadlines.
Consultations
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i)
and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified
representatives of the GOC, GOI, and
GOV of the receipt of the Petitions and
provided them the opportunity for
consultations with respect to the
Petitions.11 Consultations were held
with the GOC and GOV on July 19,
2019,12 and with the GOI on July 22,
2019.13
10 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System
Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details
of Commerce’s electronic filing requirements,
which went into effect on August 5, 2011.
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at
https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook
can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/
Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling
%20Procedures.pdf.
11 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Utility Scale Wind
Towers from Indonesia: Invitation for Consultations
to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,’’ and
‘‘Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Invitation for Consultations to
Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,’’ each
dated July 10, 2019; and ‘‘Utility Scale Wind
Towers from Canada: Invitation for Consultations to
Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,’’ dated
July 12, 2019.
12 See Memoranda, ‘‘Consultations with
Government Officials from the Government of
Canada on the Countervailing Duty Petition
Regarding Utility Scale Wind Towers from
Canada,’’ dated July 24, 2019, and ‘‘Consultations
with Government Officials from the Government of
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on the
Countervailing Duty Petition Regarding Utility
Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam,’’ dated July 22, 2019.
13 See Memorandum, ‘‘Utility Scale Wind Towers
from Canada, Indonesia, and the Socialist Republic
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38217
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions
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,
Commerce 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 Commerce to look to producers
and workers who produce the domestic
like product. The International Trade
Commission (ITC), which is responsible
for determining whether ‘‘the domestic
industry’’ has been injured, must also
determine what constitutes a domestic
like product in order to define the
industry. While both Commerce and the
ITC must apply the same statutory
definition regarding the domestic like
product,14 they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to a separate and
distinct authority. In addition,
Commerce’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.15
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
of Vietnam: Government of Indonesia
Consultations,’’ dated July 22, 2019.
14 See section 771(10) of the Act.
15 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 (Federal Circuit 1989)).
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
38218
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2019 / Notices
‘‘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, the petitioner does not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
Petitions.16 Based on our analysis of the
information submitted on the record, we
have determined that wind towers, as
defined in the scope, constitute a single
domestic like product, and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of
that domestic like product.17
On July 26, 2019, we received
industry support challenges from
Marmen Energy Co. (Marmen) and
Vestas Towers America, Inc. (Vestas),
U.S. producers of wind towers.18 On
July 29, 2019, the petitioner responded
to the standing challenges from Marmen
and Vestas.19 Based on information
provided in the Petitions and in the
letters from Marmen and Vestas, the
share of total U.S. production of the
domestic like product in calendar year
2018 represented by the supporters of
the Petitions did not account for more
than 50 percent of the total production
of the domestic like product. Therefore,
in accordance with section 702(c)(4)(D)
of the Act, we relied on other
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
16 See
Volume I of the Petitions, at 17–18 and
Exhibits I–9 and I–14.
17 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis as applied to this case and information
regarding industry support, see Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility Scale
Wind Towers from Canada (Canada CVD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Petitions Covering Utility Scale Wind Towers
from Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment II);
see also Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Utility Scale Wind Towers from
Indonesia (Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist), at
Attachment II; and Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility Scale
Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam (Vietnam CVD Initiation Checklist), at
Attachment II. These checklists are dated
concurrently with this notice and on file
electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents
filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central
Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department
of Commerce building.
18 See letter from Marmen, ‘‘Utility Scale Wind
Towers from Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of
Korea, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Standing Challenge,’’ dated July 26, 2019 (Marmen
Letter); see also letter from Vestas, ‘‘Utility Scale
Wind Towers from Canada, Indonesia, South Korea,
and Vietnam: Vestas Towers America, Inc.’s
Comments on Industry Support,’’ dated July 26,
2019 (Vestas Letter).
19 See letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Utility Scale
Wind Towers from Canada, Indonesia, the Republic
of Korea, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Response to Standing Challenge and Comments on
Industry Support,’’ dated July 29, 2019 (Petitioner
Letter).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
information to determine industry
support.20
In determining whether the petitioner
has standing under sections 702(c)(4)(A)
and 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act, we
considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions and other
information on the record with
reference to the domestic like product as
defined in the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigations,’’ in the Appendix to this
notice. To establish industry support,
the petitioner provided its own 2018
production of the domestic like product
as well as the 2018 production by the
supporters of the Petitions. Other
information on the record establishes
the total 2018 production of other U.S.
producers of the domestic like product.
