[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42649-42654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19294]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-877, A-570-064]
Stainless Steel Flanges From India and the People's Republic of
China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective September 11, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annathea Cook at (202) 482-0250
(India) and Kenneth Hawkins at (202) 482-6491 (the People's Republic of
China), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On August 16, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the
Department) received antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports
of stainless steel flanges from India and the People's Republic of
China (PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of the Coalition of
American Flange Producers and its individual members, Core Pipe
Products, Inc. and Maass Flange Corporation (collectively, the
petitioners).\1\ The AD Petitions were accompanied by countervailing
duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports of stainless steel flanges from
India and the PRC. The petitioners are domestic producers of stainless
steel flanges.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce re: ``Stainless
Steel Flanges from the People's Republic of China and India:
Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties'' (August 16, 2017) (the Petitions).
\2\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 18 and 21, 2017, the Department requested supplemental
information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.\3\ The
petitioners filed responses to these requests on August 22, 2017.\4\
The petitioners filed revised scope language on August 30, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Letters from the Department, to the petitioners, dated
August 18, 2017.
\4\ See Letter from the petitioners, ``Re: Stainless Steel
Flanges from the People's Republic of China and India: Supplement to
the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties--Response to the Department's Supplemental Questions, Volume
I Relating to Common Issues and Injury;'' (August 22, 2017) (General
Issues Supplement); see also Stainless Steel Flanges from the
People's Republic of China and India: Supplement to the Petitions
for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties--
Response to the Department's Supplemental Questions, Volume IV
Relating to India (India AD Supplemental Response); and Stainless
Steel Flanges from the People's Republic of China and India:
Supplement to the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties--Response to the Department's Supplemental
Questions, Volume II Relating to China (PRC AD Supplemental
Response). All of these documents are dated August 22, 2017.
\5\ See Letter from the petitioners, ``Stainless Steel Flanges
from the People's Republic of China and India: Supplement to the
Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties-Revision to Scope,'' dated August 30, 2017 (Scope
Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of stainless
steel flanges from India and the PRC 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, the domestic industry producing
stainless steel flanges in the United States. Also, consistent with
section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by
information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their
allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested
parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act. The
Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD
investigations that the petitioners are requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions'' section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periods of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on August 16, 2017, the period of
investigation (POI) for the investigation for India is July 1, 2016,
through June 30, 2017. Because the PRC is a non-market economy (NME)
country, the POI for this investigation is January 1, 2017, through
June 30, 2017.
Scope of the Investigations
The products covered by these investigations are stainless steel
flanges from India and the PRC. For a full description of the scope of
these investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the
Appendix to this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions
to, and received responses from, the 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 Attachment to the Scope 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).\8\ The Department will consider all
comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will
consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the
preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual
information,\9\ all such factual information should be limited to
public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires,
the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments
by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, September 25, 2017, 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. ET on Thursday, October 5, 2017, which is 10
[[Page 42650]]
calendar days from the initial comments deadline.10 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual
information'').
\10\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
\11\ See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next Business
Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to
the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Duty and Countervailing
Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\12\ An
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted 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, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by
the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046
(November 20, 2014) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires
The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of stainless steel
flanges to be reported in response to the Department's AD
questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key
physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in
order to report the relevant 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, although there
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers
to describe stainless steel flanges, 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 product
characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on September 25,
2017. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on October 5,
2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed
electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of
India and the PRC less-than-fair-value investigations.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product,\13\ 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\14\ 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
Petitions).
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that stainless steel
flanges, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like
product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that
domestic like product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support,
see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Stainless
Steel Flanges from India (India AD Initiation Checklist), at
Attachment II, ``Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Stainless Steel Flanges
from India and the People's Republic of China'' (Attachment II); see
also Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Stainless
Steel Flanges from the People's Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42651]]
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the Appendix to
this notice. The petitioners provided their own 2016 production of the
domestic like product, and compared this to the estimated total
production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry.\16\ We relied on data the petitioners provided for purposes
of measuring industry support.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3 and Exhibit I-3; see
also General Issues Supplement, at 6-7.
\17\ Id. For further discussion, see India AD Initiation
Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues
Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for
the Petitions.\18\ First, the Petitions established support from
domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the
Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate
industry support (e.g., polling).\19\ Second, the domestic producers
(or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under
section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product.\20\ Finally, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the Petitions.\21\ Accordingly, the Department
determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
\19\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also India AD
Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment
II.
