[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51206-51211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20879]



[[Page 51206]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-351-844, C-533-866, C-570-030, C-580-882, C-821-823]


Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil, India, the 
People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian 
Federation: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective date: August 24, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sergio Balbontin at (202) 482-6478 
(Brazil); Howard Smith at (202) 482-5193 (India); Yasmin Nair at (202) 
482-3813 (the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea); 
and Kristen Johnson at (202) 482-4793 (the Russian Federation), AD/CVD 
Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions

    On July 28, 2015, the Department of Commerce (Department) received 
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of certain cold-
rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from Brazil, India, the 
People's Republic of China (the PRC), the Republic of Korea (Korea), 
and the Russian Federation (Russia), filed in proper form on behalf of 
AK Steel Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA EEC, Nucor Corporation, Steel 
Dynamics, Inc., and United States Steel Corporation (collectively, 
Petitioners). The CVD petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty 
(AD) petitions also concerning imports of cold-rolled steel from all of 
the above countries, in addition to Japan, the Netherlands, and the 
United Kingdom.\1\ Petitioners are domestic producers of cold-rolled 
steel.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from 
Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic 
of Korea, Netherlands, Russia, and the United Kingdom,'' dated July 
28, 2015 (Petitions).
    \2\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2, and Exhibits I-3 and I-
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 31, 2015, the Department requested information and 
clarification for certain areas of the Petitions.\3\ Petitioners filed 
responses to these requests on August 4, 2015.\4\ On August 6, 2015, 
the Department sought additional information with regard to the India 
CVD Petition and the Russia CVD Petition.\5\ Petitioners filed their 
Russia CVD response on August 7, 2015, and their India CVD response on 
August 10, 2015.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled 
``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Imports of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from 
Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of 
Korea, and Russia and Antidumping Duties on Imports from Japan, 
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: Supplemental Questions,'' dated 
July 31, 2015 (General Issues Questionnaire); Letter from the 
Department to Petitioners entitled ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products from Brazil: Supplemental Questions,'' dated July 31, 2015 
(Brazil Questionnaire); Letter from the Department to Petitioners 
entitled ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 
Imports of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from India: 
Supplemental Questions,'' dated July 31, 2015 (India Questionnaire); 
Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled ``Petition for 
the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Cold-
Rolled Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China: 
Supplemental Questions,'' dated July 31, 2015 (PRC Questionnaire); 
Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled ``Petition for 
the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Cold-
Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental 
Questions,'' dated July 31, 2015 (Korea Questionnaire); Letter from 
the Department to Petitioners entitled ``Petition for the Imposition 
of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel 
Flat Products from Russia: Supplemental Questions,'' dated July 31, 
2015 (Russia Questionnaire).
    \4\ See Letter from Petitioners entitled ``Certain Cold-Rolled 
Steel Flat Products from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, 
India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Russia, and the 
United Kingdom: Response to the Department's July 31, 2015 
Questionnaire Regarding Volume I of the Petitions for the Imposition 
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,'' dated August 4, 2015 
(General Issues Supplement); Letter from Petitioners entitled 
``Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil: Response to 
the Department's July 31, 2015 Questionnaire Regarding Volume V of 
the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties,'' dated 
August 4, 2015 (Brazil Supplement); Letter from Petitioners entitled 
``Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from India: Response to 
the Department's July 31, 2015 Questionnaire Regarding Volume VII of 
the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties,'' dated 
August 4, 2015 (India Supplement); Letter from Petitioners entitled 
``Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic 
of China: Response to the Department's July 31, 2015 Questionnaire 
Regarding Volume III of the Petition for the Imposition of 
Countervailing Duties,'' dated August 4, 2015 (PRC Supplement); 
Letter from Petitioners entitled ``Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products from the Republic of Korea: Response to the Department's 
July 31, 2015 Questionnaire Regarding Volume X of the Petition for 
the Imposition of Countervailing Duties,'' dated August 4, 2015 
(Korea Supplement); and Letter from Petitioners entitled ``Certain 
Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Russia: Response to the 
Department's July 31, 2015 Questionnaire Regarding Volume XIII of 
the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties,'' dated 
August 4, 2015 (Russia Supplement).
    \5\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled 
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 
Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Russia: Supplemental 
Question,'' dated August 6, 2015 (Russia Second Questionnaire); and 
Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled ``Petition for 
the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Cold-
Rolled Steel Flat Products from India: Supplemental Question,'' 
dated August 6, 2015 (India Second Questionnaire).
    \6\ See Letter from Petitioners entitled ``Certain Cold-Rolled 
Steel Flat Products from Russia: Response to the Department's August 
6, 2015 Questionnaire Regarding Volume XIII of the Petition for the 
Imposition of Countervailing Duties,'' dated August 7, 2015 (Russia 
Second Supplement); and Letter from Petitioners entitled ``Certain 
Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from India: Response to the 
Department's August 6, 2015 Questionnaire Regarding Volume VII of 
the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties,'' dated 
August 10, 2015 (India Second Supplement);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that the Governments of Brazil 
(GOB), India (GOI), the PRC (GOC), Korea (GOK), and Russia (GOR) are 
providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 
and 771(5) of the Act) to imports of cold-rolled steel from Brazil, 
India, the PRC, Korea, and Russia, respectively, and that such imports 
are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry 
in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the 
Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available 
to Petitioners supporting their allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that 
Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to 
the initiation of the CVD investigations that Petitioners are 
requesting.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigations

    The period of investigations is January 1, 2014, through December 
31, 2014.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is cold-rolled steel 
from Brazil, India, the PRC, Korea, and Russia. For a full description 
of the scope of these investigations, see the ``Scope of the 
Investigations'' in Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department discussed with 
Petitioners the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the 
Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products

[[Page 51207]]

for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Memorandum from Vicki Flynn to The File, dated August 7, 
2015. See also Letter from Petitioners entitled ``Revised Scope, 
Amendment to Petitions,'' dated August 10, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\10\ 
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all 
comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with 
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If 
scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), 
all such factual information should be limited to public information. 
In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the 
Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, September 8, 2015, which is the 
first business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of 
this notice.\11\ Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual 
information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, September 18, 
2015, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \11\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties 
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted 
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that 
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the 
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department 
and request permission to submit the additional information. All such 
comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and 
CVD investigations.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). An electronically-filed 
document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and 
date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission 
requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with 
Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 
the applicable deadlines.

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department 
notified representatives of the GOB, GOI, GOK, GOC, and GOR of the 
receipt of the Petitions. Also, in accordance with section 
702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of 
the GOB, GOI, GOK, GOC, and GOR the opportunity for consultations with 
respect to the Petitions. On August 11, 2015, consultations were held 
with the GOR, and on August 14, 2015 consultations were held with the 
GOB and GOK.\12\ All invitation letters and memoranda regarding these 
consultations are on file electronically via ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Consultations were not held with the GOI and GOC, as none 
were requested by those governments prior to initiation of these 
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 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 International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product,\13\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a 
separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's 
determination is subject to limitations of time and information. 
Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, 
such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary 
to law.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \14\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
Petitions).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer 
a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that cold-rolled steel constitutes a 
single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in 
terms of that domestic like product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil 
(Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of 
Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Petitions Covering Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from 
Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic 
of Korea, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation, and the United 
Kingdom (Attachment II); Countervailing Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from 
the People's Republic of China (PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), at 
Attachment II; Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from India (India 
CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Countervailing Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products from the Republic of Korea (Korea CVD Initiation 
Checklist), at Attachment II; and Countervailing Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from 
the Russian Federation (Russia CVD Initiation Checklist). These 
checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file 
electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is 
also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main 
Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in

[[Page 51208]]