Section 702(c)(4)(B) of the Act states
that (i) Commerce ‘‘shall disregard the
position of domestic producers who
oppose the petition if such producers
are related to foreign producers, as
defined in section 771(4)(B)(ii), unless
such domestic producers demonstrate
that their interests as domestic
producers would be adversely affected
by the imposition of an antidumping
duty order;’’ and (ii) Commerce ‘‘may
disregard the position of domestic
producers of a domestic like product
who are importers of the subject
merchandise.’’ In addition, 19 CFR
351.203(e)(4) states that the position of
a domestic producer that opposes the
petition (i) will be disregarded if such
producer is related to a foreign producer
or to a foreign exporter under section
771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act, unless such
domestic producer demonstrates to the
Secretary’s satisfaction that its interests
as a domestic producer would be
adversely affected by the imposition of
an antidumping order; and (ii) may be
disregarded if the producer is an
importer of the subject merchandise or
is related to such an importer under
section 771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act. Certain
producers of the domestic like product
that opposed the Petitions are related to
foreign producers and/or imported
subject merchandise from the subject
countries. We have analyzed the
information provided by the petitioner
and information provided in the
submissions from Marmen and Vestas.
Based on our analysis, we have
determined that it is appropriate to
disregard the opposition to the Petitions
from certain producer(s) pursuant to
section 702(c)(4)(B) of the Act. When
the opposition to the Petitions is
disregarded, the industry support
20 For further discussion, see Canada AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; see also
Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II;
Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and
Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A) of
the Act are satisfied.21
Based on our analysis and review of
the information on the record, we have
determined that the petitioner has
established industry support for the
Petitions.22 The information on the
record demonstrates that the domestic
producers of wind towers who support
the Petitions account for at least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and, once certain
opposition is disregarded, account for
more than 50 percent of the production
of the domestic like product produced
by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petitions.23 Accordingly, Commerce
determines that the Petitions were filed
on behalf of the domestic industry
within the meaning of section 702(b)(1)
of the Act.
Injury Test
Because Canada, Indonesia, and
Vietnam are ‘‘Subsidies Agreement
Countries’’ within the meaning of
section 701(b) of the Act, section
701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these
investigations. Accordingly, the ITC
must determine whether imports of the
subject merchandise from Canada,
Indonesia, and/or Vietnam materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a
U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges 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, the petitioner
alleges that subject imports from
Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam exceed
the negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.24 In
CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the
Act provides that imports of subject
merchandise from developing and least
developed countries must exceed the
negligibility threshold of four percent.
The petitioner also demonstrates that
21 See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II; see also Indonesia AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II; Korea AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II; and Vietnam AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
22 See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II; see also Indonesia CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II; and Vietnam CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
23 See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II; see also Indonesia AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II; Korea AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II; and Vietnam AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
24 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 31–32 and
Exhibit I–17.
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2019 / Notices
subject imports from Indonesia, which
has been designated as a least developed
country under section 771(36)(B) of the
Act, exceed the negligibility threshold
of four percent.25
The petitioner contends that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by a significant and
increasing volume of subject imports;
reduced market share; lost sales and lost
revenues; underselling and price
depression or suppression; negative
impact on the domestic industry’s
production, shipments, capacity
utilization, and employment; and
declining financial performance.26 We
have assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material
injury, threat of material injury,
causation, cumulation, as well as
negligibility, and we have determined
that these allegations are properly
supported by adequate evidence, and
meet the statutory requirements for
initiation.27
Initiation of CVD Investigations
Based upon the examination of the
Petitions and supplemental responses,
we find that they meet the requirements
of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we
are initiating CVD investigations to
determine whether imports of wind
towers from Canada, Indonesia, and
Vietnam benefit from countervailable
subsidies conferred by the GOC, GOI,
and GOV, respectively. 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 no later than 65 days
after the date of this initiation.
Canada
Based on our review of the petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on 23 of the 30 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision whether to initiate
on each program, see Canada CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of
the initiation checklist for this
investigation is available on ACCESS.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Vietnam
Based on our review of the petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation, in whole or part, on each
of the alleged programs. For a full
discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate on each program, see Vietnam
CVD Initiation Checklist. A public
version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on
ACCESS.
