[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49625-49628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17929]



[[Page 49625]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-872]


Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India: Initiation of 
Countervailing Duty Investigation

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

DATES: Effective Date: July 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482-3813, or 
Davina Friedmann at (202) 482-0698, AD/CVD Operations, 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 (Department) 
received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of 
finished carbon steel flanges (steel flanges) from India, filed in 
proper form on behalf of Weldbend Corporation & Boltex Mfg. Co., L.P. 
(collectively, Petitioners). The CVD petition was accompanied by 
antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of steel flanges 
from India, Italy, and Spain.\1\ Petitioners are domestic producers of 
steel flanges.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties: Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India,'' 
dated June 30, 2016 (Petition).
    \2\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2016, the Department requested information and 
clarification for certain areas of the Petition.\3\ Petitioners filed 
responses to these requests on July 8, 2016, and July 11, 2016.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See letter from the Department, ``Petitions for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Finished Carbon Steel 
Flanges from India, Italy, and Spain and Countervailing Duties on 
Imports from India: Supplemental Questions,'' dated July 6, 2016 
(General Issues Questionnaire); letter from the Department, 
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 
Carbon Steel Flanges from India: Supplemental Questions,'' July 6, 
2016 (CVD Deficiency Questionnaire).
    \4\ See letters from Petitioners, ``Finished Carbon Steel 
Flanges from India: Response to Supplemental Questions,'' dated July 
8, 2016, and July 13, 2016, covering volume I (General Issues 
Supplement); letters from Petitioners, ``Finished Carbon Steel 
Flanges from India: Response to CVD Supplement'' dated July 8, 2016, 
and July 11, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that the Government of India 
(GOI) is providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of 
sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to imports of steel flanges from 
India, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening 
material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent 
with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs in India 
on which we have initiated a CVD investigation, the Petition is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners 
supporting their allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the 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 demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to 
the initiation of the CVD investigation that Petitioners are 
requesting.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petition'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through December 
31, 2015.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

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

Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed 
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an 
accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is 
seeking relief.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire and Second 
General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also General Issues 
Supplement and Second General Issues Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, 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 determinations. 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 
5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on August 9, 2016, which is 20 
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal 
comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 
p.m. EDT on August 19, 2016, which is 10 calendar days after the 
initial comments.
    The Department requests that any factual information the parties 
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted 
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that 
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the 
investigations 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 each 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).\8\ An electronically-
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the 
time and date 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing 
Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 
(July 6, 2011), for details of the Department's electronic filing 
requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information 
on help using 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department 
notified representatives of the GOI of the receipt of the Petition. 
Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 
Department provided representatives of the GOI the opportunity for 
consultations with respect to the CVD petition. On July 19, 2016, 
consultations were held with the GOI. All invitation letters and 
memoranda regarding these consultations are on file electronically via 
ACCESS.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)

[[Page 49626]]

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 702(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,\9\ 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \10\ 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 steel flanges constitute a 
single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in 
terms of that domestic like product.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India (India CVD 
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry 
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India, Italy, and Spain 
(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 
702(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. Petitioners provided their production of the domestic like 
product in 2015,\12\ as well as an estimate of the total 2015 
production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic 
industry.\13\ To establish industry support, Petitioners compared their 
own production to the estimated total production of the domestic like 
product for the entire domestic industry.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibits I-15-A and I-15-
B.
    \13\ See Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibits I-15-A and I-15-
B.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that 
Petitioners have established industry support.\15\ First, the Petition 
established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for 
more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further 
action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).\16\ 
Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory 
criteria for industry support under section 702(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 production of the domestic 
like product.\17\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met 
the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
702(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 
production 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 702(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See India CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \16\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also India CVD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \17\ See India CVD 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 CVD investigation that they are 
requesting the Department initiate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Injury Test

    Because India is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine 
whether imports of the subject merchandise from India materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are 
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are 
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry 
producing the domestic like product. In addition, Petitioners allege 
that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for 
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 18-19; see also General 
Issues Supplement, at 6 and Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the Act provides that 
imports of subject merchandise from developing and least developed 
countries must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent. The 
import data provided by Petitioners demonstrate that subject imports 
from India, which has been designated as a least developed country,\21\ 
exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 
771(24)(B) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See section 771(36)(B) of the Act.
    \22\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 18-19; see also General 
Issues Supplement, at 6 and Exhibit 3.

