[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72164-72171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30162]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-852, A-523-801, A-520-805, A-552-811]


Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From India, the 
Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations

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

DATES: Effective Date: November 22, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian, Robert James 
(India, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam), or Angelica Mendoza 
(Oman), AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at (202) 482-
1131, (202) 482-0649, or (202) 482-3019, respectively.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On October 26, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received petitions concerning imports of circular welded carbon-quality 
steel pipe (certain steel pipe) from India, the Sultanate of Oman 
(Oman), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam (Vietnam) filed in proper form on behalf of Allied Tube and 
Conduit, JMC Steel Group, Wheatland Tube Company, and United States 
Steel Corporation (collectively, Petitioners). See Circular Welded 
Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam: 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions, filed on October 26, 
2011 (hereinafter, the Petitions). On November 1, 2011, the Department 
issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain 
areas of the Petitions. Petitioners filed responses to these requests 
on November 7, 2011 (hereinafter, the Supplement to the AD/CVD 
Petitions,\1\ the Supplement to the AD India Petition, the Supplement 
to the AD Oman Petition, the Supplement to the AD United Arab Emirates 
Petition, and the Supplement to the AD Vietnam Petition). On November 
4, 2011, the Department issued a request for additional information and 
clarification regarding the scope of the petitions, and Petitioners' 
response to this request was included in the Supplement to the AD/CVD 
Petitions. On November 8, 2011, Petitioners agreed to modified scope 
language. See the November 10, 2011 memorandum from Steve Bezirganian 
through Richard Weible to the File.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners refiled the Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions 
on November 9, 2011, to include a statement that the business 
proprietary document ``may be released under APO.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 8, 2011, the Department requested additional 
clarification on issues involving industry support. Petitioners filed a 
response to this request on November 10, 2011 (hereinafter, the Second 
Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions). On November 8, 2011, the 
Department requested additional information regarding India and 
Vietnam. Petitioners filed responses to these requests on November 10, 
2011 (hereinafter, the Second Supplement to the AD India Petition and 
the Second Supplement to the AD Vietnam Petition, respectively). In 
accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), Petitioners allege that imports of certain steel pipe from 
India, Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam 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 Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty 
investigations that Petitioners are requesting that the Department 
initiate (see ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions'' 
section below).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) for India, Oman, and the UAE is 
October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011. The POI for Vietnam is 
April 1, 2011, through September 30, 2011. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is certain steel pipe 
from India, Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam. For a full description of the 
scopes of the investigations, see Appendix I (Scope of the Oman, the 
UAE, and Vietnam Investigations) and Appendix II (Scope of the India AD 
Investigation) of this notice.

Comments on Scope of Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, 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 Department's 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. Interested parties that wish to 
submit comments on the scope should do so by December 5, 2011, twenty 
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. All comments must 
be filed on the records of the India, Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam 
antidumping duty investigations and the India, Oman, the UAE, and 
Vietnam countervailing duty investigations. All comments and 
submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Import 
Administration's Antidumping Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic 
Service System (IA ACCESS).\2\ An electronically filed document must be 
received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic 
records system, IA ACCESS, by the time and date noted above. Documents 
excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed 
manually (i.e., in paper form) with the Import Administration's APO/
Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the 
date and time of receipt by the deadline noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-06/pdf/2011-16352.pdf for details of the Department's Electronic Filing 
Requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information 
on help using IAACCESS can be found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires

    Interested parties may submit comments regarding the appropriate 
characteristics of certain steel pipe to be reported in response to the

[[Page 72165]]

Department's antidumping questionnaires. We base the product 
characteristics used for defining models and model matching on 
meaningful commercial differences among products. In addition, 
interested parties may comment on the order in which the 
characteristics should be used in model matching. Generally, the 
Department attempts to list the characteristics in descending order of 
importance. On the day of publication of this notice, the Department 
will post its proposal on the Import Administration Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html. In order to consider the 
suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the 
antidumping duty questionnaires, we must receive comments by December 
9, 2011. All such comments must be filed on the records of the India, 
Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam antidumping duty investigations. All 
comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using IA ACCESS, as referenced above.