the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in 
the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of this notice. 
Petitioners provided their production of the domestic like product in 
2014, as well as total production of the domestic like product for the 
entire domestic industry.\16\ To establish industry support, 
Petitioners compared their own production to total production of the 
domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-4 and Exhibits I-3 and 
I-4; General Issues Supplement, at 3. Petitioners also provided an 
alternate industry support calculation based on American Iron and 
Steel Institute shipment data. See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3 
and Exhibit I-3; see also General Issues Supplement, at 2-4 and 
Exhibits I-Supp-10 through I-Supp-13. Petitioners demonstrate 
requisite industry support for the initiation of these 
investigations regardless of which calculation is used.
    \17\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-4 and Exhibits I-3 and 
I-4; General Issues Supplement, at 3. For further discussion, see 
Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, India 
CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD Initiation Checklist, and Russia 
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues 
Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support.\18\ 
First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or 
workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required 
to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling).\19\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) 
of the Act for the Petitions 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.\20\ Finally, the 
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act for the 
Petitions 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.\21\ 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, PRC CVD Initiation 
Checklist, India CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD Initiation 
Checklist, and Russia CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \19\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Brazil CVD 
Initiation Checklist, PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, India CVD 
Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD Initiation Checklist, and Russia CVD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \20\ See Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, PRC CVD Initiation 
Checklist, India CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD Initiation 
Checklist, and Russia CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that they are 
requesting the Department initiate.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because Brazil, India, the PRC, Korea, and Russia 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 Brazil, India, the PRC, India, Korea, and Russia 
materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are 
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are 
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry 
producing the domestic like product. In addition, with regard to 
Brazil, the PRC, Korea, and Russia, Petitioners allege that subject 
imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 
771(24)(A) of the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 28-29 and Exhibit I-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(A) of the Act provides that 
imports of subject merchandise must exceed the negligibility threshold 
of three percent, except that imports of subject merchandise from 
developing countries in CVD investigations must exceed the 
negligibility threshold of four percent, pursuant to section 771(24)(B) 
of the Act. Brazil has been designated as a developing country, and 
India has been designated as a least developed country.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See section 771(36)(A)-(B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the allegedly subsidized imports from India do not meet the 
statutory negligibility threshold of four percent, Petitioners allege 
and provide supporting evidence that (1) there is a reasonable 
indication that data obtained in the ITC's investigation will establish 
that imports exceed the negligibility threshold,\25\ and (2) there is 
the potential that imports from India will imminently exceed the 
negligibility threshold and, therefore, are not negligible for purposes 
of a threat determination.\26\ Petitioners' arguments regarding the 
limitations of publicly available import data and the collection of 
scope-specific import data in the ITC's investigation are consistent 
with the SAA. Furthermore, Petitioners' arguments regarding the 
potential for imports to imminently exceed the negligibility threshold 
are consistent with the statutory criteria for ``negligibility in 
threat analysis'' under section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which 
provides that imports shall not be treated as negligible if there is a 
potential that subject imports from a country will imminently exceed 
the statutory requirements for negligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, Vol. 1, (1994) (SAA), at 857; see also General Issues 
Supplement, at 5-7 and Exhibit I-Supp-14.
    \26\ See section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act; see also Volume I of 
the Petitions, at Exhibit I-8; and General Issues Supplement, at 7-9 
and Exhibits I-Supp-14 and I-Supp-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; reduced shipments, production, and 
capacity utilization; underselling and price suppression or depression; 
declining employment variables; lost sales and revenues; and declining 
financial performance.\27\ 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-16, 23-45, and 
Exhibits I-3, I-4, I-6, I-8 and I-10 through I-15; see also General 
Issues Supplement, at Exhibits I-Supp-1, I-Supp-14, and I-Supp-15.
    \28\ See Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, PRC CVD Initiation 
Checklist, India CVD Initiation Checklist, Korea CVD Initiation 
Checklist, and Russia CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, the 
People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the 
Netherlands, Russia, and the United Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations

    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

[[Page 51209]]

a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by 
information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting the 
allegations.
    Petitioners allege that producers/exporters of cold-rolled steel in 
Brazil, India, the PRC, Korea, and Russia benefited from 
countervailable subsidies bestowed by the governments of these 
countries, respectively. The Department examined the Petitions and 
finds that they comply 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 CVD investigations to determine whether manufacturers, 
producers, or exporters of cold-rolled steel from Brazil, India, the 
PRC, Korea, and Russia receive countervailable subsidies from the 
governments of these countries, respectively.
    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into 
law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD law.\29\ The 2015 law does not specify 
dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the 
Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the 
applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for 
amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to 
determinations of material injury by the ITC.\30\ The amendments to 
sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations 
made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these CVD 
investigations.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \30\ See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension 
Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). 
The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
    \31\ Id. at 46794-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brazil

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 32 of the 35 
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision 
to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Brazil CVD 
Initiation Checklist.

India

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 53 of the 56 
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision 
to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the India CVD 
Initiation Checklist.

The PRC

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 44 of the 45 
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision 
to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD Initiation 
Checklist.

Korea

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation 39 of the 41 
alleged programs.\32\ For a full discussion of the basis for our 
decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Korea CVD 
Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Department decided to partially initiate on Dongbu's 
Debt Restructuring program. See the Korea CVD Initiation Checklist 
for a more detailed explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russia

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 10 of the 14 
alleged programs.\33\ For a full discussion of the basis for our 
decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Russia 
CVD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Department decided to partially initiate on the 
Provision of Mining Rights for Less Than Adequate Remuneration 
program. See the Russia CVD Initiation Checklist for a more detailed 
explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation 
is available on ACCESS.
    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    Petitioners named eight companies as producers/exporters of cold-
rolled steel from Brazil, 43 from India, 224 from the PRC, nine from 
Korea, and 11 from Russia.\34\ Following standard practice in CVD 
investigations, the Department will, where appropriate, select 
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for 
U.S. imports of cold-rolled steel during the periods of investigation 
under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 
7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 
7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 
7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 
7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 
7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 
7211.23.6075, 7211.23.6085, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 
7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 
7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8015, 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 
7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order 
(APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within 
five business days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The 
Department invites comments regarding respondent selection within seven 
business days of publication of this Federal Register notice.
    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An 
electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET by the date noted above. We intend 
to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of 
publication of this notice. Interested parties must submit applications 
for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). 
Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the 
Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

