[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33566-33570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11005]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-916, C-508-815, C-580-917]


Brass Rod From India, Israel, and the Republic of Korea: 
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations

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

DATES: Applicable May 17, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dusten Hom (India), Zachary Shaykin 
(Israel), and Jacob Saude (the Republic of Korea (Korea)), AD/CVD 
Operations, Offices I, IV, and VII, Enforcement and Compliance, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5075, (202) 482-2638, or (202) 482-0981, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On April 27, 2023, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) 
received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of 
brass rod from India, Israel, and Korea filed in proper form on behalf 
of the American Brass Rod Fair Trade Coalition and its constituent 
members, Mueller Brass Co. and Wieland Chase LLC, U.S., producers of 
brass rod (collectively, the petitioners).\1\ The CVD petitions were 
accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of 
brass rod from Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, and 
Korea.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Brass Rod from Brazil, India, 
Israel, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea: Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petitions,'' dated April 27, 2023 (Petitions).
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 2 and 10, 2023, Commerce requested supplemental information 
pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions.\3\ On May 8 and 11, 
2023, the petitioners filed timely responses to these requests for 
additional information.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Brass Rod from Israel: 
Supplemental Questions,'' dated May 2, 2023; ``Petitions for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Brass Rod from 
Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and South 
Africa and Countervailing Duties on Imports from India, Israel, and 
the Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions,'' dated May 2, 2023 
(General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Countervailing 
Duties on Imports of Brass Rod from India: Supplemental Questions, 
dated May 2, 2023; and ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping 
Duties on Imports of Brass Rod from Brazil, India, Israel, the 
Republic of Korea, Mexico, and South Africa and Countervailing 
Duties on Imports from India, Israel, and the Republic of Korea: 
Supplemental Questions,'' dated May 10, 2023.
    \4\ See Petitioners' Letters, ``Brass Rod from Brazil, India, 
Israel, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea: Amendment of 
Petitions and Response to Commerce's Supplemental Questions,'' dated 
May 8, 2023 (General Issues Supplement); and ``Brass Rod from 
Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea: Second 
Amendment of Petitions and Response to Commerce's Supplemental 
Questions,'' dated May 11, 2023 (Scope Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of India 
(GOI), the Government of Israel (GISR), and the Government of Korea 
(GOK) (collectively, Governments) are providing countervailable 
subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to 
producers of brass rod in India, Israel, and Korea, and that such 
imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the 
domestic industry producing brass rod 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 were accompanied by information reasonably available to the 
petitioners supporting their allegations.
    Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties 
as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act. Commerce also 
finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support 
with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' 
section, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periods of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on April 27, 2023, the periods of 
investigation (POI) for India, Israel, and Korea are January 1, 2022, 
through December 31, 2022.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations is brass rod from 
India, Israel, and Korea. For a full description of the scope of these 
investigations, see the appendix to this notice.

Comments on the Scope of the Investigations

    On May 2 and 10, 2023, Commerce requested information from the 
petitioners regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope 
language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for 
which the domestic

[[Page 33567]]

industry is seeking relief.\7\ On May 8 and 11, 2023, the petitioners 
revised the scope language.\8\ The description of merchandise covered 
by these investigations, as described in the appendix to this notice, 
reflects these clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire at 3-4; see 
also Second General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire at 1.
    \8\ See General Issues Supplement; see also 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).\9\ 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, all such 
factual information should be limited to public information.\10\ To 
facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that 
all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time 
(ET) on June 6, 2023, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date 
of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual 
information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on June 16, 2023, which is 
10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble).
    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual 
information'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce requests that any factual information that 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 scope 
comments must also be filed simultaneously 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), unless an exception 
applies.\11\ An electronically filed document must be received 
successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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 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_on_Electronic_Filing_Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations

    Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce 
notified the Governments of the receipt of the Petitions and provided 
an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.\12\ 
Commerce held consultations with the GOI on May 11, 2023, the GISR on 
May 8, 2023, and the GOK on May 10, 2023.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on 
Brass Rods from India: Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the 
Countervailing Duty Petition,'' dated May 2, 2023; Countervailing 
Duty Petition on Brass Rod from Israel: Invitation for Consultations 
to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' dated April 28, 2023; 
and ``Countervailing Duty Petition on Brass Rod from the Republic of 
Korea,'' dated April 28, 2023.
    \13\ See Memoranda, ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Brass Rod from the Republic of 
India: Teleconference Consultations with the Indian Government,'' 
dated May 11, 2023; ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing 
Duties on Imports of Brass Rod from Israel: Teleconference 
Consultations with the Israeli Government,'' dated May 10, 2023; and 
``Brass Rod from the Republic of Korea: Consultations with 
Government of the Republic of Korea,'' dated May 10, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 U.S. 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 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 (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 petitioners do not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the investigations.\16\ Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that brass rod, as defined 
in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have 
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Petition at Volume I (pages 19-20); see also General 
Issues Supplement at 5-7.
    \17\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as 
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, 
see CVD Investigation Initiation Checklists, ``Brass Rod from India, 
Israel, and the Republic of Korea,'' dated concurrently with this 
notice (Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists), at Attachment 
II (Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Brass Rod from Brazil, India, 
Israel, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and South Africa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the appendix to 
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided 
their own production of brass

[[Page 33568]]

rod in 2022 and compared this to the total 2022 production of brass rod 
by the U.S. industry.\18\ We relied on data provided by the petitioners 
for purposes of measuring industry support.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 4-5 and Exhibit GEN-1); 
see also General Issues Supplement at 5 and Exhibit SUPP1-GEN-3.
    \19\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 3-5 and Exhibit GEN-1); 
see also General Issues Supplement at 5 and Exhibit SUPP1-GEN-3. For 
further discussion, see Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists 
at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General 
Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce 
indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for 
the Petitions.\20\ First, the Petitions established support from 
domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, 
Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate 
industry support (e.g., polling).\21\ Second, the domestic producers 
(or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or 
workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product.\22\ Finally, the 
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the 
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the Petitions.\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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 3-5 and Exhibit GEN-1); 
see also General Issues Supplement at 5 and Exhibit SUPP1-GEN-3. For 
further discussion, see the Country-Specific CVD Initiation 
Checklists at Attachment II.
    \21\ See Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists at 
Attachment II; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
    \22\ See Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists at 
Attachment II.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because India, Israel, and Korea 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 
India, Israel, and/or Korea materially injure, or threaten material 
injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are 
benefiting 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 petitioners 
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided 
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 21-22 and Exhibit GEN-5); 
see also General Issues Supplement at 7 and Exhibit SUPP1-GEN-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by the significant volume of subject imports; reduced 
market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; 
lost sales and revenues; adverse impact on the domestic industry's 
operations, production, commercial shipments, capacity utilization, and 
employment variables; and adverse impact on the domestic industry's 
financial performance.\26\ We assessed the allegations and supporting 
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, 
causation, 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\ In accordance with section 
771(7)(G)(ii)(IV) of the Act, which states that the ITC cannot cumulate 
imports ``from any country that is party to an agreement with the 
United States establishing a free trade area, which entered into force 
and effect before January 1, 1987, unless the {ITC{time}  determines 
that a domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with 
material injury by reason of imports from that country,'' we considered 
the petitioners' allegation of injury with respect to Israel, a party 
to an agreement with the United States establishing a free trade area 
in place and effect before January 1, 1987, independently of the 
allegations for Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and South Africa and 
found that the information provided satisfies the requirements for 
initiation.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 1-2, 21-41, and Exhibits 
GEN-5 through GEN-25); see also General Issues Supplement at 7-8 and 
Exhibits SUPP1-GEN-4 and SUPP1-GEN-5.
    \27\ See Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists at 
Attachment III (Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material 
Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Petitions Covering Brass Rod from Brazil, India, Israel, the 
Republic of Korea, Mexico, and South Africa).
    \28\ See Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists at 
Attachment III; see also section 771(7)(G)(ii)(IV) of the Act; and 
Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Rounds 
Agreement Act, H.R. Doc. 103-216, Vol. 1 (1994), at 850 (``Imports 
from Israel may not be cumulated with imports from other countries 
unless the {ITC{time}  first determines that the domestic industry 
is materially injured by reason of such imports from Israel.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 brass rod from India, Israel, and Korea benefit from 
countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOI, GISR, and GOK, 
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 
determinations no later than 65 days after the date of these 
initiations.

India

    Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 13 of the 14 
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis 
for our decision to initiate an investigation of each program, see the 
India CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation 
checklist for these investigations is available on ACCESS.

Israel

    Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on seven of the 
eight programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the 
basis for our decision to initiate an investigation of each program, 
see the Israel CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the 
initiation checklist for these investigations is available on ACCESS.

