[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37992-37998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16655]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-867, A-560-833, A-580-902, A-552-825]


Utility Scale Wind Towers From Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of 
Korea, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-
Fair-Value Investigations

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

DATES: Applicable July 29, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney at (202) 482-4475 
(Canada); Brittany Bauer (202) 482-3860 (Indonesia); Rebecca Janz at 
(202) 482-2972 (Republic of Korea (Korea)); and Edythe Artman at (202) 
482-3931 (Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)); AD/CVD Operations, 
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 
20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On July 9, 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) 
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of utility 
scale wind towers (wind towers) from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and 
Vietnam, filed in proper form on behalf of the Wind Tower Trade 
Coalition (the petitioner).\1\ The Petitions were accompanied by 
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of wind towers 
from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Petitions for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Utility Scale Wind Towers 
from Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam,'' dated July 9, 2019 (the Petitions).

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

[[Page 37993]]

    During the period July 12 through 22, 2019, Commerce requested 
supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions 
in separate supplemental questionnaires.\2\ The petitioner filed 
responses to the supplemental questionnaires between July 16 and 24, 
2019.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Petitions for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Utility Scale 
Wind Towers from Canada, Indonesia, and the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Supplemental Questions,'' dated July 12, 2019; and, 
``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada: Supplemental Questions,'' 
``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Utility Scale Wind Towers from Indonesia: Supplemental Questions,'' 
``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental 
Questions,'' and ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 
on Imports of Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Supplemental Questions,'' all dated July 15, 2019; see 
also Memoranda, ``Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,'' dated 
July 15, 2019; ``Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,'' dated 
July 18, 2019; and, ``Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,'' 
dated July 22, 2019.
    \3\ See Petitioner's Letters, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Responses to First Supplemental Questions on Common 
Issues and Injury Volume I of the Petition,'' dated July 16, 2019 
(General Issues Supplement); ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
Canada: Responses to First Supplemental Questions on Canada Volume 
II of the Petition,'' ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Indonesia: 
Responses to First Supplemental Questions on Indonesia Volume III of 
the Petition,'' and Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Responses to First Supplemental Questions on 
Vietnam Volume V of the Petition,'' each dated July 18, 2019; 
``Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Republic of Korea: Responses to 
First Supplemental Questions on Korea Volume IV of the Petition,'' 
dated July 19, 2019; ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, 
Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Responses to Second Supplemental Questions on Common Issues 
and Injury Volume I of the Petition,'' dated July 19, 2019 (Scope 
Supplement); ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada: Responses to 
Second Supplemental Questions on Canada Volume II of the Petition,'' 
``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Indonesia: Responses to Second 
Supplemental Questions on Indonesia Volume III of the Petition,'' 
``Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Republic of Korea: Responses to 
Second Supplemental Questions on Volume IV of the Petition,'' and 
``Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Responses to Second Supplemental Questions on Vietnam Volume V of 
the Petition,'' each dated July 24, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of wind towers 
from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the 
meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products 
are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the 
domestic wind tower industry in the United States. Consistent with 
section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by 
information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its 
allegations.
    Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of 
the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, 
as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act. Commerce also finds that 
the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support necessary for 
the initiation of the requested AD investigations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periods of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on July 9, 2019, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for the Canada, 
Indonesia, and Korea investigations is July 1, 2018 through June 30, 
2019. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the Vietnam investigation is 
January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is wind towers from 
Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam. For a full description of the 
scope of these investigations, see the Appendix to this notice.