Respondent Selection
The petitioner named four companies
in Canada, two companies in Indonesia,
and three companies in Vietnam as
producers/exporters of wind towers.28
Commerce intends to follow its standard
practice in CVD investigations and
calculate company-specific subsidy
rates in these investigations. In the
event Commerce determines that the
number of companies is large and it
cannot individually examine each
company based upon Commerce’s
resources, where appropriate,
Commerce intends to select mandatory
respondents based on U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S.
imports of wind towers from Canada,
Indonesia, and Vietnam during the POI
under the appropriate Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
numbers listed in the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation,’’ in the Appendix.
On July 22, 2019, Commerce released
CBP data on imports of wind towers
under Administrative Protective Order
(APO) to all parties with access to
information protected by APO.29
Interested parties wishing to comment
28 See
Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I–16.
Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Utility Scale Wind
Towers from Canada Countervailing Duty Petition:
Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection’’ dated July 22, 2019 (Canada CBP
Data Release Letter); ‘‘Utility Scale Wind Towers
from Indonesia Countervailing Duty Petition:
Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection’’ dated July 22, 2019 (Indonesia
CBP Data Release Letter); and ‘‘Utility Scale Wind
Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Countervailing Duty Petition: Release of Customs
Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection’’
dated July 22, 2019 (Vietnam CBP Data Release
Letter).
29 See
25 Id.
26 Id. at 15–16, 20–48 and Exhibits I–4, I–6, I–8,
I–9, I–14, I–17 and I–19 through I–28.
27 See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada,
Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (Attachment III); see also
Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment
III; and Vietnam CVD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment III.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Indonesia
Based on our review of the petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on seven of the eight
alleged programs. For a full discussion
of the basis for our decision whether to
initiate on each program, see Indonesia
CVD Initiation Checklist. A public
version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on
ACCESS.
19:21 Aug 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38219
regarding the CBP data and respondent
selection must do so within three
business days of the publication date of
the notice of initiation of these CVD
investigations. Commerce will not
accept rebuttal comments regarding the
CBP data or respondent selection.
On July 22, 2019, Commerce also
released CBP data on imports of wind
towers from Indonesia under APO to all
parties with access to information
protected by APO.30 Although the
petitioner claims that there are two
known producers/exporters from
Indonesia, record evidence indicates
that there is one known producer/
exporter, PT Kenertec Power System
(Kenertec). Based on this evidence,
Commerce intends to examine Kenertec.
Parties wishing to comment on
Commerce’s decision to individually
examine Kenertec must do so within
three days of the publication of this
notice. Any such comments must be
submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on
the due date and must be filed
electronically via ACCESS.
The CBP data identified two
companies as producers/exporters of
wind towers in Vietnam: CS Wind
Tower Co Ltd (CS Wind Tower) and
Metacor Vietnam Co., Ltd (Metacor
Vietnam).31 Accordingly, Commerce
intends to examine the two producers/
exporters identified in the CBP data.
Parties wishing to comment on the
selection of CS Wind Tower and
Metacor Vietnam as mandatory
respondents must do so within three
days of the publication of this notice.
Any such comments must be submitted
no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the due
date and must be filed electronically via
ACCESS.
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 Commerce’s
website at https://enforcement.trade.gov/
apo.
Comments must be filed
electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically filed document must be
received successfully, in its entirety, by
ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on
the date noted above. We intend to
finalize our decisions regarding
respondent selection within 20 days of
publication of this notice.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version
of the Petitions have been provided to
30 See
31 See
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
Indonesia CBP Data Release Letter.
Vietnam CBP Data Release Letter.
06AUN1
38220
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2019 / Notices
the GOC, GOI, and GOV via ACCESS.
To the extent practicable, we will
attempt to provide a copy of the public
version of the Petitions to each exporter
named in the Petitions, as provided
under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 702(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petitions were filed, whether there
is a reasonable indication that imports
of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia,
and Vietnam are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, a U.S.
industry.32 A negative ITC
determination in any country will result
in the investigations being terminated
with respect to that country.33
Otherwise, these investigations 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
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR
351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on
the record by Commerce; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b)
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted 34 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.35 Time
limits for the submission of factual
information are addressed in 19 CFR
351.301, which provides specific time
limits based on the type of factual
information being submitted. Interested
parties should review the regulations
prior to submitting factual information
in these investigations.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
32 See
section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
34 See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
35 See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
33 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
time limit established under 19 CFR
351.301, or as otherwise specified by the
Secretary. In general, an extension
request will be considered untimely if it
is filed after the expiration of the time
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301.