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

[[Page 49627]]

    Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price suppression 
or depression, lost sales and revenues, declines in production, 
capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments, negative impact on employment 
variables, and decline in financial performance.\23\ 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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 12-16, 18-34 and Exhibits 
I-2, I-9 and I-11 through I-14; see also General Issues Supplement, 
at 6 and Exhibit 3.
    \24\ See India CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India, Italy, and Spain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a 
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on 
behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an 
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners 
supporting the allegations.
    Petitioners allege that producers/exporters of steel flanges in 
India benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOI. The 
Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the 
requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD 
investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or 
exporters of steel flanges from India receive countervailable subsidies 
from the GOI.
    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.\25\ The 2015 law does not specify 
dates of application for those amendments. 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.\26\ The amendments to 
sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations 
made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD 
investigation.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \26\ 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). 
The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
    \27\ 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), at 
46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 15 of the 99 
alleged programs in India. For a full discussion of the basis for our 
decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the India CVD 
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for 
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    Petitioners named 34 companies as producers/exporters of steel 
flanges in India.\28\ Following standard practice in CVD 
investigations, the Department will, where appropriate, select 
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for 
U.S. imports of steel flanges during the period of investigation. We 
intend to release 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. The 
Department invites comments regarding respondent selection within seven 
business days of publication of this Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibit I-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An 
electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EDT by the date noted above. We intend to 
make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of 
publication of this notice. Interested parties must submit applications 
for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). 
Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the 
Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been 
provided to the GOI via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will 
attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each 
known exporter (as named in the Petition), consistent with 19 CFR 
351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
702(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations 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 steel flanges from India are materially 
injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.\29\ A 
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being 
terminated; \30\ otherwise, this investigation will proceed according 
to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
    \30\ See section 703(a)(1) 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). The regulation requires any 
party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which 
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 
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. 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. Parties should review the regulations 
prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

[[Page 49628]]

Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, 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 351.301 expires. For submissions 
that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request 
will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. 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.\31\ 
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.\32\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised 
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \32\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (January 
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should 
ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the 
filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: July 20, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I--Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers finished carbon steel 
flanges. Finished carbon steel flanges differ from unfinished carbon 
steel flanges (also known as carbon steel flange forgings) in that 
they have undergone further processing after forging, including, but 
not limited to, beveling, bore threading, center or step boring, 
face machining, taper boring, machining ends or surfaces, drilling 
bolt holes, and/or de-burring or shot blasting. Any one of these 
post-forging processes suffices to render the forging into a 
finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this investigation. 
However, mere heat treatment of a carbon steel flange forging 
(without any other further processing after forging) does not render 
the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this 
investigation.
    While these finished carbon steel flanges are generally 
manufactured to specification ASME 816.5 or ASME 816.47 series A or 
series 8, the scope is not limited to flanges produced under those 
specifications. All types of finished carbon steel flanges are 
included in the scope regardless of pipe size (which may or may not 
be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure class 
(usually, but not necessarily, expressed in pounds of pressure, 
e.g., 150, 300, 400, 600, 900, 1500, 2500, etc.), type of face 
(e.g., flat face, full face, raised face, etc.), configuration 
(e.g., weld neck, slip on, socket weld, lap joint, threaded, etc.), 
wall thickness (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in inches), 
normalization, or whether or not heat treated. These carbon steel 
flanges either meet or exceed the requirements of the ASTM A105, 
ASTM A694, ASTM A181, ASTM A350 and ASTM A707 standards (or 
comparable foreign specifications). The scope includes any flanges 
produced to the above-referenced ASTM standards as currently stated 
or as may be amended. The term ``carbon steel'' under this scope is 
steel 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) 0.87 percent of aluminum;
    (ii) 0.0105 percent of boron;
    (iii) 10.10 percent of chromium;
    (iv) 1.55 percent of columbium;
    (v) 3.10 percent of copper;
    (vi) 0.38 percent of lead;
    (vii) 3.04 percent of manganese;
    (viii) 2.05 percent of molybdenum;
    (ix) 20.15 percent of nickel;
    (x) 1.55 percent of niobium;
    (xi) 0.20 percent of nitrogen;
    (xii) 0.21 percent of phosphorus;
    (xiii) 3.10 percent of silicon;
    (xiv) 0.21 percent of sulfur;
    (xv) 1.05 percent of titanium;
    (xvi) 4.06 percent of tungsten;
    (xvii) 0.53 percent of vanadium; or
    (xviii) 0.015 percent of zirconium.
    Finished carbon steel flanges are currently classified under 
subheadings 7307.91.5010 and 7307.91.5050 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also be entered 
under HTSUS subheadings 7307.91.5030 and 7307.91.5070. The HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the 
written description of the scope is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2016-17929 Filed 7-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P