[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10221-10226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3642]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-930]


Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 26, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    On January 30, 2008, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received a petition concerning imports of circular welded austenitic 
stainless pressure pipe from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') 
filed in proper form by Bristol Metals, L.P., Felker Brothers Corp., 
Marcegaglia USA Inc., Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc. and United Steel 
Workers of America (collectively ``Petitioners''). See Petition on 
Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 
dated January 30, 2008 (``Petition''). In February 2008, the Department 
issued multiple requests for additional information, seeking 
clarification of certain areas of the Petition. Based on the 
Department's requests, Petitioners filed additional information on 
February 5 through February 13, 2008.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``Act''), Petitioners allege that imports of circular welded 
austenitic stainless pressure pipe from the PRC are being, or are 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, within 
the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are 
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, an industry in the 
United States.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed this Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, and have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty 
investigation that Petitioners are requesting the Department initiate 
(see ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' section 
below).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1 through December 
31, 2007. See 19 CFR 351.204(b).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded 
austenitic stainless pressure pipe (``CWASPP'') not greater than 14 
inches in outside diameter. This merchandise includes, but is not 
limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') 
A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign 
specifications. ASTM A-358 products are only included when they are 
produced to meet ASTM A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable 
domestic or foreign specifications.
    Excluded from the scope are: (1) welded stainless mechanical 
tubing, meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable domestic or foreign 
specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining 
furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A-249, 
ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3) 
specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A-269, ASTM A-270 or comparable 
domestic or foreign specifications.
    The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 
7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 
7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010, 
7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 
7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

Comments on Scope of Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with 
Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products 
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 
discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), 
we are setting aside a period for interested

[[Page 10222]]

parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department 
encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 
days of signature of this notice. Comments should be addressed to 
Import Administration's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Room 1117, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230, attention Melissa Blackledge, room 3067. The 
period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department 
with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with 
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination.

Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaire

    We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the 
appropriate physical characteristics of CWASPP to be reported in 
response to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the subject merchandise in order for respondents to accurately 
report the relevant factors of production, as well as develop 
appropriate product reporting criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. For example, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as general product 
characteristics and product reporting criteria. We note that it is not 
always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product 
reporting criteria. We base product reporting criteria on meaningful 
differences among products. While there may be some physical product 
characteristics which manufacturers use to describe CWASPP, it may be 
that only a select few product characteristics take into account 
meaningful physical characteristics. In order to consider the 
suggestions of interested parties in developing the antidumping duty 
questionnaire, we must receive comments at the above-referenced address 
by March 10, 2008. Rebuttal comments must be received within 10 
calendar days of the receipt of timely filed comments.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall 
(i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (``ITC''), 
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' 
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In 
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of 
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions 
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to law. 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 (1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 
1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (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 subtitle.'' 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, Petitioners do not offer 
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the 
investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on 
the record, we have determined that CWASPP constitutes a single 
domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of 
that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like 
product analysis in this case, see the Antidumping Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure 
Pipe from the PRC (``Initiation Checklist'') at Attachment II (Industry 
Support) on file in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main 
Department of Commerce building.
    In determining whether Petitioners have standing (i.e., those 
domestic workers and producers supporting the Petition account for (1) 
at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product and (2) 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), we considered the 
industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the 
domestic like product as defined in Attachment I to the Initiation 
Checklist (Scope of the Petition). To establish industry support, 
Petitioners provided their shipments for the domestic like product for 
the year 2007, and compared them to shipments of the domestic like 
product for the industry. In their supplement to the Petition, dated 
February 13, 2008, Petitioners demonstrated the correlation between 
shipments and production. See Petitioners' February 13, 2008, 
supplemental at 1 and Exhibit 1. Based on the fact that total industry 
production data for the domestic like product for 2007 is not 
reasonably available, and that Petitioners have established that 
shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data, we have relied 
upon shipment data for purposes of measuring industry support. For 
further discussion, see Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry 
Support).
    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support. First, 
the Petition 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, the Department is not required to 
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling). See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Second, the domestic 
producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
732(c)(4)(A)(i) because the

[[Page 10223]]

domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at 
least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 
Finally, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) because the domestic producers 
(or workers) who support the Petition 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 Petition. 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) 
of the Act. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry 
Support).
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and it has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping 
investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate. See 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support).

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than normal value (``NV''). Petitioners contend that the 
domestic industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market 
share, lost sales, reduced production, reduced capacity and capacity 
utilization rate, reduced shipments, underselling and price depressing 
and suppressing effects, lost revenue, reduced employment, decline in 
financial performance, and an increase in import penetration. We have 
assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material 
injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are 
properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory 
requirements for initiation. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III 
(Injury).

Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate this investigation of imports of CWASPP from the PRC. The 
sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the U.S. 
price and the factors of production are also discussed in the 
checklist. See Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any 
of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in 
our preliminary or final determinations, we will reexamine the 
information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.

Export Price

    Petitioners relied on eight prices obtained from U.S. distributors 
of CWASPP manufactured by PRC producers/exporters. The eight prices are 
for POI sales of CWASPP that falls within the scope of the Petition and 
include freight costs incurred to ship the merchandise from the PRC to 
the U.S. port. Petitioners deducted from the prices the costs 
associated with exporting and delivering the product to the customer in 
the United States, including international freight and handling, U.S. 
duty charges, and a trading company markup. Petitioners based 
international freight and handling and U.S. duty charges on the 
difference between the cost-freight-insurance and free-alongside-ship 
values for U.S. imports from the PRC under the HTSUS subheadings 
applicable to the subject merchandise. See Petition at 13-14 and 
Exhibit I-30 and Petitioners' February 13, 2008, supplemental at 1 and 
Exhibits 2 and 6. Petitioners calculated a trading company mark-up 
based on their own experience and knowledge of the industry. See 
Petition at Exhibit I-8 and Petitioners' February 5, 2008, supplemental 
at 1 and Exhibits 2 and 3.

Normal Value

    In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 
presumption of non-market economy (``NME'') status remains in effect 
until revoked by the Department. Petitioners note that the Department 
has not revoked the NME status of the PRC, and thus they treated the 
PRC as an NME country for purposes of their Petition. In May 2006, the 
Department examined the PRC's market status and determined that NME 
status should continue for the PRC. See Memorandum from the Office of 
Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, Regarding The People's Republic of China Status as a 
Non-Market Economy, dated May 15, 2006 (this document is available 
online at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-news-2006. html). This determination 
continues to be applied in the Department's NME antidumping 
proceedings. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 
FR 9508 (March 2, 2007), and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). Because the 
presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the 
Department it remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this 
investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately 
based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market-economy 
country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. After initiation, 
all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information 
related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of 
separate rates to individual exporters.
    Petitioners selected India as the primary surrogate country 
arguing, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, that India is an 
appropriate surrogate because it is a market-economy country that is at 
a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and is a 
significant producer of CWASPP. See Petition at 6-7. Based on the 
information provided by Petitioners, we find it appropriate to use 
India as a surrogate country for this initiation. After initiation, we 
will solicit comments regarding surrogate country selection.
    Petitioners calculated NVs for each of the U.S. prices discussed 
above using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 
351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Because the quantities of the 
factors of production that are consumed by Chinese companies in 
manufacturing CWASPP are not available to Petitioners, Petitioners 
calculated NVs using consumption rates experienced by a U.S. producer 
of CWASPP. See Petition at 7. Petitioners provided information, which 
they claim demonstrates that Chinese and U.S. companies use the same 
process to produce CWASPP. See Petitioners' February 5, 2008, 
supplemental at 3 and Exhibit 4 and Petitioners' February 13, 2008, 
supplemental at 2. Additionally, Petitioners provided an affidavit to 
support their use of U.S. production data. See Petition at Exhibit I-13 
and Petitioners' February 5, 2008, supplemental at Exhibit 5. 
Petitioners valued the factors of production as noted below.
    Petitioners valued stainless steel using POI world-prices from 
Management Engineering & Production Services (``MEPS''), an 
organization that they identified as a ``leading source of pricing data 
in the stainless steel industry.'' According to Petitioners, it

[[Page 10224]]