For submissions that are due from
multiple parties simultaneously, an
extension request will be considered
untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET
on the due date. Under certain
circumstances, we may elect to specify
a different time limit by which
extension requests will be considered
untimely for submissions which are due
from multiple parties simultaneously. In
such a case, we will inform parties in
the letter or memorandum setting forth
the deadline (including a specified time)
by which extension requests must be
filed to be considered timely. An
extension request must be made in a
separate, stand-alone submission; under
limited circumstances we will grant
untimely-filed requests for the extension
of time limits. Parties should review
Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78
FR 57790 (September 20, 2013),
available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/FR–2013–09–20/html/2013–
22853.htm, prior to submitting factual
information in these investigations.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.36
Parties must use the certification
formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).37 Commerce intends to
reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with
the applicable 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, Commerce published
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Documents Submission
Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR
3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing
to participate in these investigations
should ensure that they meet the
requirements of these procedures (e.g.,
the filing of letters of appearance as
discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
36 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’); see also frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
37 See
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: July 29, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these
investigations consists of certain wind
towers, whether or not tapered, and sections
thereof. Certain wind towers support the
nacelle and rotor blades in a wind turbine
with a minimum rated electrical power
generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts
and with a minimum height of 50 meters
measured from the base of the tower to the
bottom of the nacelle (i.e., where the top of
the tower and nacelle are joined) when fully
assembled.
A wind tower section consists of, at a
minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into
cylindrical or conical shapes and welded
together (or otherwise attached) to form a
steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish,
painting, treatment, or method of
manufacture, and with or without flanges,
doors, or internal or external components
(e.g., flooring/decking, ladders, lifts,
electrical buss boxes, electrical cabling,
conduit, cable harness for nacelle generator,
interior lighting, tool and storage lockers)
attached to the wind tower section. Several
wind tower sections are normally required to
form a completed wind tower.
Wind towers and sections thereof are
included within the scope whether or not
they are joined with nonsubject merchandise,
such as nacelles or rotor blades, and whether
or not they have internal or external
components attached to the subject
merchandise.
Specifically excluded from the scope are
nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of
whether they are attached to the wind tower.
Also excluded are any internal or external
components which are not attached to the
wind towers or sections thereof, unless those
components are shipped with the tower
sections.
Further, excluded from the scope of the
antidumping duty investigations are any
products covered by the existing
antidumping duty order on utility scale wind
towers from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam. See Utility Scale Wind Towers from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78
FR 11150 (February 15, 2013).
Merchandise covered by these
investigations is currently classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS) under subheading
7308.20.0020 or 8502.31.0000. Wind towers
of iron or steel are classified under HTSUS
7308.20.0020 when imported separately as a
tower or tower section(s). Wind towers may
be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000
when imported as combination goods with a
wind turbine (i.e., accompanying nacelles
and/or rotor blades). While the HTSUS
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2019 / Notices
subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of the investigations
is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2019–16887 Filed 8–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–971]
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review; 2016
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) determines that Jiangsu
Senmao Bamboo Wood Industry Co.,
Ltd. (Jiangsu Senmao) and Riverside
Plywood Corp. and its cross-owned
affiliates (Riverside Plywood),
producers and/or exporters of
multilayered wood flooring (wood
flooring) from the People’s Republic of
China (China), received countervailable
subsidies during the period of review
(POR) January 1, 2016 through
December 31, 2016.
DATES: Applicable August 6, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis McClure or Suzanne Lam, AD/
CVD Operations, Office VIII,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5973 or
(202) 482–0783, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Commerce published the Preliminary
Results of the administrative review in
the Federal Register on December 28,
2018.1 For the events that occurred
since Commerce published the
Preliminary Results, see the Issues and
Decision Memorandum.2 We invited
1 See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,
Rescission of Review, in Part, and Intent to Rescind
the Review in Part; 2016, 83 FR 67229 (December
28, 2018) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying
Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
2 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, from James Maeder, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review: Multilayered Wood
Flooring from the People’s Republic of China;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
interested parties to comment on the
Preliminary Results. On April 23, 2019,
we received comments from Jiaxing
Brilliant Import & Export Co. (Jiaxing
Brilliant) in lieu of a case brief.3 On
April 23, 2019, we received case briefs
from American Manufacturers of
Multilayered Wood Flooring
(Petitioner), the GOC, Jiangsu Senmao,
and Riverside Plywood.4 On May 1,
2019, we received rebuttal case briefs
from the Petitioner, the Government of
the People’s Republic of China (GOC),
Jiangsu Senmao, and Riverside
Plywood.5
Commerce exercised its discretion to
toll all deadlines affected by the partial
federal government closure from
December 22, 2018 through the
resumption of operations on January 29,
2019.6 The revised deadline for the final
results was May 30, 2019. On May 29,
2019, we extended this deadline to July
30, 2019.7
Scope of the Order 8
The product covered by the Order is
wood flooring from the China. A full
2016’’ (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this
notice.
