[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71697-71702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25171]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-876, A-583-859, A-489-829]


Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Japan, Taiwan and the 
Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

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

DATES: Effective October 11, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Halle at (202) 482-0176 (Japan); 
Jun Jack Zhao at (202) 482-1396 (Taiwan); and Myrna Lobo at (202) 482-
2371 (Republic of Turkey), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and 
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions

    On September 20, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of steel 
concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic 
of Turkey (Turkey), filed in proper form on behalf of the Rebar Trade 
Action Coalition and its individual members (Petitioners).\1\ The 
Petitions were accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition on 
rebar from Turkey.\2\ Petitioners are domestic producers of rebar.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, 
Taiwan, and the Republic of Turkey, dated September 20, 2016 (the 
Petitions). The individual members of the Rebar Trade Action 
Coalition are Bayou Steel Group, Byer Steel Group, Inc., Commercial 
Metals Company, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Nucor Corporation, and 
Steel Dynamics, Inc.
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2 and Exhibits I-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 23 and 30, 2016, the Department requested additional 
information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.\4\ 
Petitioners filed

[[Page 71698]]

responses to these requests on September 28, October 4, and October 5, 
2016, respectively.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled 
``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic 
of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental 
Questions,'' dated September 23, 2016 (General Issues Supplemental 
Questionnaire); see also Letter from the Department to Petitioners 
entitled ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan: Supplemental 
Questions,'' dated September 23, 2016 (Japan Supplemental 
Questionnaire); see also Letter from the Department to Petitioners 
entitled ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Taiwan: Supplemental 
Questions,'' dated September 23, 2016 (Taiwan Supplemental 
Questionnaire); see also Letter from the Department to Petitioners 
entitled ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of 
Turkey: Supplemental Questions,'' dated September 23, 2016 (Turkey 
Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Memorandum to the File from 
Vicki Flynn, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Policy, Re: 
``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the 
Republic of Turkey and Antidumping Duties on Imports from Japan and 
Taiwan, Subject: Telephone Conversation with Petitioners' Counsel,'' 
dated September 30, 2016 (Memorandum on Telephone Conversation with 
Petitioners' Counsel re: Scope and Other Issues).
    \5\ See Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled ``Re: 
Supplement to the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, 
Taiwan, and the Republic of Turkey: Response to the Department's 
Supplemental Questions,'' dated September 28, 2016 (General Issues 
Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the Department 
entitled ``Re: Supplement to the Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bar from Japan: Response to the Department's Supplemental 
Questions,'' dated September 28, 2016 (Japan Supplement); see also 
Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled ``Re: Supplement 
to the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Taiwan: Response to 
the Department's Supplemental Questions,'' dated September 28, 2016 
(Taiwan Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the 
Department entitled ``Re: Supplement to the Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey: Response to 
the Department's Supplemental Questions,'' dated September 28, 2016 
(Turkey Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the 
Department entitled ``Re: Supplement to the Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of 
Turkey: Response to the Department's Supplemental Questions,'' dated 
October 4, 2016 (Second General Issues Supplement); see also Letter 
from Petitioners to the Department entitled ``Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Turkey: 
Revised Scope, Amendment to Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,'' dated October 5, 2016 
(Third General Issues Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that imports of rebar from Japan, 
Taiwan, and Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United 
States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the 
Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening 
material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent 
with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, Petitioners state that the Petitions 
are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners 
supporting their allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested 
parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (E) of the Act. The 
Department also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry 
support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that 
Petitioners are requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on September 20, 2016, the period 
of investigation (POI) for each investigation is, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1), July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is rebar from Japan, 
Taiwan, and Turkey. For a full description of the scope of these 
investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' at Appendix I 
of this notice. Note that one paragraph in the description of the scope 
of these investigations in Appendix I applies by its express terms 
solely to the merchandise covered by the concurrent countervailing duty 
investigation of rebar from Turkey and does not apply to these less-
than-fair-value investigations.

Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed 
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an 
accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is 
seeking relief.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire and General 
Issues Supplement; see also Memorandum on Telephone Conversation 
with Petitioners' Counsel re: Scope and Other Issues and Third 
General Issues Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, 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 Daylight Time (EDT) on October 31, 2016, which is 20 
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal 
comments, which may include factual information (also should be limited 
to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EST (Eastern 
Standard Time) on November 10, 2016, which is 10 calendar days after 
the initial comments. All such comments must be filed on the records of 
each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
    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. As stated 
above, 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).\8\ An electronically 
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the 
time and date when 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 ACCESS can be found at 
https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at 
https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department will be giving interested parties an opportunity to 
provide comments on the appropriate physical characteristics of rebar 
to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant 
costs of

