[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23554-23559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10188]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-972, A-583-848]


Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the People's 
Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations

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

DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Higgins at (202) 482-0679 or 
Robert Bolling at (202) 482-3434 (People's Republic of China), AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 4 or Hermes Pinilla at (202) 482-3477 or Sandra 
Stewart at (202) 482-0768 (Taiwan), AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 5, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

[[Page 23555]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions

    On March 31, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain 
stilbenic optical brightening agents (stilbenic OBAs) from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan filed in proper form by the Clariant 
Corporation (the petitioner). See Antidumping Duty Petitions on Certain 
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of 
China and Taiwan (March 31, 2011) (the Petitions). The petitioner is a 
domestic producer of stilbenic OBAs. On April 4, 2011, the Department 
issued a request for additional information and clarification of 
certain areas of the Petitions. On April 7, 2011, in response to the 
Department's request, the petitioner filed an amendment to the 
Petitions. See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the 
People's Republic of China and Taiwan; Amendment to Petitions (April 7, 
2011) (Supplement to the PRC AD Petition or Supplement to the Taiwan AD 
Petition).
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of stilbenic 
OBAs from the PRC and Taiwan 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 
threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD 
investigations that the petitioner is requesting. See the 
``Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions'' section below.

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on March 31, 2011, the period of 
investigation (POI) for the PRC investigation is July 1, 2010, through 
December 31, 2010. The POI for the Taiwan investigation is January 1, 
2010, through December 31, 2010. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are certain OBAs from 
the PRC and Taiwan. For a full description of the scope of the 
investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I 
of this notice.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See also Memorandum to File from Shawn Higgins, dated April 
14, 2011, regarding telephone conversation with counsel for the 
petitioner regarding the scope of the Petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Scope of Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioner 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 parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested 
parties to submit such comments by May 10, 2011, twenty calendar days 
from the signature of this notice. Comments should be addressed to 
Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230. 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 
determinations.

Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of stilbenic OBAs to be 
reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant 
factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop 
appropriate product-comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as (1) general product 
characteristics and (2) the product-comparison criteria. We find that 
it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as 
product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on 
meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while 
there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by 
manufacturers to describe stilbenic OBAs, it may be that only a select 
few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful 
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment 
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in 
matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most 
important physical characteristics first and the least important 
characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, we must receive comments 
at the above address by May 10, 2011. Additionally, rebuttal comments 
limited to those issues raised in the comments must be received by May 
17, 2011.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers 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 
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 if there 
is a large number of producers in 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 the Department to look to producers 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

[[Page 23556]]

Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information because the Department determines industry support at the 
time of initiation. Although this may result in different definitions 
of the domestic 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 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 
240 (CAFC 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 title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like-product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not 
offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
these investigations. Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that stilbenic OBAs 
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 these cases, see 
the Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain 
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the PRC (PRC Initiation 
Checklist) at Attachment II and the Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from 
Taiwan (Taiwan Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II, on file in the 
Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce 
building.
    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 
732(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 Appendix I of this 
notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own 
2010 production data of the domestic like product and compared this to 
total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic 
industry. See Volume I of the Petitions at 3 and Exhibits I-1 and I-16; 
see also PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II and Taiwan 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
    The Department's review of the data provided in the Petitions, 
supplemental responses, and other information readily available to the 
Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry 
support. First, based on information provided in the Petitions, the 
petitioner 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; see also PRC Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment II and Taiwan Initiation Checklist at 
Attachment II. Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(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. See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment 
II and Taiwan Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 732(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. Accordingly, the Department determines 
that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within 
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See id.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that 
it is requesting the Department to initiate. See id.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the 
petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales, reduced production, a 
lower capacity-utilization rate, fewer shipments, underselling, price 
depression or suppression, lost revenue, 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 supported 
by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation. See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment III and Taiwan 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate investigations of imports of stilbenic OBAs from the PRC and 
Taiwan. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating 
to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the PRC 
Initiation Checklist and Taiwan Initiation Checklist.

