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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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 https://
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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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