[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76444-76447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31083]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-602-809, A-351-845, A-588-874, A-421-813, C-351-846]


Antidumping Duty Investigations of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands and 
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products From Brazil: Preliminary Determinations of Critical 
Circumstances

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

SUMMARY: On August 11, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports 
of certain hot-rolled steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from 
Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands, and a countervailing 
duty (CVD) petition concerning hot-rolled steel from Brazil.\1\ On 
October 23, 2015, the Department received timely allegations, pursuant 
to sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.206, that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under 
investigation.\2\ Based on information provided by the petitioners, 
data placed on the record of these investigations by the mandatory 
respondents, and data collected by the Department from Global Trade 
Atlas (GTA), the Department preliminarily determines that critical 
circumstances exist for imports of hot-rolled steel from certain 
producers and exporters from Brazil and Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, 
Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United 
Kingdom, dated August 11, 2015, and Petitions for the Imposition of 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products from Brazil, Korea, and Turkey, dated August 11, 2015 
(collectively, the petitions). The petitioners for these 
investigations are AK Steel Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, 
Nucor Corporation, SSAB Enterprises, LLC, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and 
United States Steel Corporation (the petitioners).
    \2\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Australia, 
Brazil, Japan and the Netherlands--Critical Circumstances 
Allegations, October 23, 2105, and Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat 
Products From Australia, Brazil, Japan and the Netherlands--Critical 
Circumstances Allegations, November 2, 2015 (making public certain 
information in Attachment 2 of original submission) (collectively, 
Critical Circumstances Allegation).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0665, and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2), the petitioners requested that 
the Department issue a preliminary affirmative determination of 
critical circumstances on an expedited basis. In accordance with 
sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Act, because the petitioners 
submitted their critical circumstances allegations more than 20 days 
before the scheduled date of the final determination, the Department 
must promptly issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations.
    Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
determine that critical circumstances exist in CVD investigations if 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A) That ``the 
alleged countervailable subsidy'' is inconsistent with the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) of the World 
Trade Organization, and (B) that ``there have been massive imports of 
the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.'' Section 
733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily 
determine that critical circumstances exist in AD investigations if 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A)(i) That ``there 
is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports 
in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise,'' or (ii) 
that ``the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was 
imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the 
subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales,'' and (B) that 
``there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a 
relatively short period.'' Section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's 
regulations provides that, generally, imports must increase by at least 
15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' to be considered 
``massive'' and section 351.206(i) defines a ``relatively short 
period'' as normally being the period beginning on the date the 
proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) \3\ and ending 
at least three months later.\4\ The

[[Page 76445]]

regulations also provide, however, that, if the Department ``finds that 
importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some 
time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was 
likely,'' the Department ``may consider a period of not less than three 
months from that earlier time.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(40) (providing that a proceeding 
begins on the date of the filing of a petition).
    \4\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alleged Countervailable Subsidies Are Inconsistent With the SCM 
Agreement

    To determine whether an alleged countervailable subsidy is 
inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, in accordance with section 
703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department considered the evidence 
currently on the record of the Brazil CVD investigation. Specifically, 
as determined in our initiation checklist, the following subsidy 
programs, alleged in the petition and supported by information 
reasonably available to the petitioners, appear to be either export 
contingent or contingent upon the use of domestic goods over imported 
goods, which would render them inconsistent with the SCM Agreement: 
Reduction of Tax on Industrialized Products (IPI) for Machines and 
Equipment,\6\ Brazil's Export Financing Program (PROEX),\7\ Reintegra 
Program,\8\ RECAP: Special Regime for the Acquisition of Capital Goods 
for Export Companies,\9\ Integrated Drawback Scheme,\10\ Export Credit 
Insurance and Guarantees,\11\ Export Guarantee Fund,\12\ Export 
Promotion and Marketing Assistance,\13\ Banco do Brasil and Banco 
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econ[ocirc]mico e Social (BNDES) ExIm 
loans,\14\ FINAME loans,\15\ and Automatic BNDES.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Brazil CVD Initiation Checklist, August 31, 2015, at 7.
    \7\ Id., at 12.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id., at 13.
    \10\ Id., at 14.
    \11\ Id., at 15.
    \12\ Id., at 16.
    \13\ Id., at 17.
    \14\ Id., at 34.
    \15\ Id., at 35.
    \16\ Id., at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines for purposes of 
this critical circumstances determination that there are alleged 
subsidies in the Brazil CVD investigation that are inconsistent with 
the SCM Agreement.