Scope Comments

    During our review of the Petitions, we contacted the petitioner 
regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the 
Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the 
domestic industry is seeking relief.\5\ As a result, the scope of the 
Petitions was modified to clarify the description of the merchandise 
covered by the Petitions. The description of the merchandise covered by 
these investigations, as described in the Appendix to this notice, 
reflects these clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See General Issues Supplement; see also Memorandum, ``Phone 
Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,'' dated July 18, 2019; and 
Scope Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are 
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage (i.e., scope).\6\ Commerce will consider all comments 
received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with 
interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
determination. If scope comments include factual information,\7\ all 
such factual information should be limited to public information. To 
facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that 
all interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time 
(ET) on August 19, 2019, which is 20 calendar days from the signature 
date of this notice.\8\ Any rebuttal comments, which may include 
factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 29, 2019, 
which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble).
    \7\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual 
information'').
    \8\ Because the deadline falls on a Sunday (i.e., August 18, 
2019), the deadline becomes the next business day (i.e., August 19, 
2019).
    \9\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce 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 Commerce and request permission to 
submit the additional information. All such comments must also be filed 
on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via 
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\10\ An electronically 
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the 
time and date it is due. Documents exempted 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, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 
20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable 
deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and 
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 
(November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce's electronic filing 
requirements, effective 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

    Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on the appropriate physical characteristics

[[Page 37994]]

of wind towers to be reported in response to Commerce's AD 
questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key 
physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to develop 
appropriate product-comparison criteria, as well as to report the 
relevant factors of production (FOPs) accurately.
    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 wind towers, 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, Commerce 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. ET on August 19, 
2019, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this 
notice.\11\ Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on 
August 29, 2019. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of each 
of the AD investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b). Because the deadline falls on a 
Sunday (i.e., August 18, 2019), the deadline becomes the next 
business day (i.e., August 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, Commerce shall: (i) 
Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if 
there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or 
(ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling 
method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the Act directs 
Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like 
product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible 
for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been injured, 
must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order 
to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the 
same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,\12\ they 
do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct 
authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to 
limitations of time and information. Although this may result in 
different definitions of the like product, such differences do not 
render the decision of either agency contrary to law.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the Petitions.\14\ Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that wind towers, as 
defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we 
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like 
product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 17-18 and Exhibits I-9 
and I-14; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1-2 and Exhibit I-
Supp-2; and Scope Supplement, at 1 and Exhibit I-Supp2-1.
    \15\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as 
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, 
see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility 
Scale Wind Towers from Canada (Canada AD Initiation Checklist), at 
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Utility Scale Wind Towers 
from Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Utility Scale Wind Towers from Indonesia 
(Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping 
Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility Scale Wind Towers 
from the Republic of Korea (Korea AD Initiation Checklist), at 
Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam (Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These 
checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and are on file 
electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is 
also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main 
Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 26, 2019, we received industry support challenges from 
Marmen Energy Co. (Marmen) and Vestas Towers America, Inc. (Vestas), 
U.S. producers of wind towers.\16\ On July 29, 2019, the petitioner 
responded to the standing challenges from Marmen and Vestas.\17\ Based 
on information provided in the Petitions and in the letters from Marmen 
and Vestas, the share of total U.S. production of the domestic like 
product in calendar year 2018 represented by the supporters of the 
Petitions did not account for more than 50 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, we relied on other information to 
determine industry support.\18\ In determining whether the petitioner 
has standing under sections 732(c)(4)(A) and 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, 
we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions and 
other information on the record with

[[Page 37995]]

