[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32531-32539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13233]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-523-801]


Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of 
Oman: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination

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

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2012.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (certain 
steel pipe) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman) is being, or is likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in 
section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 
estimated dumping margins are listed in the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on this preliminary determination.
    Pursuant to requests from interested parties, we are postponing for 
60 days the final determination and extending provisional measures from 
a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will 
make our final determination not later than 135 days after publication 
of the preliminary determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Ericka Ukrow, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0195 or (202) 482-0405, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 26, 2011, the Department received properly filed 
petitions concerning imports of certain steel pipe from India, Oman, 
the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
(Vietnam) on behalf of Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC

[[Page 32532]]

Steel Group, Wheatland Tube Company (Wheatland Tube), and United States 
Steel Corporation (collectively, petitioners).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, 
Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Petitions, October 26, 2011 (hereinafter, the Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 15, 2011, the Department initiated the antidumping duty 
investigation on certain steel pipe from India, Oman, the UAE, and 
Vietnam.\2\ The Department set aside a period of time for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage and invited all parties to 
submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the 
Initiation Notice.\3\ The Department also set aside a time for parties 
to comment on product characteristics for use in the antidumping duty 
questionnaire.\4\ Since the Initiation Notice, the following events 
have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 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, 
76 FR 72164 (November 22, 2011) (Initiation Notice).
    \3\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72164; see also Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 
19, 1997) (Preamble).
    \4\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72164-65; see also Preamble, 
62 FR at 27323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 22, 2011, the Department notified all interested 
parties of its intent to select mandatory respondents for this 
investigation based on U.S. import data obtained from U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) and set aside a period of time for parties to 
comment on the potential respondent selection. Parties were invited to 
submit comments within five calendar days from the date of that 
memorandum.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum from Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, to 
All Interested Parties, dated November 22, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 5, 2011, we received scope comments from SeAH Steel 
Vina Corp. (SeAH VINA), a producer in the companion antidumping and 
countervailing duty investigations involving Vietnam.\6\ We received 
rebuttal comments regarding the scope of the investigation from 
petitioners on December 14, 2011.\7\ After reviewing all comments, we 
have adopted the ``Scope of Investigation'' section of this notice, 
below. On December 9, 2011, we received comments regarding physical 
product characteristics from a producer named Universal Tube and 
Plastics Industries, Ltd. (UTP) and its U.S. affiliate, Prime Metal 
Corporation USA (Prime Metal) in the companion antidumping and 
countervailing duty investigations involving the UAE.\8\ We received no 
rebuttal comments concerning product characteristics from interested 
parties. After reviewing all comments, we have adopted the product 
characteristics and hierarchy as explained in the ``Product 
Comparisons'' section of this notice, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Letter from SeAH VINA to the Department, dated December 
5, 2011 (Scope Comments Letter).
    \7\ See Letter from petitioners to the Department, dated 
December 14, 2011 (Scope Rebuttal Comments Letter).
    \8\ See Letter from Prime Metal Corporation USA and Universal 
Tube Plastic Industries, Ltd. to the Department, dated December 9, 
2011 (Product Characteristics Letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 16, 2011, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) published its affirmative preliminary determination 
