Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From Bahrain, Brazil, India, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 19449-19454 [2020-07180]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices
this subtitle or any other calculation
methodology.’’ When an interested
party submits a PMS allegation pursuant
to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce
will respond to such a submission
consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v).
If Commerce finds that a PMS exists
under section 773(e) of the Act, then it
will modify its dumping calculations
appropriately.
Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor
19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), set a deadline
for the submission of PMS allegations
and supporting factual information.
However, in order to administer section
773(e) of the Act, Commerce must
receive PMS allegations and supporting
factual information with enough time to
consider the submission. Thus, should
an interested party wish to submit a
PMS allegation and supporting new
factual information pursuant to section
773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later
than 20 days after submission of a
respondent’s initial section D
questionnaire response.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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
Commerce. 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 a
letter or memorandum of 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 untimelyfiled 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-201309-20/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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:22 Apr 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
and completeness of that information.48
Parties must use the certification
formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).49 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)). Note
that Commerce has temporarily
modified certain of its requirements for
serving documents containing business
proprietary information, until May 19,
2020, unless extended.50
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i)
of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: March 30, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The products covered by these
investigations are common alloy aluminum
sheet, which is a flat-rolled aluminum
product having a thickness of 6.3 mm or less,
but greater than 0.2 mm, in coils or cut-tolength, regardless of width. Common alloy
sheet within the scope of these investigations
includes both not clad aluminum sheet, as
well as multi-alloy, clad aluminum sheet.
With respect to not clad aluminum sheet,
common alloy sheet is manufactured from a
IXXX-, 3XXX-, or 5XXX-series alloy as
designated by the Aluminum Association.
With respect to multi-alloy, clad aluminum
sheet, common alloy sheet is produced from
a 3XXX-series core, to which cladding layers
are applied to either one or both sides of the
core.
Common alloy sheet may be made to
ASTM specification B209–14 but can also be
made to other specifications. Regardless of
specification, however, all common alloy
48 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). 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.
50 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD
Service Requirements Due to COVID–19, 85 FR
17006 (March 26, 2020).
49 See
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19449
sheet meeting the scope description is
included in the scope. Subject merchandise
includes common alloy sheet that has been
further processed in a third country,
including but not limited to annealing,
tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming,
cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any
other processing that would not otherwise
remove the merchandise from the scope of
these investigations if performed in the
country of manufacture of the common alloy
sheet.
Excluded from the scope of these
investigations is aluminum can stock, which
is suitable for use in the manufacture of
aluminum beverage cans, lids of such cans,
or tabs used to open such cans. Aluminum
can stock is produced to gauges that range
from 0.200 mm to 0.292 mm, and has an H–
19, H–41, H–48, or H–391 temper. In
addition, aluminum can stock has a lubricant
applied to the flat surfaces of the can stock
to facilitate its movement through machines
used in the manufacture of beverage cans.
Aluminum can stock is properly classified
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) subheadings
7606.12.3045 and 7606.12.3055.
Where the nominal and actual
measurements vary, a product is within the
scope if application of either the nominal or
actual measurement would place it within
the scope based on the definitions set for the
above.
Common alloy sheet is currently
classifiable under HTSUS subheadings
7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3096,
7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3095, 7606.91.6095,
7606.92.3035, and 7606.92.6095. Further,
merchandise that falls within the scope of
these investigations may also be entered into
the United States under HTSUS subheadings
7606.11.3030, 7606.12.3015, 7606.12.3025,
7606.12.3035, 7606.12.3091, 7606.91.3055,
7606.91.6055, 7606.92.3025, 7606.92.6055,
7607.11.9090. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of these
investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2020–07179 Filed 4–6–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–351–855, C–489–840, C–525–002, C–533–
896]
Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From
Bahrain, Brazil, India, and the Republic
of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing
Duty Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable March 30, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Schauer at (202) 482–0410
(Bahrain); Jonathan Hall-Eastman at
(202) 482–1468 (Brazil); Benito
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
19450
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices
Ballesteros at (202) 482–7425 (India);
Mark Hoadley at (202) 482–3148
(Republic of Turkey (Turkey)), AD/CVD
Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
The Petitions
On March 9, 2020, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received countervailing duty (CVD)
petitions concerning imports of
common alloy aluminum sheet
(aluminum sheet) from Bahrain, Brazil,
India, and Turkey, filed in proper form
on behalf of the Aluminum Association
Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet
Working Group (petitioners).1 The
Petitions were accompanied by
antidumping duty (AD) petitions
concerning imports of aluminum sheet
from Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt,
Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia,
Italy, Republic of Korea, Oman,
Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South
Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey.
