[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38216-38221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16887]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-868, C-560-834, C-552-826]


Utility Scale Wind Towers From Canada, Indonesia, and the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigations

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

DATES: Applicable July 29, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Weinhold at (202) 482-1121 
(Canada); Alex Wood at (202) 482-1959 (Indonesia); Julie Geiger at 
(202) 482-2057 (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 countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of 
utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from Canada, Indonesia, and 
Vietnam, filed in proper form on behalf of the Wind Tower Trade 
Coalition (the petitioner).\1\ The Petitions were accompanied by 
antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of wind towers from 
Canada, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the period July 12 through 18, 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 19, 
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'' (General Issues Supplemental 
Questionnaire), ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing 
Duties on Imports of Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada: 
Supplemental Questions,'' ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
Indonesia: Supplemental Questions,'' and ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Utility Scale Wind 
Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Supplemental 
Questions,'' dated July 12, 2019; see also Memorandum, ``Phone Call 
with Counsel to the Petitioner,'' dated July 18, 2019 (July 18, 2019 
Memorandum).
    \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 Supplemental); ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
Canada: Response to First Supplemental Questions on Canada CVD 
Volume III {sic{time}  of the Petition,'' (Canada CVD Supplement 
Response), ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from {Indonesia{time} : 
Response to First Supplemental Questions on Indonesia CVD Volume VII 
of the Petition,'' (Indonesia CVD Supplement Response), and 
``Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Response to First Supplemental Questions on Vietnam CVD Volume VIII 
of the Petition'' (Vietnam CVD Supplement Response), each dated July 
17, 2019; and, ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Governments of 
Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam (GOC, GOI, and GOV, respectively) are 
providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 
and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of wind towers in Canada, Indonesia 
and Vietnam, 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 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating 
CVD investigations, 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 CVD investigations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 38217]]

Period of Investigations

    Because the Petitions were filed on July 9, 2019, the period of 
investigation is January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is wind towers from 
Canada, Indonesia, 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 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; and July 18, 2019 Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 such 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 parties consider 
relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this 
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 submissions must 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, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations

    Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce 
notified representatives of the GOC, GOI, and GOV of the receipt of the 
Petitions and provided them the opportunity for consultations with 
respect to the Petitions.\11\ Consultations were held with the GOC and 
GOV on July 19, 2019,\12\ and with the GOI on July 22, 2019.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
Indonesia: Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the 
Countervailing Duty Petition,'' and ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Invitation for Consultations to 
Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' each dated July 10, 
2019; and ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada: Invitation for 
Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' dated 
July 12, 2019.
    \12\ See Memoranda, ``Consultations with Government Officials 
from the Government of Canada on the Countervailing Duty Petition 
Regarding Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada,'' dated July 24, 
2019, and ``Consultations with Government Officials from the 
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on the 
Countervailing Duty Petition Regarding Utility Scale Wind Towers 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' dated July 22, 2019.
    \13\ See Memorandum, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Canada, 
Indonesia, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Government of 
Indonesia Consultations,'' dated July 22, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, 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 statute 
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,\14\ 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \15\ 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 (Federal Circuit 
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

[[Page 38218]]

``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.\16\ 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 17-18 and Exhibits I-9 
and I-14.
    \17\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as 
applied to this case and information regarding industry support, see 
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility 
Scale Wind Towers from Canada (Canada CVD 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); see also Countervailing Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
Indonesia (Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; 
and Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility 
Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam 
CVD 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\18\ On July 29, 2019, the petitioner 
responded to the standing challenges from Marmen and Vestas.\19\ 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 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act, we relied on other information to 
determine industry support.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See letter from Marmen, ``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 letter from Vestas, ``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).
    \19\ See letter from the petitioner, ``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).
    \20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under sections 
702(c)(4)(A) and 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act, we considered the industry 
support data contained in the Petitions and other information on the 
record with 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.
    Section 702(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 702(c)(4)(B) of the Act. When the opposition to the Petitions 
is disregarded, the industry support requirements of section 
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act are satisfied.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\22\ 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.\23\ Accordingly, Commerce determines that the 
Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Canada CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; see 
also Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and 
Vietnam CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam are ``Subsidies Agreement 
Countries'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 
701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the 
ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from 
Canada, Indonesia, and/or Vietnam materially injure, or threaten 
material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are 
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are 
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry 
producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner 
alleges that subject imports from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam exceed 
the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of 
the Act.\24\ In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the Act provides 
that imports of subject merchandise from developing and least developed 
countries must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent. The 
petitioner also demonstrates that

