High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 33213-33218 [2011-14029]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem ratios based on estimated entered values. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review for each importer (or customer) for which the importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem ratio is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem ratio is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in the final results where the reviewed companies did not know the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there was no rate calculated in this review for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See id., 68 FR at 23954. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Yieh Phui will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if a rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:51 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 deposit rate will be 9.70 percent, the allothers rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Antidumping Duty Order. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These preliminary results of antidumping administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 31, 2011. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2011–14031 Filed 6–7–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–977)] High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Lord, Emeka Chukwudebe, or Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, (202) 482–7425, (202) 482– 0219, or (202) 482–2312, respectively; Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 11, 2011, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a petition concerning imports of high pressure steel cylinders (‘‘steel cylinders’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by Norris Cylinder Company 1 (‘‘Petitioner’’). See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 1 Norris Cylinder Company (‘‘Norris’’) identifies itself as the sole producer of the domestic like product based on its knowledge of the industry. See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit II–1. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 33213 Countervailing Duties: High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China dated May 11, 2011, (‘‘Petition’’). On May 13, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition. Petitioner timely filed additional information on May 20, 2011.2 Period of Investigation The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is October 2010 through March 2011. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). In accordance with section 732(b) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), Petitioner alleges that imports of steel cylinders from the PRC 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 Petitioner supporting its allegations. The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty investigation that Petitioner is requesting the Department to initiate (see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petition’’ section below). Scope of Investigation The products covered by the scope of this investigation are steel cylinders from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, see ‘‘Scope of Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this notice. Comments on Scope of Investigation During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. As a result, the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ language has been modified from the language in the Petition to reflect these clarifications. See Memo to the File from Meredith A.W. Rutherford regarding Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties on High Pressure Steel Cylinders 2 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties on Imports of High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China (the PRC): Supplemental Questions, dated May 20, 2011 (‘‘Supplement to the AD/CVD Petition’’). E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 33214 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES from the People’s Republic of China; Conference Call with Petitioner, May 24, 2011. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations (see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages interested parties to submit such comments by Monday, June 20, 2011, which is twenty calendar days from the signature date of this notice. All comments must be filed on the records of both the PRC antidumping duty investigation as well as the PRC countervailing duty investigation. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of steel cylinders to be reported in response to the Department’s antidumping questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to more accurately report the relevant factors and costs of production, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria. Interested parties may provide information or comments that they believe are relevant to the development of an accurate listing of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics; and (2) the product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe steel cylinders, 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:51 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 order in which the physical characteristics should be used in product matching. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaires, we must receive comments at the above-referenced address by June 20, 2011. Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by June 27, 2011. 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 (see section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department’s determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (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), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989)). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ‘‘a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.’’ Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is ‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of 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 cylinders constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Petition Covering High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China, on file in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section above. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its production of the domestic like product in 2010. See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated May 20, 2011(‘‘Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions’’), at 4. Petitioner maintains that it was the sole remaining producer of the domestic like product in 2010, and, therefore, alleges that it represents the total production of the domestic like product in 2010. See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3, and Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at 4. To demonstrate that it was the sole producer, Petitioner provided an affidavit from the President of Norris Cylinder Company, who has many years of professional experience in the steel cylinders industry. See Volume II of the AD Petitions, at Exhibit E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES II–1, and Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at 4. We have relied upon data Petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support. For further discussion, see Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support. 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, we find that the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling). See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Second, we find that 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 production of the domestic like product. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, we find that 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 production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. 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. Id. The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate. Id. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. Petitioner contends that the industry’s injured condition is illustrated by VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:51 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 reduced market share, reduced shipments, reduced capacity, underselling and price depression or suppression, reduced employment, a decline in financial performance, lost sales and revenue, and an increase in import penetration. See Volume I of the Petition, at 11–22. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, Injury. 33215 Normal Value Petitioner claims the PRC is a nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’) country and that no determination to the contrary has been made by the Department. See Volume II of the Petition, at 1. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, in accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product for the PRC investigation is appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties, Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair including the public, will have the Value opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value PRC’s NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. upon which the Department based its Petitioner contends that India is the decision to initiate this investigation of appropriate surrogate country for the imports steel cylinders from the PRC. PRC because: (1) it is at a level of The sources of data for the deductions economic development comparable to and adjustments relating to the U.S. that of the PRC and (2) it is a significant price and the factors of production are producer of comparable merchandise. also discussed in the Initiation Checklist. See Initiation Checklist, at 5– See Volume II of the Petition, at 1–2. Based on the information provided by 10. Petitioner, we believe that it is U.S. Price appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. After Petitioner calculated export price initiation of the investigation, interested (‘‘EP’’) based on the average unit customs parties will have the opportunity to value of U.S. imports of subject submit comments regarding surrogate merchandise from China classified country selection and, pursuant to 19 under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) an opportunity to submit publicly subheading 7311.00.00.30, as compiled available information to value factors of by the U.S. Census Bureau and obtained production within 40 days after the date from the ITC’s Dataweb. Petitioner of publication of the preliminary utilized two methodologies to calculate determination. EP, with one methodology adjusting Petitioner calculated NV and the average unit value to account for dumping margins using the differences in steel cylinders model Department’s NME methodology as prices.3 Petitioner also made required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) adjustments for domestic brokerage and and 19 CFR 351.408. In calculating NV, handling and domestic inland freight. Petitioner based the quantity of each of See Initiation Checklist; see also the inputs used to manufacture the Volume II of the Petition, at 18–21 and domestic like product on its own Exhibit II–23. consumption rates, modified where applicable. Petitioner states that it is not Petitioner calculated constructed aware of publicly available information export price (‘‘CEP’’) based on a regarding the actual usage rates of proprietary source’s pricing to Chinese producers to produce steel unaffiliated U.S. end-users during the cylinders. However, Petitioner further POI. Petitioner made adjustments for notes that because Norris is one of a few rebates, freight, value-added inputs, producers worldwide, and there are U.S. customs and duty fees, credit only a few basic production methods expense, domestic brokerage and handling, inland freight, and distributor used to produce steel cylinders, it is very familiar with the production markup. See Initiation Checklist; see process in the PRC. See Volume II of the also Volume II of the Petition, at 21–24 Petition, at 4–18 and Exhibit II–7. and Exhibits II–25 through II–28. As noted above, Petitioner determined the consumption quantities of all raw 3 The EP margins listed infra are based on this methodology. materials based on its own production PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 33216 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices experience. Petitioner valued most of the factors of production based on reasonably available, public surrogate country data, specifically, Indian import data from the Global Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’). See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at 6–12 and Exhibit II–9. Where required, Petitioner inflated surrogate values to the POI by means of the Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) for India. Because WPI data were not yet available for February and March 2011, the final two months of the POI, Petitioner assumed these figures were the same as that for January 2011 and calculated an average WPI for the POI accordingly. See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit II–10. In addition, Petitioner made currency conversions, where necessary, based on the POIaverage rupees/U.S. dollar exchange rate, as reported on the Department’s Web site. See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit II–9. Petitioner determined labor costs using the labor consumption, in hours, derived from Petitioner’s own experience. See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at 12 and Exhibit II–17. For purposes of initiation, the Department determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, acceptable for purposes of initiation. Petitioner determined energy and utility costs using Petitioner’s own usage rates. To account for manufacturing differences between the U.S. and the PRC, Petitioner made adjustments to electricity and natural gas. See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at 13–14 and Exhibit II–1. Petitioner determined labor costs using the usage rates derived from Petitioner’s own experience and valued labor using data from Nails AR1.4 See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at 12 and Exhibit II–17. Petitioner determined packing costs using consumption rates derived from Petitioner’s own experience, and valued the relevant factors using data from GTA. See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at 17–18 and Exhibits II–9 and II–15. Petitioner calculated factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit by averaging data from the 2009–2010 financial statements of four Indian producers of steel cylinders: (1) Everest Kanto (‘‘Everest’’); (2) Rama Cylinders 4 See Certain Steel Nails From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 16379 (March 23, 2011) (‘‘Nails AR1’’). VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:51 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 Private Limited (‘‘Rama’’); (3) Maruti Koastsu Cylinders Pvt. Limited (‘‘Maruti’’); and 4) Nitin Cylinders Limited (‘‘NCL’’). See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at 14–17 and Exhibit II–22. Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of steel cylinders from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on a comparison of U.S. prices and NV calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, as described above, the estimated EP dumping margins (adjusted according to model size), for steel cylinders from the PRC range from 85.10 percent to 176.25 percent, and the estimated CEP dumping margins range from 17.04 percent to 151.90 percent. See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at 24 and Exhibit II–7. Initiation of Antidumping Investigation Based upon the examination of the Petition on steel cylinders from the PRC, the Department finds the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether imports of steel cylinders from the PRC 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 determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Targeted Dumping Allegations On December 10, 2008, the Department issued an interim final rule for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory provisions governing the targeted dumping analysis in antidumping duty investigations, and the corresponding regulation governing the deadline for targeted dumping allegations, 19 CFR 351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008). The Department stated that ‘‘{w}ithdrawal will allow the Department to exercise the discretion intended by the statute and, thereby, develop a practice that will allow interested parties to pursue all statutory avenues of relief in this area.’’ Id. at 74931. In order to accomplish this objective, if any interested party wishes to make a targeted dumping allegation in this investigation pursuant to section PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such allegation is due no later than 45 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination. Respondent Selection For this investigation, the Department will request quantity and value information from known exporters and producers identified with complete contact information in the Petition. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters/producers will be used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents. The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). On the date of the publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Import Administration Web site at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html, and a response to the quantity and value questionnaire is due no later than June 21, 2011. Also, the Department will send the quantity and value questionnaire to those PRC companies identified in Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibit I–1. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department’s Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. Separate-Rate Application In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application. See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, dated April 5, 2005 (‘‘Policy Bulletin’’), available on the Department’s web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05– 1.pdf. Based on our experience in processing the separate-rate applications in previous antidumping duty investigations, we have modified the application for this investigation to E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices make it more administrable and easier for applicants to complete. See, e.g., Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 43591, 43594– 95 (August 6, 2007). The specific requirements for submitting the separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available on the Department’s Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlightsand-news.html on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. The separate-rate application will be due 60 days after publication of this initiation notice. For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for consideration for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents. As noted in the ‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section above, the Department requires that respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. The quantity and value questionnaire will be available on the Department’s Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/iahighlights-and-news.html on the date of the publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. The Policy Bulletin states: While continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of ‘‘combination rates’’ because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:51 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 See Policy Bulletin at 6 (emphasis added). 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 versions of the Petition have been provided to the representatives of the Government of the PRC. Because of the large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of the Petition to the foreign producers/ exporters satisfied by the delivery of the public version to the Government of the PRC, consistent with 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 Determinations by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than June 27, 2011, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of steel cylinders from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. Notification to Interested Parties Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634. Parties wishing to participate in 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)). Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.5 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/ government officials as well as their representatives in all segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after March 14, 2011.6 The formats for the 5 See section 782(b) of the Act. Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and 6 See PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 33217 revised certifications are provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments initiated on or after March 14, 2011, if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 31, 2011. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by the scope of the investigation is seamless steel cylinders designed for storage or transport of compressed or liquefied gas (‘‘high pressure steel cylinders’’). High pressure steel cylinders are fabricated of chrome alloy steel including, but not limited to, chromium-molybdenum steel or chromium magnesium steel, and have permanently impressed into the steel, either before or after importation, the symbol of a U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (‘‘DOT’’)-approved high pressure steel cylinder manufacturer, as well as an approved DOT type marking of DOT 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3B, 3E, 3HT, 3T, or DOT–E (followed by a specific exemption number) in accordance with the requirements of sections 178.36 through 178.68 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or any subsequent amendments thereof. High pressure steel cylinders covered by the investigation have a water capacity up to 450 liters, and a gas capacity ranging from 8 to 702 cubic feet, regardless of corresponding service pressure levels and regardless of physical dimensions, finish or coatings. Excluded from the scope of the investigation are high pressure steel cylinders manufactured to UN–ISO– 9809–1 and 2 specifications and permanently impressed with ISO or UN symbols. Also excluded from the investigation are acetylene cylinders, with or without internal porous mass, and permanently impressed with 8A or 8AL in accordance with DOT regulations. Merchandise covered by the investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under subheading 7311.00.00.30. Subject merchandise may also enter under Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011)(‘‘Interim Final Rule’’) amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2). E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1 33218 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Notices HTSUS subheadings 7311.00.00.60 or 7311.00.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the investigation is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2011–14029 Filed 6–7–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–201–830] Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Initiation of AntiCircumvention Inquiry of Antidumping Duty Order Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska or Eric B. Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–8362 and (202) 482–6071, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In separate submissions filed on February 11, 2011, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., and Rocky Mountain Steel, a division of Evraz Inc. NA, (collectively ArcelorMittal USA, et al.) and Nucor Corporation and Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (collectively, Nucor/Cascade) requested that the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiate a scope inquiry, under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2) to determine whether wire rod with an actual diameter between 4.75 and 5.00 millimeters (mm) is within the scope of the antidumping (AD) order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico.1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002) (Wire Rod Order). Alternatively, petitioners argue that the Department should initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry with regard to two Mexican firms, Deacero S.A. de C.V. (Deacero) and Ternium Mexico S.A. de C.V. (Ternium), and find that wire rod with an actual diameter between 4.75 and 5.00 mm produced by these firms constitutes a ‘‘minor alteration’’ or a sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: 1 The term petitioners refers collectively to ArcelorMittal USA, et. al. and Nucro/Cascade. VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:51 Jun 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 ‘‘later developed product’’ thereby resulting in shipments of such wire rod from Deacero and Ternium falling within the scope of the Wire Rod Order. See 19 CFR 351.225(i) and (j); see also sections 781(c) and (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On March 14 and 23, 2011, Deacero filed comments rebutting petitioners’ arguments. On March 24 and 25, 2011, petitioners responded to Deacero’s comments. On March 25, 2011, Illinois Tool Works Inc. (ITW) filed comments objecting to petitioners’ allegations. On March 28, 2011, the Department extended until May 16, 2011, the deadline for determining whether to initiate an inquiry into petitioners’ allegations. On April 18, 2011, petitioners responded to the comments of ITW. On May 3, 2011, Deacero responded to the comments made in petitioners’ March 24, and 25, 2011, submissions. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) Stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04– 114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04– 114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). The designation of the products as ‘‘tire cord quality’’ or ‘‘tire bead quality’’ indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, enduse certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM 08JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33213-33218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14029]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-977)]