On March 12, 2020, Commerce
requested supplemental information
pertaining to certain aspects of the
Petitions in separate supplemental
questionnaires.2 The petitioners filed
responses to the supplemental
questionnaires between March 16 and
19, 2020.3 On March 20, 2020,
1 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Common Alloy
Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia,
Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy,
Korea, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South
Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey,’’ dated March
9, 2020 (Petitions).
2 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain:
Supplemental Questions’’; ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain:
Supplemental Questions’’; ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from India:
Supplemental Questions’’; and ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Turkey:
Supplemental Questions’’, dated March 12, 2020.
See also Commerce Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Common Alloy Aluminum
Sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt,
Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea,
Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa,
Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey: Supplemental
Questions,’’ dated March 13, 2020.
3 See Petitioner’s Letters, ‘‘Common Alloy
Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia,
Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy,
Korea, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South
Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey—Petitioners’
Amendments to Volume I Relating to General
Issues’’ (General Issues Supplement); ‘‘Petitioners’
Responses to Supplemental Questions Concerning
Volume XX Relating to Bahrain Countervailing
Duty’’; ‘‘Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from
Brazil—Petitioners’ Supplement to Volume XXI
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:22 Apr 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
Commerce requested additional
information in a phone call with the
petitioners,4 and the petitioners
responded to Commerce’s request on
March 23, 2020.5
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the petitioners allege that the
Governments of Bahrain, Brazil, India,
and Turkey (GBA, GBR, GOI, and GOT,
respectively) 6 are providing
countervailable subsidies, within the
meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of
the Act, to producers of aluminum sheet
in Bahrain, Brazil, India, and Turkey,
and that imports of such products are
materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, the domestic
aluminum sheet 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
petitioners supporting the allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners
filed the Petitions on behalf of the
domestic industry, because the
petitioners are an interested party, as
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of
the Act. Commerce also finds that the
petitioners demonstrated sufficient
industry support necessary for the
initiation of the requested CVD
investigations.7
Periods of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on
March 9, 2020, the periods of
investigation are January 1, 2019
through December 31, 2019.
Relating to Brazil Countervailing Duties’’;
‘‘Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from India—
Petitioners’ Supplement to Volume XXII Relating to
India Countervailing Duties’’; and ‘‘Petitioners’
Responses to Supplemental Questions Concerning
Volume XXIII Relating to Turkey Countervailing
Duty’’, dated March 17, 2020.
4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on
Imports of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from
Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Greece,
India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Oman, Romania,
Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and
Turkey: Phone Call with Counsel to the
Petitioners,’’ dated March 20, 2020.
5 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Common Alloy
Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia,
Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy,
Korea, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South
Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey—Petitioners’
Second Amendment to Volume I Relating to
General Issues,’’ dated March 23, 2020 (Second
General Issues Supplement).
6 Petitioners’ filings refer to both the Government
of Bahrain and Government of Brazil and ‘‘GOB.’’
To avoid confusion, we will use ‘‘GBA’’ and ‘‘GBR’’
to refer to the governments of Bahrain and Brazil,
respectively.
7 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition’’ section, infra.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these
investigations is aluminum sheet from
Bahrain, Brazil, India, and Turkey. For
a full description of the scope of these
investigations, see the Appendix to this
notice.
Scope Comments
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).8 Commerce will consider
all comments received from interested
parties and, if necessary, will consult
with interested 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. To facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires,
Commerce requests that all interested
parties submit such comments by 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on April 20,
2020, which is 20 calendar days from
the signature date of this notice.10 Any
rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information, must be filed by
5:00 p.m. ET on April 30, 2020, which
is 10 calendar days from the initial
comment deadline.11
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),
unless an exception applies.12 An
8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)
(Preamble).
9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b) (21) (defining ‘‘factual
information’’).
10 Commerce practice dictates that where a
deadline falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the
appropriate deadline is the next business day (in
this instance, April 20, 2020). See Notice of
Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’
Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines
Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70
FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
11 See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
12 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices
electronically filed document must be
received successfully in its entirety by
the time and date it is due.
Consultations
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i)
and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified
representatives of the GBA, GBR, GOI,
and GOT of the receipt of the Petitions
and provided them the opportunity for
consultations with respect to the
Petitions.13 The consultations with the
GOI were scheduled for March 23, 2020.
However, on March 23, 2020, the GOI
requested that Commerce postpone the
consultations to a later date.14
Consultations were held with the GOT
on March 20, 2020.15 Consultations
were held with the GBR on March 27,
2020.16 Consultations were not held
with the GBA because the GBA did not
request them.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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
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%20
Procedures.pdf.