Alleged U.S. Price and NV: The PRC

    The petitioner states that PRC exporters/producers first sell 
subject merchandise in the United States to unaffiliated resellers. See 
Volume III of the Petitions at 13-14. The petitioner does not have 
access, however, to the prices charged by PRC producers to U.S. 
resellers. Id. As a result, to calculate export price (EP), the 
petitioner based its calculation on the prices charged by U.S. 
resellers of PRC stilbenic OBAs to a U.S. customer. Id. Specifically, 
the petitioner calculated EP based on a price at which revenues were 
lost due to a competing bid from a supplier of PRC stilbenic OBAs. See 
Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibits 32 and 33. The petitioner 
substantiated the price used as a basis for the EP calculation with an 
affidavit. See Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibit 32. The 
price used as a basis for the EP calculation is a delivered price to an 
end-user for stilbenic OBAs supplied in a solution state. See Volume 
III of the Petitions at 14. To calculate EP for stilbenic OBAs in a 
solution state, the petitioner adjusted the EP based on the terms of 
sale for brokerage and handling in the port of export, international 
freight, U.S. customs duties, U.S. reseller markup, and U.S. inland 
freight. To calculate EP for stilbenic OBAs in a powder state, the 
petitioner adjusted the EP based on the terms of sale for brokerage and 
handling in the port of export, international freight, U.S. customs 
duties, U.S. reseller markup, further manufacturing (i.e., dilution), 
and U.S. inland freight.

[[Page 23557]]

See Volume III of the Petitions at 13-17 and Supplement to the PRC AD 
Petition at Exhibit 33.
    The petitioner states that the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) 
country and no determination to the contrary has been made by the 
Department. See Volume III of the Petitions at 2-3. In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains 
in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME 
status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, 
therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of the PRC 
investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product for the PRC 
investigation is appropriately based on factors of production valued in 
a surrogate market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act. In the course of the PRC investigation, all parties, including 
the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information 
related to the issue of the PRC's NME status and the granting of 
separate rates to individual exporters.
    Citing section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner contends that 
India is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because it is at 
a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and it is 
a significant producer of stilbenic OBAs. See Volume III of the 
Petitions at 3-5 and Exhibit III-1. Also, the petitioner states that 
Indian data for valuing factors of production are available and 
reliable. See Volume III of the Petitions at 3. Based on the 
information provided by the petitioner, we believe that it is 
appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation 
purposes. After initiation of the investigation, interested parties 
will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate-
country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be 
provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to 
value factors of production within 40 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination.
    The petitioner calculated the NV and dumping margins for 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. The 
petitioner calculated NVs for stilbenic OBAs in both solution and 
powder state based on its own consumption rates for producing stilbenic 
OBAs. See Volume III of the Petitions at 5-6, 11-12, and Exhibit III-2. 
In calculating NV, the petitioner based the quantity of each of the 
inputs used to manufacture and pack stilbenic OBAs in the PRC based on 
its own production experience during the POI because it stated that the 
actual usage rates of the foreign manufacturers of stilbenic OBAs were 
not reasonably available. Id. The petitioner stated, however, that its 
production process and cost structure is representative of the PRC 
stilbenic OBAs producers because the production of stilbenic OBAs 
``involves the same basic technology worldwide.'' See Volume III of the 
Petitions at 6. The petitioner adjusted its factor inputs to reflect 
any known differences between the petitioner's production process and 
the process employed by PRC producers. See Volume III of the Petitions 
at 11-12 and Exhibit III-2. The petitioner also adjusted its factor 
inputs to reflect higher usage rates for energy and labor in the 
production of stilbenic OBAs in powder state. See Volume III of the 
Petitions at 12 and Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibit 31.
    The petitioner valued the factors of production based on reasonably 
available, public surrogate-country data, including Indian import 
statistics from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA). See Volume III of the 
Petitions at 6-7 and Exhibit III-4 and Supplement to the PRC AD 
Petition at Exhibit 29. The petitioner excluded from these import 
statistics imports from countries previously determined by the 
Department to be NME countries, i.e., it excluded imports from 
Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand, as the Department has 
previously excluded prices from these countries because they maintain 
broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies, and it 
excluded imports labeled as being from ``unspecified countries.'' See 
Volume III of the Petitions at 6-7 and Exhibit III-4. In addition, the 
petitioner made currency conversions, where necessary, based on the 
POI-average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate as reported on the 
Department's Web site. See Volume III of the Petitions at 12 and 
Exhibit III-13 and Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibits 30-31. 
The petitioner determined labor costs using the labor consumption, in 
hours, derived from its own experience. See Volume III of the Petitions 
at 11 and Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibits 30-31. The 
petitioner valued labor costs using the Department's current 
methodology of calculating an hourly wage rate by averaging industry-
specific earnings and/or wages in countries that are economically 
comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. See Volume III of the Petitions at 7-8 and 10 and 
Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at 3 and Exhibit 28.
    The petitioner determined electricity costs using the electricity 
consumption, in kilowatt hours, derived from its own experience. See 
Volume III of the Petitions at 11-12 and Supplement to the PRC AD 
Petition at Exhibits 30-31. The petitioner valued electricity using the 
Indian electricity rate reported by the Central Electric Authority of 
the Government of India. See Volume III of the Petitions at 8-9 and 
Exhibit III-26.
    The petitioner determined natural gas costs using the natural gas 
consumption derived from its own experience. See Volume III of the 
Petitions at 11-12 and supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibits 
30-31. The petitioner valued natural gas using data obtained from the 
Government of India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as well as 
the gas transmission costs from the Gas Authority of India Ltd. See 
Volume III of the Petitions at 9 and Exhibit III-8.
    The petitioner determined water costs using the water consumption 
derived from its own experience. See Volume III of the Petitions at 11-
12 and Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibits 30-31. The 
petitioner valued water based on information that is contemporaneous 
with the POI from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. 
See Volume III of the Petitions at 9 and Supplement to the PRC AD 
Petition at 2 and Exhibit 27.
    The petitioner based factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A), and profit on data from Daikaffil Chemicals 
India Limited (Daikaffil Chemicals), an Indian producer of stilbenic 
OBAs, for the fiscal year April 2009 through March 2010. See Volume III 
of the Petitions at 10 and Exhibits III-9 and III-10. The petitioner 
states that Daikaffil Chemicals was an Indian producer of stilbenic 
OBAs during fiscal year 2009-2010. See Volume III of the Petitions at 
10. Therefore, for purposes of the initiation, the Department finds the 
petitioner's use of Daikaffil Chemicals' financial ratios appropriate. 
See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4).