\20\ See India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act and they have
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD
investigations that they are requesting that the Department
initiate.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The 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, the
petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 19-20 and Exhibit I-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression
or depression; lost sales and revenues; and declining financial
performance.\24\ 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.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 9-32 and Exhibits I-4, I-
8, and I-10.
\25\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Stainless Steel Flanges from the People's Republic of China
and India (Attachment III); and India AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate AD investigations of imports of stainless steel flanges from
India and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and
adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater
detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.
Export Price
For India, the petitioners based the U.S. price on export price
(EP) using sales of stainless steel flanges produced in and exported
from India to an unaffiliated U.S. customer.\26\ For the PRC, the
petitioners based U.S. price on EP using price quotes for sales of
stainless steel flanges produced in and exported from the PRC to
unaffiliated U.S. customers.\27\ Where applicable, the petitioners made
deductions from U.S. price for movement and other expenses, consistent
with the terms of sale.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
\27\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
\28\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and India AD Initiation
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
For India, the petitioners provided home market price information
for stainless steel flanges produced in, and sold or offered for sale
in India.\29\ The petitioners provided a declaration establishing the
terms of sale.\30\ Because the prices were provided on an ex-works
basis, the petitioners did not make any deductions.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
\30\ Id.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the PRC, the petitioners stated that the Department
has found this country to be a non-market economy (NME) country in
prior administrative proceedings in which they were involved.\32\ In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of
NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The
presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the
Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the
initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, NV in the PRC is
appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a
surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act.\33\ In the course of this investigation, all parties, and the
public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information
related to the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at 10-11.
\33\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners claim that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate
country for the PRC, because it is a market economy country that is at
a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information
from Thailand is available to value all material input factors.\34\
Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we determine that
it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for initiation
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Volume II of the Petitions at 13-20 and Exhibit AD-CH-
21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments
regarding surrogate country selection
[[Page 42652]]
and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an
opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs no
later than 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary
determination.
Factors of Production
Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by the
PRC producers/exporters is not available, the petitioners relied on the
production experience of a domestic producer of stainless steel flanges
in the United States as an estimate of PRC manufacturers' FOPs.\35\ The
petitioners valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from
Thailand.\36\ Additionally, for the surrogate values denominated in
Thai Baht, the petitioners converted Thai Baht prices into U.S. Dollars
using the average exchange rate obtained from the Department.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Volume II of the Petitions at 13-14 and Exhibit AD-CH-
19.
\36\ See Volume II of the Petitions at 1, 10 and Exhibit AD-CH-
21.
\37\ See Volume II of the Petitions at 17 and Exhibit AD-CH-20;
see also PRC AD Supplemental Response, at 4-5 and Exhibits AD-CH-
Supp-6, AD-CH-Supp-8, and AD-CH-Supp-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of stainless steel flanges from the PRC and 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
sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for
stainless steel flanges for each of the countries covered by this
initiation are as follows: (1) PRC--99.23 to 257.11 percent; \38\ and
(2) India--78.49 to 145.25 \39\ percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
\39\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations
Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions, we find that the
Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore,
we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of
stainless steel flanges from the PRC and India are being, or are likely
to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance
with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless
postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than
140 days after the date of this initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD law were made.\40\ 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.\41\ 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 these AD investigations.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-
27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
\41\ 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).
