[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3440-3447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1377]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-981, A-552-814]


Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of China and 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
    DATES: Effective Date: January 24, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan or Erin Kearney at 
(202) 482-4081 or (202) 482-0167, respectively (the People's Republic 
of China (the ``PRC'')), AD/CVD Operations, Office 4; or Brandon 
Farlander or Trisha Tran at (202) 482-0182 or (202) 482-4852, 
respectively (the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam'')), AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions

    On December 29, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') received petitions concerning imports of utility scale 
wind towers (``wind towers'') from the PRC and Vietnam filed in proper 
form on behalf of the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (``Petitioner''). See 
Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 
on Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China and 
Antidumping Duties on Utility Scale Wind Towers from Vietnam filed on 
December 29, 2011 (the ``Petitions''). On January 5 and 6, 2012, the 
Department requested additional information and clarification of 
certain areas of the Petitions. Petitioner filed responses to these 
requests on January 11, 2012, (hereinafter, ``First Supplement to the 
PRC Petition,'' ``First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition,'' and 
``First Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions,'' respectively). The 
Department requested additional clarifications from Petitioner on 
January 12, 2012. See Memorandum to the File from Meredith Rutherford, 
titled ``Phone Call to Counsel for the Petitioner,'' dated January 12, 
2012. Petitioner provided these additional clarifications on January 
12, 2012, (hereinafter, ``Second Supplement to the PRC Petition'' and 
``Second Supplement to the Vietnam Petition,'' respectively). Further, 
the Department requested additional information and clarifications to 
the scope and the Petitions on January 13, 2012. Petitioner filed 
responses to these requests on January 17, 2012, (hereinafter, ``Second 
Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions,'' ``Third Supplement to the PRC 
Petition,'' and ``Third Supplement to the Vietnam Petition,'' 
respectively). The Department requested additional clarifications 
concerning the surrogate value for one material input from Petitioner 
on January 17, 2012. See Memorandum to the File from Karine Gziryan, 
titled ``Phone Call to Counsel for the Petitioner,'' dated January 17, 
2012. Petitioner provided these additional clarifications on January 
18, 2012, (hereinafter, ``Fourth Supplement to the PRC Petition'').
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the ``Act''), Petitioner alleges that imports of wind towers 
from the PRC 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. Also, 
consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are 
accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner 
supporting its allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) and (E) of the Act and has demonstrated 
sufficient industry

[[Page 3441]]

support with respect to the antidumping duty investigations that 
Petitioner is requesting that the Department initiate (see 
``Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions'' section below).

Period of Investigation

    19 CFR 351.204(b) states that, in the case of a nonmarket economy 
(``NME'') country, the Department normally will examine in an 
investigation merchandise sold during the two most recently completed 
fiscal quarters as of the month preceding the month in which the 
petition was filed. The regulations further state that the Department 
may examine merchandise sold during any additional or alternate period 
it concludes is appropriate.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b), the two most recently completed 
fiscal quarters as of the month preceding the month in which the 
petition was filed would be the second and third fiscal quarters of 
2011, April through September 2011.
    For this investigation, Petitioner has requested that the 
Department consider expanding the period of investigation (``POI'') to 
include more than two fiscal quarters. According to Petitioner, the 
subject merchandise involves a lengthy bidding process, custom 
specifications for production and long lead times. Petitioner claims 
that a POI of normal duration may not capture a large number of sales.
    The Department will consider Petitioner's arguments, as well as 
comments from other interested parties, on this matter and will make a 
determination regarding the POI as the investigation proceeds. See, 
e.g., Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Folding 
Gift Boxes From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 15400, 15400-01 
(March 19, 2001) (where the Department did not make a determination 
regarding the length of the POI at initiation in a case where the 
merchandise was sold using long-term contracts).

Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are wind towers from 
the PRC and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of the 
investigations, please see the ``Scope of the Investigations'' in 
Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on Scope of Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with 
Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products 
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Petitioner submitted 
revised scope language on January 12, 2012, and January 17, 2012. Among 
the revisions was the following substantive provision:

    Future utility scale wind tower configurations that meet the 
minimum height requirement, which may include lattice masts, and are 
designed to support wind turbine electrical generators greater than 
100 kW are also included within this scope.

The Department has not adopted this specific revision recommended by 
Petitioner for the purposes of initiation.\1\ Given the scarcity of 
information on this product, the Department has had neither the time 
nor the administrative resources to evaluate this proposed language 
prior to the initiation date. However, as discussed in the preamble to 
the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period during the 
investigation for interested parties to raise issues regarding product 
coverage. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 
FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encourages all 
interested parties to submit such comments by February 7, 2012, 5 p.m. 
Eastern Standard Time, 20 calendar days from the signature date of this 
notice. All comments must be filed on the records of the PRC and 
Vietnam antidumping duty investigations as well as the PRC 
countervailing duty investigation concurrently initiated with this 
investigation. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department has independent authority to determine the 
scope of its investigations. See Diversified Products Corp. v. 
United States, 572 F. Supp. 883, 887 (CIT 1983).
    \2\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The period of scope comments 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 Duty Questionnaires

    We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the 
appropriate physical characteristics of wind towers to be reported in 
response to the Department's antidumping questionnaires. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the subject merchandise in order to more accurately report the 
relevant factors and costs of production, 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 listing 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 note 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 wind towers, 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 
product matching. 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 antidumping duty questionnaires, we must 
receive comments filed in accordance with the Department's electronic 
filing requirements, available at 19 CFR 351.303(g), by February 7, 
2012. Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by February 14, 
2012.

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

[[Page 3442]]

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 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. 
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988)), aff'd 
865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this 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, Petitioner does not offer 
a definition of the 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 wind towers constitute 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: Utility Scale Wind Towers from the PRC (``PRC 
Initiation Checklist'') at Attachment II, and Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
Vietnam (``Vietnam Initiation Checklist'') at Attachment II, dated 
concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via IA ACCESS. 
Access to documents filed via IA ACCESS is also available in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of 
Commerce building.
    In determining whether 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, Petitioner provided its own 
2010 production of the domestic like product, and compared this to the 
estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire 
domestic industry. See Volume I of the Petitions at 2-3 and Exhibits I-
3 and I-29, and First Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions at 5-6 and 
Supplemental Exhibits I-2 and I-3; see also PRC Initiation Checklist at 
Attachment II and Vietnam Initiation 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 Petitioner has established industry support. See PRC 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II and Vietnam Initiation Checklist 
at Attachment II. First, the Petitions established support from 
domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, 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 Vietnam 
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 Vietnam 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. See 
id. 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.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) and (E) of the Act and it has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty 
investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate. See id.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    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, Petitioner 
alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold 
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. Petitioner contends 
that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market 
share, lost sales and revenues, reduced production, reduced shipments, 
reduced capacity utilization rate, underselling and price depression 
and suppression, reduced workforce, decline in financial performance, 
and an increase in import penetration. See Volume I of the Petitions at 
23-54. 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 PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment III and Vietnam 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 these investigations of imports of wind towers from the PRC 
and Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments 
relating to

[[Page 3443]]

the U.S. price and the factors of production (``FOPs'') are also 
discussed in the country-specific initiation checklists. See PRC 
Initiation Checklist and Vietnam Initiation Checklist.

Export Price

The PRC

    Petitioner calculated export price (``EP'') based on declarations 
of the price bid for wind towers by a certain Chinese exporter/reseller 
and the lost U.S. sale by a U.S. producer during the POI, as identified 
in one Declaration Regarding Lost U.S. Sales and one Declaration 
Regarding U.S. Sales Offers provided by Petitioner. See Volume II of 
the Petitions at Exhibits II-4 and II-1; First Supplement to the PRC 
Petition at Supplemental Exhibit II-5; see also PRC Initiation 
Checklist. Petitioner calculated the EP using the quoted transaction 
price as the best information reasonably available. According to 
Petitioner, the offer made by the Chinese producer reflects the ex-
factory EP; therefore, Petitioner made no adjustments to the quoted 
price. See Volume II of the Petitions at 6 and Exhibits II-4 and II-22; 
see also PRC Initiation Checklist.