Alleged U.S. Price and NV: Taiwan

    The petitioner calculated two constructed export prices (CEPs) (one 
for stilbenic OBAs in solution and one in powder state) using a price 
quote it obtained from a credible source for stilbenic OBAs in the 
solution state. The petitioner substantiated the U.S. price quote with 
an affidavit and a declaration from the person who obtained the 
information. To calculate CEP for stilbenic OBAs in a solution state, 
the petitioner adjusted the CEP based on the

[[Page 23558]]

terms of sale for brokerage and handling incurred in Taiwan and the 
United States, international freight, U.S. customs duties, U.S inland 
freight, U.S. indirect selling expenses, and CEP profit. To calculate 
CEP for stilbenic OBAs in a powder state, the petitioner adjusted the 
CEP based on the terms of sale for brokerage and handling incurred in 
Taiwan and the United States, international freight, U.S. customs 
duties, U.S. inland freight, U.S. indirect selling expenses, further 
manufacturing (i.e., dilution), and CEP profit. See Volume II of the 
Petitions at 7-19, Exhibits II-18 through II-26, Supplement to the 
Taiwan AD Petition at Exhibit 28, and Taiwan Initiation Checklist.
    With respect to NV, the petitioner calculated NV based on 
constructed value (CV). The petitioner computed a CV for stilbenic OBAs 
in the solution state and in the powder state, using the same 
methodology described below.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the petitioner calculated 
CV using the cost of manufacturing, SG&A expenses, packing expenses, 
and financial expenses. The petitioner then added the average profit 
rate based on the most recent financial statements of a company in the 
same general industry in Taiwan as the producer. See Taiwan Initiation 
Checklist.
    The petitioner calculated raw materials, labor, energy, and packing 
based on its own production experience, adjusted for known differences 
to manufacture stilbenic OBAs in Taiwan using publically available 
data. See Taiwan Initiation Checklist for details of the calculation of 
raw materials, labor, energy, and packing. To calculate the factory 
overhead, SG&A, financial expenses, and the profit rate, the petitioner 
relied on cost data from a Taiwanese producer of optical brighteners. 
See Volume II of the Petitions at 8-12 and Exhibits II-16 and II-17 and 
Taiwan Initiation Checklist.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of stilbenic OBAs from the PRC and Taiwan are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value. Based on comparisons of EPs to NVs in accordance with section 
773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for stilbenic OBAs 
from the PRC range from 80.64 percent to 203.16 percent. See the PRC 
Initiation Checklist. Based on comparisons of CEPs to CVs in accordance 
with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for 
stilbenic OBAs from Taiwan range from 61.79 percent to 109.45 percent. 
See Taiwan Initiation Checklist.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the Petitions on stilbenic OBAs from 
the PRC and Taiwan, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of 
section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations 
to determine whether imports of stilbenic OBAs from the PRC and Taiwan 
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 and 19 
CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this 
initiation.