High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation

DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Lord, Emeka Chukwudebe, or 
Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, (202) 482-7425, (202) 482-
0219, or (202) 482-2312, respectively; Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 11, 2011, the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') received a petition concerning imports of high 
pressure steel cylinders (``steel cylinders'') from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC'') filed in proper form by Norris Cylinder 
Company \1\ (``Petitioner''). See Petitions for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: High Pressure Steel Cylinders 
from the People's Republic of China dated May 11, 2011, (``Petition''). 
On May 13, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire 
requesting information and clarification of certain areas of the 
Petition. Petitioner timely filed additional information on May 20, 
2011.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Norris Cylinder Company (``Norris'') identifies itself as 
the sole producer of the domestic like product based on its 
knowledge of the industry. See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit 
II-1.
    \2\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of High Pressure Steel Cylinders 
from the People's Republic of China (the PRC): Supplemental 
Questions, dated May 20, 2011 (``Supplement to the AD/CVD 
Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 2010 through March 
2011. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
    In accordance with section 732(b) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''), Petitioner alleges that imports of steel cylinders from 
the PRC 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 Petitioner supporting its 
allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party, as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty 
investigation that Petitioner is requesting the Department to initiate 
(see ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' section 
below).

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by the scope of this investigation are steel 
cylinders from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the 
investigation, see ``Scope of Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this 
notice.

Comments on Scope of Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with 
Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products 
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. As a result, the 
``Scope of Investigation'' language has been modified from the language 
in the Petition to reflect these clarifications. See Memo to the File 
from Meredith A.W. Rutherford regarding Petitions for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties on High Pressure Steel 
Cylinders

[[Page 33214]]

from the People's Republic of China; Conference Call with Petitioner, 
May 24, 2011.
    Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations (see 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested 
parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department 
encourages interested parties to submit such comments by Monday, June 
20, 2011, which is twenty calendar days from the signature date of this 
notice. All comments must be filed on the records of both the PRC 
antidumping duty investigation as well as the PRC countervailing duty 
investigation. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's 
APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street 
and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope 
consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample 
opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior 
to the issuance of the preliminary determination.

Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires

    We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the 
appropriate physical characteristics of steel cylinders to be reported 
in response to the Department's antidumping questionnaires. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the merchandise under consideration in order to more accurately 
report the relevant factors and costs of production, as well as to 
develop appropriate product comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide information or comments that they 
believe are relevant to the development of an accurate listing of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics; and (2) the product comparison criteria. We note that 
it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as 
product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on 
meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while 
there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by 
manufacturers to describe steel cylinders, it may be that only a select 
few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful 
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment 
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in 
product matching. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most 
important physical characteristics first and the least important 
characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaires, we must 
receive comments at the above-referenced address by June 20, 2011. 
Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by June 27, 2011.

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 (see section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In 
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of 
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions 
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. 
Supp. 2d 1, 8 (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), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989)).
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this subtitle.'' Thus, the reference point from which the 
domestic like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer 
a definition of 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 cylinders constitute a single 
domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of 
that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like 
product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's 
Republic of China (``Initiation Checklist''), at Attachment II, 
Analysis of Industry Support for the Petition Covering High Pressure 
Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China, on file in the 
Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Room 7046 of the main Department of 
Commerce building.
    In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above. To 
establish industry support, Petitioner provided its production of the 
domestic like product in 2010. See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 
dated May 20, 2011(``Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions''), at 4. 
Petitioner maintains that it was the sole remaining producer of the 
domestic like product in 2010, and, therefore, alleges that it 
represents the total production of the domestic like product in 2010. 
See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3, and Supplement to the AD/CVD 
Petitions, at 4. To demonstrate that it was the sole producer, 
Petitioner provided an affidavit from the President of Norris Cylinder 
Company, who has many years of professional experience in the steel 
cylinders industry. See Volume II of the AD Petitions, at Exhibit

[[Page 33215]]

II-1, and Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at 4. We have relied upon 
data Petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support. 
For further discussion, see Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that Petitioner has established industry support. 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, we find that the Department is not 
required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support 
(e.g., polling). See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment II. Second, we find that 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 production of the domestic like product. See Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, we find that 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 production of the domestic like product produced by 
that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, 
the Petition. 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. Id.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the antidumping duty investigation 
that it is requesting the Department initiate. Id.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than normal value (``NV''). In addition, Petitioner 
alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold 
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share, reduced shipments, reduced 
capacity, underselling and price depression or suppression, reduced 
employment, a decline in financial performance, lost sales and revenue, 
and an increase in import penetration. See Volume I of the Petition, at 
11-22. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence 
regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, 
and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by 
adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 
See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, Injury.

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 this investigation of imports steel cylinders from the PRC. 
The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the 
U.S. price and the factors of production are also discussed in the 
Initiation Checklist. See Initiation Checklist, at 5-10.

U.S. Price

    Petitioner calculated export price (``EP'') based on the average 
unit customs value of U.S. imports of subject merchandise from China 
classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') subheading 7311.00.00.30, as compiled by the U.S. Census 
Bureau and obtained from the ITC's Dataweb. Petitioner utilized two 
methodologies to calculate EP, with one methodology adjusting average 
unit value to account for differences in steel cylinders model 
prices.\3\ Petitioner also made adjustments for domestic brokerage and 
handling and domestic inland freight. See Initiation Checklist; see 
also Volume II of the Petition, at 18-21 and Exhibit II-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EP margins listed infra are based on this methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner calculated constructed export price (``CEP'') based on a 
proprietary source's pricing to unaffiliated U.S. end-users during the 
POI. Petitioner made adjustments for rebates, freight, value-added 
inputs, U.S. customs and duty fees, credit expense, domestic brokerage 
and handling, inland freight, and distributor markup. See Initiation 
Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at 21-24 and Exhibits 
II-25 through II-28.

Normal Value

    Petitioner claims the PRC is a non-market economy (``NME'') country 
and that no determination to the contrary has been made by the 
Department. See Volume II of the Petition, at 1. The presumption of NME 
status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, 
therefore, in accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, remains 
in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. 
Accordingly, the NV of the product for the PRC investigation is 
appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate 
market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In 
the course of this investigation, all parties, including the public, 
will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to 
the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates 
to individual exporters.
    Petitioner contends that India is the appropriate surrogate country 
for the PRC because: (1) it is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the PRC and (2) it is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise. See Volume II of the Petition, at 1-2. Based on 
the information provided by Petitioner, we believe that it is 
appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation 
purposes. After initiation of the investigation, interested parties 
will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate 
country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be 
provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to 
value factors of production within 40 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination.
    Petitioner calculated NV and the dumping margins using the 
Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) 
and 19 CFR 351.408. In calculating NV, Petitioner based the quantity of 
each of the inputs used to manufacture the domestic like product on its 
own consumption rates, modified where applicable. Petitioner states 
that it is not aware of publicly available information regarding the 
actual usage rates of Chinese producers to produce steel cylinders. 
However, Petitioner further notes that because Norris is one of a few 
producers worldwide, and there are only a few basic production methods 
used to produce steel cylinders, it is very familiar with the 
production process in the PRC. See Volume II of the Petition, at 4-18 
and Exhibit II-7.
    As noted above, Petitioner determined the consumption quantities of 
all raw materials based on its own production

