[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60831-60834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-489-819]


Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey: Initiation of 
Countervailing Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak at (202) 482-2209, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

The Petition

    On September 4, 2013, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') received a countervailing duty (``CVD'') petition \1\ 
concerning imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar (``rebar'') from 
the Republic of Turkey (``Turkey''), filed in proper form on behalf of 
the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (``RTAC'') and its individual members 
(collectively, ``Petitioners'').\2\ The CVD petition was accompanied by 
two antidumping duty (``AD'') petitions.\3\ Petitioners are domestic 
producers of rebar. On September 10-11, 2013, the Department requested 
additional information and clarification of certain areas of the 
Petitions.\4\ Petitioners filed responses to these requests on 
September 13, 2013.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 
Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of 
Turkey, dated September 4, 2013.
    \2\ Petitioners are RTAC and its individual members: Byer Steel 
Group, Inc., Schnitzer Steel Industries d/b/a Cascade Steel Rolling 
Mills, Inc., Commercial Metals Company, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., 
and Nucor Steel Corporation.
    \3\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of 
Turkey and Mexico and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey, dated 
September 4, 2013 (``the Petitions'').
    \4\ See letters from the Department titled, ``Petitions for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar 
from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,'' (A-201-844, 
A-489-818, and C-489-819), dated September 10, 2013; ``Petition for 
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Supplemental Questions, (A-201-844), 
dated September 10, 2013; ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from 
the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions, (A-489-818), dated 
September 10, 2013; ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing 
Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the 
Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions, (C-489-819), dated 
September 10, 2013; and ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar 
from the Republic of Turkey: Additional Supplemental Questions, (C-
489-819), dated September 11, 2013; see also letter from the 
Department titled, ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping 
Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and 
the Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey: Request for 
Extension.''
    \5\ See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Supplement 
to the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties, dated 
September 13, 2013 (``Mexico AD Supplement''); see also ``Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey: Supplement to the Petition for 
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties,'' dated September 13, 2013 
(``Turkey AD Supplement''); see also ``Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey: Supplement to the 
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties'' dated September 13, 2013 (``General Issues Supplement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), Petitioners allege that manufacturers, 
producers, or exporters of rebar from Turkey received countervailable 
subsidies within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, and 
that such imports materially injure, or threaten material injury to, 
the domestic industry producing rebar in the United States pursuant to 
section 701 of the Act.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as 
defined in section 771(9)(C), (E) and (F) of the Act. The Department 
also finds that the Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry 
support with respect to the initiation of the investigation Petitioners 
are requesting. See ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petition'' below.

Period of Investigation

    The period of the investigation is January 1, 2012, through 
December 31, 2012.

Scope of Investigation

    The product covered by this CVD investigation is steel concrete 
reinforcing bar from Turkey. For a full

[[Page 60832]]

description of the scope of these investigations, see the ``Scope of 
Investigation'' in Appendix of this notice.\6\ Petitioners note that, 
in addition to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') subheadings included in the scope, it is possible that 
rebar previously entered under HTSUS numbers 7222.30.0011 and 
7222.11.0056; however, these HTSUS numbers are no longer in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Memorandum to the File titled, ``Petitions for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar 
from the Republic of Turkey: Scope Clarification,'' dated September 
18, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Scope of Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with 
Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products 
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 
discussed in the preamble to the regulations,\7\ we are setting aside a 
period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product 
coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Preamble; Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; 
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All comments must be filed on the records of the Mexico and the 
Turkey AD investigations and the Turkey CVD investigation by 5:00 p.m. 
EST on October 15, 2013. All comments and submissions to the Department 
must be filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA 
ACCESS'').\8\ An electronically filed document must be received 
successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records 
system, IA ACCESS, by the time and date noted above. Documents excepted 
from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually 
(i.e., in paper form) with Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, 
Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of 
receipt by the deadline noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the 
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect 
on August 5, 2011. Information on help using IA ACCESS can be found 
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found 
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The period of scope comments is intended to provide the Department 
with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with 
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department 
invited representatives of and the Government of the Republic of Turkey 
(``GOT'') for consultations with respect to the Petition.\9\ 
Consultations were held with the GOT on September 20, 2013.\10\ All 
memoranda pertaining to the consultations are on file electronically 
via IA ACCESS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See letter titled ``Invitation for Consultations to Discuss 
the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' dated September 5, 2013.
    \10\ See ex-parte memorandum titled ``Consultations with Turkish 
Government Officials,'' dated September 20, 2013.
    \11\ See supra note 8 for information pertaining to IA ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission 
(``ITC''), which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic 
industry'' has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a 
domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the 
Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition 
regarding the domestic like product,\12\ they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In 
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of 
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions 
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to law.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \13\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer 
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the 
investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on 
the record, we have determined that rebar, as defined in the scope of 
the investigation, constitutes a single domestic like product and we 
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like 
product.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey (``Turkey 
CVD Initiation Checklist''), at Attachment II. The checklist is 
dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via 
IA ACCESS. Access to documents filed via IA ACCESS is also available 
in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of 
Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above. To 
establish industry support, Petitioners provided their production of 
the domestic like product in 2012, and compared this to the estimated 
total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic 
industry.\15\ Petitioners estimated total 2012 production of the 
domestic like product using their using their knowledge of the industry 
and data from the ITC.\16\ We have relied upon data Petitioners