13 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Countervailing Duty
Petition on Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from
Brazil: Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the
Countervailing Duty Petition,’’ dated March 10,
2020; ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Common
Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain;’’ and
‘‘Petition for Countervailing Duties on Common
Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the Republic of
Turkey,’’ each dated March 11, 2020; and
‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Common Alloy
Aluminum Sheet from India: Invitation for
Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty
Petition,’’ dated March 13, 2020.
14 See Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty
Petition on Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from
India: Government Consultations,’’ dated March 23,
2020.
15 See Memorandum, ‘‘Consultations with the
Government of the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) on
the Countervailing Duty Petition Regarding
Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Turkey,’’
dated March 23, 2020.
16 See Memorandum, ‘‘Consultations with the
Government of Brazil on the Countervailing Duty
Petition Regarding Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet
from Brazil,’’ dated March 27, 2020.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:22 Apr 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
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,17 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.18
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, the petitioners do not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigations.19 Based on our analysis
of the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that
aluminum sheet, as defined in the
scope, constitutes a single domestic like
product, and we have analyzed industry
17 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001) (citing Algoma Steel
Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644
(Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
19 See Volume I of the Petitions at 13–15.
18 See
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19451
support in terms of that domestic like
product.20
In determining whether the
petitioners have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered
the industry support data contained in
the Petitions 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 petitioners
provided their 2019 production of the
domestic like product.21 In addition, the
petitioners provided 2019 production
data for, and a letter of support from,
Jupiter Aluminum Corporation.22 The
petitioners estimated the production of
the domestic like product for the entire
domestic industry based on shipment
data collected by the Aluminum
Association, and the Aluminum
Association’s knowledge of the
industry.23 We relied on data provided
by the petitioners for purposes of
measuring industry support.24
Our review of the data provided in the
Petitions, the General Issues
Supplement, the Second General Issues
Supplement, and other information
readily available to Commerce indicates
that the petitioners have established
industry support for the Petitions.25
First, the Petitions established support
20 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis as applied to these cases and information
regarding industry support, see Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Common Alloy
Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain (Bahrain CVD
Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II, Analysis of
Industry Support for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Common
Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain, Brazil,
Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia,
Italy, Korea, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia,
South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey
(Attachment II); see also Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Common Alloy
Aluminum Sheet from Brazil (Brazil CVD Initiation
Checklist) at Attachment II; Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Common Alloy
Aluminum Sheet from India (India CVD Initiation
Checklist) at Attachment II; and Countervailing
Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Common
Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Turkey (Turkey 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
Commerce building.
21 See Volume I of the Petitions at 4 and Exhibit
GEN–2; see also General Issues Supplement at 3.
22 See Volume I of the Petitions at 4 and Exhibit
GEN–2; see also Second General Issues
Supplement.
23 See Volume I of the Petitions at 4 and Exhibits
GEN–2 and GEN–3; see also General Issues
Supplement at 3.
24 See Volume I of the Petitions at 4 and Exhibit
GEN–2; see also General Issues Supplement at 3.
For further discussion, see Attachment II of the
Bahrain CVD Initiation Checklist, Brazil CVD
Initiation Checklist, India CVD Initiation Checklist,
and Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist.
25 Id.
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
19452
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices
from domestic producers (or workers)
accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like
product and, as such, Commerce is not
required to take further action in order
to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).26 Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.27 Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions
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.28 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.29
Injury Test
Because Bahrain, Brazil, India, and
Turkey 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 Bahrain,
Brazil, India, and/or Turkey materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a
U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The 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, the petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.30
The petitioners contend that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by a significant and
increasing volume of subject imports;
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
26 Id.;
see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
Volume I of the Petitions at 4 and Exhibit
GEN–2; see also General Issues Supplement at 3.
For further discussion, see Attachment II of the
Bahrain CVD Initiation Checklist, Brazil CVD
Initiation Checklist, India CVD Initiation Checklist,
and Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 See Volume I of the Petitions at 15–17, and
Exhibit GEN–9.
27 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:22 Apr 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
reduced market share; underselling and
price depression or suppression; lost
sales and revenues; declining capacity
utilization; a declining number of
production and related workers; and a
decline in financial performance and
profitability.31 We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury, threat of
material injury, causation, as well as
negligibility, and we have determined
that these allegations are properly
supported by adequate evidence, and
meet the statutory requirements for
initiation.32
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
aluminum sheet from Bahrain, Brazil,
India, and Turkey benefit from
countervailable subsidies conferred by
the GBA, GBR, GOI, and GOT,
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 determinations no
later than 65 days after the date of this
initiation.
Bahrain
Based on our review of the petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on 9 of the 12 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision whether to initiate
on each program, see Bahrain CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of
the initiation checklist for this
investigation is available on ACCESS.