History of Dumping and Material Injury/Knowledge of Sales Below Fair 
Value and Material Injury

    In order to determine whether there is a history of dumping 
pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department 
generally considers current or previous AD orders on subject 
merchandise from the country in question in the United States and 
current orders imposed by other countries with regard to imports of the 
same merchandise.\17\ The Department has previously issued AD orders on 
hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products from Japan \18\ 
and Brazil.\19\ Moreover, there are current AD orders imposed by other 
World Trade Organization members against hot-rolled steel products from 
Brazil and Japan.\20\ Certain HTS numbers subject to these Brazil and 
Japan orders overlap with HTS numbers listed in the scope of these hot-
rolled steel investigations. Therefore, there is evidence of a history 
of dumping of subject merchandise exported from Brazil and Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 
FR 59117, 59120 (November 17, 2009) unchanged in Certain Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final Determination of 
Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010).
    \18\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 
Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Japan, 64 FR 34778 (June 29, 
1999).
    \19\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 
Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 67 FR 11093 (March 12, 
2002).
    \20\ See Attachment 1 of Critical Circumstances Allegation 
(containing ``Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the 
Agreement'' from Australia to World Trade Organization depicting 
``Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures in Force, as of December 31, 
2014'' which lists Hot Rolled Steel Coil from, Japan, et.al.; Semi-
Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement'' from Canada to 
World Trade Organization depicting ``Definitive Anti-Dumping 
Measures in Force, as of December 31, 2014'' which lists Certain 
Flat Hot-Rolled Carbon and Alloy Steel Sheet and Strip from Brazil, 
et.al.; and ``Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the 
Agreement'' from Thailand to World Trade Organization depicting 
``Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures in Force, as of December 31, 
2014'' which lists Flat Hot Rolled Steel in Coils and not in Coils 
from Japan, et.al.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that 
exporters were selling at less than fair value, we typically consider 
the magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in 
petitions.\21\ The Department has found margins of 15 to 25 percent 
(depending on whether sales are export price sales or constructed 
export price sales) to be sufficient for this purpose.\22\ The 
Department initiated these AD investigations based on the following 
estimated dumping margins: 99.20 percent (Australia); 34.28 percent 
(Brazil); 16.15 to 34.53 percent (Japan); and 55.21 to 173.17 percent 
(Netherlands). All of these margins are above the 15 to 25 percent 
threshold.\23\ Therefore, on that basis, we preliminarily conclude that 
importers knew or should have known that exporters in all four 
countries were selling subject merchandise at less than fair value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Australia, the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of 
Korea, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation, 67 FR 19157, 
19158 (April 18, 2002) (unchanged in the final determination).
    \22\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the 
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997) 
(unchanged in the final determination) and Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672 (July 16, 2004) 
(unchanged in the final determination).
    \23\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, 
Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic 
of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-
Value Investigations, 80 FR 54261, 54265 (September 9, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that there 
was likely to be material injury, we typically consider the preliminary 
injury determinations of the International Trade Commission (ITC).\24\ 
If the ITC finds material injury (rather than the threat of injury), we 
normally find that the ITC's determination provided importers with 
sufficient knowledge of injury. In these investigations, the ITC's 
finding of material injury by reason of imports of hot-rolled steel 
from, inter alia, Australia, Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands is 
sufficient to impute knowledge of the likelihood of material injury for 
each of these countries.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 
24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010), unchanged in Certain Potassium Phosphate 
Salts from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical 
Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377 (June 1, 2010).
    \25\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, 
Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United 
Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-545-547 and 731-TA-1291-1297 (Prelim), 
USITC Pub. 4570 (Oct. 2015) at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Massive Imports

    In determining whether there have been ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to sections 703(e)(1)(B) and 
733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import 
volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months 
immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the ``base

[[Page 76446]]