[[Page 60833]]

provided for purposes of measuring industry support.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Volume I of the Petitions, 3-4 and Exhibit I-3.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ See Mexico AD Initiation Checklist and Turkey AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental 
submission, and other information readily available to the Department, 
we determine that Petitioners have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at 
least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product.\18\ Based on information provided in the Petition, the 
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the 
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the Petition. Accordingly, the Department determines 
that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within 
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in sections 771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the Act and they have 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD 
investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because Turkey is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine 
whether imports of the subject merchandise from Turkey materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
benefiting from countervailable subsidies. In addition, Petitioners 
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided 
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See General Issues Supplement, at 6-7 and Exhibit I-Supp-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression 
or suppression; lost sales and revenues; hindered production efforts, 
shipments, and capacity utilization; and decline in financial 
performance.\22\ We have assessed the allegations and supporting 
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and 
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly 
supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 16-51 and Exhibits I-6 
and I-8 through I-26; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 6-7, 
Revised Exhibit I-12B, and Exhibits I-Supp-1 and I-Supp-8.
    \23\ See Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Petitions Covering Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar 
from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a 
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on 
behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an 
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner 
supporting the allegations. In the Petition, Petitioners allege that 
producers and exporters of rebar in Turkey benefited from 
countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOT. The Department has 
examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements 
of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 
702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to 
determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of rebar from 
Turkey receive countervailable subsidies.
    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 32 alleged 
programs. For one of these programs, however, we find that there is 
sufficient evidence to initiate only on part of the allegation. For a 
full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not 
initiate on each program, see Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist.
    A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation 
is available on IA ACCESS and at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html.

Respondent Selection

    The Petition identified 41 producers and/or exporters of steel 
concrete reinforcing bar in Turkey.\24\ For this investigation, the 
Department expects to select respondents for individual examination 
based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data for U.S. 
imports of subject merchandise during the period of investigation under 
all Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 
identified in the Scope of the Investigation.\25\ We intend to release 
the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (``APO'') to all 
parties with access to information protected by APO shortly after the 
announcement of this case initiation. Interested parties must submit 
applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on 
the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id., at Exhibit I-5B.
    \25\ See Appendix I of this notice for a listing of the HTSUS 
subheadings in the Scope of the Investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and 
respondent selection within seven calendar days of publication of this 
Federal Register notice. Comments must be filed in accordance with the 
filing requirements stated above. We intend to make our decision 
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 Petition have been 
provided to the representatives of the GOT via IA ACCESS. Because of 
the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the 
Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of 
the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the 
delivery of the public version of the Petition to the GOT, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
702(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than October 21, 
2013, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of 
allegedly subsidized rebar

[[Page 60834]]

from Turkey are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, 
a U.S. industry.\26\ A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigation being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See section 703(a) of the Act.
    \27\ On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its 
regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions 
in antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) proceedings. See 
Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The 
modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time 
limits before any time limit established under Part 351 expires. 
This modification also requires that an extension request must be 
made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the 
circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed 
requests for the extension of time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual 
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: 
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two 
regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: The definition of 
factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for 
the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule 
identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted 
in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of 
allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors 
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration 
under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the 
Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described 
in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual 
information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) 
the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted 
to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the 
record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already 
on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or 
correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather 
than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits 
based on the type of factual information being submitted. These 
modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or 
after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to this investigation. 
Please review the final rule, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in 
this investigation.

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 
January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO 
Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to 
participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the 
requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 
appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\28\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their 
representatives, in all segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated 
on or after March 14, 2011.\29\ The formats for the revised 
certifications are provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule. 
Foreign governments and their officials may continue to submit 
certifications in either the format that was in use prior to the 
effective date of the Interim Final Rule, or in the format provided in 
the Interim Final Rule.\30\ The Department intends to reject factual 
information submissions if the submitting party does not comply with 
the revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \29\ See Certification of Factual Information for Import 
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011) 
(Interim Final Rule), amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2).
    \30\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Supplemental Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 (September 
2, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

     Dated: September 24, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is steel concrete 
reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form 
(``rebar'') regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade. 
The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') primarily under item 
numbers 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject 
merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS numbers including 
7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 
7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 
7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6085, 7228.20.1000, and 
7228.60.6000. Specifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non-
deformed or smooth rebar). HTSUS numbers are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description 
of the scope remains dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2013-23987 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P