would not be appropriate to value stainless steel using import prices 
from India, or any other potential surrogate country, because import 
statistics do not distinguish between basic stainless steel and the 
more expensive grades of stainless steel (grades 304 and 316) that were 
used to produce the merchandise for which Petitioners obtained U.S. 
price quotes. Petitioners claim that obtaining prices specific to 
grades 304 and 316 stainless steel is critical because these grades 
contain high concentrations of expensive alloys, such as nickel and 
molybdenum, and cost several times more than the cost of basic 
stainless steel. See Petition at 8-9 and Exhibit I-20. Moreover, 
Petitioners contend that it would not be appropriate to value stainless 
steel using Indian Average Unit Values (``AUVs'') because (1) news 
reports indicate that India primarily produces stainless steel with a 
low nickel content (i.e., grades other than 304 and 316) and (2) the 
AUVs of hot-rolled stainless steel imported into India do not even 
reach the cost of the nickel and molybdenum contained in grades 304 and 
316 stainless steel. See Petition at 8-11 and Exhibits I-14 through I-
18 and Petitioners' February 8, 2008, supplemental at 2-3 and Exhibit 
1.
    In response to the Department's request to provide stainless steel 
prices from the other potential surrogate countries, Petitioners 
provided a domestic Indian company price quote that was obtained by 
their counsel. See Petitioners' February 8, 2008, supplemental at 6 and 
Exhibit 5. Additionally, in supplements to the Petition, Petitioners 
valued stainless steel using the prices paid by one of the Petitioning 
firms. See Petitioners' February 8, 2008, supplemental at 12 and 
Exhibit 10 and Petitioners' February 13, 2008, supplemental at 4 and 
Exhibit 6.
    When subject merchandise is exported from an NME country, section 
773 (c)(1)(B) of the Act directs the Department to determine NV based 
on the value of factors of production in one or more market economy 
countries that are (1) at a level of economic development comparable to 
the NME country and (2) significant producers of merchandise comparable 
to subject merchandise (i.e., surrogate countries). Petitioners have 
not provided a sufficient basis for the Department to depart from this 
approach. In contending that import statistics from surrogate 
countries, including India, should not be used to value stainless steel 
because they do not separately identify imports of grades 304 and 316 
steel, Petitioners did not claim that those steel grades were not 
imported into, or used in, the surrogate countries. The fact that 
import statistics may contain imports of materials other than the 
material that is being valued does not necessarily render those 
statistics inappropriate surrogate values. Moreover, although the 
Department requested that Petitioners provide stainless steel values 
from surrogate countries in addition to India, Petitioners did not do 
so, nor did they demonstrate that such values are distortive. See 
Petitioners' February 8, 2008, supplemental at 5-6. With respect to the 
MEPS prices, we note that Petitioners did not (1) identify the 
countries from which the MEPS prices were derived, (2) demonstrate that 
MEPS data excludes prices that are not used in valuing factors of 
production (e.g., prices from NME countries), and (3) demonstrate that 
MEPS prices are preferable to other sources of prices from multiple-
countries. Finally, we do not find Petitioners' costs to be an 
appropriate surrogate value in an NME case.
    Thus, for initiation purposes, we have determined that Indian 
import statistics, which are the only surrogate country prices from 
public sources on the record of this proceeding, are the best 
information with which to value stainless steel. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we recalculated NVs 
and the dumping margins using stainless steel values derived from 
Indian import statistics for January 2007, through June 2007, which is 
the most recent data available. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment 
V. The Department excluded NME countries and adjusted the values by 
converting Indian rupees into U.S. dollars and inflating those to the 
POI values using the Indian wholesale price index (``WPI'') in the 
publication International Financial Statistics which is published by 
the International Monetary Fund.
    Petitioners valued electricity using the Indian electricity rate as 
reported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration for the year 
2000. See Petition at 12 and Exhibit I-27. We revised the U.S. dollar 
electricity rate calculated by Petitioners to correct errors that were 
made in converting Indian rupees into U.S. dollars and inflating the 
price.
    Petitioners valued natural gas based on two articles ``Govt. raises 
natural gas price by 20 pc,'' dated July 20, 2006, and ``Impact of June 
2006 natural gas price hike,'' dated July 2006. According to 
Petitioners, these articles indicate that the Indian government 
directive to increase the price of natural gas applies to the Gas 
Authority of India Ltd. See Petition at 12-13 and Exhibit I-28 and 
Petitioners' February 5, 2008, supplemental at 7 and Exhibit 7. We 
revised the gas price calculated by Petitioners to correct an error 
that was made in inflating the price.
    Petitioners valued labor at $0.83 per hour, which is the PRC wage 
rate listed on the Department's website. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) and 
the Petition at 13 and Exhibit I-33. The surrogates for electricity, 
gas, and labor are based on information reasonably available to 
Petitioners and are, therefore, acceptable for purposes of initiation.
    Where a surrogate value was in effect during a period preceding the 
POI, Petitioners adjusted it using the Indian WPI in the publication 
International Financial Statistics which is published by the 
International Monetary Fund. See Petition at 12-13 and Exhibits I-27 
and I-28.
    Petitioners based factory overhead expenses, selling, general and 
administrative expenses, and profit on data for the fiscal year-ended 
March 31, 2007, from an Indian CWASPP producer, Suraj Stainless Ltd. 
See Petition at 13 and Exhibit I-29. We revised factory overhead 
expenses to correct errors made in calculating those expenses. See 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment V. We find that Petitioners' use of 
this company's information as surrogate financial data is appropriate 
for purposes of this initiation.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, as adjusted by the 
Department, there is reason to believe that imports of CWASPP from the 
PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less 
than fair value. Based on comparisons of export price to NV, calculated 
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margins for CWASPP range from 8.36 percent to 12.70 percent. See 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the Petition on CWASPP from the PRC, 
the Department finds that the Petition meets the requirements of 
section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping 
duty investigation to determine whether imports of CWASPP from the PRC 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless 
postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 
days after the date of this initiation.