3 See Letter from Jiaxing Brilliant, ‘‘Multilayered
Wood Flooring from the People’s Republic of
China—Letter In Lieu of Case Brief,’’ dated April
23, 2019.
4 See Letters from Petitioner, ‘‘Multilayered Wood
Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: Case
Brief,’’ dated April 23, 2019; the Government of
China (GOC), ‘‘Government of China’s Affirmative
Case Brief Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated April 23, 2019;
Jiangsu Senmao, ‘‘Multilayered Wood Flooring from
the People’s Republic of China: Case Brief,’’ dated
April 23, 2019; and Riverside Plywood, ‘‘Riverside
Plywood Co., Ltd.—Administrative Case Brief: 2016
Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty
Order on Multilayered Wood Flooring from China
(C–570–971),’’ dated April 23, 2019.
5 See Letters from the Petitioner, ‘‘Multilayered
Wood Flooring from the People’s Republic of China:
Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated May 1, 2019; the GOC,
‘‘Government of China’s Rebuttal Case Brief
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s
Republic of China,’’ dated May 1, 2019; Jiangsu
Senmao, ‘‘Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated
May 1, 2019; and Riverside Plywood, ‘‘Riverside
Plywood—Rebuttal Brief: 2016 Administrative
Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on
Multilayered Wood Flooring from China (C–570–
971),’’ dated May 1, 2019.
6 See Memorandum to the Record from Gary
Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and duties
of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Partial
Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated
January 28, 2019. All deadlines in this segment of
the proceeding have been extended by 40 days.
7 See Memorandum, ‘‘Multilayered Wood
Flooring from the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of the Deadline for the Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated
May 29, 2019.
8 See Order; see also Multilayered Wood Flooring
from the People’s Republic of China: Final
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38221
description of the scope of the order is
contained in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the parties’ briefs
are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum. A list of the issues
addressed is attached to this notice.9
The Issues and Decision Memorandum
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 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://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
The signed Issues and Decision
Memorandum and the electronic
version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes From the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, Commerce made
certain revisions to the rates assigned to
Jiangsu Senmao and Riverside Plywood.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum
contains descriptions of these revisions.
Methodology
Commerce conducted this review in
accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of
the Act. For each of the subsidy
programs found countervailable, we
find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a
government-provided financial
contribution that gives rise to a benefit
to the recipient, and that the subsidy is
specific.10 The Issues and Decision
Memorandum contains a full
description of the methodology
underlying Commerce’s conclusions,
including any determination that relied
upon the use of adverse facts available
pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of
the Act.
Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review
As noted in the Preliminary Results,
Commerce timely received no-shipment
certifications from Anhui Boya Bamboo
& Wood Products Co., Ltd., Chinafloors
Timber (China) Co., Ltd., Hunchun
Clarification of the Scope of the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders, 82 FR 27799 (June 19,
2017).
9 See Appendix I.
10 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\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38216-38221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16887]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-122-868, C-560-834, C-552-826]
Utility Scale Wind Towers From Canada, Indonesia, and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable July 29, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Weinhold at (202) 482-1121
(Canada); Alex Wood at (202) 482-1959 (Indonesia); Julie Geiger at
(202) 482-2057 (Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)), AD/CVD
Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On July 9, 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of
utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from Canada, Indonesia, and
Vietnam, filed in proper form on behalf of the Wind Tower Trade
Coalition (the petitioner).\1\ The Petitions were accompanied by
antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of wind towers from
Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Vietnam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Utility Scale Wind Towers
from Canada, Indonesia, The Republic of Korea, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam,'' dated July 9, 2019 (the Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the period July 12 through 18, 2019, Commerce requested
supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions
in separate supplemental questionnaires.\2\ The petitioner filed
responses to the supplemental questionnaires between July 16 and 19,
2019.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Utility Scale Wind Towers from
Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Utility Scale
Wind Towers from Canada, Indonesia, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Supplemental Questions'' (General Issues Supplemental
Questionnaire), ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada:
Supplemental Questions,'' ``Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Utility Scale Wind Towers from
Indonesia: Supplemental Questions,'' and ``Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Utility Scale Wind
Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Supplemental
Questions,'' dated July 12, 2019; see also Memorandum, ``Phone Call
with Counsel to the Petitioner,'' dated July 18, 2019 (July 18, 2019
Memorandum).