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 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 to poll the industry.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs 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 (see 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 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 
1989).
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer 
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the 
investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on 
the record, we have determined that certain steel pipe 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 Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from 
India (India AD Checklist), Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Oman (Oman AD 
Checklist), Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the UAE (UAE AD 
Checklist), and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Vietnam (Vietnam AD 
Checklist) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the 
Petitions Covering Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe, on file 
electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to IA ACCESS is available in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of 
Commerce building.
    In determining whether Petitioners have 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 Investigations,'' in Appendix I of this 
notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their 
shipments of the domestic like product in 2010, and compared their 
shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product 
for the entire domestic industry. Because total industry production 
data for the domestic like product for 2010 is not reasonably available 
and Petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy 
for production data, we have relied upon the shipment data provided by 
Petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support. For further 
discussion, see India AD Checklist, Oman AD Checklist, UAE AD 
Checklist, and Vietnam AD Checklist, at Attachment II.
    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support. First, 
the Petitions established support from domestic producers accounting 
for more than 50 percent of the total shipments \3\ 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 and India AD Checklist, Oman AD 
Checklist, UAE AD Checklist, and Vietnam AD Checklist, at Attachment 
II. Second, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 
domestic producers who support the Petitions account for at least 25 
percent of the total shipments of the domestic like product. See India 
AD Checklist, Oman AD Checklist, UAE AD Checklist, and Vietnam AD 
Checklist, at Attachment II. Finally, the domestic producers have met 
the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers who support 
the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the shipments of the 
domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry 
expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions. See India AD 
Checklist, Oman AD Checklist, UAE AD Checklist, and

[[Page 72166]]

Vietnam AD Checklist, each at Attachment II. 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 India AD Checklist, Oman AD Checklist, UAE AD Checklist, and 
Vietnam AD Checklist, each at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As mentioned above, Petitioners have established that 
shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data. Section 
351.203(e)(1) of the Department's regulations states ``production 
levels may be established by reference to alternative data that the 
Secretary determines to be indicative of production levels.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the antidumping duty investigations 
they are requesting the Department initiate. See India AD Checklist, 
Oman AD Checklist, UAE AD Checklist, and Vietnam AD Checklist, each at 
Attachment II.

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). In addition, Petitioners allege 
that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for 
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. Petitioners contend that the 
industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; 
reduced production, shipments, capacity, and capacity utilization; 
reduced employment, hours worked, and wages paid; underselling and 
price depression or suppression; decline in financial performance; lost 
sales and revenue; and increase in the volume of imports and import 
penetration despite overall declining demand. See India AD Checklist, 
Oman AD Checklist, UAE AD Checklist, and Vietnam AD Checklist, at 
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury 
and Causation for the Petitions Covering Circular Welded Carbon-Quality 
Steel Pipe from India, Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam. We have assessed the 
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat 
of 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 India AD Checklist, Oman AD 
Checklist, UAE AD Checklist, and Vietnam AD 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 these investigations on imports of certain steel pipe from 
India, Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam. The sources of data for the 
deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value 
(including the factors of production (FOPs) for Vietnam) are discussed 
in the country-specific initiation checklists. See India AD Checklist, 
Oman AD Checklist, the UAE AD Checklist, and the Vietnam AD Checklist, 
at their respective ``Less Than Fair Value Allegation'' sections.