reference to the domestic like product as defined in the ``Scope of the 
Investigations,'' in the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry 
support, the petitioner provided its own 2018 production of the 
domestic like product, as well as the 2018 production by the supporters 
of the Petitions. Other information on the record establishes the total 
2018 production of other U.S. producers of the domestic like product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Marmen's Letter, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Standing Challenge,'' dated July 26, 2019 (Marmen 
Letter); see also Vestas' Letter, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
Canada, Indonesia, South Korea, and Vietnam: Vestas Towers America, 
Inc.'s Comments on Industry Support,'' dated July 26, 2019 (Vestas 
Letter).
    \17\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Response to Standing Challenge and Comments on Industry 
Support,'' dated July 29, 2019 (Petitioner Letter).
    \18\ For further discussion, see Canada AD Initiation Checklist, 
at Attachment II; see also Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II; Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and 
Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 732(c)(4)(B) of the Act states that (i) Commerce ``shall 
disregard the position of domestic producers who oppose the petition if 
such producers are related to foreign producers, as defined in section 
771(4)(B)(ii), unless such domestic producers demonstrate that their 
interests as domestic producers would be adversely affected by the 
imposition of an antidumping duty order;'' and (ii) Commerce ``may 
disregard the position of domestic producers of a domestic like product 
who are importers of the subject merchandise.'' In addition, 19 CFR 
351.203(e)(4) states that the position of a domestic producer that 
opposes the petition (i) will be disregarded if such producer is 
related to a foreign producer or to a foreign exporter under section 
771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act, unless such domestic producer demonstrates to 
the Secretary's satisfaction that its interests as a domestic producer 
would be adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping order; 
and (ii) may be disregarded if the producer is an importer of the 
subject merchandise or is related to such an importer under section 
771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act. Certain producers of the domestic like 
product that opposed the Petitions are related to foreign producers 
and/or imported subject merchandise from the subject countries. We have 
analyzed the information provided by the petitioner and information 
provided in the submissions from Marmen and Vestas. Based on our 
analysis, we have determined that it is appropriate to disregard the 
opposition to the Petitions from certain producer(s) pursuant to 
section 732(c)(4)(B) of the Act. When the opposition to the Petitions 
is disregarded, the industry support requirements of section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act are satisfied.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; see 
also Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; Korea AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Vietnam AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our analysis and review of the information on the record, 
we have determined that the petitioner has established industry support 
for the Petitions.\20\ The information on the record demonstrates that 
the domestic producers of wind towers who support the Petitions account 
for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product and, once certain opposition is disregarded, 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, Commerce determines that the 
Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; see 
also Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; Korea AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Vietnam AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \21\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; see 
also Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; Korea AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and Vietnam AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges 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 LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that 
subject imports from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam each exceed 
the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of 
the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 31-32 and Exhibit I-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; 
reduced market share; lost sales and lost revenues; underselling and 
price depression or suppression; negative impact on the domestic 
industry's production, shipments, capacity utilization, and employment; 
and declining financial performance.\23\ We have assessed the 
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat 
of material injury, causation, cumulation, as well as negligibility, 
and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by 
adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id. at 15-16, 20-48 and Exhibits I-4, I-6, I-8, I-9, I-14, 
I-17 and I-19 through I-28.
    \24\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, Indonesia, the 
Republic of Korea, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment 
III); see also Indonesia AD Checklist, at Attachment III; Korea AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III; and Vietnam AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at LTFV

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at LTFV 
upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate AD investigations of 
imports of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam. The 
sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. 
price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the AD 
Initiation Checklist for each country.

Export Price

    For Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam, the petitioner based 
export price (EP) on sales of wind towers produced in, and exported 
from, those countries and sold in the United States, valued using the 
average unit values (AUVs) of publicly available import data.\25\ For 
Canada, the petitioner also calculated EP based upon a sales offer from 
a Canadian producer.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; Indonesia AD Initiation 
Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation 
Checklist.
    \26\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    For Canada, Indonesia, and Korea, the petitioner was unable to 
obtain information relating to the prices charged for wind towers in 
Canada, Indonesia, Korea, or any third country market.\27\ Because home 
market and third country prices were not reasonably available, the 
petitioner calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). For further 
discussion of CV, see the section ``Normal Value Based on Constructed 
Value.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; Indonesia AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Korea AD Initiation Checklists.
    \28\ In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences 
Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for 
this investigation, Commerce will request information necessary to 
calculate the CV and cost of production (COP) 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. Commerce no longer requires a COP 
allegation to conduct this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Vietnam, Commerce considers Vietnam to be an NME 
country.\29\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 
presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by Commerce. 
Therefore, we continue to treat Vietnam

[[Page 37996]]

as an NME for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. 
Accordingly, NV in Vietnam is appropriately based on FOPs and surrogate 
financial ratios from a surrogate market economy country, in accordance 
with section 773(c) of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2016, 82 FR 26050 (June 
6, 2017), unchanged in Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative 
Review; 2014-2016, 82 FR 45266 (September 28, 2017).
    \30\ See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner claims that India is an appropriate surrogate 
country for Vietnam, because it is a market economy country that is at 
a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam, it is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information 
from India is available to value all material input factors.\31\ Based 
on the information provided by the petitioner, we determine that it is 
appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Volume V of the Petition at 10-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments 
regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled 
date of the preliminary determination.

