[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7686-7689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02231]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-849]


Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From Germany: Preliminary Results of 
Changed Circumstances Review, and Intent To Revoke the Antidumping Duty 
Order, in Part

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily 
intends to revoke, in part, the antidumping duty (AD) order on common 
alloy aluminum sheet (CAAS) from Germany with respect to certain 
lithographic-grade aluminum sheet. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Applicable February 5, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Trejo, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4390.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 27, 2021, Commerce published the AD order on common alloy 
aluminum sheet from Germany.\1\ On May 9, 2023, Eastman Kodak Company 
(Kodak), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, requested that 
Commerce conduct a changed circumstances review (CCR), and revoke, in 
part, the CAAS AD Germany Order with respect to certain lithographic-
grade aluminum sheet pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216(b).\2\ On July 24, 2023, 
Commerce issued proposed partial revocation language for the scope in 
which it omitted references to end-use certificates which had been 
included by Kodak and solicited interested parties comments on that 
language.\3\ On July 31, 2023, Commerce initiated the requested CCR.\4\ 
In the Initiation Notice, Commerce invited interested parties to 
provide comments and/or factual information regarding the CCR, 
including comments on industry support and the proposed partial 
revocation language.\5\ On August 30, 2023, the Aluminum Association 
Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group and its 
individual members (Aluminum Association) and Kodak commented on the 
CCR.\6\ On September 6, 2023, Kodak responded to the Aluminum 
Association's comments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Bahrain, Brazil, 
Croatia, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Oman, Romania, 
Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan and the Republic of 
Turkey: Antidumping Duty Orders, 86 FR 22139 (April 27, 2021) (CAAS 
AD Germany Order or Order).
    \2\ See Kodak's Letter, ``Request for Expedited Changed 
Circumstances Review,'' dated May 9, 2023 (CCR Request); see also 
Kodak's Letter, ``Supplemental Questionnaire Response,'' dated June 
9, 2023 (Kodak's Supplemental Questionnaire Response).
    \3\ See Memorandum, ``Proposed Exclusion Language,'' dated July 
24, 2023.
    \4\ See Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Germany: Notice of 
Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review, and Consideration of 
Revocation, in Part, of the Antidumping Duty Order, 88 FR 49446 
(July 31, 2023) (Initiation Notice).
    \5\ Id., 88 FR at 49448.
    \6\ See Aluminum Association's Letter, ``Petitioners' Response 
to Department's Initiation Notice,'' dated August 30, 2023 (Aluminum 
Association's Comments) and Kodak's Letter, ``Comments on Changed 
Circumstances Review,'' dated August 30, 2023 (Kodak's Comments).
    \7\ See Kodak's Letter, ``Rebuttal Comments on Changed 
Circumstances Review,'' dated September 6, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the CAAS AD Germany Order

    The products covered by the Order are common alloy aluminum sheet, 
which is a flat-rolled aluminum product

[[Page 7687]]

having a thickness of 6.3 mm or less, but greater than 0.2 mm, in coils 
or cut-to-length, regardless of width. Common alloy sheet within the 
scope of the Order includes both not clad aluminum sheet, as well as 
multi-alloy, clad aluminum sheet. With respect to not clad aluminum 
sheet, common alloy sheet is manufactured from a 1XXX-, 3XXX-, or 5XXX-
series alloy as designated by the Aluminum Association. With respect to 
multi-alloy, clad aluminum sheet, common alloy sheet is produced from a 
3XXX-series core, to which cladding layers are applied to either one or 
both sides of the core. The use of a proprietary alloy or non-
proprietary alloy that is not specifically registered by the Aluminum 
Association as a discrete 1XXX-, 3XXX-, or 5XXX-series alloy, but that 
otherwise has a chemistry that is consistent with these designations, 
does not remove an otherwise in-scope product from the scope.
    Common alloy sheet may be made to ASTM specification B209-14 but 
can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, 
however, all common alloy sheet meeting the scope description is 
included in the scope. Subject merchandise includes common alloy sheet 
that has been further processed in a third country, including but not 
limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, 
cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would 
not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the order if 
performed in the country of manufacture of the common alloy sheet.
    Excluded from the scope of the Order is aluminum can stock, which 
is suitable for use in the manufacture of aluminum beverage cans, lids 
of such cans, or tabs used to open such cans. Aluminum can stock is 
produced to gauges that range from 0.200 mm to 0.292 mm, and has an H-
19, H-41, H-48, H-39, or H-391 temper. In addition, aluminum can stock 
has a lubricant applied to the flat surfaces of the can stock to 
facilitate its movement through machines used in the manufacture of 
beverage cans. Aluminum can stock is properly classified under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 
7606.12.3045 and 7606.12.3055.
    Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within 
the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement 
would place it within the scope based on the definitions set for the 
above.
    Common alloy sheet is currently classifiable under HTSUS 
subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3096, 7606.12.6000, 
7606.91.3095, 7606.91.6095, 7606.92.3035, and 7606.92.6095. Further, 
merchandise that falls within the scope of the Order may also be 
entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3030, 
7606.12.3015, 7606.12.3025, 7606.12.3035, 7606.12.3091, 7606.91.3055, 
7606.91.6055, 7606.92.3025, 7606.92.6055, 7607.11.9090. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope of the Order is dispositive.

