[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65696-65700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27364]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-867]


Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe From India: Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective: October 27, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra, at (202) 482-3965, or 
Alex Rosen, at (202) 482-7814, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, 
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    On September 30, 2015, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') received an antidumping duty (``AD'') petition concerning 
imports of welded stainless pressure pipe (``welded stainless pipe'') 
from India filed in proper form on behalf of Bristol Metals, LLC, 
Felker Brothers Corporation, Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc., and 
Marcegaglia USA Inc. (collectively, ``Petitioners'').\1\ Petitioners 
are domestic producers of welded stainless pipe. On October 2, 2015, 
the Department requested additional information and clarification of 
certain areas of the Petition.\2\ Petitioners filed responses to these 
requests on October 6, 2015.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe 
from India Pursuant to Sections 701 and 703 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as Amended,'' at Volume II, dated September 30, 2015 
(``Petition'').
    \2\ See the Department's letter to Petitioners, ``Petition for 
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Welded Stainless 
Pressure Pipe from India: Supplemental Questions,'' dated October 2, 
2015 (``AD Deficiency Questionnaire'') and the Department's letter 
to Petitioners, ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe 
from India: Supplemental Questions,'' dated October 2, 2015 
(``General Issues Questionnaire'').
    \3\ See Petitioners' letter to the Department, ``Welded 
Stainless Pressure Pipe from India: Response to Supplemental 
Questions {Volume II{time} ,'' dated October 6, 2015 (``AD Petition 
Supplement'') and Petitioners' letter to the Department, ``Welded 
Stainless Pressure Pipe from India: Response to Supplemental 
Questions {Volume I{time} ,'' dated October 6, 2015 (``General 
Issues Supplement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the ``Act''), Petitioners allege that imports of welded 
stainless pipe from India 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 Petition is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners 
supporting their allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed this Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that 
Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect 
to the initiation of the AD investigation that Petitioners are 
requesting. See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petition'' section below.

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on September 30, 2015, pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 
2014, through June 30, 2015.

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is welded stainless pipe 
from India. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, 
see the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on Scope of Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed 
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an 
accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is 
seeking relief.\4\ As discussed in the preamble to the Department's 
regulations,\5\ we are setting aside a period for interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage scope. The Department will 
consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will 
consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 
CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to 
public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its 
questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to 
submit such comments by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 10, 
2015, which is the first business day after 20 calendar days from the 
signature date of this notice.\6\ Any rebuttal comments, which may 
include factual information, must be filed by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on 
Friday, November 20, 2015, which is 10 calendar days after the initial 
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See General Issues Questionnaire and General Issues 
Supplement. See also Petitioners' submission, ``Welded Stainless 
Pressure Pipe from India: Revised Scope Definition,'' dated October 
15, 2015.
    \5\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 May 19, 1997.
    \6\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties 
consider relevant to the scope of the investigation

[[Page 65697]]

be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently 
finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of 
the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department 
and request permission to submit the additional information. All such 
comments must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD 
investigations.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (``ACCESS'').\7\ An 
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from 
the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in 
paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 
18022, 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 applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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; see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of 
Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014). 
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of welded stainless pipe to be 
reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and 
costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate 
product-comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics and (2) 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 welded stainless pipe, it may be that only a select few 
product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful 
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment 
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in 
matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most 
important physical characteristics first and the least important 
characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments on product 
characteristics must be filed by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 10, 
2015. Rebuttal comments must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on 
November 20, 2015. All comments and submissions to the Department must 
be filed electronically using ACCESS, as referenced above.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method 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,\8\ 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \9\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
Petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer 
a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that welded stainless pipe 
constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed 
industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from India (``India AD Initiation 
Checklist''), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Welded 
Stainless Pressure Pipe from India (``Attachment II''). This 
checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file 
electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is 
also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main 
Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this 
notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their 
shipments of the domestic like product in 2014, and compared their 
shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product

[[Page 65698]]

for the entire domestic industry.\11\ Because total industry production 
data for the domestic like product for 2014 is not reasonably available 
and Petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy 
for production data,\12\ we have relied upon the shipment data provided 
by Petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 2-3 and Exhibits I-1 and 
I-2; see also General Issues Supplement, at 3-8 and Exhibits I-9 and 
I-10.
    \12\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 3 and Exhibit I-1; see 
also General Issues Supplement, at 3-6 and Exhibits I-8 and I-9.
    \13\ For further discussion, see India AD Initiation Checklist, 
at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues 
Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support.\14\ 
First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or 
workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total shipments 
\15\ 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).\16\ 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 Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total 
shipments of the domestic like product.\17\ 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 Petition account for more than 
50 percent of the shipments of the domestic like product produced by 
that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, 
the Petition.\18\ Accordingly, the Department determines that the 
Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
    \15\ As mentioned above, Petitioners have established that 
shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data. Section 
351.203(e)(1) of the Department's regulations states ``production 
levels may be established by reference to alternative data that the 
Secretary determines to be indicative of production levels.''
    \16\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also India AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \17\ See India AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the AD investigation that they are 
requesting the Department initiate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than normal value (``NV''). In addition, Petitioners 
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided 
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See General Issues Supplement, at 9 and Exhibit I-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; decline in shipments, production, 
and capacity utilization; underselling and price suppression or 
depression; inventory overhang; decreased employment, hours worked, and 
wages; lost sales and revenues; and negative impact on 
profitability.\21\ 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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 11-25, and Exhibits I-1, 
I-5, and I-7; see also General Issues Supplement, at 9 and Exhibit 
I-11.
    \22\ See India AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 an investigation of imports of welded stainless pipe from 
India. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating 
to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the India AD 
Initiation Checklist.