that there is a reasonable indication that imports of certain steel 
pipe from India, Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam are materially injuring the 
U.S. industry, and the ITC notified the Department of its finding.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, 
Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 701-
TA-482-485 and 731-TA-1191-1194 (Preliminary), 76 FR 78313 (December 
16, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 21, 2011, the Department selected Al Jazeera Steel 
Products Co. SAOG (Al Jazeera) as the mandatory respondent in this 
investigation and issued the Department's antidumping duty 
questionnaire to this respondent on December 22, 2011.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from 
Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7, titled ``Circular Welded 
Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman): 
Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated December 21, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Al Jazeera submitted its response to section A of the Department's 
antidumping duty questionnaire on January 26, 2012, which was rejected 
by the Department due to a filing error. It was resubmitted on March 6, 
2012.\11\ On February 9, 2012, Al Jazeera filed its responses to 
sections B (i.e., the section covering comparison market sales, BQR) 
and C (i.e., the section covering U.S. sales, CQR) of the Department's 
antidumping duty questionnaire.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Memorandum to The File, from John K. Drury, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 7, titled 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation on Circular Welded Carbon-Quality 
Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman: Rejection of Submission,'' 
dated March 7, 2012.
    \12\ See Letter from Al Jazeera to the Department, dated 
February 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 17, 2012, the Department received an allegation from 
petitioners that home market sales made by Al Jazeera were made at 
prices below the cost of production.\13\ On February 29, 2012, 
petitioners made a timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a postponement of the preliminary 
determination. On March 8, 2012, the Department initiated a sales-
below-cost of production investigation with respect to Al Jazeera.\14\ 
Accordingly, the Department requested Al Jazeera to respond to section 
D (i.e., the section covering the cost of production (COP) and 
constructed value (CV)) of the Department's antidumping duty 
questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Letter from Allied Tube and Conduit and JMC Steel Group 
to the Department (Below Cost Allegation Letter) at 1-7, dated 
February 17, 2012.
    \14\ See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7, 
titled, ``The Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 
Production for Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG,'' from the Team 
(Al Jazeera Cost Initiation Memo), dated March 8, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 16, 2012, the Department postponed the preliminary 
determination of this investigation until May 23, 2012.\15\ On March 
19, 2012, the Department issued its first supplemental questionnaire 
concerning Al Jazeera's section A-C responses.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From India, 
the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 77 FR 15718 (March 16, 2012).
    \16\ See Letter from the Department Al Jazeera, dated March 19, 
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 3, 2012, petitioner Wheatland Tube filed an allegation 
that targeted dumping was occurring with respect to certain steel pipe 
produced and exported from Oman by Al Jazeera. See the ``Allegation of 
Targeted Dumping'' section below.
    Al Jazeera submitted its responses to the Department's first 
supplemental questionnaire (FSQR) and its section D questionnaire (DQR) 
on April 9, 2012.\17\ Petitioners Allied Tube and Conduit and the JMC 
Steel Group submitted comments on Al Jazeera's DQR on April 11, 
2012.\18\ Additionally, on April 12, 2012, Al Jazeera filed comments 
concerning petitioner Wheatland Tube's targeted dumping allegation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Letter from Al Jazeera to the Department, dated April 
9, 2012.
    \18\ See Letter from Allied Tube and Conduit and the JMC Steel 
Group to the Department, dated April 11, 2012.
    \19\ See Letter from Al Jazeera to the Department, dated April 
12, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 18, 2012, the Department issued a second supplemental 
questionnaire covering Al Jazeera's section A-C first supplemental 
response.\20\ On April 30, 2012, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire covering Al Jazeera's section D response.\21\ On May 4, 
2012, we received the second supplemental