Export Price

Vietnam

    For Vietnam, Petitioners calculated U.S. price based on one offer 
for sale of certain steel pipe produced in Vietnam and on two average 
unit values (AUVs) of products imported from Vietnam that are 
representative of subject merchandise.\4\ For the U.S. price based on 
an offer for sale, consistent with the stated sales and delivery terms, 
Petitioners made deductions for movement expenses estimated from U.S. 
customs data for comparable merchandise, and a deduction for 
distributor mark-up. For the U.S. prices based on AUVs, the values were 
already on a free-along-side ship foreign port price, so no additional 
adjustment for international movement expenses was necessary. 
Petitioners did not claim any adjustment for foreign inland freight 
expenses. See Volume II of the Petitions at I-15, Exhibit II-B-1, 
Exhibit II-V-2, Exhibit II-V-3, and Supplement to the AD Vietnam 
Petition at 4. See also Vietnam AD Checklist for additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The AUVs are the average U.S. Customs value for imports from 
the country under a specific Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) number, based on public U.S. Bureau of the 
Census data for the anticipated POI. For Vietnam, they are 
comparable to the normal value based on constructed value, and for 
India, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, they are comparable to 
the home market price information provided for the normal value 
calculated for those countries. See the India AD Checklist, the Oman 
AD Checklist, the UAE AD Checklist, and the Vietnam AD Checklist for 
more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

India

    For India, Petitioners based U.S. price on one offer for sale of 
certain steel pipe produced by Zenith Birla India Limited, which they 
also refer to as Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd., a company 
excluded from the current antidumping duty order on welded steel pipe 
and tube from India (see the Respondent Selection section of the 
notice, below), and on one AUV of products imported from India. For the 
U.S. price based on an offer for sale, consistent with the stated sales 
and delivery terms, Petitioners made deductions for movement expenses 
estimated from U.S. customs data for comparable merchandise, and a 
deduction for distributor mark-up. For the U.S. prices based on AUVs, 
the values were already reported at a free-along-side ship foreign port 
price, so no additional adjustment for international movement expenses 
was necessary. Petitioners did not claim any adjustment for foreign 
inland freight expenses. See Volume II of the Petitions at II-2 and 
Exhibits II-B-1, II-I-3, and II-1-4; Supplement to the AD India 
Petition at 3 and Attachment 2; and Second Supplement to the AD India 
Petition, at 2-3 and Attachment 1. See also India AD Checklist for 
additional details.

Oman

    For Oman, Petitioners calculated U.S. price based on two offers for 
sale of certain steel pipe produced in Oman and on two AUVs of products 
imported from Oman. For the U.S. prices based on offers for sale, 
consistent with the stated sales and delivery terms, Petitioners made 
deductions for movement expenses estimated from U.S. customs data for 
comparable merchandise, and a deduction for distributor mark-up. For 
the U.S. prices based on AUVs, the values were already on a free-along-
side ship foreign port price, so no additional adjustment for 
international movement expenses was necessary. Petitioners did not 
claim any adjustment for foreign inland freight expenses. See Volume II 
of the Petitions at II-4 through II-5 and Exhibits II-B-1, II-O-3-A and 
II-O-3-B and Supplement to the AD Oman Petition at 3-7 and Attachments 
3 and 4. See also AD Oman Checklist for additional details.

The UAE

    For the UAE, the Petitioners based U.S. price on two AUVs of 
products imported from the UAE. For one of the AUVs, we corrected the 
calculation for an error in the data provided by Petitioners. See UAE 
AD Checklist at ``Less Than Fair Value Allegation'' section. For the 
U.S. prices based on AUVs, the values were already on a free-along-side 
ship foreign port price, so no additional adjustment for international 
movement expenses was necessary. Petitioners did not claim any 
adjustment for foreign inland freight expenses. See Volume II of the 
Petitions at II-7 to II-8 and Exhibits II-U-3 and II-U-4, Supplement to 
the AD UAE Petition at 3-4 and Attachments 1 and 2. See also UAE AD 
Checklist for additional details.

[[Page 72167]]