Preliminary Results of CCR and Intent To Revoke the CAAS AD Germany 
Order, in Part

    Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(g), 
Commerce may revoke an order, in whole or in part, based on a review 
under section 751(b) of the Act (i.e., a CCR). Section 751(b)(1) of the 
Act requires a CCR to be conducted upon receipt of a request which 
shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 
782(h)(2) of the Act gives Commerce the authority to revoke an order if 
producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the 
domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the order. 
Section 351.222(g) of Commerce's regulations provides that Commerce 
will conduct a CCR under 19 CFR 351.216, and may revoke an order (in 
whole or in part), if it concludes that: (i) producers accounting for 
substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to 
which the order pertains have expressed a lack of interest in the 
relief provided by the order, in whole or in part; or (ii) if other 
changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation exist. Thus, 
both the Act and Commerce's regulations require that ``substantially 
all'' domestic producers express a lack of interest in the order for 
Commerce to revoke the order, in whole or in part.\8\ Commerce has 
interpreted ``substantially all'' to mean producers accounting for at 
least 85 percent of the total U.S. production of the domestic like 
product covered by the order.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See section 782(h) of the Act; and 19 CFR 351.222(g).
    \9\ See, e.g., Honey from Argentina; Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews; Preliminary 
Intent to Revoke Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 FR 
67790, 67791 (November 14, 2012), unchanged in Honey from Argentina; 
Final Results of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Changed 
Circumstances Reviews; Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Orders, 77 FR 77029 (December 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information on the record indicates that the Aluminum Association 
and its individual members, as well as Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and 
Jupiter Aluminum Corporation--two U.S. producers of CAAS that are not 
part of the Aluminum Association--(collectively Domestic Producers), do 
not oppose Kodak's exclusion request. Moreover, record information 
indicates that in 2022 the Domestic Producers accounted for at least 85 
percent of the total U.S. production of the domestic like product 
covered by the Order.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Kodak's Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 1 and 
Exhibit 1; see also Aluminum Association's Comments at 2 and 
Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the above evidence and in the absence of any interested 
party comments claiming that the Domestic Producers do not account for 
substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to 
which the CAAS AD Germany Order pertains, we preliminarily determine 
that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of 
the domestic like product to which the CAAS AD Germany Order pertains 
lack interest in the relief provided by the CAAS AD Germany Order with 
respect to the lithographic-grade aluminum sheet identified by Kodak. 
Thus, we preliminarily determine that changed circumstances warrant 
revocation of the CAAS AD Germany Order, in part, with respect to the 
lithographic-grade aluminum sheet identified by Kodak.
    Accordingly, we are notifying the public of our intent to revoke 
the CAAS AD Germany Order, in part, with respect to the following 
lithographic-grade aluminum sheet and include the following exclusion 
language in the scope of the CAAS AD Germany Order:
    Also excluded from the scope of the Order is lithographic-grade 
aluminum sheet that meets the following criteria: (i) a Copper (Cu) 
content of no more than 0.01 percent, a Zinc (Zn) content of <=0.05%, a 
Silicon (Si) content of 0.05%-0.20% and an Iron (Fe) content of 0.30%-
0.50%; (ii) a thickness between 0.267 mm-0.3705 mm, (iii) a width of 
500 mm-1650 mm, (iv) a maximum wave height of no more than 3.0 mm, (v) 
a tensile strength of 130 MPa or more (after baking), and (vi) a 
surface roughness less than or equal to Ra 0.26 [micro]m.
    We have not included the language regarding end-use certifications 
proposed by Kodak and supported by the Aluminum Association in the 
above exclusion language. Commerce's general practice is not to use 
end-use language in scopes \11\ or end-use certifications