Factors of Production

    Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by the 
Vietnamese producers/exporters is not available, the petitioner relied 
on the production experience of a U.S. wind tower producer as an 
estimate of Vietnamese manufacturers' FOPs.\32\ The petitioner valued 
the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from India and used the 
average POI exchange rate to convert the data to U.S. dollars.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    As noted above, the petitioner was unable to obtain information 
relating to the prices charged for wind towers in Canada, Indonesia, 
and Korea, or any third country market; accordingly, the petitioner 
based NV on CV.\34\ 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. For Canada, Indonesia, and Korea, the petitioner calculated 
the COM based on the input factors of production and usage rates from a 
U.S. producer of wind towers. The input factors of production were 
valued using publicly available data on costs specific to Canada, 
Indonesia, and Korea during the proposed POI.\35\ Specifically, the 
prices for raw materials, reclaimed steel scrap, and packing inputs 
were valued using publicly available import data for Canada, Indonesia, 
and Korea.\36\ Labor and energy costs were valued using publicly 
available sources for Canada, Indonesia, and Korea.\37\ The petitioner 
calculated factory overhead, SG&A, and profit for Canada, Indonesia, 
and Korea based on the average ratios found in the experience of a 
producer of comparable merchandise from each of these countries.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; Indonesia AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
    \35\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; Indonesia AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
    \36\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; Indonesia AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
    \37\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; Indonesia AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
    \38\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist; Indonesia AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the Petitions there is reason to 
believe that imports of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and 
Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 
and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for wind towers for 
each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) 
Canada--53.63 and 61.59 percent; \39\ (2) Indonesia--26.00 and 47.19 
percent; \40\ (3) Korea--280.69 and 331.26 percent; \41\ and (4) 
Vietnam--39.97 to 65.96 percent.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
    \40\ See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.
    \41\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
    \42\ See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of LTFV Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental 
responses, 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 wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, 
and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States 
at LTFV. 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.

Respondent Selection

    The petitioner named four companies in Canada,\43\ two companies in 
Indonesia,\44\ and three companies in Korea \45\ as producers/exporters 
of wind towers. Following standard practice in AD investigations 
involving market economy countries, in the event Commerce determines 
that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually 
examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, where 
appropriate, Commerce intends to select respondents in Canada and Korea 
based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports 
under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) numbers listed with the scope in the Appendix.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-16.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ See, e.g., Polyester Textured Yarn from India and the 
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 
Investigations, 83 FR 58223, 58227 (November 19, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 22, 2019, Commerce released CBP data on imports of wind 
towers from Canada, Korea, and Vietnam under administrative protective 
order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO 
and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP 
data must do so within three business days of the publication date of 
the notice of initiation of these investigations.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Memorandum, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada: 
Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,'' 
dated July 22, 2019; Memorandum, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
the Republic of Korea: Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection,'' dated July 22, 2019; and Memorandum, ``Utility 
Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection Data,'' dated July 22, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CBP data identified only one company as a producer/exporter of 
wind towers in Indonesia: PT Kenertec Power System (Kenertec).\48\ 
Kenertec was also identified in the petition as a producer/exporter of 
wind towers from Indonesia.\49\ Accordingly, because there are no other 
producers/exporters identified in the CBP data, Commerce intends to 
examine the sole producer/exporter identified in the CBP data. Parties 
wishing to comment on the selection of Kenertec as a mandatory 
respondent must do so within three days of the publication of this 
notice. Any such comments must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. ET 
on the due date and must be filed electronically via ACCESS. Commerce 
will not accept