Vietnam

    Petitioner calculated EP based on a Vietnamese exporter's sales of 
wind towers to wind tower users and distributors in the United States. 
Specifically, Petitioner stated that official import statistics were 
used to calculate two U.S. prices by month and port for shipments from 
the Vietnamese exporter. See Volume I of the Petitions at 4-8 and 
Exhibit I-19; Volume IV of the Petitions at 4 and Exhibit IV-2; First 
Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 3-4; Second Supplement to the 
Vietnam Petition at Attachment 1; see also Vietnam Initiation 
Checklist. Petitioner stated that, because these U.S. prices were 
derived from official U.S. import statistics and were based on the 
Customs value of the goods, its U.S. prices are already ex-work prices 
and, therefore, no adjustments for movement expenses are necessary. See 
Volume IV of the Petitions at 8-9 and Exhibit IV-8; see also Vietnam 
Initiation Checklist.

Normal Value

The PRC

    Petitioner states that the Department has long treated the PRC as a 
non-market economy (``NME'') country and this designation remains in 
effect today. See Volume II of the Petitions at 7; see also Drill Pipe 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, 76 FR 1966, 1968 
(January 11, 2011); Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, 
Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical 
Circumstances, in Part, 75 FR 57449, 57452 (September 21, 2010).
    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 
FOPs valued in a surrogate market-economy (``ME'') country in 
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of the PRC 
investigation, all parties, in addition to 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.
    Petitioner claims that South Africa is an appropriate surrogate 
country under section 773(c) of the Act because it is a ME country that 
is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC, and is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise, such as fabricated 
steel towers and masts. See Volume II of the Petitions at 8-9 and 
Exhibit II-8. Further, surrogate values data from South Africa are 
available and reliable. See Volume II of the Petitions at 8 and Exhibit 
II-6. Moreover, Petitioner notes that the Department has previously 
used South Africa as the surrogate country in previous investigations 
involving the PRC. See Volume II of the Petitions at 9, citing Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ferrovanadium 
from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 71137, 71139 (November 29, 
2002). Based on the information provided by Petitioner, we believe that 
it is appropriate to use South Africa 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 FOPs within 40 days after the date of publication 
of the preliminary determination.
    Petitioner calculated the NV and dumping margins for the U.S. 
price, discussed above, using the Department's NME methodology as 
required by section 773(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 
19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner calculated NV based on consumption rates of 
one producer of wind towers (``Wind Tower Producer''). Petitioner 
asserts that, to the best of Petitioner's knowledge, production methods 
and consumption rates of the Wind Tower Producer are similar to the 
production methods and consumption rates of Chinese producers. See 
Volume II of the Petitions at 10-11, 15-16, and Exhibit II-10; First 
Supplement to the PRC Petition at 5-6 and Supplemental Exhibit II-4.
    Petitioner valued most FOPs based on reasonably available, public 
surrogate country data, specifically, South Africa import statistics 
from the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA''). See Volume II of the Petitions 
at 19-20 and Exhibits II-16 through II-17; see also First Supplement to 
the PRC Petition at 5-6 and Supplemental Exhibits II-4 and II-6. 
Petitioner excluded from these import statistics values from countries 
previously determined by the Department to be NME countries, and from 
India, 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.\3\ 
See Volume II of the Petitions at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), 
unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008) (``PET Film'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Petitioner made adjustments for inflation for certain 
FOPs using the South African producer price index, as reported in the 
International Monetary Fund publication, International Financial 
Statistics (IFS)--South Africa. See Volume II of the Petitions at 16 
and Exhibit II-11. Petitioner also made South African Rand/U.S. dollar 
(``USD'') currency conversions using average exchange rates for the 
POI, based on Federal Reserve exchange rates. See Volume II of the 
Petitions at 16 and Exhibit II-12.
    Petitioner determined labor costs using the labor consumption rates 
of the Wind Tower Producer. See Volume II of