[[Page 10225]]

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application. 
See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of 
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (``Separate Rates and Combination 
Rates Bulletin''), available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. The specific requirements for 
submitting the separate-rate application in this investigation are 
outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available 
on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the 
Federal Register. The separate-rate application will be due 60 days 
from publication of this initiation notice.

NME Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value Questionnaire

    The Department will request quantity and value information from all 
known exporters identified in the Petition. The quantity and value data 
received from NME exporters will be used as the basis to select the 
mandatory respondents.
    The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to 
both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate 
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive 
consideration for separate-rate status. See Initiation of Antidumping 
Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas From the People's Republic of 
China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005); Initiation of Antidumping 
Duty Investigations: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea, 70 FR 35625, 
35629 (June 21, 2005); and Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of 
China, 71 FR 16757, 16760 (April 4, 2006). Appendix I of this notice 
contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by 
all NME exporters and received by the Department no later than March 
12, 2008. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value 
questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Import 
Administration website (http://ia.ita.doc.gov). The Department will 
send the quantity and value questionnaire to those PRC companies 
identified in Exhibit I-6 of the Petition.

Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this 
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, 
states:
    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates 
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now 
assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers 
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the 
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of 
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents 
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool 
of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the 
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the 
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to 
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise 
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that 
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. (Emphasis in 
original.)
See Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin at 12.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been 
provided to the representatives of the Government of the PRC. We will 
attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to the 
foreign producers/exporters, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

U.S. International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the International Trade Commission

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than March 17, 2008, 
whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of CWASPP from 
the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the 
U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigation being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: February 19, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.

Appendix I

    Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/
exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 (as amended) permits us to investigate 1) a sample of 
exporters, producers or types of products that is statistically valid 
based on the information available at the time of selection, or 2) 
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume and value of 
the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined.
    In the chart below, please provide the total quantity and total 
value of all your sales of merchandise covered by the scope of this 
investigation (See scope section of this notice), produced in the PRC 
and exported/shipped to the United States during the period July 1, 
2007, through December 31, 2007.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Market                           Total Quantity       Terms of Sale        Total Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States.......................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
1. Export Price Sales...............................  ..................  ..................  ..................
2...................................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
a. Exporter name....................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
b. Address..........................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
c. Contact..........................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
d. Phone No.........................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
e. Fax No...........................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
3. Constructed Export Price Sales...................  ..................  ..................  ..................
4. Further Manufactured Sales.......................  ..................  ..................  ..................

[[Page 10226]]

 
Total Sales.........................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Quantity:

     Please report quantity on a metric ton basis. If any 
conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and 
source.

Terms of Sale:

     Please report all sales on the same terms (e.g. free on 
board at port of export).

Total Value:

     All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars. 
Please indicate any exchange rates used and their respective sources.

Export Price Sales:

     Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price 
when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs before 
importation into the United States.
     Please include any sales exported by your company directly 
to the United States.
     Please include any sales exported by your company to a 
third-market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the 
merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States.
     If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please 
include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently 
exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States.
     Please do not include any sales of merchandise 
manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures.

Constructed Export Price Sales:

     Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed 
export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer 
occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the 
unaffiliated customer is made by a person in the United States 
affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies 
even if the sale occurs prior to importation.
     Please include any sales exported by your company directly 
to the United States.
     Please include any sales exported by your company to a 
third-market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the 
merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States.
     If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please 
include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently 
exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States.
     Please do not include any sales of merchandise 
manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures.

Further Manufactured Sales:

     Sales of further manufactured or assembled (including re-
packaged) merchandise is merchandise that undergoes further manufacture 
or assembly in the United States before being sold to the first 
unaffiliated customer.
     Further manufacture or assembly costs include amounts 
incurred for direct materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for 
general and administrative expense, interest expense and additional 
packing expense incurred in the country of further manufacture, as well 
as all costs involved in moving the product from the U.S. port of entry 
to the further manufacturer.
[FR Doc. E8-3642 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S