Normal Value

Vietnam

    Petitioners state that the Department has long treated the Vietnam 
as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. See Volume II of the 
Petitions at II-8.
    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 Vietnam has not been 
revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for 
purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV 
of the product is appropriately based on FOPs valued in a surrogate 
market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In 
the course of this investigation, all parties, including the public, 
will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to 
the issues of Vietnam's NME status and the granting of separate rates 
to individual exporters.
    Petitioners claim that India is an appropriate surrogate country 
because it is a market economy that is at a comparable level of 
economic development to Vietnam. Petitioners also believe that India is 
a significant producer of merchandise under consideration. See Volume 
II of the Petitions at II-8 through II-10. Based on the information 
provided by Petitioners, we believe that it is appropriate to use India 
as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. If the Department 
initiates this 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 FOPs 
within 40 days from the date of publication of the preliminary 
determination.
Valuation of Raw Materials and By-Product
    Petitioners calculated normal value based on consumption rates 
experienced by one U.S. producer. Petitioners assert that the 
experience of that U.S. producer is applicable to that of Vietnamese 
producers because that U.S. producer, like the vast majority of 
producers in Vietnam, is a non-integrated producer which does not 
manufacture the steel coils from which the subject steel pipe is 
produced, but instead buys the steel and converts it into subject pipe. 
As a result, Petitioners state, standard pipe is essentially a 
commodity product, produced to published specifications by many non-
integrated standard pipe producers, all employing similar methods of 
converting raw steel into finished steel pipe. See Supplement to the AD 
Vietnam Petition, at 6.
    Petitioners valued steel coils, zinc, and the by-product offset 
based on reasonably available, public surrogate country data, 
specifically, Indian import statistics from the Global Trade Atlas 
(GTA). See Volume II of the Petitions at II-11 through II-13 and 
Exhibit II-V-4-B-1 through Exhibit II-V-B-3, Supplement to the AD 
Vietnam Petition at 8, and Second Supplement to the AD Vietnam Petition 
at Attachment 2. Petitioners excluded from these import statistics 
values from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME 
countries. Petitioners also 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. Finally, imports 
that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country were 
excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be 
certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with 
generally available export subsidies. See Supplement to the AD Vietnam 
Petition at 8.
Valuation of Direct and Indirect Labor
    Petitioners determined labor costs using the labor consumption 
rates derived from one U.S. producer. See Volume II of the Petitions at 
II-14. Petitioners valued labor using the wage rate used in Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 76 FR 
20627 (April 13, 2011). The Department recalculated wages to comport 
with the methodology announced on June 21, 2011. See Antidumping 
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: Valuing 
the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011). The 
recalculation also uses values for steel workers rather than shrimp 
farmers. See Vietnam AD Checklist at Attachment V.
Valuation of Energy
    Petitioners determined electricity costs using the electricity 
consumption rates, in kilowatt hours, derived from one U.S. producer's 
experience. See Volume II of the Petitions at II-10 through II-11 and 
II-14. Petitioners valued electricity using the Indian electricity rate 
reported by the Central Electric Authority of the Government of India, 
the source used in a recent administrative review of light walled 
rectangular pipe and tube from the People's Republic of China. See 
Volume II of the Petitions at II-13 (citing Light-Walled Rectangular 
Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 27308 
(May 14, 2010)).
    Petitioners determined natural gas costs using the natural gas 
consumption rates derived from one U.S. producer's experience. See 
Volume II of the Petitions at II-14. Petitioners valued natural gas 
using the 2009/2010 annual report of GAIL. See Supplement to the AD 
Vietnam Petition at 8.
Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative 
Expenses, and Profit
    Petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (overhead, SG&A, 
and profit) from the annual financial statement of one Indian producer 
of welded pipe: the 2010-2011 Annual Report of Surya Roshni Limited 
(Surya). See Volume I of the Petitions at II-14 and II-15 and Exhibit 
II-V-4-F. Petitioners state that the majority of Surya's sales revenue 
is derived from the sale of welded pipe. Furthermore, they state that 
like the petitioner whose FOP data was used, Surya buys the major 
input, steel coils, rather than producing the steel. See Volume I of 
the Petition at II-15. We find that Petitioners' use of Surya as the 
source for the surrogate financial expenses to be acceptable for 
purposes of initiation.
Exchange Rates
    Petitioners made Indian rupee/U.S. dollar (USD) conversions based 
on average exchange rates for the POI, based on Federal Reserve 
exchange rates. See Volume II of the Petitions at II-V-4 and Exhibit 
II-V-4.