[[Page 33216]]

experience. Petitioner valued most of the factors of production based 
on reasonably available, public surrogate country data, specifically, 
Indian import data from the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA''). See 
Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at 6-12 and 
Exhibit II-9. Where required, Petitioner inflated surrogate values to 
the POI by means of the Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') for India. 
Because WPI data were not yet available for February and March 2011, 
the final two months of the POI, Petitioner assumed these figures were 
the same as that for January 2011 and calculated an average WPI for the 
POI accordingly. See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the 
Petition, at Exhibit II-10. In addition, Petitioner made currency 
conversions, where necessary, based on the POI-average rupees/U.S. 
dollar exchange rate, as reported on the Department's Web site. See 
Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit 
II-9. Petitioner determined labor costs using the labor consumption, in 
hours, derived from Petitioner's own experience. See Initiation 
Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at 12 and Exhibit II-17. 
For purposes of initiation, the Department determines that the 
surrogate values used by Petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, 
acceptable for purposes of initiation.
    Petitioner determined energy and utility costs using Petitioner's 
own usage rates. To account for manufacturing differences between the 
U.S. and the PRC, Petitioner made adjustments to electricity and 
natural gas. See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the 
Petition, at 13-14 and Exhibit II-1.
    Petitioner determined labor costs using the usage rates derived 
from Petitioner's own experience and valued labor using data from Nails 
AR1.\4\ See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, 
at 12 and Exhibit II-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
76 FR 16379 (March 23, 2011) (``Nails AR1'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner determined packing costs using consumption rates derived 
from Petitioner's own experience, and valued the relevant factors using 
data from GTA. See Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the 
Petition, at 17-18 and Exhibits II-9 and II-15.
    Petitioner calculated factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative expenses, and profit by averaging data from the 2009-
2010 financial statements of four Indian producers of steel cylinders: 
(1) Everest Kanto (``Everest''); (2) Rama Cylinders Private Limited 
(``Rama''); (3) Maruti Koastsu Cylinders Pvt. Limited (``Maruti''); and 
4) Nitin Cylinders Limited (``NCL''). See Initiation Checklist; see 
also Volume II of the Petition, at 14-17 and Exhibit II-22.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of steel cylinders from the PRC are being, or are 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based 
on a comparison of U.S. prices and NV calculated in accordance with 
section 773(c) of the Act, as described above, the estimated EP dumping 
margins (adjusted according to model size), for steel cylinders from 
the PRC range from 85.10 percent to 176.25 percent, and the estimated 
CEP dumping margins range from 17.04 percent to 151.90 percent. See 
Initiation Checklist; see also Volume II of the Petition, at 24 and 
Exhibit II-7.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the Petition on steel cylinders from 
the PRC, the Department finds the Petition meets the requirements of 
section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping 
duty investigation to determine whether imports of steel cylinders from 
the PRC 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 determination no later than 140 days after the date of this 
initiation.

Targeted Dumping Allegations

    On December 10, 2008, the Department issued an interim final rule 
for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 351.414(f) and (g), the 
regulatory provisions governing the targeted dumping analysis in 
antidumping duty investigations, and the corresponding regulation 
governing the deadline for targeted dumping allegations, 19 CFR 
351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing 
Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 
(December 10, 2008). The Department stated that ``{w{time} ithdrawal 
will allow the Department to exercise the discretion intended by the 
statute and, thereby, develop a practice that will allow interested 
parties to pursue all statutory avenues of relief in this area.'' Id. 
at 74931.
    In order to accomplish this objective, if any interested party 
wishes to make a targeted dumping allegation in this investigation 
pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such allegation is due no 
later than 45 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary 
determination.