\3\ See Petitioner's Letters, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from
Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Responses to First Supplemental Questions on Common
Issues and Injury Volume I of the Petition,'' dated July 16, 2019
(General Issues Supplemental); ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from
Canada: Response to First Supplemental Questions on Canada CVD
Volume III {sic{time} of the Petition,'' (Canada CVD Supplement
Response), ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from {Indonesia{time} :
Response to First Supplemental Questions on Indonesia CVD Volume VII
of the Petition,'' (Indonesia CVD Supplement Response), and
``Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Response to First Supplemental Questions on Vietnam CVD Volume VIII
of the Petition'' (Vietnam CVD Supplement Response), each dated July
17, 2019; and, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, Indonesia,
the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Responses to Second Supplemental Questions on Common Issues and
Injury Volume I of the Petition,'' dated July 19, 2019 (Scope
Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Governments of
Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam (GOC, GOI, and GOV, respectively) are
providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701
and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of wind towers in Canada, Indonesia
and Vietnam, and that imports of such products are materially injuring,
or threatening material injury to, the domestic wind tower industry in
the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating
CVD investigations, the Petitions are accompanied by information
reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of
the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party,
as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act. Commerce also finds that
the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support necessary for
the initiation of the requested CVD investigations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petition'' section, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38217]]
Period of Investigations
Because the Petitions were filed on July 9, 2019, the period of
investigation is January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is wind towers from
Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of
these investigations, see the Appendix to this notice.
Scope Comments
During our review of the Petitions, we contacted the petitioner
regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the
Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the
domestic industry is seeking relief.\5\ As a result, the scope of the
Petitions was modified to clarify the description of merchandise
covered by the Petitions. The description of the merchandise covered by
these investigations, as described in the Appendix to this notice,
reflects these clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See General Issues Supplement; and July 18, 2019 Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage (i.e., scope).\6\ Commerce will consider all comments
received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with
interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determination. If scope comments include factual information,\7\ all
such factual information should be limited to public information. To
facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that
all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
(ET) on August 19, 2019, which is 20 calendar days from the signature
date of this notice.\8\ Any rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 29, 2019
which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble).
\7\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b) (21) (defining ``factual
information'').
\8\ Because the deadline falls on a Sunday (i.e., August 18,
2019), the deadline becomes the next business day (i.e., August 19,
2019).
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider
relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this
period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual
information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be
relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to
submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed
on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\10\ An electronically
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
time and date it is due. Documents exempted 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
deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046
(November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce's electronic filing
requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information
on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce
notified representatives of the GOC, GOI, and GOV of the receipt of the
Petitions and provided them the opportunity for consultations with
respect to the Petitions.\11\ Consultations were held with the GOC and
GOV on July 19, 2019,\12\ and with the GOI on July 22, 2019.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from
Indonesia: Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the
Countervailing Duty Petition,'' and ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Invitation for Consultations to
Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' each dated July 10,
2019; and ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada: Invitation for
Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' dated
July 12, 2019.
\12\ See Memoranda, ``Consultations with Government Officials
from the Government of Canada on the Countervailing Duty Petition
Regarding Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada,'' dated July 24,
2019, and ``Consultations with Government Officials from the
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on the
Countervailing Duty Petition Regarding Utility Scale Wind Towers
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' dated July 22, 2019.
\13\ See Memorandum, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada,
Indonesia, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Government of
Indonesia Consultations,'' dated July 22, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
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, Commerce 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 Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the
ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product,\14\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce'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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\15\ 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 (Federal Circuit
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
[[Page 38218]]
``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, the petitioner does not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the Petitions.\16\ Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that wind towers, as
defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like
product.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 17-18 and Exhibits I-9
and I-14.
\17\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as
applied to this case and information regarding industry support, see
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility
Scale Wind Towers from Canada (Canada CVD Initiation Checklist), at
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Utility Scale Wind Towers
from Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (Attachment II); see also Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility Scale Wind Towers from
Indonesia (Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II;
and Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility
Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam
CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are
dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via
ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in
the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of
Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 26, 2019, we received industry support challenges from
Marmen Energy Co. (Marmen) and Vestas Towers America, Inc. (Vestas),
U.S. producers of wind towers.\18\ On July 29, 2019, the petitioner
responded to the standing challenges from Marmen and Vestas.\19\ Based
on information provided in the Petitions and in the letters from Marmen
and Vestas, the share of total U.S. production of the domestic like
product in calendar year 2018 represented by the supporters of the
Petitions did not account for more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product. Therefore, in accordance with
section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act, we relied on other information to
determine industry support.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See letter from Marmen, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from
Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Standing Challenge,'' dated July 26, 2019 (Marmen
Letter); see also letter from Vestas, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers
from Canada, Indonesia, South Korea, and Vietnam: Vestas Towers
America, Inc.'s Comments on Industry Support,'' dated July 26, 2019
(Vestas Letter).