India, Oman, and the UAE

    For India, Oman, and the UAE, the Petitioners calculated NV for 
certain steel pipe using information they were able to obtain about 
home market prices.
    For India, Petitioners based normal value on a price quote for a 
single product. Because the price quote was on an ex-factory basis, no 
adjustments were needed. See Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits II-
A-1, II-A-2 and II-I-1, and Second Supplement to the AD India Petition 
at 2-3 and Attachment 1; see also India AD Checklist at the ``Less Than 
Fair Value Allegation'' section.
    For Oman, Petitioners provided ex-factory price quotes for two 
products. Prices included packing, but petitioners noted no adjustment 
for packing was needed because the U.S. prices also include packing and 
because there is no

[[Page 72168]]

significant difference in packing between markets. See Volume II of the 
Petitions at Exhibits II-A-1, II-A-2, and II-O-1 and Supplement to the 
AD Oman Petition at 3; see also Oman AD Checklist at the ``Less Than 
Fair Value Allegation'' section.
    For the UAE, the Petitioners provided price quotes for two 
products. Because the price quotes were on an ex-factory basis, no 
adjustments were needed. See Volume II of the Petitions at II-6 and 
Exhibits II-A-1, II-A-2, and II-U-1; see also UAE AD Checklist at the 
``Less Than Fair Value Allegation'' section.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of certain steel pipe from India, Oman, the UAE, 
and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States 
at less than fair value.
    Based on a comparison of U.S. prices and NV calculated in 
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margins for certain steel pipe from Vietnam range from 20.47 percent to 
27.96 percent. See Vietnam AD Checklist at ``Estimated Margins'' 
section; see also Supplement to the AD Vietnam Petition at Attachment 
5-A.
    Based on a comparison of U.S. prices and NV calculated in 
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margins for certain steel pipe from India range from 22.88 percent to 
48.43 percent. See India AD Checklist at ``Estimated Margins'' section; 
see also Supplement to the AD India Petition at Attachment 3.
    Based on a comparison of U.S. prices and NV calculated in 
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margins for certain steel pipe from Oman range from 2.89 to 19.33 
percent. See Oman AD Checklist at ``Estimated Margins'' section; see 
also Supplement to the AD Oman Petition at Attachment 1.
    Based on a comparison of U.S. prices and NV calculated in 
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margins for certain steel pipe from the UAE range from 6.23 percent to 
11.71 percent. See the UAE AD Checklist at ``Estimated Margins'' 
section; see also Supplement to the AD UAE Petition at Attachment 2.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the Petitions on certain steel pipe 
from India, Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam, the Department finds that the 
Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, 
we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether 
imports of certain steel pipe from India, Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam 
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 determinations no later than 
140 days after the date of these initiations.

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 
antidumping duty 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 ``{w{time} ithdrawal 
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.'' See 
id. at 74931.
    In order to accomplish this objective, if any interested party 
wishes to make a targeted dumping allegation in any of these 
investigations pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such 
allegations are due no later than 45 days before the scheduled date of 
the country-specific preliminary determination.

Respondent Selection

India

    At the time of the filing of the petition for this case, there was 
an existing antidumping duty order on welded steel pipe and tube from 
India. See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard 
Pipes and Tubes from India, 51 FR 17384 (May 12, 1986). Therefore, the 
scope of this investigation covers merchandise manufactured and/or 
exported by Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd., and any successors-
in-interest to that company, which is the only company excluded from 
the 1986 order known to exist.\5\ Petitioners have referred to Zenith 
Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd. and Zenith Birla India Limited 
interchangeably. Therefore, we intend to issue the questionnaire to 
both of these named entities, and during the investigation will examine 
whether Zenith Birla India Limited is properly considered the 
successor-in-interest to Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. was also excluded from the 1986 
order, but the company is not known to exist at the time of this 
initiation. See Supplement to the AD India Petition at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oman and the UAE

    Petitioners identified two exporters/producers in Oman and five 
exporters/producers in the UAE. See Volume I of the Petitions, at 
Exhibit I-4. We are unaware of any other exporters/producers. Following 
standard practice in antidumping investigations involving market 
economy countries, the Department intends to select respondents for 
Oman and the UAE based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data 
for U.S. imports under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) numbers: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 
7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 
7306.30.50.90. These HTSUS numbers closely match the subject 
merchandise, and are those used by Petitioners to calculate aggregate 
import totals.\6\ 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 
seven days of publication of this Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions at Attachment 
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vietnam