Brazil
Based on our review of the petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on 18 of the 19 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision whether to initiate
on each program, see Brazil CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of
the initiation checklist for this
investigation is available on ACCESS.
31 See Volume I of the Petitions at 22–37, and
Exhibits GEN–7 and GEN–10 through GEN–15.
32 See Bahrain CVD Initiation Checklist at
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition
Petitions Covering Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet
from Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Germany,
Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Oman,
Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain,
Taiwan, and Turkey (Attachment III); see also
Attachment III of the Brazil CVD Initiation
Checklist, India CVD Initiation Checklist, and
Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
India
Based on our review of the petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation, in whole or part, on 41of
the 43 alleged programs. For a full
discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate on each program, see India
CVD Initiation Checklist. A public
version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on
ACCESS.
Turkey
Based on our review of the petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation, in whole or part, on all of
the 21 alleged programs. For a full
discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate on each program, see Turkey
CVD Initiation Checklist. A public
version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on
ACCESS.
Respondent Selection
The petitioners named one company
in Bahrain, six companies in Brazil, 14
companies in India, and 21 companies
in Turkey as producers/exporters of
aluminum sheet.33 Commerce intends to
follow its standard practice in CVD
investigations and calculate companyspecific 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 aluminum
sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, India, and
Turkey during the POI under the
appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States numbers listed in
the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the
Appendix.
On March 24, 2020 and March 26,
2020, Commerce released CBP data on
imports of aluminum sheet from those
countries with a large number of
companies, specifically, Brazil, India,
and Turkey under APO to all parties
with access to information protected by
APO and indicated that interested
parties wishing to comment on the CBP
data must do so within three business
days of the publication date of the
notice of initiation of these
investigations.34 Commerce will not
33 See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit
GEN–6.
34 See Memoranda, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties (CVD) on Imports of Common
Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Brazil: Release of U.S.
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices
accept rebuttal comments regarding the
CBP data or respondent selection.
The petitioners identified one
company in Bahrain as the sole
producer/exporter of aluminum sheet
(i.e., Gulf Aluminum Rolling Mill
Company (GARMCO)). We currently
know of no additional producers/
exporters of aluminum sheet from
Bahrain. Accordingly, for Bahrain,
Commerce intends to individually
examine GARMCO. Parties wishing to
comment on respondent selection for
Bahrain, must do so within three
business days of the publication date of
the notice of initiation of these
investigations.
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
the GBA, GBR, GOI, and GOT 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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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 aluminum sheet from Bahrain, Brazil,
India, and Turkey are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury
to, a U.S. industry.35 A negative ITC
Customs and Border Protection Data;’’ and
‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Common Alloy
Aluminum Sheet from India: Release of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Data,’’ dated March
24, 2020; see also Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing
Duty Petition on Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet
from the Republic of Turkey: Release of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Data,’’ dated March
26, 2020.
35 See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:22 Apr 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
determination in any country will result
in the investigations being terminated
with respect to that country.36
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 37 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.38 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.
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
36 See
section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
19 CFR 351.301(b).
38 See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
37 See
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19453
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/201322853.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.39
Parties must use the certification
formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).40 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)). Note
that Commerce has temporarily
modified certain of its requirements for
serving documents containing business
proprietary information, until May 19,
2020, unless extended.41
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 702(c)(2) and 777(i)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: March 30, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these
investigations is aluminum common alloy
sheet (common alloy sheet), which is a flatrolled aluminum product having a thickness
of 6.3 mm or less, but greater than 0.2 mm,
in coils or cut-to-length, regardless of width.
39 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.
41 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD
Service Requirements Due to COVID–19, 85 FR
17006 (March 26, 2020).
40 See
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
19454
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices
Common alloy sheet within the scope of the
investigations includes both not clad
aluminum sheet, as well as multi-alloy, clad
aluminum sheet. With respect to not clad
aluminum sheet, common alloy sheet is
manufactured from a 1XXX-, 3XXX-, or
5XXX-series alloy as designated by the
Aluminum Association. With respect to
multi-alloy, clad aluminum sheet, common
alloy sheet is produced from a 3XXX-series
core, to which cladding layers are applied to
either one or both sides of the core.
Common alloy sheet may be made to
ASTM specification B209–14, but can also be
made to other specifications. Regardless of
specification, however, all common alloy
sheet meeting the scope description is
included in the scope. Subject merchandise
includes common alloy sheet that has been
further processed in a third country,
including but not limited to annealing,
tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming,
cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any
other processing that would not otherwise
remove the merchandise from the scope of
these investigations if performed in the
country of manufacture of the common alloy
sheet.