\19\ See letter from the petitioner, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers
from Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Response to Standing Challenge and Comments on
Industry Support,'' dated July 29, 2019 (Petitioner Letter).
\20\ For further discussion, see Canada AD Initiation Checklist,
at Attachment II; see also Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II; Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and
Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under sections
702(c)(4)(A) and 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act, we considered the industry
support data contained in the Petitions and other information on the
record with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the
``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the Appendix to this notice. To
establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own 2018
production of the domestic like product as well as the 2018 production
by the supporters of the Petitions. Other information on the record
establishes the total 2018 production of other U.S. producers of the
domestic like product.
Section 702(c)(4)(B) of the Act states that (i) Commerce ``shall
disregard the position of domestic producers who oppose the petition if
such producers are related to foreign producers, as defined in section
771(4)(B)(ii), unless such domestic producers demonstrate that their
interests as domestic producers would be adversely affected by the
imposition of an antidumping duty order;'' and (ii) Commerce ``may
disregard the position of domestic producers of a domestic like product
who are importers of the subject merchandise.'' In addition, 19 CFR
351.203(e)(4) states that the position of a domestic producer that
opposes the petition (i) will be disregarded if such producer is
related to a foreign producer or to a foreign exporter under section
771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act, unless such domestic producer demonstrates to
the Secretary's satisfaction that its interests as a domestic producer
would be adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping order;
and (ii) may be disregarded if the producer is an importer of the
subject merchandise or is related to such an importer under section
771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act. Certain producers of the domestic like
product that opposed the Petitions are related to foreign producers
and/or imported subject merchandise from the subject countries. We have
analyzed the information provided by the petitioner and information
provided in the submissions from Marmen and Vestas. Based on our
analysis, we have determined that it is appropriate to disregard the
opposition to the Petitions from certain producer(s) pursuant to
section 702(c)(4)(B) of the Act. When the opposition to the Petitions
is disregarded, the industry support requirements of section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act are satisfied.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; see
also Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; Korea AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Vietnam AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our analysis and review of the information on the record,
we have determined that the petitioner has established industry support
for the Petitions.\22\ The information on the record demonstrates that
the domestic producers of wind towers who support the Petitions account
for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like
product and, once certain opposition is disregarded, account for more
than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced
by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition
to, the Petitions.\23\ Accordingly, Commerce determines that the
Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the
meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; see
also Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and
Vietnam CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\23\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; see
also Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; Korea AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Vietnam AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam are ``Subsidies Agreement
Countries'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section
701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the
ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from
Canada, Indonesia, and/or Vietnam materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges 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, the petitioner
alleges that subject imports from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam exceed
the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of
the Act.\24\ In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the Act provides
that imports of subject merchandise from developing and least developed
countries must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent. The
petitioner also demonstrates that
[[Page 38219]]
subject imports from Indonesia, which has been designated as a least
developed country under section 771(36)(B) of the Act, exceed the
negligibility threshold of four percent.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 31-32 and Exhibit I-17.
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports;
reduced market share; lost sales and lost revenues; underselling and
price depression or suppression; negative impact on the domestic
industry's production, shipments, capacity utilization, and employment;
and declining financial performance.\26\ We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat
of material injury, causation, cumulation, as well as negligibility,
and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by
adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id. at 15-16, 20-48 and Exhibits I-4, I-6, I-8, I-9, I-14,
I-17 and I-19 through I-28.
\27\ See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, Indonesia, the
Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment
III); see also Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment
III; and Vietnam CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of CVD Investigations
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental
responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of
the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine
whether imports of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam
benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC, GOI, and
GOV, respectively. 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 no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Canada
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 23 of the 30
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision
whether to initiate on each program, see Canada CVD Initiation
Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this
investigation is available on ACCESS.