Export Price

    Petitioners based U.S. price on Indian welded stainless pipe 
offered for sale in the United States.\23\ Where applicable, 
Petitioners made deductions for the relevant movement charges based on 
publicly available information from several sources, consistent with 
delivery terms.\24\ After analyzing the reported movement charge 
information, the Department made two minor revisions to Petitioners' 
submitted calculation of U.S. price.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit II-1 and AD 
Petition Supplement at Exhibit II-11.
    \24\ See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibits II-3,4,5,6,7 and 
AD Petition Supplement at Exhibit II-12 and 13.
    \25\ We disallowed Petitioners' deduction for foreign inland 
freight expenses based on insufficient support and made a correction 
to the calculation of U.S. inland freight fees that was 
inadvertently omitted from Petitioners' AD Petition Suplement. See 
discussion of minor revisions in the narrative of the India AD 
Initation Checklist and the calculation at Attachment V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Petitioners based normal value on a price quote obtained by a 
market researcher for welded stainless pipe produced and sold in India 
having the same specifications as the welded stainless pipe in the U.S. 
price quote.\26\ Because the price quote was received from a 
distributor, Petitioners deducted a potential mark-up from this price, 
based on their knowledge of the industry. Petitioners made no 
additional deductions because, given the terms of sale, no further 
deductions would be appropriate.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Volume II of the Petition at Exhibit II-8. See also, 
the Department's memorandum ``Telephone Call to Foreign Market 
Researcher Regarding Antidumping Petition,'' dated October 7, 2015.
    \27\ See AD Petition Supplement, at Exhibit II-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of welded stainless pipe from India are being, or 
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. 
Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(1) 
of the Act, the estimated dumping margins as calculated from data 
provided by the Petitioners and recalculated by the Department for 
welded stainless pipe from India is 32.06 percent.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See India AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-than-Fair-Value Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the Petition on welded stainless pipe 
India, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 
of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to 
determine whether imports of welded stainless pipe from India is 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

[[Page 65699]]

later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into 
law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD law.\29\ The 2015 law does not specify 
dates of application for those amendments.\30\ On August 6, 2015, the 
Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the 
applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for 
amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to 
determinations of material injury by the ITC.\31\ The amendments to 
sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all 
determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply 
to this AD investigation.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-
27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \30\ In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences 
Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for 
the investigation, the Department will request information necessary 
to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign 
like product have been made at prices that represent less than the 
COP of the product. The Department will no longer require a COP 
allegation to conduct this analysis
    \31\ See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension 
Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).
    \32\ Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    Petitioners name 13 companies as producers/exporters of welded 
stainless pipe from India.\33\ Following standard practice in AD 
investigations involving market economy countries, the Department 
intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') data for U.S. imports under the appropriate 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') numbers 
listed in the ``Scope of the Investigation'' section above. We intend 
to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (``APO'') 
to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five 
business days of publication of this Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibit I-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties wishing to comment regarding respondent 
selection must do so within seven business days of the publication of 
this notice. Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An 
electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 
p.m. Eastern Time by the date noted above. We intend to make our 
decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication 
of this notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been 
provided to the Government of India via ACCESS. To the extent 
practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of 
the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

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

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of welded stainless pipe from India is 
materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. 
industry.\34\ A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigation being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence 
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting 
factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted \35\ and, if the 
information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information already on the record, to provide an explanation 
identifying the information already on the record that the factual 
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.\36\ Time limits for 
the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, 
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to 
submitting factual information in this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \36\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as 
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request 
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the 
time limit established under 19 CFR 351 expires. For submissions that 
are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will 
be considered untimely if it is filed after 10 a.m. Eastern Time on the 
due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a 
different time limit by which extension requests will be considered 
untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties 
simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or 
memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by 
which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An 
extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; 
under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for 
the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final 
Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to 
submitting factual information in this investigation.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\37\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their 
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions 
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD 
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the 
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final 
Rule.\38\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \38\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

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

[[Page 65700]]

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 (Jan. 22, 
2008). Parties wishing to participate in the investigation should 
ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the 
filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: October 20, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

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

[FR Doc. 2015-27364 Filed 10-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P