    For the Vietnam investigation, the Department will request quantity 
and value information from the ten known exporters/producers identified 
with complete contact information in the Petitions. The quantity and 
value data received from NME exporters/producers will be used as the 
basis to select the mandatory respondents.
    For antidumping investigations involving NME countries such as 
Vietnam, 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. 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); Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist 
Canvas

[[Page 72169]]

From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 
2005). On the date of the 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 Department's 
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 
December 6, 2011. Also, the Department will send the quantity and value 
questionnaire to those Vietnamese companies identified in Volume I of 
the Petitions, at Exhibit I-4.
    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 
processing the separate-rate applications in previous antidumping duty 
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 this 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 noted in the ``Respondent Selection'' section 
above, the Department requires that Vietnam 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. The quantity and value 
questionnaire will be available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of the 
publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register.

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 versions of the Petitions have been 
provided to the representatives of the Governments of India, Oman, the 
UAE, and Vietnam. 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 versions of the Petitions to 
the Governments of India, Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam, consistent with 
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

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

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than 45 days after 
the date the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of certain steel pipe from India, Oman, the 
UAE, and Vietnam are materially injuring, or threatening material 
injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination with respect to 
any country will result in the investigation being terminated for 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(b). On January 22, 2008, the 
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations 
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures 
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 
351.103(d)).
    Any party submitting factual information in an AD 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) 
& (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: November 15, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Scope of the Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam Investigations

    These investigations cover welded carbon-quality steel pipes and 
tube, of

[[Page 72170]]

circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (``O.D.'') not more 
than 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish 
(e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain end, beveled 
end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry 
specification (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials 
International (``ASTM''), proprietary, or other) generally known as 
standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler pipe, and structural pipe 
(although subject product may also be referred to as mechanical 
tubing). Specifically, the term ``carbon quality'' includes products in 
which: (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other 
contained elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by 
weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, 
by weight, as indicated:
    (i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
    (ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
    (iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
    (iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
    (v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
    (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
    (vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
    (viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
    (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
    (x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
    (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
    (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
    (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium;
    (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
    Subject pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, 
and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe 
is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and 
structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications 
rather than to industry specifications. Fence tubing is included in the 
scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the 
exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. 
Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and 
may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to 
proprietary specifications. These products are generally made to 
standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to 
a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, 
such as American Petroleum Institute (``API'') API-5L specification, is 
also covered by the scope of these investigations when it meets the 
physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the 
following characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 
2.0 inches (50mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted 
(e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or 
coupled end finish.
    The scope of these investigations does not include: (a) Pipe 
suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining 
furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b) finished 
electrical conduit; (c) finished scaffolding; \7\ (d) tube and pipe 
hollows for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API 
specifications; (f) line pipe produced to only API specifications; and 
(g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn. However, products 
certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications are not excluded as 
mechanical tubing if they otherwise meet the standard sizes (e.g., 
outside diameter and wall thickness) of standard, structural, fence and 
sprinkler pipe. Also, products made to the following outside diameter 
and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry 
as typical for fence tubing, would not be excluded from the scope based 
solely on their being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing 
specifications:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Finished scaffolding is defined as component parts of a 
final, finished scaffolding that enters the United States 
unassembled as a ``kit.'' A ``kit'' is understood to mean a packaged 
combination of component parts that contain, at the time of 
importation, all the necessary component parts to fully assemble a 
final, finished scaffolding.