Indonesia
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on seven of the
eight alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our
decision whether to initiate on each program, see Indonesia CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Vietnam
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation, in whole or
part, on each of the alleged programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Vietnam CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Respondent Selection
The petitioner named four companies in Canada, two companies in
Indonesia, and three companies in Vietnam as producers/exporters of
wind towers.\28\ Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in
CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in
these investigations. In the event Commerce determines that the number
of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company
based upon Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to
select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of wind towers from Canada,
Indonesia, and Vietnam during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed in the ``Scope of
the Investigation,'' in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 2019, Commerce released CBP data on imports of wind
towers under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with
access to information protected by APO.\29\ Interested parties wishing
to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so
within three business days of the publication date of the notice of
initiation of these CVD investigations. Commerce will not accept
rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from
Canada Countervailing Duty Petition: Release of Customs Data from
U.S. Customs and Border Protection'' dated July 22, 2019 (Canada CBP
Data Release Letter); ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Indonesia
Countervailing Duty Petition: Release of Customs Data from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection'' dated July 22, 2019 (Indonesia CBP
Data Release Letter); and ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam Countervailing Duty Petition: Release
of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection'' dated July
22, 2019 (Vietnam CBP Data Release Letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 2019, Commerce also released CBP data on imports of
wind towers from Indonesia under APO to all parties with access to
information protected by APO.\30\ Although the petitioner claims that
there are two known producers/exporters from Indonesia, record evidence
indicates that there is one known producer/exporter, PT Kenertec Power
System (Kenertec). Based on this evidence, Commerce intends to examine
Kenertec. Parties wishing to comment on Commerce's decision to
individually examine Kenertec must do so within three days of the
publication of this notice. Any such comments must be submitted no
later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the due date and must be filed
electronically via ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Indonesia CBP Data Release Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBP data identified two companies as producers/exporters of
wind towers in Vietnam: CS Wind Tower Co Ltd (CS Wind Tower) and
Metacor Vietnam Co., Ltd (Metacor Vietnam).\31\ Accordingly, Commerce
intends to examine the two producers/exporters identified in the CBP
data. Parties wishing to comment on the selection of CS Wind Tower and
Metacor Vietnam as mandatory respondents must do so within three days
of the publication of this notice. Any such comments must be submitted
no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the due date and must be filed
electronically via ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Vietnam CBP Data Release Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Commerce's website at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its
entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above.
We intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent selection
within 20 days of publication of this notice.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been
provided to
[[Page 38220]]
the GOC, GOI, and GOV via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will
attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to
each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR
351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, and
Vietnam are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a
U.S. industry.\32\ A negative ITC determination in any country will
result in the investigations being terminated with respect to that
country.\33\ Otherwise, these investigations 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 Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual
information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any
party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
\34\ 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.\35\ Time limits for
the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301,
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual
information being submitted. Interested parties should review the
regulations prior to submitting factual information in these
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\35\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the
time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are
due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date.
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such
a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting
forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension
requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension
of time limits. Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final
Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to
submitting factual information in these investigations.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\36\
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).\37\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\37\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (``Final Rule''); see also
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce
published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents
Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008).
Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure
that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing
of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: July 29, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these investigations consists of
certain wind towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof.
Certain wind towers support the nacelle and rotor blades in a wind
turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in
excess of 100 kilowatts and with a minimum height of 50 meters
measured from the base of the tower to the bottom of the nacelle
(i.e., where the top of the tower and nacelle are joined) when fully
assembled.
A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel
plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together
(or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of
coating, end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture,
and with or without flanges, doors, or internal or external
components (e.g., flooring/decking, ladders, lifts, electrical buss
boxes, electrical cabling, conduit, cable harness for nacelle
generator, interior lighting, tool and storage lockers) attached to
the wind tower section. Several wind tower sections are normally
required to form a completed wind tower.
Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope
whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as
nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or
external components attached to the subject merchandise.
Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor
blades, regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower.
Also excluded are any internal or external components which are not
attached to the wind towers or sections thereof, unless those
components are shipped with the tower sections.
Further, excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty
investigations are any products covered by the existing antidumping
duty order on utility scale wind towers from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam. See Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 11150 (February
15, 2013).
Merchandise covered by these investigations is currently
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) under subheading 7308.20.0020 or 8502.31.0000. Wind towers
of iron or steel are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when
imported separately as a tower or tower section(s). Wind towers may
be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 when imported as combination
goods with a wind turbine (i.e., accompanying nacelles and/or rotor
blades). While the HTSUS
[[Page 38221]]
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the investigations is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2019-16887 Filed 8-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