period'') to a comparable period of at least three months following the 
filing of the petition (i.e., the ``comparison period''). Imports 
normally will be considered massive when imports during the comparison 
period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during 
the base period.
    Based on evidence provided by the petitioners, the Department finds 
that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(i), importers, exporters or producers 
had reason to believe, at some time prior to the filing of the 
petition, that a proceeding was likely. Specifically, the Department 
concludes that the available factual information provided by the 
petitioners indicates that by June 2015, importers, exporters or 
producers had reason to believe that a proceeding was likely. The 
Department finds the following information relevant from the press 
articles the petitioners provided to support their claim of ``early 
knowledge'':
     On May 11, 2015, American Metal Market issued an article 
acknowledging an industry analyst at Morgan Stanley Equity Research 
indicating that ``flat-rolled steel trade cases could move forward soon 
due to congressional bickering surrounding Trade Promotion Authority 
(TPA).'' \26\ That article included statements about the past and 
current state of hot-rolled coil prices, thereby indicating that the 
potential trade cases included hot-rolled steel.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Critical Circumstances Allegation at Attachment 2.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On May 29, 2015, another industry source, Steel Business 
Briefer, indicated that an informant of a service center executive 
stated that he was 90 percent sure that a filing on flat-rolled 
products will take place next week (i.e., in June). According to the 
informant, ``US sheet mills are waiting . . . to finish data collection 
. . . and that {one{time}  mill has already contacted him to gather 
information. {US mills are{time}  having trouble with their customers 
finding out how much import they're buying.'' \28\ The article also 
included assessments on hot-rolled and cold-rolled coil prices, thereby 
demonstrating that the potential trade cases concerned both hot-rolled 
and cold-rolled products.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On June 4, 2015, a day after trade cases were filed on 
corrosion-resistant steel products, American Metal Market issued an 
article stating that this case was the ``first of many expected across 
U.S. steel markets in the coming weeks and months.'' Additionally, an 
industry analyst at Morgan Stanley Equity Research was quoted as saying 
that he believed that ``the {U.S{time}  industry is also working on 
cold-rolled and potentially hot-rolled cases as well.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     On June 9, 2015, American Metal Market issued an article 
providing commentary from the chairman, president, and chief executive 
officer (CEO) of AK Steel Corporation (one of the petitioning companies 
in this investigation), confirming that the trade cases on hot-rolled 
and cold-rolled coil were likely to come shortly after the already-
filed trade case on corrosion-resistant steel. In particular, the 
author indicated that, according to the CEO, ``{d{time} omestic 
steelmakers are considering trade petitions against imports of hot-
rolled and cold-rolled coil.'' Further, the CEO was quoted as saying, 
``All aspects of the carbon product are being analyzed. Whether (hot-
rolled coil) is the next case or the third case, all three are being 
looked at and one has been filed. . . The others are being evaluated . 
. . At this point, we look to our advisors and our lawyers to give us 
the go-ahead. . .'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above references, by industry specialists and authorities, to 
the impending trade cases on hot-rolled steel indicate that steel 
importers, exporters, and producers had, by the end of June 2015, 
sufficiently credible reasons to believe that forthcoming petitions 
were likely.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In its November 3, 2015, submission, a Japanese producer, 
Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, commented that the 
Department has previously rejected the mere presence of rumors in 
press articles as being too speculative to form a basis for imputing 
knowledge that a petition was likely. Similarly, in its November 13, 
2015, comments, a Dutch producer, Tata Steel IJmuiden B.V., 
commented that none of the articles the petitioners cited rise to 
anything above speculation, claiming that the strongest 
characterization of the articles that could be made concerning hot-
rolled steel is that the U.S. industry was looking into whether a 
case could be brought, not that a case would be initiated and that 
such an initiation was imminent. In its November 2, 2015, 
submission, an Australian producer/exporter, BlueScope Steel Ltd. 
(BlueScope) asserted that ``the existence of one or two 
uncorroborated rumors reported in the press articles in June 2015, 
hardly constitutes a `reason to believe' that a case against hot-
rolled steel . . . was `likely,' as required by the regulations.'' 
On the basis of the information in various industry articles it 
submitted, BlueScope notes that, in many months leading up to the 
filing of a case against imports of coated steel in June 2015, a 
case against imports of hot-rolled steel had not been mentioned 
since the time it was first rumored in July 2014; and cases against 
imports of cold-rolled and coated steel had been repeatedly rumored 
but not filed. BlueScope argues that, given the repeated 
unreliability of rumors in the past, importers would have been 
understandably skeptical of any reports emerging in June 2015 of a 
case against imports of hot-rolled steel. We do not find interested 
parties' arguments persuasive. The records of these investigations 
show that rumors on trade cases against imports of corrosion-
resistant, cold-rolled, and hot-rolled steels cases had been 
circulating as far back as 2014. The records also show that these 
three cases were often referenced collectively, or were simply 
referred to as ``flat rolled'' cases. When trade cases were actually 
filed on imports of corrosion-resistant steel in early June 2015, we 
find that this solidified rumors into the expectation among steel 
importers, exporters, and producers that forthcoming petitions on 
the remaining products (i.e., cold-rolled and hot-rolled steels) 
were inevitable. This is corroborated by the statements from the CEO 
of AK Steel Corporation in the June 9, 2015, article by American 
Metal Market, which illuminated the imminence of trade cases on 
imports of cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel, stating that the 
requisite data were ``available'' and that other cases are ``going 
to follow'' pending legal approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in order to determine whether there has been a massive surge 
in imports for each cooperating mandatory respondent, the Department 
compared the total volume of shipments during the period June 2015 
through October 2015 (all months for which data was available) with the 
volume of shipments during the preceding five-month period of January 
2015 through May 2015. For ``all others,'' the Department compared GTA 
data for the period June 2015 through September 2015 (the last month 
for which GTA data is currently available) with data for the preceding 
four-month period of February 2014 through May 2015.\33\ We subtracted 
shipments reported by the mandatory respondents from the GTA data. With 
respect to Australia and the Netherlands, the shipment data do not 
demonstrate massive surges in imports for any producers/exporters. 
Therefore, we are reaching a preliminary negative critical 
circumstances determination with respect to Australia and the 
Netherlands. With respect to Brazil and Japan, we preliminarily 
determine the following producers/exporters had massive surges in 
imports.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Department gathered GTA data under the following 
harmonized tariff schedule numbers: 7208.10.1500, 7208.10.3000, 
7208.10.6000, 7208.25.3000, 7208.25.6000, 7208.26.0030, 
7208.26.0060, 7208.27.0030, 7208.27.0060, 7208.36.0030, 
7208.36.0060, 7208.37.0030, 7208.37.0060, 7208.38.0015, 
7208.38.0030, 7208.38.0090, 7208.39.0015, 7208.39.0030, 
7208.39.0090, 7208.40.6030, 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000, 
7208.54.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.14.0030, 
7211.14.0090, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.3000, 
7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7530, 7211.19.7560, 
7211.19.7590, 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.30.3050, 
7225.30.7000, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000, 
7226.11.9030, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 
7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, and 7226.91.8000.
    \34\ See respective preliminary critical circumstances memoranda 
for each proceeding, dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Brazil (A-351-845 and C-351-846): Companhia Siderugica 
Nacional (CSN), Usinas Siderurgicas da Minas Gerais S.A. (Usiminas);