[[Page 37997]]

rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Memorandum, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Indonesia: 
Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,'' dated July 22, 
2019.
    \49\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner stated that CS Wind Vietnam Co. (CS Wind) is the 
only Vietnamese wind tower producer that is not currently subject to 
the existing AD order \50\ on wind towers from Vietnam and, thus, the 
only company for which the Petition was filed with respect to 
Vietnam.\51\ As such, we will not conduct respondent selection based on 
quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires as the Vietnam AD investigation 
only applies to CS Wind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 11150 (February 15, 2013).
    \51\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 1 n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, 
exporters and producers normally must submit a separate-rate 
application.\52\ However, applicants which have been selected as 
mandatory respondents prior to the deadline for submission of separate 
rate applications are not required to file a separate rate application. 
Because CS Wind is the only company for which the Petition was filed 
with respect to Vietnam, CS Wind will be eligible for consideration for 
separate-rate status only if it responds to all parts of Commerce's AD 
questionnaire as a mandatory respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 
05.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Combination Rates

    Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents 
that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The 
Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates 
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now 
assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers 
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the 
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period 
of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory 
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as 
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is 
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such 
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more 
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply 
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and 
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam 
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 Determination 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 wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, 
and/or Vietnam are materially injuring, or threatening material injury 
to, a U.S. industry.\54\ A negative ITC determination for any country 
will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that 
country.\55\ Otherwise, the investigations will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \55\ 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 Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual 
information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's 
regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to 
specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information 
is being submitted \56\ 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.\57\ Time limits for the submission of factual information are 
addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based 
on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties 
should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information 
in these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \57\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Particular Market Situation Allegation

    Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended 
the Act by adding the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for 
purposes of CV under section 773(e) of the Act.\58\ Section 773(e) of 
the Act states that ``if a particular market situation exists such that 
the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind 
does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary 
course of trade, the administering authority may use another 
calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation 
methodology.'' When an interested party submits a PMS allegation 
pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a 
submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds 
that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify 
its dumping calculations appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a 
deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual 
information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, 
Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual 
information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should 
an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new 
factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do 
so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial 
section D questionnaire response.

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as 
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request 
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the 
time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are 
due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. 
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time 
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for 
submissions which are due

[[Page 37998]]

from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform 
parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a 
specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be 
considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, 
stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant 
untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties 
should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 
(September 20, 2013), available at 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.\59\ 
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 
351.303(g).\60\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \60\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at 
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, Commerce 
published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents 
Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). 
Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure 
that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing 
of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) 
and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: July 29, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix--Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations consists of 
certain wind towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. 
Certain wind towers support the nacelle and rotor blades in a wind 
turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in 
excess of 100 kilowatts and with a minimum height of 50 meters 
measured from the base of the tower to the bottom of the nacelle 
(i.e., where the top of the tower and nacelle are joined) when fully 
assembled.
    A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel 
plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together 
(or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of 
coating, end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, 
and with or without flanges, doors, or internal or external 
components (e.g., flooring/decking, ladders, lifts, electrical buss 
boxes, electrical cabling, conduit, cable harness for nacelle 
generator, interior lighting, tool and storage lockers) attached to 
the wind tower section. Several wind tower sections are normally 
required to form a completed wind tower.
    Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope 
whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as 
nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or 
external components attached to the subject merchandise.
    Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor 
blades, regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. 
Also excluded are any internal or external components which are not 
attached to the wind towers or sections thereof, unless those 
components are shipped with the tower sections.
    Further, excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty 
investigations are any products covered by the existing antidumping 
duty order on utility scale wind towers from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam. See Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 11150 (February 
15, 2013).
    Merchandise covered by these investigations is currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) under subheading 7308.20.0020 or 8502.31.0000. Wind towers 
of iron or steel are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when 
imported separately as a tower or tower section(s). Wind towers may 
be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 when imported as combination 
goods with a wind turbine (i.e., accompanying nacelles and/or rotor 
blades). While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the 
investigations is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2019-16655 Filed 8-2-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P