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 GOB, GOI, GOC, GOK, and GOR via ACCESS. To the extent 
practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of 
the Petitions to each known exporter (as named in the Petitions), 
consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We 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, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of cold-rolled steel from Brazil, India, the 
PRC, Korea, and Russia are materially injuring, or threatening

[[Page 51210]]

material injury to, a U.S. industry.\35\ A negative ITC determination 
for any country will result in the investigation 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) of the Act.
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence 
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any 
party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which 
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 
and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 
factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation 
identifying the information already on the record that the factual 
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 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. Parties should review the regulations 
prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under part 351, 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 part 351 expires. 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. 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. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://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.\37\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their 
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions 
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD 
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the 
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final 
Rule.\38\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised 
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \38\ 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 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the 
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations 
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures 
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 
351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: August 17, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I--Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are certain cold-
rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not 
annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-
metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that 
are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include 
coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (``width'') of 
12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in 
successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The 
products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in 
straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that 
is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the 
thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils 
(e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a 
width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. 
The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, 
or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-
rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved 
subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been 
``worked after rolling'' (e.g., products which have been beveled or 
rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness 
requirements referenced above:
    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is 
within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual 
measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions 
set forth above, and
    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product 
(e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-
section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, 
etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.
    Steel products included in the scope of these investigations are 
products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of 
the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or 
less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds 
the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
     2.50 percent of manganese, or
     3.30 percent of silicon, or
     1.50 percent of copper, or
     1.50 percent of aluminum, or
     1.25 percent of chromium, or
     0.30 percent of cobalt, or
     0.40 percent of lead, or
     2.00 percent of nickel, or
     0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or
     0.80 percent of molybdenum, or
     0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or
     0.30 percent of vanadium, or
     0.30 percent of zirconium
    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this 
scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum 
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-
free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor 
lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra 
High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon 
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/
or niobium added to stabilize carbon and

[[Page 51211]]

nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-
alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, 
titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain 
micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS 
and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation 
steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are 
high tensile strength or high elongation steels.
    Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been 
further processed in a third country, including but not limited to 
annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, 
punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not 
otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the 
investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the 
cold-rolled steel.
    All products that meet the written physical description, and in 
which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted 
element levels listed above, are within the scope of these 
investigations unless specifically excluded. The following products 
are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of these 
investigations:
     Ball bearing steels; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which contain, in 
addition to iron, each of the following elements by weight in the 
amount specified: (i) Not less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent 
of carbon; (ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent of 
manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of sulfur; (iv) 
none, or not more than 0.03 percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than 
0.18 nor more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than 1.25 
nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii) none, or not more than 
0.28 percent of nickel; (viii) none, or not more than 0.38 percent 
of copper; and (ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of 
molybdenum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Tool steels; \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Tool steels are defined as steels which contain the 
following combinations of elements in the quantity by weight 
respectively indicated: (i) More than 1.2 percent carbon and more 
than 10.5 percent chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon 
and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent chromium; or 
(iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon and 1 percent to 1.8 
percent, inclusive, manganese; or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, 
inclusive, chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive, 
molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less 
than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi) not less than 0.5 percent 
carbon and not less than 5.5 percent tungsten.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Silico-manganese steel; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels containing by 
weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or 
more but not more than 1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6 
percent or more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in 
the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-
Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and 
Poland: Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Certain Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 
79 FR 42,501, 42,503 (Dep't of Commerce, July 22, 2014). This 
determination defines grain-oriented electrical steel as ``a flat-
rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent 
but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent 
of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other 
element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics 
of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in 
the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in 
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, 
Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of 
China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: 
Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71741, 71741-42 (Dep't of Commerce, 
Dec. 3, 2014). The orders define NOES as ``cold-rolled, flat-rolled, 
alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width, 
having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core 
loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the 
plane of the material. The term `substantially equal' means that the 
cross grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the 
straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. 
NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla 
when tested at a field of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along 
(i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 
value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon 
but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of 
carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a 
surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be 
applied.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The products subject to these investigations are currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 
7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 
7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 
7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 
7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 
7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 
7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 
7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6075, 7211.23.6085, 
7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 
7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 
7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8015, 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090, 
7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject 
to the investigations may also enter under the following HTSUS 
numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 
7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 
7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 
7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 
7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 
7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 
7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 
7229.90.1000.
    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and 
U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of 
the investigations is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2015-20879 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P