[[Page 76447]]

     Japan (A-588-874): Nippon Steel & Sumikin Bussan 
Corporation (Nippon), JFE Steel Corporation (JFE);

Conclusion

    Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect 
to imports of hot-rolled steel shipped by certain producers/exporters. 
Our findings are summarized as follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Affirmative preliminary    Negative preliminary
               Country                         Case No.         critical  circumstances  critical  circumstances
                                                                     determinations           determinations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia............................  A-602-809..............  None...................  BlueScope; all other
                                                                                          producers/exporters.
Brazil...............................  A-351-845..............  CSN; Usiminas..........  All other producers/
                                       C-351-846..............                            exporters.
Japan................................  A-588-874..............  Nippon; JFE............  All other producers/
                                                                                          exporters.
Netherlands..........................  A-421-813..............  None...................  Tata; all other
                                                                                          producers/exporters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Critical Circumstances Determinations

    We will issue final determinations concerning critical 
circumstances when we issue our final countervailing duty and less than 
fair value determinations. All interested parties will have the 
opportunity to address these determinations in case briefs to be 
submitted after completion of the preliminary countervailing duty and 
less than fair value determinations.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with sections 703(f) and 733(f) of the Act, we have 
notified the ITC of our determinations.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(e)(2) of the Act, because we have 
preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to 
exports made by certain producers and/or exporters, if we make an 
affirmative preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies 
have been provided to these same producers/exporters at above de 
minimis rates,\35\ we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from 
these producers/exporters that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date that is 90 days prior 
to the effective date of ``provisional measures'' (e.g., the date of 
publication in the Federal Register of the notice of an affirmative 
preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies have been 
provided at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated 
preliminary subsidy rates reflected in the preliminary determination 
published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The preliminary determination in the countervailing duty 
investigation for Brazil is currently scheduled for January 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, because we have 
preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to 
exports made by certain producers and/or exporters, if we make an 
affirmative preliminary determination that sales at less than fair 
value have been made by these same producers/exporters at above de 
minimis rates,\36\ we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of subject merchandise from these producers/exporters that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date that is 90 days prior to the effective date of ``provisional 
measures'' (e.g., the date of publication in the Federal Register of 
the notice of an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at less 
than fair value at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated 
preliminary dumping margins reflected in the preliminary determination 
published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The preliminary determinations concerning sales at less 
than fair value are due on March 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2).

    Dated: December 2, 2015.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-31083 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P