Korea

    Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 36 of the 37 
programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis 
for our decision to initiate an investigation an investigation of each 
program, see the Korea Initiation Checklist. A public version of the 
initiation checklist for these investigations is available on ACCESS.

[[Page 33569]]

Respondent Selection

    The petitioners named one company in India, one company in Israel, 
and two companies in Korea as producers and/or exporters of brass 
rod.\29\ Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD 
investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in these 
investigations. In the event that 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 brass rod from India and 
Korea during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States subheadings listed in the ``Scope of the 
Investigation'' in the appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Petitions at Volume I (pages 15 through 17 and Exhibit 
I-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between May 15 and 16, 2023, Commerce released CBP data on U.S. 
imports of brass rod from India, Israel, and Korea 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 and/or respondent selection must do so within 
three business days after the publication date of the notice of 
initiation of these investigations.\30\ Comments must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be 
received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the 
specified deadline. Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments 
regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Memoranda, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on Brass Rod 
from the Republic of Korea: Release of Data from U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection,'' dated May 15, 2023; ``Countervailing Duty 
Petition on Brass Rods from India: Release of Data from U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection,'' dated May 15, 2023; and ``Countervailing 
Duty Petition on Brass Rod from Israel: Release of Data from U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection,'' dated May 16, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been 
provided to the GOI, GISR, and GOK 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 CVD Petitions, as provided 
under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    Commerce will notify the ITC of its 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 brass rod from India, Israel, and/or Korea 
are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. 
industry.\31\ A negative ITC determination for any country will result 
in an investigation being terminated with respect to that country.\32\ 
Otherwise, these CVD investigations will proceed according to statutory 
and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
    \32\ 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 \33\ 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.\34\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \34\ 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 Commerce. 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, Commerce 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, Commerce 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, standalone submission; under limited circumstances, 
Commerce will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time 
limits, where we determine, based on 19 CFR 351.302, that extraordinary 
circumstances exist. Parties should review Commerce's regulations 
concerning the extension of time limits and the Time Limits Final Rule 
prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 19 CFR 351.302; see also Extension of Time Limits; 
Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013) (Time Limits Final 
Rule), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
https://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. Parties wishing to participate 
in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements 
of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (e.g., by filing the required letters of 
appearance).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 
777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: May 17, 2023.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are brass rod and 
bar (brass

[[Page 33570]]

rod), which is defined as leaded, low-lead, and no-lead solid brass 
made from alloys such as, but not limited to the following alloys 
classified under the Unified Numbering System (UNS) as C27450, 
C27451, C27460, C34500, C35000, C35300, C35330, C36000, C36300, 
C37000, C37700, C48500, C67300, C67600, and C69300, and their 
international equivalents.
    The brass rod subject to these investigations has an actual 
cross-section or outside diameter greater than 0.25 inches but less 
than or equal to 12 inches. Brass rod cross-sections may be round, 
hexagonal, square, or octagonal shapes as well as special profiles 
(e.g., angles, shapes).
    Standard leaded brass rod covered by the scope contains, by 
weight, 57.0-65.0 percent copper; 0.5-3.0 percent lead; no more than 
1.3 percent iron; and at least 15 percent zinc. No-lead or low-lead 
brass rod covered by the scope contains by weight 59.0-76.0 percent 
copper; 0-1.5 percent lead; no more than 0.35 percent iron; and at 
least 15 percent zinc. Brass rod may also include other chemical 
elements (e.g., nickel, phosphorous, silicon, tin, etc.).
    Brass rod may be in straight lengths or coils. Brass rod covered 
by these investigations may be finished or unfinished, and may or 
may not be heated, extruded, pickled, or cold-drawn. Brass rod may 
be produced in accordance with ASTM B16, ASTM B124, ASTM B981, ASTM 
B371, ASTM B453, ASTM B21, ASTM B138, and ASTM B927, but such 
conformity to an ASTM standard is not required for the merchandise 
to be included within the scope.
    Excluded from the scope of these investigations is brass ingot, 
which is a casting of unwrought metal unsuitable for conversion into 
brass rod without remelting, that contains, by weight, at least 57.0 
percent copper and 15.0 percent zinc.
    The merchandise covered by these investigations is currently 
classifiable under subheadings 7407.21.9000, 7407.21.7000, and 
7407.21.1500 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Products subject to the scope may also enter under HTSUS 
subheadings 7403.21.0000, 7407.21.3000, and 7407.21.5000. The HTSUS 
subheadings and UNS alloy designations are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the 
investigations is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2023-11005 Filed 5-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P