[[Page 3444]]

the Petitions at 10. Petitioner calculated labor costs using South 
African wage rates for manufacturing industries, as reported by the 
International Labor Organization (``ILO'') in its Yearbook of Labor 
Statistics. The Department's normal methodology is to value labor in a 
specific industry using Chapter 6A of the Yearbook of Labor Statistics. 
However, Petitioner stated that the ILO does not report industry-
specific South African wages in Chapter 6A, so Petitioner used 
manufacturing data reported in Chapter 5A, for the year 2008, as the 
best information available, and then inflated the value to be 
contemporaneous with the POI using the South African consumer price 
index. See Volume II of the Petitions at 22-23 and Exhibit II-20; First 
Supplement to the PRC Petition at 7-8 and Supplemental Exhibit II-8.
    Petitioner determined electricity costs using the electricity 
consumption rates, in kilowatt hours, derived from the Wind Tower 
Producer's experience. See Volume II of the Petitions at 10. Petitioner 
valued electricity using an average of South African electricity rates 
published by Eskom for industrial or heavy commercial use during the 
POI. See Volume II of the Petitions at 21 and Exhibit II-18, and First 
Supplement to the PRC Petition at 6-7 and Supplemental Exhibit II-7.
    Petitioner determined natural gas costs using the natural gas 
consumption rates derived from the Wind Tower Producer's experience. 
See Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits II-10 and II-15. Petitioner 
valued natural gas costs using rates published by the National Energy 
Regulator of South Africa, which demonstrate a gas reseller ``reference 
price'' per gigajoule (``Gj'') of natural gas. Petitioner converted the 
Gj denominated rate to a rate per mill British Thermal Unit. See Volume 
II of the Petitions at 21 and Exhibit II-19; see also First Supplement 
to the PRC Petition at 7.
    Petitioner used the 2010-2011 financial statements of the South 
African construction company Mazor Group Ltd. (``Mazor Group'') to 
value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses 
(``SG&A''), and profit. Petitioner identified Mazor Group as a producer 
of comparable merchandise because it has a steel division that 
fabricates large scale steel structures. See PRC Initiation Checklist; 
see also First Supplement to the PRC Petition at 8-9 and Supplemental 
Exhibits II-9 and II-10.
    Based on our review of Petitioner's submissions, the Department 
determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioner are reasonably 
available and, thus, acceptable for purposes of initiation. See PRC 
Initiation Checklist.