[[Page 71699]]

production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-
comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, although there 
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers 
to describe rebar, it may be that only a select few product 
characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical 
characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the 
order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching 
products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important 
physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics 
last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product 
characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on October 31, 
2016, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 
Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EST on November 10, 
2016. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of each 
of the concurrent AD investigations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(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 732(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,\9\ 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \10\ 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 rebar, as defined in the scope, 
constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed 
industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan (Japan AD Initiation 
Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of 
Turkey (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Taiwan (Taiwan AD 
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar 
from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey AD Initiation Checklist), at 
Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with this 
notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents 
filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room 
B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of 
this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their 
2015 shipments of the domestic like product, and compared their 
shipments to estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for 
the entire domestic industry.\12\ Because production data for the U.S. 
rebar industry for 2015 is not reasonably available to Petitioners and 
Petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for 
production data,\13\ we have relied upon the shipment data provided by 
Petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3 and Exhibits I-4 and I-
31; see also General Issues Supplement, at 3-6 and Exhibits I-Supp-4 
and I-Supp-7.
    \13\ See General Issues Supplement, at 5 and Exhibits I-Supp-4 
and I-Supp-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\14\ 
First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers and 
workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total shipments \15\ 
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).\16\ Second, the domestic producers and workers have 
met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers and workers 
who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total 
shipments of the domestic like

[[Page 71700]]

product.\17\ Finally, the domestic producers and workers have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) 
of the Act because the domestic producers and workers who support the 
Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the shipments of the 
domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry 
expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.\18\ 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist, Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Turkey AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \15\ As discussed above, Petitioners established that shipments 
are a reasonable proxy for production data. Section 351.203(e)(1) of 
the Department's regulations states ``production levels may be 
established by reference to alternative data that the Secretary 
determines to be indicative of production levels.''
    \16\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Japan AD 
Initiation Checklist, Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, and Turkey AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \17\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist, Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Turkey AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in sections 771(9)(C) and (E) of the Act and they have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that 
they are requesting the Department initiate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 
sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioners allege 
that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for 
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See General Issues Supplement, at 6-7 and Exhibit I-Supp-8; 
see also Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression 
or depression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production, 
capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; negative impact on employment 
variables; and decline in financial performance.\21\ 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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14, 18-48 and Exhibits I-
5, I-8, I-20, and I-23 through I-59; see also General Issues 
Supplement, at 6-8 and Exhibits I-Supp-7 through I-Supp-10.
    \22\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan, Taiwan, and the 
Republic of Turkey (Attachment III); see also Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment III; and Turkey AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-
than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate investigations of imports of rebar from Japan, Taiwan, and 
Turkey. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating 
to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-
specific initiation checklists.

Export Price

    For Japan, Petitioners based export price (EP) on quoted sales 
offers or transactions to customers in the United States for rebar 
produced in, and exported from, Japan.\23\ Where applicable, 
Petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses 
consistent with the delivery terms.\24\ Petitioners also deducted from 
U.S. price brokerage and handling expenses.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of 
the Petitions, at 2-3 and Exhibit AD-JP-2.
    \24\ See Japan AD Initation Checklist; see also Volume II of the 
Petitions, at 2-7 and Exhibit AD-JP-11; see also Japan Supplement, 
at Exhibit AD-JP-Supp-2.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Taiwan, and Turkey, Petitioners based EP on transaction-
specific average unit values (AUVs) for shipments of rebar identified 
from each of these countries entered under the relevant Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading for one month 
during the POI into a specific port.\26\ Under this methodology,\27\ 
Petitioners linked data from an independent source to monthly U.S. 
port-specific import statistics (obtained from the ITC's Dataweb). 
Petitioners linked imports of rebar entered under the relevant HTSUS 
subheading to shipments from producers in the subject countries 
identified in the independent source data to ensure that the Dataweb 
statistics were only for subject merchandise.\28\ To calculate ex-
factory prices, Petitioners made adjustments for foreign inland freight 
and brokerage and handling expenses; Petitioners made no adjustments to 
EP for international freight and insurance expenses, consistent with 
the manner in which the data is reported in Dataweb.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, and Turkey AD 
Initiation Checklist.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey, Petitioners were unable to obtain 
information regarding home market prices and, therefore, calculated NV 
based on constructed value (CV).\30\ Pursuant to section 773(e) of the 
Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general 
and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, packing 
expenses, and profit. Petitioners calculated COM based on a U.S. 
producer of rebar (U.S. surrogate's) experience, adjusted for known 
differences between producing in the United States and producing in the 
respective country (i.e., Japan, Taiwan, or Turkey), during the 
proposed POI.\31\ Using publicly-available data to account for price 
differences, Petitioners multiplied the surrogate raw material and 
packing usage quantities by the submitted value of the inputs used to 
manufacture rebar in each country.\32\ For Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey, 
labor and energy rates were derived from publicly-available sources 
multiplied by the U.S. surrogate's product-specific usage 
quantities.\33\ For Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey, to determine the factory 
overhead, SG&A, and financial rates, Petitioners relied on the audited 
financial statements of companies that were producers of identical 
merchandise operating in the respective subject country.\34\ 
Petitioners also relied on the audited financial statements of the same 
producers that they used for calculating the factory overhead, SG&A, 
and financial expenses to calculate the profit rate.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist, Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Turkey AD Initiation Checklist. In accordance with 
section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 
amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for all of the 
investigations, the Department will request information necessary to 
calculate the cost of production (COP) and CV to determine whether 
there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the 
foreign like product have been made at prices that represent less 
than the COP of the product. The Department will no longer require a 
COP allegation to conduct this analysis.
    \31\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist, Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Turkey AD Initiation Checklist.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of rebar from Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey, are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair 
value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance

[[Page 71701]]

with sections 773(a) and (e) of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margin(s) for rebar are as follows: (1) Japan, 204.91 to 209.46 
percent; \36\ (2) Taiwan, 84.66 percent; \37\ and (3) Turkey, 66.55 
percent.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Japan Supplement, Exhibit AD-JP-Supp-3, and Japan AD 
Initiation Checklist.
    \37\ See Taiwan Supplement, Exhibit AD-TW-Supp-6, and Taiwan AD 
Initiation Checklist.
    \38\ See Turkey Supplement, Exhibit AD-TR-Supp-6, and Turkey AD 
Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on rebar from Japan, 
Taiwan, and Turkey, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of 
section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations 
to determine whether imports of rebar for Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey, 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-
fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this 
initiation.
    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.\39\ 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.\40\ The amendments to 
sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all 
determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply 
to these AD investigations.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \40\ 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).
    \41\ Id., at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    Based on information from an independent source and other open 
source research, Petitioners identified 20 companies in Japan, 8 
companies in Taiwan, and 35 companies in Turkey, as producers/exporters 
of rebar.\42\ Following standard practice in AD investigations 
involving market economy countries, in the event the Department 
determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot 
individually examine each company based upon the Department's 
resources, where appropriate, the Department intends to select 
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for 
U.S. imports under the appropriate HTSUS numbers listed with the 
``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I, below. We also intend 
to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to 
all parties with access to information protected by APO on the record 
within five business days of publication of this Federal Register 
notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should 
be submitted seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on 
the record of each respective investigation. Parties wishing to submit 
rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after 
the deadline for the initial comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 12-13 and Exhibit I-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments for the above-referenced investigations must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be 
received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic 
records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET by the dates noted above. We 
intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent selection within 
20 days of publication of this notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the governments of Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey via ACCESS. To 
the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public 
version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as 
provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(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 rebar from Japan, Taiwan, and/or Turkey are 
materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. 
industry.\43\ A negative ITC determination for any country will result 
in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 
\44\ otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \44\ 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). Any party, when submitting 
factual information, must 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. Please review the regulations prior to 
submitting factual information in these investigations.

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under 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;

[[Page 71702]]

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 this segment.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\45\ 
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.\46\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \46\ 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 in 19 CFR 
351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: October 11, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise subject to these investigations is steel 
concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil 
form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or 
lack thereof. Subject merchandise includes deformed steel wire with 
bar markings (e.g., mill mark, size, or grade) and which has been 
subjected to an elongation test.
    The subject merchandise includes rebar that has been further 
processed in the subject country or a third country, including but 
not limited to cutting, grinding, galvanizing, painting, coating, 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 rebar.
    Specifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e., nondeformed or 
smooth rebar). Also excluded from the scope is deformed steel wire 
meeting ASTM A1064/A1064M with no bar markings (e.g., mill mark, 
size, or grade) and without being subject to an elongation test.
    At the time of the filing of the petition, there was an existing 
countervailing duty order on steel reinforcing bar from the Republic 
of Turkey. Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of 
Turkey, 79 FR 65,926 (Dep't Commerce Nov. 6, 2014) (2014 Turkey CVD 
Order). The scope of this countervailing duty investigation with 
regard to rebar from Turkey covers only rebar produced and/or 
exported by those companies that are excluded from the 2014 Turkey 
CVD Order. At the time of the issuance of the 2014 Turkey CVD Order, 
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. was the only 
excluded Turkish rebar producer or exporter.
    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, 7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 
7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 
7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6030, 
7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000.
    HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes; 
however, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2016-25171 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P