Excluded from the scope of these
investigations is aluminum can stock, which
is suitable for use in the manufacture of
aluminum beverage cans, lids of such cans,
or tabs used to open such cans. Aluminum
can stock is produced to gauges that range
from 0.200 mm to 0.292 mm, and has an H–
19, H–41, H–48, or H–391 temper. In
addition, aluminum can stock has a lubricant
applied to the flat surfaces of the can stock
to facilitate its Start Printed Page 2159
movement through machines used in the
manufacture of beverage cans. Aluminum
can stock is properly classified under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS) subheadings 7606.12.3045
and 7606.12.3055.
Where the nominal and actual
measurements vary, a product is within the
scope if application of either the nominal or
actual measurement would place it within
the scope based on the definitions set for the
above.
Common alloy sheet is currently
classifiable under HTSUS subheadings
7606.11.3060, 7606.1l 6000, 7606.12.3096,
7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3095, 7606.9.6095,
7606.92.3035, and 7606.92.6095. Further,
merchandise that falls within the scope of
these investigations may also be entered into
the United States under HTSUS subheadings
7606.11.3030, 7606.12.3015, 7606.12.3025,
7606.12.3035, 7606.12.3091, 7606.91.3055,
7606.91.6055, 7606.92.3025, 7606.92.6055,
7607.11.9090. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of these
investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2020–07180 Filed 4–6–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:22 Apr 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–201–846]
Sugar From Mexico: Final Results of
the Expedited First Sunset Review of
the Agreement Suspending the
Countervailing Duty Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: As a result of this sunset
review, the Department of Commerce
(Commerce) finds that termination of
the Agreement Suspending the
Countervailing Duty Investigation on
Sugar from Mexico (Agreement) and the
suspended countervailing duty (CVD)
investigation would be likely to lead to
the continuation or recurrence of a
countervailable subsidy at the levels
indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of
Review’’ section of this notice.
DATES: Applicable April 7, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Sally C.
Gannon, Bilateral Agreements, Office of
Policy, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0162.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On December 3, 2019, Commerce
published the notice of initiation of the
first sunset review of the agreement
suspending the countervailing duty
investigation on sugar from Mexico,
pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).1 We received notice of intent to
participate in the review from the
following parties, both domestic
interested parties: Imperial Sugar
Company and the American Sugar
Coalition (ASC).2 Commerce received
complete substantive responses from the
domestic interested parties within the
30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR
351.218(d)(3)(i).3 We rejected untimely
1 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 84
FR 58687 (November 1, 2019); see also Initiation of
Five-Year (Sunset Review); Correction, 84 FR 66153
(December 3, 2019).
2 See Letter, American Sugar Coalition, ‘‘Sugar
from Mexico: Notice of Intent to Participate’’, dated
December 18, 2019; Letter, Imperial Sugar
Company, ‘‘Sugar from Mexico, Case Nos. C–201–
846 and A–201–845 (Five-Year Sunset Reviews):
Notice of Intent to Participate’’, dated December 18,
2019.
3 See Letter, American Sugar Coalition, ‘‘Sugar
from Mexico: Substantive Response to Notice of
Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews of the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Suspension
Agreements,’’ dated January 2, 2020; Letter, ‘‘Sugar
from Mexico: Substantive Response of the Imperial
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
submissions filed by Sweetener Users
Association (SUA) on January 21, 2020
and January 23, 2020.4 We received no
substantive responses from any other
interested parties, nor was a hearing
requested. As a result, pursuant to
section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B)–(C), Commerce
conducted an expedited (120-day)
sunset review of the Agreement and
suspended investigation.5
Scope of the Agreement
The merchandise subject to the
Agreement is raw and refined sugar of
all polarimeter readings derived from
sugar cane or sugar beets. The chemical
sucrose gives sugar its essential
character. Sucrose is a nonreducing
disaccharide composed of glucose and
fructose linked by a glycosidic bond via
their anomeric carbons. The molecular
formula for sucrose is C12H22O11; the
International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)
International Chemical Identifier (InChl)
for sucrose is 1S/C12H22O11/c13-l-46(16)8(18)9(19)11(21-4)23-12(315)10(20)7(17) 5(2-14)22-12/h4-11,1320H,1-3H2/t4-,5-,6-,7-,8+,9-,10+,11,12+/m1/s1; the InChl Key for sucrose is
CZMRCDWAGMRECN-UGDNZRGBSAN; the U.S. National Institutes of Health
PubChem Compound Identifier (CID) for
sucrose is 5988; and the Chemical
Abstracts Service (CAS) Number of
sucrose is 57–50–1.
Sugar includes products of all
polarimeter readings described in
various forms, such as raw sugar,
estandar or standard sugar, high polarity
or semi-refined sugar, special white
sugar, refined sugar, brown sugar, edible
molasses, de-sugaring molasses, organic
raw sugar, and organic refined sugar.