Vietnam

    Petitioner states that the Department has long treated Vietnam as a 
NME country and this designation remains in effect today. See Volume IV 
of the Petitions at 9-10; see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 
74 FR 56813 (November 3, 2009), unchanged in Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bags From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 16434 (April 1, 
2010).
    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 the Vietnam investigation. Accordingly, 
the NV of the product for the Vietnam investigation is appropriately 
based on FOPs valued in a surrogate ME country in accordance with 
section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of the Vietnam investigation, 
all parties, including the public, will have the opportunity to provide 
relevant information related to the issue of Vietnam's NME status and 
the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.
    Petitioner claims that India is an appropriate surrogate country 
under section 773(c) of the Act because it is an ME country that is at 
a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam and is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. See Volume IV of the 
Petitions at 11-12 and Exhibit IV-10. Further, surrogate values data 
from India are available and reliable. See Volume IV of the Petitions 
at 11 and Exhibit IV-9. Moreover, Petitioner states that the Department 
has previously found that India was an appropriate source of surrogate 
value information in previous investigations involving Vietnam. See 
Volume IV of the Petitions at 11, citing Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination, 74 FR 56813, 56815 (November 3, 2009). Based on the 
information provided by 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 FOPs 
within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary 
determination.
    Petitioner calculated the NV and dumping margins for the U.S. 
price, discussed above, using the Department's NME methodology as 
required by section 773(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 
19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner calculated NV based on consumption rates of 
one producer of wind towers (``Wind Tower Producer''). Petitioner 
asserts that, to the best of Petitioner's knowledge, production methods 
and consumption rates of the Wind Tower Producer are similar to the 
production methods and consumption rates of Vietnamese producers. See 
Volume IV of the Petitions at 12-13, 17-18, and Exhibit IV-12; see also 
First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 4-5 and Supplemental 
Exhibit IV-2.
    Petitioner valued most FOPs based on reasonably available, public 
surrogate country data, specifically, Indian import statistics from 
GTA. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 21-24 and Exhibit IV-17; see 
also First Supplement to Vietnam Petition at 5, 8, and Supplemental 
Exhibit IV-4. Petitioner excluded from these import statistics values 
from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME 
countries, and 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.\4\ 
See Volume IV of the Petitions at 20-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., PET Film.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Petitioner made Indian Rupee/USD currency conversions 
using average exchange rates for the POI, based on Federal Reserve 
exchange rates. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 19 and Exhibit IV-15; 
see also First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 8 and Supplemental 
Exhibit IV-4.
    Petitioner determined labor costs using the labor consumption rates 
of the Wind Tower Producer. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 24-25 and 
Exhibit IV-12. Petitioner calculated labor costs using Indian wage data 
collected by the

[[Page 3445]]

ILO and disseminated in Chapter 6A of the ILO Yearbook of Labor 
Statistics in 2005, under the industry category ``Manufacture of 
Machinery and Equipment NEC,'' as this category reflects the nature of 
work performed to make wind towers and then inflated the value to be 
contemporaneous with the POI using the Indian consumer price index. See 
Volume IV of the Petitions at 24-25 and Exhibit IV-21; see also First 
Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 7-8.
    Petitioner determined electricity costs using electricity 
consumption rates, in kilowatt hours, derived from the Wind Tower 
Producer. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 23 and Exhibit IV-12. 
Consistent with the Department's practice, Petitioner utilized the 
Indian electricity rate reported by Central Electric Authority of the 
Government of India to value electricity. See Volume IV of the 
Petitions at 23 and Exhibit IV-18.
    Petitioner determined natural gas costs using the natural gas 
consumption rates derived from the Wind Tower Producer. See Volume IV 
of the Petitions at 24 and Exhibit IV-12. To value natural gas, 
Petitioner calculated an average natural gas rate relevant to Indian 
consumers of natural gas. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 24. The 
average was obtained from a schedule of natural gas tariffs collected 
throughout India, disseminated in a January 2011 report entitled 
``Pricing of Natural Gas in India.'' See Volume IV of the Petitions at 
24; see also First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 9 and 
Supplemental Exhibit IV-6.
    Petitioner determined stacking frame costs based on the usage 
depicted in production process pictures on a Vietnamese producer's Web 
site.\5\ See Volume IV of the Petitions at 27-28 and Exhibits IV-2, IV-
13, and IV-24; see also First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 6-
7; Third Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 1 and Supplemental 
Exhibit IV-2. Petitioner valued the stacking frame packing materials 
using GTA India import statistics. See Volume IV of the Petitions at 28 
and Exhibit IV-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Stacking frames were not considered part of the NV analysis 
for the PRC because, unlike for Vietnamese producers, there is no 
information in the Petitions and Supplements to the Petitions that 
Chinese producers use stacking frames.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One financial statement was placed on the record for consideration 
to value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit. Petitioner submitted the 
2010-2011 financial statements of an Indian ship producer, ABG Shipyard 
Limited (``ABG''). See Vietnam Initiation Checklist; see also Volume IV 
of the Petitions at 25-26 and Exhibit IV-22. The Department finds that 
ABG's financial statements are sufficiently representative to value the 
surrogate financial ratios for wind towers for purposes of initiation.
    The Department determines that the surrogate values used by 
Petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, acceptable for purposes 
of initiation. See Vietnam Initiation Checklist.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of wind towers from the PRC and Vietnam are being, 
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. 
Based on a comparison of EP and NV calculated in accordance with 
section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for wind towers 
from the PRC is 213.54 percent. See PRC Initiation Checklist. Based on 
a comparison of EPs and NV calculated in accordance with section 773(c) 
of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for wind towers from Vietnam 
range from 140.54 percent to 143.29 percent. See Vietnam Initiation 
Checklist.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the Petitions on wind towers from the 
PRC 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 wind 
towers from the PRC 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 and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), 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)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 either 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