Targeted Dumping Allegations

    On December 10, 2008, the Department issued an interim final rule 
for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 351.414(f) and (g), the 
regulatory provisions governing the targeted dumping analysis in AD 
investigations, and the corresponding regulation governing the deadline 
for targeted dumping allegations, 19 CFR 351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal 
of the Regulatory Provisions Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping 
Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008). The Department 
stated that ``withdrawal will allow the Department to exercise the 
discretion intended by the statute and, thereby, develop a practice 
that will allow interested parties to pursue all statutory avenues of 
relief in this area.'' Id. at 74931.
    In order to accomplish this objective, if any interested party 
wishes to make a targeted dumping allegation in these investigations 
pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such allegation is due no 
later than 45 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary 
determinations.

Respondent Selection

The PRC

    Following standard practice in AD investigations involving NME 
countries, the Department will request quantity and value information 
from all known exporters and producers identified with complete contact 
information in Volume III of the Petitions and Supplement to the PRC AD 
Petition. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters/
producers 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 Circular Welded Austenitic 
Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation 
of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 
2008), and Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist 
Canvas From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 
28, 2005). On the date of publication of this initiation notice in the 
Federal Register, the Department will post the quantity and value 
questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Import 
Administration Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html and a response to the quantity and value questionnaire is due 
no later than May 11, 2011. Also, the Department will send the quantity 
and value questionnaire to those PRC companies identified in Volume I 
of the Petitions at Exhibit I-8.

Taiwan

    Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market-
economy countries, the Department intends to select respondents based 
on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under 
HTSUS number 3204.20.80 during the POI. We intend to release the CBP 
data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with 
access to information protected by APO within five days of publication 
of this Federal Register notice and make our decision regarding 
respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. The 
Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent 
selection within 10 days of publication of this Federal Register 
notice.
    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such 
applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.

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 Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. Based on our experience in

[[Page 23559]]

processing the separate-rate applications in previous AD 
investigations, we have modified the application for this investigation 
to make it more administrable and easier for applicants to complete. 
See, e.g., Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New 
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
43591, 43594-95 (August 6, 2007). The specific requirements for 
submitting the separate-rate application in the NME investigation are 
outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available 
on the Department's Web site 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 
after publication of this initiation notice. For exporters and 
producers who submit a separate-rate status application and 
subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and 
producers will no longer be eligible for consideration for separate-
rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as 
mandatory respondents. As explained in the ``Respondent Selection'' 
section above, the Department requires that 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.

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.

See Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin at 6 (emphasis 
added).

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the Government of the PRC and Taiwan authorities. Because 
of the large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petitions, 
the Department considers the service of the public version of the 
Petitions to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery 
of the public version to the Government of the PRC and Taiwan 
authorities, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

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

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than May 16, 2011, 
whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of stilbenic OBAs 
from the PRC and Taiwan are materially injuring or threatening material 
injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country 
will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that 
country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the 
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures (73 FR 3634). Parties 
wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they 
meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters 
of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or countervailing 
duty (CVD) proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of 
that information. See section 782(b) of the Act. Parties are hereby 
reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for 
company/government officials as well as their representatives in all 
segments of any AD/CVD proceedings initiated on or after March 14, 
2011. See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration 
During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Interim Final 
Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011) (Interim Final Rule), amending 19 
CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2). The formats for the revised certifications 
are provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule. The Department 
intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments 
initiated on or after March 14, 2011, if the submitting party does not 
comply with the revised certification requirements.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: April 20, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigations

    The certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (``OBA'') 
covered by these investigations are all forms (whether free acid or 
salt) of compounds known as triazinylaminostilbenes (i.e., all 
derivatives of 4,4'-bis [1,3,5- triazin-2-yl] amino-2,2'-
stilbenedisulfonic acid), except for compounds listed in the 
following paragraph. The certain stilbenic OBAs covered by these 
investigations include final stilbenic OBA products, as well as 
intermediate products that are themselves triazinylaminostilbenes 
produced during the synthesis of final stilbenic OBA products.
    Excluded from these investigations are all forms of 4,4'-bis[4-
anilino-6-morpholino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl] amino-2,2'-
stilbenedisulfonic acid, 
C40H40N12O8S2 
(``Fluorescent Brightener 71''). These investigations cover the 
above-described compounds in any state (including but not limited to 
powder, slurry, or solution), of any concentrations of active 
certain stilbenic OBA ingredient, as well as any compositions 
regardless of additives (i.e., mixtures or blends, whether of 
certain stilbenic OBAs with each other, or of certain stilbenic OBAs 
with additives that are not certain stilbenic OBAs), and in any type 
of packaging.
    These stilbenic OBAs are classifiable under subheading 
3204.20.8000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''), but they may also enter under subheadings 2933.69.6050, 
2921.59.4000 and 2921.59.8090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the merchandise is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2011-10188 Filed 4-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P