    1.315 inch O.D. and 0.035 inch wall thickness (gage 20);
    1.315 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18);
    1.315 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17);
    1.315 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16);
    1.315 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15);
    1.315 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14);
    1.315 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13);
    1.660 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18);
    1.660 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17);
    1.660 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16);
    1.660 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15);
    1.660 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14);
    1.660 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13);
    1.660 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12);
    1.900 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18);
    1.900 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17);
    1.900 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16);
    1.900 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15);
    1.900 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13);
    1.900 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12);
    2.375 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18);
    2.375 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17);
    2.375 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16);
    2.375 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15);
    2.375 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13);
    2.375 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12);
    2.375 inch O.D. and 0.120 inch wall thickness (gage 11);
    2.875 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12);
    2.875 inch O.D. and 0.134 inch wall thickness (gage 10);
    2.875 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8);
    3.500 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12);
    3.500 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9);
    3.500 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8);
    4.000 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9);
    4.000 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8);
    4.500 inch O.D. and 0.203 inch wall thickness (gage 7).
    The pipe subject to these investigations are currently classifiable 
in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 
statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 
7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 
7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5050, 
and 7306.50.5070. However, the product description, and not the HTSUS 
classification, is dispositive of whether the merchandise imported into 
the United States falls within the scope of the investigations.

Appendix II

Scope of the India AD Investigation

    This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and 
tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (``O.D.'') 
not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, 
surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain 
end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 
industry specification (e.g., American Society for Testing and 
Materials International (``ASTM''), proprietary, or

[[Page 72171]]

other) generally known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler 
pipe, and structural pipe (although subject product may also be 
referred to as mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term ``carbon 
quality'' includes products in which: (a) Iron predominates, by weight, 
over each of the other contained elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 
percent or less, by weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below 
exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:
    (i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
    (ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
    (iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
    (iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
    (v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
    (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
    (vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
    (viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
    (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
    (x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
    (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
    (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
    (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium;
    (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
    At the time of the filing of the petition for this case, there was 
an existing antidumping duty order on welded steel pipe and tube from 
India. See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard 
Pipes and Tubes from India, 51 FR 17384 (May 12, 1986). Therefore, the 
scope of this investigation covers merchandise manufactured and/or 
exported by Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd., and any successors-
in-interest to that company, which is the only company excluded from 
the 1986 order known to exist.
    Subject pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, 
and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe 
is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and 
structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications 
rather than to industry specifications. Fence tubing is included in the 
scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the 
exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. 
Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and 
may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to 
proprietary specifications. These products are generally made to 
standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to 
a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, 
such as American Petroleum Institute (``API'') API-5L specification, is 
also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the 
physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the 
following characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 
2.0 inches (50mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted 
(e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or 
coupled end finish.
    The scope of this investigation does not include: (a) Pipe suitable 
for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces 
and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b) finished 
electrical conduit; (c) finished scaffolding; \8\ (d) tube and pipe 
hollows for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API 
specifications; (f) line pipe produced to only API specifications; and 
(g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn. However, products 
certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications are not excluded as 
mechanical tubing if they otherwise meet the standard sizes (e.g., 
outside diameter and wall thickness) of standard, structural, fence and 
sprinkler pipe. Also, products made to the following outside diameter 
and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry 
as typical for fence tubing, would not be excluded from the scope based 
solely on their being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing 
specifications:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Finished scaffolding is defined as component parts of a 
final, finished scaffolding that enters the United States 
unassembled as a ``kit.'' A ``kit'' is understood to mean a packaged 
combination of component parts that contain, at the time of 
importation, all the necessary component parts to fully assemble a 
final, finished scaffolding.

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.035 inch wall thickness (gage 20);
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18);
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17);
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16);
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15);
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14);
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13);
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18);
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17);
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16);
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15);
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14);
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13);
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12);
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18);
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17);
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16);
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15);
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13);
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12);
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18);
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17);
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16);
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15);
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13);
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12);
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.120 inch wall thickness (gage 11);
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12);
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.134 inch wall thickness (gage 10);
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8);
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12);
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9);
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8);
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9);
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8);
4.500 inch O.D. and 0.203 inch wall thickness (gage 7).

    The pipe subject to this investigation is currently classifiable in 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') statistical 
reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 
7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 
7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5050, 
and 7306.50.5070. However, the product description, and not the HTSUS 
classification, is dispositive of whether the merchandise imported into 
the United States falls within the scope of the investigation.

[FR Doc. 2011-30162 Filed 11-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P