[[Page 32533]]

response (SSQR) and revised home market and U.S. sales databases from 
Al Jazeera.\22\ A revised cost database was submitted by Al Jazeera on 
May 9, 2012.\23\ On May 15, 2012, we received comments from petitioners 
regarding the information submitted by Al Jazeera in response to the 
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire.\24\ We received the 
supplemental cost (i.e., section D) response (SDQR) from Al Jazeera on 
May 21, 2012, as well as an updated cost database.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Letter from the Department to Al Jazeera, dated April 
18, 2012.
    \21\ See Letter from the Department to Al Jazeera, dated April 
30, 2012.
    \22\ See Letter from Al Jazeera to the Department, dated May 4, 
2012.
    \23\ See Letter from Al Jazeera to the Department, dated May 9, 
2012.
    \24\ See Letter from Allied Tube and Conduit and the JMC Steel 
Group to the Department, dated May 15, 2012.
    \25\ See Letter from Al Jazeera to the Department, dated May 21, 
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2010, to September 
30, 2011. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition. See 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are circular welded 
carbon-quality steel pipe from Oman. For a full description of the 
scope of the investigation, as set forth in the Initiation Notice, see 
the ``Scope of the Investigation'' in Appendix I of this notice.

Scope Comments

    As noted above, on December 5, 2011, SeAH VINA, a mandatory 
respondent in the concurrent AD and CVD investigations of certain steel 
pipe from Vietnam, filed comments arguing that the treatment of double 
and triple stenciled pipe in the scope of these investigations differs 
from previous treatment of these products under other orders on 
circular welded pipe.\26\ Specifically, SeAH VINA claims that the 
Brazilian, Korean, and Mexican orders on these products exclude 
``Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that enters 
the U.S. as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines * * *'' 
\27\ According to SeAH VINA: (i) If the term ``class or kind of 
merchandise'' has meaning, it cannot have a different meaning when 
applied to the same products in two different cases; and (ii) the 
distinction between standard and line pipe reflected in the Brazil, 
Korean, and Mexican orders derives from customs classifications 
administered by CBP and, thus, is more administrable.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Scope Comments Letter at pages 1-4.
    \27\ Id. at 2. See also Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel 
Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan; and Certain 
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Final 
Results of the Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping 
Duty Order, 76 FR 66899, 66900 (October 28, 2011).
    \28\ See Scope Comments Letter at page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 14, 2011, Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and 
Wheatland Tube (collectively, certain petitioners), responded to SeAH 
VINA's comments stating that the scope as it appeared in the Initiation 
Notice reflected petitioners' intended coverage. More specifically, 
certain petitioners contend that pipe that is multi-stenciled to both 
line pipe and standard pipe specifications and meets the physical 
characteristics listed in the scope (i.e., 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) is ordinarily used in 
standard pipe applications.\29\ Certain petitioners state that, in 
recent years, the Department has rejected end-use scope 
classifications, preferring instead to rely on physical characteristics 
to define coverage, and the scope of these investigations has been 
written accordingly.\30\ Therefore, certain petitioners ask the 
Department to reject SeAH VINA's proposed scope modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Scope Rebuttal Comments Letter at 3.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with certain petitioners that the Department seeks to 
define the scopes of its proceedings based on the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from 
the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 2008), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Moreover, we 
disagree with SeAH VINA's contention that once a ``class or kind of 
merchandise'' has been established that the same scope description must 
apply across all proceedings involving the product. For example, as the 
Department has gained experience in administering antidumping duty and 
countervailing duty orders, it has shifted away from end use 
classifications to scopes defined by the physical characteristics. Id. 
Thus, proceedings initiated on a given product many years ago may have 
end use classifications while more recent proceedings on the product 
would not. Compare, e.g., Countervailing Duty Order: Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Canada, 51 FR 21783, (June 16, 1986) (describing 
subject merchandise as being ``intended for use in drilling for oil and 
gas''), with Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's 
Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203-04 (January 20, 
2010) (describing the subject merchandise in terms of physical 
characteristics without regard to use or intended use). Finally, 
certain petitioners have indicated that the domestic industry's intent 
is to include multi-stenciled products that otherwise meet the physical 
characteristics set out in the scope.\31\ Therefore, for the reasons 
provided, the Department is not adopting SeAH VINA's proposed 
modification of the scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Comparisons

    We have considered the comments that were submitted by the 
interested parties concerning product-comparison criteria. The 
Department established the appropriate product characteristics to use 
as a basis for defining models and, when necessary, for comparing 
similar models, for this and the concurrent antidumping duty 
investigations of certain steel pipe from the UAE and Vietnam.\32\ The 
comments raised regarding product comparisons are being addressed in 
all four of the concurrent antidumping duty investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Department did not perform a product-specific 
comparisons analysis for the investigation of certain steel pipe 
from India as the Department relied on Facts Available to determine 
the margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department identified five criteria for matching U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise to normal value (specification/grade, diameter, 
wall thickness, coating, and end finish) and, as noted above, gave 
parties to this and the concurrent AD investigations an opportunity to 
comment within a certain deadline.\33\ The only timely comments 
submitted were from UTP and its U.S. affiliate, Prime Metal. UTP and 
Prime Metal requested that the placement of the coating characteristic 
in the model match hierarchy be adjusted from that proposed by the 
Department, so that it would be the highest in the hierarchy.\34\ UTP 
and Prime Metal argued that the coating characteristic should be 
highest in the hierarchy of product characteristics because significant 
cost and price differences are associated with whether or not pipes are 
coated with zinc

