Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 49439-49443 [2011-20336]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
deposit rate in effect on the date of
entry.
In our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic
assessment’’ clarification, we explained
that, where respondents in an
administrative review demonstrate that
they had no knowledge of sales through
resellers to the United States, we would
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at
the all-others rate applicable to the
proceeding. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice).
Because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation
instructions do not alleviate the
concerns which the May 2003
clarification was intended to address,
we find it appropriate in this case to
instruct CBP to liquidate any existing
entries of merchandise produced by the
respondents, and exported by other
parties at the all-others rate, should we
continue to find that the respondents
had no shipments of subject
merchandise in the POR in our final
results. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal
From the Russian Federation:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010),
unchanged in Magnesium Metal From
the Russian Federation: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 56989, 56990 (September
17, 2010). In addition, the Department
finds that it is more consistent with the
May 2003 clarification not to rescind the
review in its entirety but, rather, to
complete the review with respect to the
respondents, issuing appropriate
instructions to CBP based on the final
results of the review. See the
‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section of this
notice below.
or four-year interval from publication of
the antidumping duty order, a duty
absorption inquiry is not authorized.
See Antidumping Duty Order.
B. Duty Absorption
On January 25, 2011, Wheatland
requested that the Department conduct
a duty absorption inquiry with regard to
Mueller, Lamina, and Ternium
Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (Ternium).
Mueller responded to this request on
February 22, 2011. Section 751(a)(4) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), provides for the Department, if
requested, to determine during an
administrative review initiated two or
four years after publication of the order
whether antidumping duties have been
absorbed by the foreign producer or
exporter if the subject merchandise is
sold in the United States through an
affiliated importer. See also 19 CFR
351.213(j). First, Ternium is not a
respondent in this administrative
review. Notwithstanding, because this
review was not initiated at the two-year
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Aug 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the
administrative review, the Department
shall determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212. The Department intends to
issue appraisement instructions directly
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of this
review.
As noted above, the Department
clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’
regulation on May 6, 2003. See
Assessment Policy Notice. This
clarification will apply to POR entries
by each respondent company if we
continue to make a final determination
of no shipments based upon their
certifications that they made no POR
shipments of subject merchandise for
which they had knowledge of U.S.
destination. We will instruct CBP to
liquidate these entries at the all-others
rate established in the less-than-fairvalue investigation (32.62 percent) if
there is no rate for the intermediary
involved in the transaction. See
Assessment Policy Notice for a full
discussion of this clarification.
The preliminary results of
administrative review and this notice
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: August 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–20331 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–867]
Large Power Transformers From the
Republic of Korea: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Angelica Mendoza at (202) 482–3019 or
David Cordell at 202–482–0408, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49439
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On July 14, 2011, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received
a petition concerning imports of large
liquid dielectric power transformers
(‘‘large power transformers’’) from the
Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’), filed in
proper form on behalf of ABB Inc., Delta
Star, Inc. and Pennsylvania Transformer
Technology, Inc., (collectively, ‘‘the
Petitioners’’). See the Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Large Power Transformers from the
Republic of Korea, filed on July 14, 2011
(‘‘the Petition’’). On July 20, 2011, the
Department issued a request for
additional information and clarification
of certain areas of the Petition. The
Petitioners filed a response to this
request on July 26, 2011 (hereinafter,
‘‘Supplement to the Petition’’). In
accordance with section 732(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), the Petitioners allege that imports
of large power transformers from Korea
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. On July 28, 2011, the
Petitioners filed an amendment to the
Petition in which they revised the scope
language, amended the lost sales listing
and provided the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) page for HTSUS number
8504.90.9540, (hereinafter, ‘‘Second
Supplement to the Petition’’). On
August 1, 2011, the Petitioners filed an
additional amendment to the Petition
with respect to industry support for the
Petition (hereinafter, ‘‘Third
Supplement to the Petition’’).