Other sugar products, such as powdered
sugar, colored sugar, flavored sugar, and
liquids and syrups that contain 95
percent or more sugar by dry weight are
also within the scope of this Agreement.
Merchandise covered by this Agreement
is typically imported under the
following headings of the HTSUS:
1701.12.1000, 1701.12.5000,
1701.13.1000, 1701.13.5000,
1701.14.1000, 1701.14.5000,
1701.91.1000, 1701.91.3000,
Sugar Company to Commerce’s Notice of Initiation
of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews’’, dated January 2,
2020.
4 See Letter to Wilbur Ross, Secretary of
Commerce, from Sweetener Users Association. re:
‘‘Sugar from Mexico’’ (January 21, 2020); Letter to
Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce, from
Sweetener Users Association, re: ‘‘Sugar from
Mexico’’ (January 23, 2020); Letter, ‘‘Rejection on
January 21 and January 23 Filings’’, dated February
5, 2020.
5 See Letter, ‘‘Sunset Reviews Initiated on
December 2, 2019’’, dated January 22, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19449-19454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07180]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-351-855, C-489-840, C-525-002, C-533-896]
Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From Bahrain, Brazil, India, and the
Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable March 30, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer at (202) 482-0410
(Bahrain); Jonathan Hall-Eastman at (202) 482-1468 (Brazil); Benito
[[Page 19450]]
Ballesteros at (202) 482-7425 (India); Mark Hoadley at (202) 482-3148
(Republic of Turkey (Turkey)), 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 March 9, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of
common alloy aluminum sheet (aluminum sheet) from Bahrain, Brazil,
India, and Turkey, filed in proper form on behalf of the Aluminum
Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Working Group (petitioners).\1\
The Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions
concerning imports of aluminum sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia,
Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Republic of Korea,
Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and
Turkey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from
Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia,
Italy, Korea, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain,
Taiwan, and Turkey,'' dated March 9, 2020 (Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2020, Commerce requested supplemental information
pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in separate supplemental
questionnaires.\2\ The petitioners filed responses to the supplemental
questionnaires between March 16 and 19, 2020.\3\ On March 20, 2020,
Commerce requested additional information in a phone call with the
petitioners,\4\ and the petitioners responded to Commerce's request on
March 23, 2020.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from
Bahrain: Supplemental Questions''; ``Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from
Bahrain: Supplemental Questions''; ``Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from
India: Supplemental Questions''; and ``Petition for the Imposition
of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet
from Turkey: Supplemental Questions'', dated March 12, 2020. See
also Commerce Letter, ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet
from Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Greece, India,
Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South
Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey: Supplemental Questions,'' dated
March 13, 2020.
\3\ See Petitioner's Letters, ``Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from
Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia,
Italy, Korea, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain,
Taiwan, and Turkey--Petitioners' Amendments to Volume I Relating to
General Issues'' (General Issues Supplement); ``Petitioners'
Responses to Supplemental Questions Concerning Volume XX Relating to
Bahrain Countervailing Duty''; ``Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from
Brazil--Petitioners' Supplement to Volume XXI Relating to Brazil
Countervailing Duties''; ``Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from India--
Petitioners' Supplement to Volume XXII Relating to India
Countervailing Duties''; and ``Petitioners' Responses to
Supplemental Questions Concerning Volume XXIII Relating to Turkey
Countervailing Duty'', dated March 17, 2020.
\4\ See Memorandum, ``Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Common Alloy
Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Germany,
Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Oman, Romania, Serbia,
Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey: Phone Call with
Counsel to the Petitioners,'' dated March 20, 2020.
\5\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from
Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia,
Italy, Korea, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain,
Taiwan, and Turkey--Petitioners' Second Amendment to Volume I
Relating to General Issues,'' dated March 23, 2020 (Second General
Issues Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Governments of
Bahrain, Brazil, India, and Turkey (GBA, GBR, GOI, and GOT,
respectively) \6\ are providing countervailable subsidies, within the
meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of aluminum
sheet in Bahrain, Brazil, India, and Turkey, and that imports of such
products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to,
the domestic aluminum sheet 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
petitioners supporting the allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Petitioners' filings refer to both the Government of Bahrain
and Government of Brazil and ``GOB.'' To avoid confusion, we will
use ``GBA'' and ``GBR'' to refer to the governments of Bahrain and
Brazil, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are an interested
party, as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act. Commerce
also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry
support necessary for the initiation of the requested CVD
investigations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petition'' section, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periods of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on March 9, 2020, the periods of
investigation are January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is aluminum sheet from
Bahrain, Brazil, India, and Turkey. For a full description of the scope
of these investigations, see the Appendix to this notice.