[[Page 32534]]

(galvanized), and because of differences in end uses between galvanized 
pipes and pipes that are not galvanized.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72164.
    \34\ See Product Characteristics Letter at pages 2-4.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    None of the interested parties objected to the inclusion of the 
coating product characteristic in the hierarchy, and none of the 
interested parties in the four concurrent certain steel pipe 
antidumping investigations (India, Oman, UAE, and Vietnam), other than 
UTP and its U.S. affiliate Prime Metal, suggested during the time 
allotted for comments on model match issues that the placement of the 
coating product characteristic in the model match hierarchy should be 
changed from that originally proposed by the Department.
    The Department is not modifying the model match hierarchy that it 
originally proposed to incorporate the suggestion of UTP and Prime 
Metal. The goal of the product characteristic hierarchy is to identify 
the best possible matches with respect to the characteristics of the 
merchandise. While variations in cost may suggest the existence of 
variation in product characteristics, such variations do not constitute 
differences in products in and of themselves. Furthermore, the 
magnitude of variations in cost may differ from company to company, and 
even for a given company over time, and therefore do not, in and of 
themselves, provide a reliable basis for identifying the relative 
importance of different product characteristics. The Department has 
noted that for defining products and creating a model match hierarchy, 
``{t{time} he physical characteristics are used to distinguish the 
differences among products across the industry,'' that ``{c{time} ost 
is not the primary factor for establishing these characteristics,'' 
and, in short, ``{c{time} ost variations are not the determining factor 
in assigning product characteristics for model-matching purposes.'' See 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 12950 (March 11, 2008), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Also, the Department's ``* * * selection of model match 
characteristics {is based{time}  on unique measurable physical 
characteristics that the product can possess'' and ``differences in 
price or cost, standing alone, are not sufficient to warrant 
inclusion in the Department's model-match of characteristics which a 
respondent claims to be the cause of such differences.'' See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain 
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Turkey, 
65 FR 15123 (March 21, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Model Match Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    UTP and Prime Metal also refer to price and end-use differences 
regarding galvanized versus non-galvanized pipe, but the Department's 
proposed hierarchy for the certain steel pipe antidumping duty 
investigations did include coating as a characteristic because whether 
or not the product is coated (e.g., galvanized) is important enough to 
distinguish products from one another. See, e.g., ``Scope of the 
Investigation'' in Appendix I. However, differences in other product 
characteristics also influence potential end uses. Neither UTP nor 
Prime Metal demonstrated why the coating product characteristic should 
be considered the most important of all when defining models and for 
comparison purposes and, as noted above, no other interested parties 
argued for such a change in a timely manner.
    Therefore, as noted above, the Department is not modifying the 
hierarchy it proposed at the outset of the AD investigations and 
included in the questionnaires it issued to the respondents.
    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by Al Jazeera, covered by the description in the ``Scope of 
Investigation'' section in Appendix I and sold in Oman during the POI, 
are considered to be foreign like product for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on the 
above mentioned five criteria to match U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise to comparison-market sales of the foreign like product. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market 
to compare to subject merchandise sold in the United States, we 
compared these U.S. sales to home-market sales of the most-similar, 
foreign like product on the basis of the reported product 
characteristics and instructions provided in the antidumping 
questionnaire, which were made in the ordinary course of trade. Where 
we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based 
NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance 
with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