On July 28, 2011, the Department
received a standing challenge to the
Petition by Hyosung Corporation, a
Korean producer and exporter of the
subject merchandise, and its U.S.
affiliate HICO America Inc.
(collectively, ‘‘Hyosung’’). On July 29,
2011, the Department received a
standing challenge to the petition by
Hyundai Corporation, a Korean
producer and exporter of the subject
merchandise, and its U.S. affiliate
Hyundai Corporation, USA
(collectively, ‘‘Hyundai’’). The
Petitioners responded to HICO’s and
Hyundai’s submission on August 1,
2011 (hereinafter, ‘‘Fourth Supplement
to the Petition’’).
The Department finds that the
Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
49440
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices
the domestic industry because the
Petitioners are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act
and have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
antidumping duty investigation which
the Petitioners are requesting that the
Department initiate (see ‘‘Determination
of Industry Support for the Petition’’
section below).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. See
19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this
investigation are large power
transformers from Korea. For a full
description of the scope of the
investigation, please see the ‘‘Scope of
Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this
notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
During our review of the Petition, we
discussed the scope with the Petitioners
to ensure that it is an accurate reflection
of the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations (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 invites all interested parties
to submit such comments by August 23,
2011, 20 calendar days from the
signature date of this notice. 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.
All comments must be filed on the
record of the investigation. If filed after
August 5, 2011, all comments and
submissions to the Department must be
filed electronically using Import
Administration’s Antidumping
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’).1
1 See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR–2011–07–
06/pdf/2011–16352.pdf for details of the
Department’s Electronic Filing Requirements,
which go into effect on August 5, 2011. Information
on help using IAACCESS can be found at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can
be found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/
Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20
Procedures.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Aug 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
Comments on Product Characteristics
for Antidumping Duty Questionnaire
We are requesting comments from
interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of
large power transformers to be reported
in response to the Department’s
antidumping questionnaire. This
information will be used to identify the
key physical characteristics of the
subject merchandise 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 any
information or comments that they feel
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 large power
transformers, 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
hierarchy under which the physical
characteristics should be considered in
product matching.
In order to consider the suggestions of
interested parties in developing and
issuing the antidumping duty
questionnaire, we must receive
comments by August 23, 2011.
Additionally, rebuttal comments must
be received by August 30, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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. Although
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 title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, the Petitioners do 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 large
power transformers 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:
Large Power Transformers from the
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices
Republic of Korea (‘‘Checklist’’), at
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Petition Covering Large
Power Transformers from Korea, on file
in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046
of the main Department of Commerce
building.
In determining whether the
Petitioners have standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered
the industry support data contained in
the Petition with reference to the
domestic like product as defined in the
‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section above.
To establish industry support, the
Petitioners provided their production of
the domestic like product in 2010 and
compared this to the estimated total
production of the domestic like product
for the entire domestic industry. See
Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit 2 and
Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit 9.
To estimate total 2010 production of the
domestic like product, the Petitioners
used their own data and industry
specific knowledge. See Volume I of the
Petition, at Exhibit 2 and Supplement to
the Petition, at Exhibit 9; see also
Checklist at Attachment II. We have
relied upon data the Petitioners
provided for purposes of measuring
industry support. For further
discussion, see Checklist at Attachment
II.
As noted above, on July 28, 2011, and
July 29, 2011, we received submissions
on behalf of Hyosung and Hyundai,
respectively, Korean producers and
exporters of the subject merchandise,
questioning the domestic like product
definition and the industry support
calculation in the Petition. On August 1,
2011, the Petitioners filed a reply. For
further discussion of these submissions,
see Checklist at Attachment II.
Based on information provided in the
Petition, supplemental submissions, and
other information obtained by the
Department, we determine that the
domestic producers and workers have
met the statutory criteria for industry
support under section 732(c)(4)(A) 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 and 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. See Checklist at
Attachment II for further details on the
Department’s evaluation of industry
support for 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Aug 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
The Department finds that the
Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of
the domestic industry because they are
interested parties as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act and they have
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the antidumping
duty investigation that they are
requesting the Department initiate, in
accordance with section 732(c)(4)(A) of
the Act.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The Petitioners allege that the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product is being materially injured, or is
threatened with material injury, by
reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal
value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, the
Petitioners allege that subject imports
exceed the negligibility threshold
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of
the Act.