Scope Comments
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).\8\ Commerce will consider all comments
received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with
interested 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. To
facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that
all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
(ET) on April 20, 2020, which is 20 calendar days from the signature
date of this notice.\10\ Any rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 30, 2020,
which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble).
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b) (21) (defining ``factual
information'').
\10\ Commerce practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a
weekend or Federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next
business day (in this instance, April 20, 2020). See Notice of
Clarification: Application of ``Next Business Day'' Rule for
Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of
1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
\11\ 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), unless an exception
applies.\12\ An
[[Page 19451]]
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety by the time and date it is due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 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 GBA, GBR, GOI, and GOT of the receipt
of the Petitions and provided them the opportunity for consultations
with respect to the Petitions.\13\ The consultations with the GOI were
scheduled for March 23, 2020. However, on March 23, 2020, the GOI
requested that Commerce postpone the consultations to a later date.\14\
Consultations were held with the GOT on March 20, 2020.\15\
Consultations were held with the GBR on March 27, 2020.\16\
Consultations were not held with the GBA because the GBA did not
request them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on
Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Brazil: Invitation for
Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' dated
March 10, 2020; ``Countervailing Duty Petition on Common Alloy
Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain;'' and ``Petition for Countervailing
Duties on Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the Republic of Turkey,''
each dated March 11, 2020; and ``Countervailing Duty Petition on
Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from India: Invitation for Consultations
to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' dated March 13, 2020.
\14\ See Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on Common
Alloy Aluminum Sheet from India: Government Consultations,'' dated
March 23, 2020.
\15\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with the Government of the
Republic of Turkey (Turkey) on the Countervailing Duty Petition
Regarding Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Turkey,'' dated March 23,
2020.
\16\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with the Government of
Brazil on the Countervailing Duty Petition Regarding Common Alloy
Aluminum Sheet from Brazil,'' dated March 27, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,\17\ 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\18\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct.
Int'l Trade 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States,
688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int'l Trade 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, the petitioners do not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the investigations.\19\ Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that aluminum sheet, as
defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and
we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like
product.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 13-15.
\20\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support,
see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Common
Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain (Bahrain CVD Initiation Checklist)
at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Common Alloy Aluminum
Sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Greece, India,
Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South
Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey (Attachment II); see also
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Common Alloy
Aluminum Sheet from Brazil (Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist) at
Attachment II; Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from India (India CVD
Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II; and Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from
Turkey (Turkey 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
Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions 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 petitioners provided
their 2019 production of the domestic like product.\21\ In addition,
the petitioners provided 2019 production data for, and a letter of
support from, Jupiter Aluminum Corporation.\22\ The petitioners
estimated the production of the domestic like product for the entire
domestic industry based on shipment data collected by the Aluminum
Association, and the Aluminum Association's knowledge of the
industry.\23\ We relied on data provided by the petitioners for
purposes of measuring industry support.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 4 and Exhibit GEN-2; see
also General Issues Supplement at 3.
\22\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 4 and Exhibit GEN-2; see
also Second General Issues Supplement.
\23\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 4 and Exhibits GEN-2 and
GEN-3; see also General Issues Supplement at 3.
\24\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 4 and Exhibit GEN-2; see
also General Issues Supplement at 3. For further discussion, see
Attachment II of the Bahrain CVD Initiation Checklist, Brazil CVD
Initiation Checklist, India CVD Initiation Checklist, and Turkey CVD
Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General
Issues Supplement, the Second General Issues Supplement, and other
information readily available to Commerce indicates that the
petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.\25\
First, the Petitions established support
[[Page 19452]]
from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50
percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as
such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to
evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).\26\ Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry
support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic
producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.\27\
Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory
criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions
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.\28\ 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.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
\27\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 4 and Exhibit GEN-2; see
also General Issues Supplement at 3. For further discussion, see
Attachment II of the Bahrain CVD Initiation Checklist, Brazil CVD
Initiation Checklist, India CVD Initiation Checklist, and Turkey CVD
Initiation Checklist.
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Bahrain, Brazil, India, and Turkey 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 Bahrain, Brazil, India, and/or Turkey materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The 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, the petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 15-17, and Exhibit GEN-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports;
reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression;
lost sales and revenues; declining capacity utilization; a declining
number of production and related workers; and a decline in financial
performance and profitability.\31\ We have assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material
injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined
that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and
meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 22-37, and Exhibits GEN-7
and GEN-10 through GEN-15.
\32\ See Bahrain CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition
Petitions Covering Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain, Brazil,
Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea,
Oman, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, and
Turkey (Attachment III); see also Attachment III of the Brazil CVD
Initiation Checklist, India CVD Initiation Checklist, and Turkey CVD
Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 aluminum sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, India, and
Turkey benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GBA,
GBR, GOI, and GOT, 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 determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this
initiation.