[[Page 7688]]

because such certifications ``are difficult to administer and to 
enforce'' \12\ and ``depend on a generally un-verifiable supposition 
about the end-use of individual sales, and would be subject to 
manipulation.'' \13\ While Commerce has implemented end-use 
certifications in some proceedings, it does so under limited 
circumstances \14\ including where ``evidence had been proffered that 
would provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that 
substitution was occurring, and then would only apply the program 
{(i.e., end-use certification program){time}  to products for which 
such evidence existed.'' \15\ No such evidence has been provided in 
this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 
39667 (July 10, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (IDM) at ``Scope Comments'' (``{a{time} s an initial 
matter, the Department does not generally define subject merchandise 
by end-use application.'').
    \12\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008), and 
accompanying IDM at Comment 19.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id. (``{a{time} lthough the Department has implemented such 
certification programs {(i.e., end-use certification 
programs){time}  in the past, we generally do so only in limited 
circumstances.'').
    \15\ Id.; see also Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and 
Pressure Pipe (Under 4\1/2\ Inches) from Japan and Romania: Final 
Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping 
Duty Orders, 88 FR 3970 (January 23, 2023), and accompanying IDM at 
``Scope of the Orders'' (``{w{time} ith regard to the excluded 
products listed above, {Commerce{time}  will not instruct CBP to 
require end-use certification until such time as {the 
petitioner{time}  or other interested parties provide to 
{Commerce{time}  a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the 
products are being used in a covered application.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, Kodak stated that ``{l{time} ithographic-grade aluminum 
sheet is a niche product that is made to stringent specifications and 
is distinguishable from other aluminum sheet products'' \16\ and the 
physical and chemical characteristics in the proposed scope exclusion 
language were ``narrowly tailored to cover only lithographic-grade 
aluminum sheet.'' \17\ Neither Kodak, nor the Aluminum Association, has 
explained why the physical and chemical characteristics of 
lithographic-grade aluminum sheet included in the above scope exclusion 
do not sufficiently distinguish the product from subject CAAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See CCR Request at 5.
    \17\ See Kodak's Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Revocation