Date of Sale

    19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, in identifying the date of sale of 
the merchandise under consideration or foreign like product, the 
Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the 
exporter or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business. 
Additionally, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of 
invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better 
reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the 
material terms of sale.\37\ The Court of International Trade (CIT) has 
stated that a ``party seeking to establish a date of sale other than 
invoice date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to 
`satisfy' the Department that a different date better reflects the date 
on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of 
sale.'' \38\ Alternatively, the Department may exercise its discretion 
to rely on a date other than invoice date if the Department ``provides 
a rational explanation as to why the alternative date `better reflects' 
the date when `material terms' are established.'' \39\ The date of sale 
is generally the date on which the parties establish the material terms 
of the sale,\40\ which normally includes the price, quantity, delivery 
terms and payment terms.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. 
v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (CIT 2001) (quoting 19 
CFR 351.401(i)) (Allied Tube).
    \38\ See Allied Tube, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (brackets and 
citation omitted).
    \39\ SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, 25 C.I.T. 133, 135 (Ct. 
Int'l Trade 2001).
    \40\ 19 CFR 351.401(i).
    \41\ See USEC Inc. v. United States, 31 C.I.T. 1049, 1055 (Ct. 
Int'l Trade 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, Al Jazeera reported the invoice date as the home 
market date of sale and argued that the U.S. date of sale should be the 
purchase order date because U.S. sales are produced to order. Al 
Jazeera explains that once a purchase order is confirmed by the U.S. 
customer, there are no changes in the material terms of sale. Al 
Jazeera notes that quantity can change but remains within specified 
weight tolerances. See Al Jazeera's AQR at 15, CQR at 62, FSQR at 4-7 
and 21. Per the Department's request, Al Jazeera provided a concordance 
table that showed ordered quantities and prices versus actual shipped 
quantities and prices for all confirmed purchase orders and shipments 
during the POI. See Al Jazeera's SSQR at 8-11 and Exhibit 4. This table 
showed few instances in which shipments fell outside of the purchase 
order tolerance for quantity and, therefore, the material terms of sale 
changed from order to invoice. However, in comparing the information 
submitted in the table to the reported U.S. sales database, we noted 
that information in the database regarding invoice dates, actual sales, 
and purchase order dates, was missing. See Al Jazeera's SSQR at Exhibit 
4 and U.S. sales database (``ajsp--us03''). Due to the insufficient 
information on the record, the Department is unable to ascertain that 
the purchase order date satisfies the

[[Page 32535]]

Department's definition of the date of sale and, therefore, whether it 
is appropriate to use it as the U.S. date of sale. Accordingly, 
consistent with the relevant regulation, the Department has determined 
to use invoice date as the U.S. date of sale for purposes of this 
preliminary determination. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
    In accordance with this determination, we are excluding from our 
analysis those sales which are known to be based on purchase order 
contracts executed in the POI but shipped outside of the POI because it 
is unclear whether the material terms of these sales were set during 
the POI. In addition, we have included sales pursuant to purchase 
orders executed prior to, or during, the POI, and shipped during the 
POI. We will further examine whether there is other information that 
denotes a more appropriate date of sale as it is unclear from the 
record whether the material terms of these sales were set prior to the 
POI. We intend to issue a supplemental questionnaire to Al Jazeera to 
address the inconsistencies found. For further details, see Memorandum 
to The File, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, from John Drury 
and Ericka Ukrow, International Trade Analysts, titled ``Analysis 
Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the 
Sultanate of Oman: Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG,'' dated May 23, 
2012 (Al Jazeera Preliminary Analysis Memorandum).

Targeted Dumping Allegation

    The statute allows the Department to employ the average-to-
transaction margin-calculation methodology under the following 
circumstances: (1) There is a pattern of export prices that differ 
significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time; and (2) 
the Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into 
account using the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction 
methodology. See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
    On April 3, 2012, petitioner Wheatland Tube submitted timely 
allegations of targeted dumping with respect to Al Jazeera and asserted 
that the Department should apply the average to-transaction methodology 
in calculating the margins for this respondent.\42\ In its allegations, 
petitioner Wheatland Tube asserted that there are patterns of U.S. 
sales prices for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among 
purchasers, time periods, and regions. Petitioner Wheatland Tube relied 
on the Department's targeted dumping test in Certain Steel Nails From 
the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not 
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008), and Certain Steel 
Nails From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 2008) (collectively, 
Nails), as applied in more recent investigations such as Multilayered 
Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 30656, 30659-60 
(May 26, 2011). See petitioner Wheatland Tube's Submission of Targeted 
Dumping Allegations dated April 3, 2012, at pages 2-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Letter from Wheatland Tube (petitioner) to the 
Department, dated April 3, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Targeted Dumping Test