Bahrain
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 9 of the 12
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision
whether to initiate on each program, see Bahrain CVD Initiation
Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this
investigation is available on ACCESS.
Brazil
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 18 of the 19
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision
whether to initiate on each program, see Brazil CVD Initiation
Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this
investigation is available on ACCESS.
India
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation, in whole or
part, on 41of the 43 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see India CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Turkey
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation, in whole or
part, on all of the 21 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Turkey CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
Respondent Selection
The petitioners named one company in Bahrain, six companies in
Brazil, 14 companies in India, and 21 companies in Turkey as producers/
exporters of aluminum sheet.\33\ 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
aluminum sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, India, and Turkey during the POI
under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
numbers listed in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit GEN-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 24, 2020 and March 26, 2020, Commerce released CBP data on
imports of aluminum sheet from those countries with a large number of
companies, specifically, Brazil, India, and Turkey under APO to all
parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that
interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP data must do so within
three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation
of these investigations.\34\ Commerce will not
[[Page 19453]]
accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent
selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Memoranda, ``Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties (CVD) on Imports of Common Alloy Aluminum
Sheet from Brazil: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Data;'' and ``Countervailing Duty Petition on Common Alloy Aluminum
Sheet from India: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Data,'' dated March 24, 2020; see also Memorandum, ``Countervailing
Duty Petition on Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the Republic of
Turkey: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,'' dated
March 26, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners identified one company in Bahrain as the sole
producer/exporter of aluminum sheet (i.e., Gulf Aluminum Rolling Mill
Company (GARMCO)). We currently know of no additional producers/
exporters of aluminum sheet from Bahrain. Accordingly, for Bahrain,
Commerce intends to individually examine GARMCO. Parties wishing to
comment on respondent selection for Bahrain, must do so within three
business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of
these investigations.
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 the GBA, GBR, GOI, and GOT 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 aluminum sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, India,
and Turkey are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to,
a U.S. industry.\35\ A negative ITC determination in any country will
result in the investigations being terminated with respect to that
country.\36\ Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
\36\ 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
\37\ 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.\38\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\38\ 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.\39\
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).\40\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\40\ 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)). Note that
Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for
serving documents containing business proprietary information, until
May 19, 2020, unless extended.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements
Due to COVID-19, 85 FR 17006 (March 26, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702(c)(2)
and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: March 30, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these investigations is aluminum
common alloy sheet (common alloy sheet), which is a flat-rolled
aluminum product having a thickness of 6.3 mm or less, but greater
than 0.2 mm, in coils or cut-to-length, regardless of width.
[[Page 19454]]
Common alloy sheet within the scope of the investigations includes
both not clad aluminum sheet, as well as multi-alloy, clad aluminum
sheet. With respect to not clad aluminum sheet, common alloy sheet
is manufactured from a 1XXX-, 3XXX-, or 5XXX-series alloy as
designated by the Aluminum Association. With respect to multi-alloy,
clad aluminum sheet, common alloy sheet is produced from a 3XXX-
series core, to which cladding layers are applied to either one or
both sides of the core.
Common alloy sheet may be made to ASTM specification B209-14,
but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of
specification, however, all common alloy sheet meeting the scope
description is included in the scope. Subject merchandise includes
common alloy sheet that has been further processed in a third
country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering,
painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting,
or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the
merchandise from the scope of these investigations if performed in
the country of manufacture of the common alloy sheet.
Excluded from the scope of these investigations is aluminum can
stock, which is suitable for use in the manufacture of aluminum
beverage cans, lids of such cans, or tabs used to open such cans.
Aluminum can stock is produced to gauges that range from 0.200 mm to
0.292 mm, and has an H-19, H-41, H-48, or H-391 temper. In addition,
aluminum can stock has a lubricant applied to the flat surfaces of
the can stock to facilitate its Start Printed Page 2159 movement
through machines used in the manufacture of beverage cans. Aluminum
can stock is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7606.12.3045 and 7606.12.3055.
Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is
within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual
measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions
set for the above.
Common alloy sheet is currently classifiable under HTSUS
subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.1l 6000, 7606.12.3096, 7606.12.6000,
7606.91.3095, 7606.9.6095, 7606.92.3035, and 7606.92.6095. Further,
merchandise that falls within the scope of these investigations may
also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings
7606.11.3030, 7606.12.3015, 7606.12.3025, 7606.12.3035,
7606.12.3091, 7606.91.3055, 7606.91.6055, 7606.92.3025,
7606.92.6055, 7607.11.9090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2020-07180 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