Respondent Selection

    For this investigation, the Department will request quantity and 
value information from known exporters and producers identified with 
complete contact information in the Petition. The quantity and value 
data received from NME exporters/producers will be used as the basis to 
select the mandatory respondents.
    The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to 
both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate 
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive 
consideration for separate-rate status. See Circular Welded Austenitic 
Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation 
of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 
2008); Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist 
Canvas From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 
28, 2005). On the date of the publication of this initiation notice in 
the Federal Register, the Department will post the quantity and value 
questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Import 
Administration Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html, and a response to the quantity and value questionnaire is 
due no later than June 21, 2011. Also, the Department will send the 
quantity and value questionnaire to those PRC companies identified in 
Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibit I-1.
    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
administrative protective order (``APO'') in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the 
Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.

Separate-Rate Application

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application. 
See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of 
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries, dated April 5, 2005 (``Policy Bulletin''), available 
on the Department's web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. Based on our experience in processing the separate-rate 
applications in previous antidumping duty investigations, we have 
modified the application for this investigation to

[[Page 33217]]

make it more administrable and easier for applicants to complete. See, 
e.g., Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New 
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
43591, 43594-95 (August 6, 2007). The specific requirements for 
submitting the separate-rate application in this investigation are 
outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available 
on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of publication of this initiation notice in 
the Federal Register. The separate-rate application will be due 60 days 
after publication of this initiation notice. For exporters and 
producers who submit a separate-rate status application and 
subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and 
producers will no longer be eligible for consideration for separate 
rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as 
mandatory respondents. As noted in the ``Respondent Selection'' section 
above, the Department requires that respondents submit a response to 
both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate rate 
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive 
consideration for separate-rate status. The quantity and value 
questionnaire will be available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of the 
publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register.

Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this 
investigation. The Policy Bulletin states:

    While continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only 
to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign 
in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that 
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the 
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period 
of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory 
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as 
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is 
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such 
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more 
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply 
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and 
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.

    See Policy Bulletin at 6 (emphasis added).

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 versions of the Petition have been 
provided to the representatives of the Government of the PRC. Because 
of the large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition, 
the Department considers the service of the public version of the 
Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery 
of the public version to the Government of the PRC, consistent with 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 Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than June 27, 2011, 
whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of steel 
cylinders from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material 
injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in 
the investigation being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 
January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO 
Procedures, 73 FR 3634. Parties wishing to participate in 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)).
    Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or 
countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and 
completeness of that information.\5\ Parties are hereby reminded that 
revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government 
officials as well as their representatives in all segments of any 
antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or 
after March 14, 2011.\6\ The formats for the revised certifications are 
provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule. The Department intends 
to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments initiated on 
or after March 14, 2011, if the submitting party does not comply with 
the revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \6\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 
2011)(``Interim Final Rule'') amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: May 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

    Scope of the Investigation
    The merchandise covered by the scope of the investigation is 
seamless steel cylinders designed for storage or transport of 
compressed or liquefied gas (``high pressure steel cylinders''). High 
pressure steel cylinders are fabricated of chrome alloy steel 
including, but not limited to, chromium-molybdenum steel or chromium 
magnesium steel, and have permanently impressed into the steel, either 
before or after importation, the symbol of a U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 
(``DOT'')-approved high pressure steel cylinder manufacturer, as well 
as an approved DOT type marking of DOT 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3B, 3E, 3HT, 
3T, or DOT-E (followed by a specific exemption number) in accordance 
with the requirements of sections 178.36 through 178.68 of Title 49 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, or any subsequent amendments thereof. 
High pressure steel cylinders covered by the investigation have a water 
capacity up to 450 liters, and a gas capacity ranging from 8 to 702 
cubic feet, regardless of corresponding service pressure levels and 
regardless of physical dimensions, finish or coatings.
    Excluded from the scope of the investigation are high pressure 
steel cylinders manufactured to UN-ISO-9809-1 and 2 specifications and 
permanently impressed with ISO or UN symbols. Also excluded from the 
investigation are acetylene cylinders, with or without internal porous 
mass, and permanently impressed with 8A or 8AL in accordance with DOT 
regulations.
    Merchandise covered by the investigation is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under 
subheading 7311.00.00.30. Subject merchandise may also enter under

[[Page 33218]]

HTSUS subheadings 7311.00.00.60 or 7311.00.00.90. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under the investigation is 
dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2011-14029 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P