[[Page 38219]]

subject imports from Indonesia, which has been designated as a least 
developed country under section 771(36)(B) of the Act, exceed the 
negligibility threshold of four percent.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 31-32 and Exhibit I-17.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\26\ 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.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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.
    \27\ See Canada CVD 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 CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 
III; and Vietnam CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of CVD Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental 
responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of 
the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine 
whether imports of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, and Vietnam 
benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC, GOI, and 
GOV, respectively. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Canada

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 23 of the 30 
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision 
whether to initiate on each program, see Canada CVD Initiation 
Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this 
investigation is available on ACCESS.

Indonesia

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on seven of the 
eight alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our 
decision whether to initiate on each program, see Indonesia CVD 
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for 
this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Vietnam

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation, in whole or 
part, on each of the alleged programs. For a full discussion of the 
basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Vietnam CVD 
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for 
this investigation is available on ACCESS.

Respondent Selection

    The petitioner named four companies in Canada, two companies in 
Indonesia, and three companies in Vietnam as producers/exporters of 
wind towers.\28\ Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in 
CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in 
these investigations. 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 mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of wind towers from Canada, 
Indonesia, and Vietnam during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed in the ``Scope of 
the Investigation,'' in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 22, 2019, Commerce released CBP data on imports of wind 
towers under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with 
access to information protected by APO.\29\ Interested parties wishing 
to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so 
within three business days of the publication date of the notice of 
initiation of these CVD investigations. Commerce will not accept 
rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
Canada Countervailing Duty Petition: Release of Customs Data from 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection'' dated July 22, 2019 (Canada CBP 
Data Release Letter); ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from Indonesia 
Countervailing Duty Petition: Release of Customs Data from U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection'' dated July 22, 2019 (Indonesia CBP 
Data Release Letter); and ``Utility Scale Wind Towers from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam Countervailing Duty Petition: Release 
of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection'' dated July 
22, 2019 (Vietnam CBP Data Release Letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 22, 2019, Commerce also released CBP data on imports of 
wind towers from Indonesia under APO to all parties with access to 
information protected by APO.\30\ Although the petitioner claims that 
there are two known producers/exporters from Indonesia, record evidence 
indicates that there is one known producer/exporter, PT Kenertec Power 
System (Kenertec). Based on this evidence, Commerce intends to examine 
Kenertec. Parties wishing to comment on Commerce's decision to 
individually examine Kenertec 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Indonesia CBP Data Release Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CBP data identified two companies as producers/exporters of 
wind towers in Vietnam: CS Wind Tower Co Ltd (CS Wind Tower) and 
Metacor Vietnam Co., Ltd (Metacor Vietnam).\31\ Accordingly, Commerce 
intends to examine the two producers/exporters identified in the CBP 
data. Parties wishing to comment on the selection of CS Wind Tower and 
Metacor Vietnam as mandatory respondents 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Vietnam CBP Data Release Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such 
applications may be found on the Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An 
electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its 
entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. 
We intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent selection 
within 20 days of publication of this notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to

[[Page 38220]]

the GOC, GOI, and GOV 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 
702(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of wind towers from Canada, Indonesia, and 
Vietnam are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a 
U.S. industry.\32\ A negative ITC determination in any country will 
result in the investigations being terminated with respect to that 
country.\33\ Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
    \33\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any 
party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which 
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 
\34\ 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.\35\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \35\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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. 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.\36\ 
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 
351.303(g).\37\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \37\ 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, 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 702 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

[[Page 38221]]

subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of the investigations is 
dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2019-16887 Filed 8-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P