    For the PRC investigation, the Department will request quantity and 
value information from known exporters/producers identified with 
complete contact information in the Petitions and Supplements to the 
Petitions. See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I-14, and First 
Supplement to the PRC Petition at 1-2 and Supplemental Exhibits II-1 
and II-2. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters/
producers in the PRC will be used as the basis to select the mandatory 
respondents.
    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, e.g., 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). 
On the date of the publication of this initiation notice in the Federal 
Register, the Department will post the quantity and value 
questionnaires, 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 February 8, 2012.
    For the Vietnam investigation, Petitioner listed only two known 
exporters/producers in its Petition. See Volume I of the Petitions at 
Exhibit I-14, and First Supplement to the Vietnam Petition at 1 and 
Supplemental Exhibit IV-1. Accordingly, the Department will send these 
two companies the Department's antidumping questionnaires.
    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

[[Page 3446]]

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 
these investigations 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 
these investigations 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. In the PRC investigation, 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 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. In the Vietnam investigation, the Department will 
request information regarding separate rate eligibility in the 
questionnaire being sent to the two known exporters/producers 
identified in the Petition. If any other Vietnamese exporters/producers 
wish to file a separate rate application, they must follow the 
instructions described above and on the Department's Web site. Such 
applications are due 60 days after publication of this initiation 
notice.

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)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 the PRC 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 the PRC 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 February 13, 
2012, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of wind 
towers from the PRC 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. 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 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/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) 
& (2) and supplemented by Certification of Factual Information To 
Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Supplemental Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 (September 2, 
2011). 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: January 18, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations are certain wind 
towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind 
towers are designed to support the nacelle and rotor blades in a 
wind turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation 
capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with a minimum height of 50 
meters measured from the base of the tower to the bottom of the 
nacelle (i.e., where the top of the tower and nacelle are joined) 
when fully assembled.
    A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel 
plates rolled into

[[Page 3447]]

cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together (or otherwise 
attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, 
painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or without 
flanges, doors, or internal or external components (e.g., flooring/
decking, ladders, lifts, electrical buss boxes, electrical cabling, 
conduit, cable harness for nacelle generator, interior lighting, 
tool and storage lockers) attached to the wind tower section. 
Several wind tower sections are normally required to form a 
completed wind tower.
    Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope 
whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as 
nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or 
external components attached to the subject merchandise.
    Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor 
blades, regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. 
Also excluded are any internal or external components which are not 
attached to the wind towers or sections thereof.
    Merchandise covered by these investigations are currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') under subheadings 7308.20.0020 \6\ or 8502.31.0000.\7\ 
Prior to 2011, merchandise covered by these investigations were 
classified in the HTSUS under subheading 7308.20.0000 and may 
continue to be to some degree. While the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Wind towers are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when 
imported as a tower or tower section(s) alone.
    \7\ Wind towers may also be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 
when imported as part of a wind turbine (i.e., accompanying nacelles 
and/or rotor blades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-1377 Filed 1-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P