    We conducted customer, time-period, and region targeted dumping 
analyses for Al Jazeera using the methodology we adopted in Nails and 
most recently articulated in Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-
Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 59223 (September 
27, 2010) (Coated Paper), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1; and Multilayered Wood Flooring From the 
Peoples Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (October 18, 2011) (Wood Flooring), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
    The methodology we employed involves a two-stage test; the first 
stage addresses the pattern requirement and the second stage addresses 
the significant-difference requirement. See section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act, Nails, Coated Paper, and Wood Flooring. In this test, we made 
all price comparisons on the basis of identical merchandise (i.e., by 
control number (CONNUM)). We based all of our targeted dumping 
calculations on the U.S. net price, which we determined for U.S. sales 
by Al Jazeera in our standard margin calculations. For further 
discussion of the test and results, see the Al Jazeera Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum. As a result of our analysis, we preliminarily 
determine that there is a pattern of U.S. prices for comparable 
merchandise that differs significantly among certain regions and time 
periods for Al Jazeera in accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act and our current practice as discussed in Nails, Wood Flooring, 
and Coated Paper.

B. Price Comparison Method

    Section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act states that the Department may 
compare the weighted average of the NV to export prices (EPs) (or 
constructed export prices (CEPs)) of individual transactions for 
comparable merchandise if the Department explains why differences in 
the patterns of EPs (or CEPs) cannot be taken into account using the 
average-to-average methodology. As described above, we preliminarily 
determine that, with respect to sales by Al Jazeera, for certain 
regions and time periods there was a pattern of prices that differed 
significantly. We find that these differences cannot be taken into 
account using the standard average-to average methodology because the 
average-to-average methodology conceals differences in the patterns of 
prices between the targeted and non-targeted groups by averaging low-
priced sales to the targeted group with high-priced sales to the non-
targeted group. Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the 
Act, for the preliminary determination we find that the standard 
average-to-average methodology does not take into account Al Jazeera's 
price differences because the standard methodology masks dumping that 
is unmasked by application of the alternative average-to-transaction 
comparison method to all of Al Jazeera's U.S. sales. Accordingly, for 
this preliminary determination, we applied the average-to-transaction 
methodology to all U.S. sales made by Al Jazeera. See the Al Jazeera 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for further discussion.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Al Jazeera's sales of certain steel pipe from 
Oman to the United States were made at LTFV during the POI, we compared 
the EP of these U.S. sales NV or CV, as appropriate, as described in 
the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, we compared POI 
transaction-specific EPs to POI weighted-average NVs of foreign like 
product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as 
discussed in the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section below.

Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ``the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be

[[Page 32536]]

sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).''
    For purposes of this preliminary determination, we calculated EP 
for Al Jazeera, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because 
the merchandise was sold, prior to exportation by the producer, outside 
of the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States. For Al Jazeera, we calculated EP based on the packed price that 
was charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. We made deductions 
for movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, including deductions for foreign inland 
freight (plant/warehouse to the border), ocean freight, and brokerage 
and handling. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for credit 
expenses, certain direct selling expenses (including commissions and 
bank charges), and billing adjustments. See the Al Jazeera Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum for a detailed discussion of these adjustments.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability and Comparison-Market Selection

    To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales of 
certain steel pipe in the home market to serve as a viable basis for 
calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the 
aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared respondent's volume of 
home market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of U.S. 
sales of the subject merchandise during the POI. See section 
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that 
Al Jazeera had a viable home market during the POI. Consequently, we 
based NV on Al Jazeera's home market sales.

B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    Pursuant to its regulations, the Department may use prices from 
sales made to affiliated parties if the price is comparable to the 
price at which the exporter or producer sold the foreign like product 
to a non-affiliate. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). However, the Department will 
not calculate NV based on the sale to an affiliated party if sales of 
the foreign like product by an exporter or producer to affiliated 
parties account for less than five percent of the total value (or 
quantity) of the exporter's or producer's sales of the foreign like 
product in the market in question, or if sales to the affiliated party 
are comparable, as defined in 19 CFR 351.403(c). See 19 CFR 351.403(d). 
During the POI, Al Jazeera sold the foreign like product to an 
affiliated customer. However, these sales constituted less than five 
percent of Al Jazeera's total aggregate sales of foreign like product 
in the home market. See Al Jazeera's FSQR at 3, 9, and Exhibit 4. 
Accordingly, and pursuant to the Department's regulations, we have not 
used any of Al Jazeera's sales to the affiliated customer as all of 
these sales failed the arm's-length test.

C. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. See also section 
773(a)(7) of the Act. The LOT for NV is based on the starting prices of 
sales in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, those of the sales 
from which we derived selling, general, and administrative expenses and 
profit. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(iii). For EP, the LOT is based on the 
starting price, which is usually the price from the exporter to the 
importer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(i). In this investigation, Al 
Jazeera reported only EP sales to the United States.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See AQR at Exhibit 1, CQR database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine if the home-market sales are made at a different LOT 
than EP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and the 
selling functions performed along the chain of distribution between the 
producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If 
home-market sales are at a different LOT, as manifested in a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
home-market sales made at the LOT of the export transaction, and the 
difference affects price comparability, then we make a LOT adjustment 
to NV under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412. See, 
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 
61731, 61733 (November 19, 1997).
    In this investigation, we obtained information from Al Jazeera 
regarding the marketing stages involved in making their reported home 
market and U.S. market sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed by Al Jazeera for each channel of distribution. 
See Al Jazeera's AQR at 11-13 and Attachment 5 (selling activities 
chart); see also Al Jazeera's BQR at 29 and 70. We did not make a LOT 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(e) 
because we preliminarily find that there was only one home market LOT 
and one U.S. LOT, and the two were identical. See 19 CFR 351.412(d). 
For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of Al 
Jazeera's LOT findings for this preliminary determination, see Al 
Jazeera Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

D. Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on the Department's analysis of the petitioners' 
allegation,\44\ we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation to 
determine whether Al Jazeera had sales that were made at prices below 
their COP pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act. See Al Jazeera Cost 
Initiation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Below Cost Allegation Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and packing, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the COP data submitted 
by Al Jazeera on May 9, 2012. We did not rely on the COP data submitted 
by Al Jazeera on May 21, 2012. Based on the review of record evidence, 
respondents did not appear to experience significant changes in the 
cost of manufacturing during the period of investigation. Therefore, we 
followed our normal methodology of calculating an annual weighted-
average cost.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    With respect to Al Jazeera, on a product-specific basis, pursuant 
to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we compared the adjusted 
weighted-average COP to the home market sales prices of the foreign 
like product, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below 
the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of 
selling and packing expenses. The prices were net of billing 
adjustments, movement charges, discounts, direct and indirect selling 
expenses and packing expenses, where appropriate. See Al Jazeera 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

[[Page 32537]]

3. Results of COP Test
    Section 773(b)(1) provides that where sales made at less than the 
COP ``have been made within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities'' and ``were not at prices which permit recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time'' the Department may disregard 
such sales when calculating NV. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of 
the Act, we did not disregard below-cost sales that were not made in 
``substantial quantities,'' i.e., where less than 20 percent of sales 
of a given product were at prices less than the COP. We disregarded 
below-cost sales when they were made in substantial quantities, i.e., 
where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product 
were at prices less than the COP and where ``the weighted average per 
unit price of the sales * * * is less than the weighted average per 
unit cost of production for such sales.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C)(ii) 
of the Act. Finally, based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-
average COPs for the POI, we considered whether the prices would permit 
the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See 
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    Therefore, for Al Jazeera, we disregarded below-cost sales of a 
given CONNUM of 20 percent or more and used the remaining sales as the 
basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act. See Al Jazeera Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We calculated NV for Al Jazeera based on the reported packed, ex-
factory or delivered prices to comparison market customers. We made 
deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for billing 
adjustments, inland freight and insurance, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(b), we made, where appropriate, circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments (i.e., bank charges). We added U.S. packing costs and 
deducted home market packing costs, in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the Act.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this 
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for 
the foreign-like product and subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 
351.411(b). For detailed information on the calculation of normal 
value, see the Al Jazeera Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