    Kodak requested retroactive application of this partial revocation 
starting October 15, 2020, the date of publication in the Federal 
Register of the preliminary determination in the underlying 
investigation and the date of institution of provisional measures.\18\ 
Section 751(d)(3) of the Act provides that ``{a{time}  determination 
under this section to revoke an order . . . shall apply with respect to 
unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise which are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date 
determined by the administering authority.'' Commerce's general 
practice is to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
liquidate without regard to antidumping and/or countervailing duties, 
and to refund any estimated antidumping and/or countervailing duties, 
on all unliquidated entries of the merchandise covered by a revocation 
that are not covered by the final results of an administrative review 
or automatic liquidation instruction.\19\ However, Commerce has 
exercised its discretion and deviated from this general practice if the 
particular facts of a case have implications for the effective date of 
the partial revocation selected by Commerce.\20\ Specifically, when 
selecting the effective date for partial revocation, Commerce has 
considered factors such as the effective date proposed by the 
petitioner (and/or the effective date agreed to by all parties),\21\ 
the existence of unliquidated entries dating back to the requested 
effective date,\22\ whether an interested party requested the effective 
date of the revocation,\23\ and whether the requested effective date 
creates potential administrability issues (e.g., the products covered 
by the partial revocation are in the sales database used in the dumping 
margin calculations for a completed administrative review with a period 
of review that overlaps with the date requested).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See CCR Request at 14-15.
    \19\ See e.g., Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, In 
Part, 76 FR 27634 (May 12, 2011); Stainless Steel Bar from the 
United Kingdom: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances 
Review and Revocation of Order, in Part, 72 FR 65706 (November 23, 
2007); Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review and Revocation of Order In Part: Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany, 71 FR 
66163 (November 13, 2006); Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part: 
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada 
and Germany, 71 FR 14498 (March 22, 2006); Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, and Determination 
to Revoke Order in Part: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's 
Republic of China, 68 FR 62428 (November 4, 2003).
    \20\ See section 751(d)(3) of the Act; Itochu Building Products 
v. United States, Slip Op. 14-37 at 12 (CIT April 8, 2014) (Itochu) 
(``The statutory provision, as discussed above, provides Commerce 
with discretion in the selection of the effective date for a partial 
revocation following a changed circumstances review, but that 
discretion may not be exercised arbitrarily so as to decide the 
question presented without considering the relevant and competing 
considerations.'').
    \21\ See, e.g., Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and 
Ukraine: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 64079 
(November 12, 2003); Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Sweden; 
Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final 
Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, and Revocation In Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 60 FR 
42529 (August 16, 1995).
    \22\ See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and 
Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 50956 (October 
2, 2009); Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part: 
Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 
13352 (March 15, 2006); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstance Antidumping Duty 
Review, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 65 FR 77578 
(December 12, 2000).
    \23\ See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components 
Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Final Results 
of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order, In Part, 64 FR 72315 
(December 27, 1999).
    \24\ See Itochu, Slip Op. 14-37 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Domestic Producers have not proposed an effective date or 
specifically agreed to the effective date proposed by Kodak, Kodak has 
not provided any evidence of unliquidated entries dating back to the 
requested effective date, and the German producer from which Kodak 
obtains the lithographic-grade aluminum sheet, Speira GmbH,\25\ is 
currently under review in the administrative review of the CAAS AD 
Germany Order covering the period April 1, 2022 through March 31, 
2023.\26\ Given the forgoing, we preliminarily determine to follow 
Commerce's general practice and apply the partial revocation to all 
unliquidated entries of the merchandise covered by this revocation that 
are not covered by the final results of an administrative review or 
automatic liquidation instruction (i.e., unliquidated entries on or 
after April 1, 2023).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See CCR Request at 14-15.
    \26\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 88 FR 38021, 38023 (June 12, 2023).
    \27\ Commerce issued the final results of the administrative 
review of the CAAS AD Germany Order covering the period October 15, 
2020 through March 31, 2022 on November 3, 2023. See Common Alloy 
Aluminum Sheet from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 2020-2022, 88 FR 77556 (November 13, 2023). 
Commerce issued the automatic liquidation instruction for the 
administrative review of the CAAS AD Germany Order covering the 
period April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023 on July 21, 2023. See 
CBP Message 3202416, ``Automatic Liquidation Instructions,'' dated 
July 21, 2023.

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

[[Page 7689]]

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results of review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Written 
comments may be submitted no later than 14 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal 
Register. Rebuttal comments, limited to issues raised in written 
comments, may be filed no later than five days after the due date for 
comments.\28\ All submissions must be filed electronically using 
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\29\ ACCESS is available 
to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. An electronically 
filed document must be successfully received in its entirety by ACCESS, 
by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadlines set forth in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d); see also Administrative Protective 
Order, Service, and Other Procedures in Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR 67069, 67077 (September 29, 
2023) (APO and Final Service Rule).
    \29\ See, generally, 19 CFR 351.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs must submit: 
(1) a table of contents listing each issue discussed in the brief; and 
(2) a table of authorities.\30\ As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) 
and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties 
to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited 
to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead 
request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their 
briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their 
briefs.\31\ Further, we request that interested parties limit their 
executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not 
including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the 
basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision 
memorandum that will accompany the final results in this review. We 
request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant 
citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce 
has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of 
documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 19 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
    \31\ We use the term ``issue'' here to describe an argument that 
Commerce would normally address in a comment of the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum.
    \32\ See APO and Final Service Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of the CCR

    Commerce will issue the final results of this CCR, which will 
include its analysis of any written comments, no later than 270 days 
after the date on which this review was initiated.\33\ If, in the final 
results of this review, Commerce continues to determine that changed 
circumstances warrant the revocation of the CAAS AD Germany Order, in 
part, we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping 
duties, and to refund any estimated antidumping duties deposited on, 
all unliquidated entries of the merchandise covered by the revocation 
that are not covered by the final results of an administrative review 
or an automatic liquidation instruction to CBP. The current requirement 
for cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties on all entries of 
subject merchandise will continue unless it is modified pursuant to the 
final results of this CCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 19 CFR 351.216(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    These preliminary results of changed circumstances review and this 
notice are published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), and 19 CFR 
351.222.

    Dated: January 30, 2024.
Abdelali Elouaradia,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-02231 Filed 2-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P