\42\ 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
The petitioners named 43 companies in India as producers/exporters
of stainless steel flanges.\43\ Following standard practice in AD
investigations involving market economy countries, in the event the
Department determines that the number of companies in India identified
above is large, the Department intends to review U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of stainless steel
flanges during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States subheadings, and if it determines that it cannot
individually examine each company based upon the Department's
resources, then the Department will select respondents based on that
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See India AD Supplemental Response, at Exhibit I-Supp-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 31, 2017, the Department released CBP data under
Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to
information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties
wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must
do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice
of initiation of this AD investigation.\44\ The Department will not
accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent
selection. 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. Comments for this investigation 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 5:00 p.m. ET, by the date noted
above. We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent
selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Memorandum, ``Stainless Steel Flanges from India
Antidumping Duty Petition: Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs
and Border Protection,'' dated, August 31, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the PRC, the petitioners named 80 producers/
exporters of stainless steel flanges from the PRC.\45\ In accordance
with our standard practice for respondent selection in AD cases
involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V)
questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise subject to this
investigation and, if necessary, base respondent selection on the
responses received. For this NME investigation, the Department will
request Q&V information from known exporters and producers identified
with complete contact information in the Petitions. In addition, the
Department will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing
instructions on Enforcement and Compliance's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Though the petitioners listed 84 ``known producers of
stainless steel flanges from the PRC'' in Volume I of the Petition
at Exhibit I-7, they clarified in the Supplement Response to Volume
I of the Petitions at 1 and Exhibit I-Supp-2 that ``publicly
available information {shows{time} that Vinox Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd and Yih Kuang Metal Corp. have manufacturing facilities in
China. At this time, the petitioners do not have information
indicating that the other Taiwanese entities are affiliated with
producers or exporters in China. Accordingly, the petitioners have
removed these entities from the revised list of foreign producers
and exporters.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producers/exporters of stainless steel flanges from the PRC that do
not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to
the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire
from Enforcement & Compliance's Web site. The Q&V response must be
submitted by the relevant PRC exporters/producers no later than 5:00
p.m. ET on September 19, 2017. All Q&V responses must be filed
electronically via ACCESS.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.\46\
The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in
the PRC investigations
[[Page 42653]]
are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on
the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after
publication of this initiation notice.\47\ Exporters and producers who
submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory
respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status
only if they timely respond to all parts of the Department's AD
questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that
companies from the PRC submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire
and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order
to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Companies not filing
a timely Q&V response will not receive separate-rate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at
http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin
05.1).
\47\ Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days,
consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that ``the Secretary
may request any person to submit factual information at any time
during a proceeding,'' this deadline is now 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Combination Rates
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin
states:
{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now
assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period
of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of
investigation.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been
provided to the governments of the PRC and India via ACCESS. To the
extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public
version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as
provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of stainless steel flanges from the PRC and
India, are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S.
industry.\49\ A negative ITC determination for any country will result
in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.\50\
Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See section 773(a) of the Act.
\50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires
any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
\51\ 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.\52\ 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. Interested parties should review the
regulations prior to submitting factual information in these
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\52\ 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 351.301, 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. 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. ET 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. Parties should 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 these investigations.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\53\
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their
representatives.\54\ 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 in 19 CFR 351.303(g).
The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting
party does not comply with applicable revised certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\54\ 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 these investigations
should ensure
[[Page 42654]]
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 732(c)(2)
and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: September 5, 2017.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The products covered by these investigations are certain forged
stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or
finished (certain forged stainless steel flanges). Certain forged
stainless steel flanges are generally manufactured to, but not
limited to, the material specification of ASTM/ASME A/SA182 or
comparable domestic or foreign specifications. Certain forged
stainless steel flanges are made in various grades such as, but not
limited to, 304, 304L, 316, and 316L (or combinations thereof). The
term ``stainless steel'' used in this scope refers to an alloy steel
containing, by actual weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements.
Unfinished stainless steel flanges possess the approximate shape
of finished stainless steel flanges and have not yet been machined
to final specification after the initial forging or like operations.
These machining processes may include, but are not limited to,
boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading,
beveling, heating, or compressing. Semi-finished stainless steel
flanges are unfinished stainless steel flanges that have undergone
some machining processes.
The scope includes six general types of flanges. They are: (1)
Weld neck, generally used in butt-weld line connection; (2)
threaded, generally used for threaded line connections; (3) slip-on,
generally used to slide over pipe; (4) lap joint, generally used
with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; (5) socket weld,
generally used to fit pipe into a machine recession; and (6) blind,
generally used to seal off a line. The sizes and descriptions of the
flanges within the scope include all pressure classes of ASME B16.5
and range from one-half inch to twenty-four inches nominal pipe
size. Specifically excluded from the scope of these orders are cast
stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are
manufactured to specification ASTM A351.
The country of origin for certain forged stainless steel
flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished is the
country where the flange was forged. Subject merchandise includes
stainless steel flanges as defined above that have been further
processed in a third country. The processing includes, but is not
limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering,
threading, beveling, heating, or compressing, and/or any other
processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the
scope of the investigations if performed in the country of
manufacture of the stainless steel flanges.
Merchandise subject to the investigations is typically imported
under headings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS
subheadings and ASTM specifications are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the scope is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017-19294 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P