F. Price-to-CV Comparison

    Where we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based 
NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance 
with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

G. Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, and where applicable, 
we calculated CV based on the sum of Al Jazeera's material and 
fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We 
calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the ``Cost of 
Production Analysis'' section of this notice. In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on 
the amounts incurred and realized by Al Jazeera in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank.\45\ However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not 
track or publish exchange rates for the Omani Rial. Therefore, pursuant 
to section 773A of the Act, we made currency conversions from Omani 
Rials to U.S. dollars based on the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a 
Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 68 FR 
47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils From France, 68 FR 69379 (December 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information relied upon in making our final determination for Al 
Jazeera.

Preliminary Determination

    The preliminary weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                    Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG..........................        5.59
All Others..................................................        5.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain steel pipe from Oman 
that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Consistent with the Department's practice, where the product under 
investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty 
investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or posting of 
a bond equal to the amount by which NV exceeds EP or CEP, less the 
amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export 
subsidy.\46\ In this case, although the product under investigation is 
also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, the 
Department preliminarily found no countervailable export subsidy.\47\ 
Therefore, we have not offset the cash deposit rates shown above for 
purposes of this preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 
67306, 67307 (November 17, 2004).
    \47\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the 
Sultanate of Oman: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty 
Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 77 FR 19635 
(April 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a 
bond equal to the preliminary weighted-average dumping margins 
indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) The rate for Al Jazeera 
will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary determination; 
(2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but 
the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer 
of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all other producers or 
exporters will be 5.59 percent, as discussed in the ``All-Others Rate'' 
section, below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will 
remain in effect until further notice.

All Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated ``All 
Others'' rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the 
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters 
and producers

[[Page 32538]]

individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, 
and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Al 
Jazeera is the only respondent in this investigation for which the 
Department has calculated a company-specific rate that is not zero or 
de minimis. Therefore, for purposes of determining the ``all others''' 
rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the 
dumping margin calculated for Al Jazeera, 5.59 percent, for the ``all 
others'' rate, as referenced in the ``Preliminary Determination'' 
section, above.

Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose to parties the calculations 
performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    On May 18, 2012, petitioners requested that in the event of a 
negative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (135 days after 
publication of the preliminary determination) from a four-month period 
to a six-month period. On May 21, 2012, Al Jazeera also requested that 
in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 
days (135 days after publication of the preliminary determination) and 
extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under 
section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month 
period to a six-month period.\48\ In accordance with section 
735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our 
preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting producers/
exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the 
subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we 
are granting this request and are postponing the final determination 
until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended 
accordingly. We are also granting the request to extend the application 
of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month period to a six-month 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Letter from petitioners (on behalf of certain 
petitioners) to the Department, dated May 18, 2012, and Letter from 
Al Jazeera to the Department, dated May 21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than 
fair value. If the final determination in this proceeding is 
affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make 
its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the 
United States is materially injured, or threatened with material 
injury, by reason of imports of certain steel pipe from Oman before the 
later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 
45 days after our final determination. Because we are postponing the 
deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of the 
publication of this preliminary determination, as discussed above, the 
ITC will make its final determination no later than 45 days after our 
final determination.

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the 
Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of 
the last verification report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to 
the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days 
from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(1) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). A list of authorities used, a 
table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Executive 
summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. 
Interested parties, who wish to comment on the preliminary 
determination, must file briefs electronically using Import 
Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). An electronically filed document 
must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's 
electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold 
a public hearing, if timely requested, to afford interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, 
provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. See 
also 19 CFR 351.310. Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, 
or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to 
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, filed electronically using IA ACCESS, as noted above. An 
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 
p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication 
of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the 
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to 
be discussed. 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a request for a hearing is made, we 
will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be 
held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be 
determined. See 19 CFR 351.310. Parties should confirm by telephone the 
date, time, and location of the hearing.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 23, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--Scope of the 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 
other) generally

[[Page 32539]]

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 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; \49\ (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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 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. 2012-13233 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P