The Petitioners contend that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share,
reduced shipments, reduced capacity
utilization, underselling and price
depression or suppression, a decline in
financial performance, lost sales and
revenue, an increase in import
penetration, and threat of future injury.
See Volume I of the Petition, at 21–22,
24–33, and Exhibits 5, 7–9, and 10–11,
and Second Supplement to the Petition
at 3 and at Attachment 1. 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
Checklist at Attachment III, Analysis of
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Petition
Covering Large Power Transformers
from the Republic of Korea.
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 of large power transformers
from Korea. The sources of data for the
deductions and adjustments relating to
the U.S. price, and cost of production
(‘‘COP’’) are also discussed in the
initiation checklist. See Checklist at
6–9.
Export Price
The Petitioners based U.S. export
price (‘‘EP’’) on the prices of four large
power transformers manufactured in
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49441
Korea and offered for sale in the United
States by two Korean producers/
exporters. See Checklist at 7; see also
Volume II of the Petition at II–2 and
Exhibit AD–2 and Supplement to the
Petition at 29, 30 and Exhibits 18 and
21. Based on the stated sales and
delivery terms, the Petitioners then
adjusted the U.S. prices to account for
certain expenses associated with
exporting and delivering the product to
the U.S. customers (i.e., U.S. inland rail
freight, ocean freight and U.S. port fees).
While the Department will normally
make additional downward adjustments
to U.S. price for U.S. brokerage and
handling, foreign brokerage and
handling, direct selling and credit
expenses, the Petitioners took a
conservative approach and did not
include any such adjustments in their
calculation of U.S. price. See Checklist
at 7; see also Volume II of the Petition
at page II–3, 5, 7, and 10 and Exhibits
AD–2–3, and Supplement to the
Petition, at 29–31 and Exhibits 18–21.
Normal Value
According to the Petitioners, large
power transformers are highly complex
and specialized products that are
manufactured to a customer’s unique
specifications. As such, identifying sales
of identical or similar large power
transformers in the U.S. and Korean
markets that could be compared on a
price-to-price basis is virtually
impossible because they differ
substantially. Accordingly, the
Petitioners based normal value on
constructed value (‘‘CV’’) in accordance
with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
Constructed value consists of the cost
of manufacturing, selling, general and
administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses,
financial expenses and profit. See
section 773(a)(4) of the Act. The
Petitioners calculated constructed value
based on the U.S. producer’s bid
proposal cost of production model for
the U.S. sales of large power
transformers used in the Petition. The
U.S. producer develops the cost of
production for each transformer when
bidding on large power transformers
contracts in the United States, and thus
the costs were developed based on the
specific transformer for each U.S. sale
identified in the Petition.
In calculating constructed value, the
Petitioners adjusted the U.S. producer’s
cost of manufacturing for known
differences, where available, between
the U.S. and Korean markets.
Specifically, the Petitioners based the
cost of labor on the Korean
manufacturing wage from the
International Labor Statistics as
published on the Department’s Web site.
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
49442
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices
See Supplement to the Petition at
Exhibit 13. The Petitioners also adjusted
the U.S. producer’s energy costs based
on publicly available Korean electricity
and natural gas costs. See Supplement
to the Petition at Exhibits 14 and 15.
The Petitioners did not adjust the U.S.
producer’s cost of materials for the
differences between the U.S. and Korean
markets. According to the Petitioners
such an adjustment is not practical
because the materials used in the
production of large power transformers
are specialized inputs, the costs of
which are not reflected accurately in
published data. The Petitioners also
state that the U.S. material costs are
comparable to the costs in the Korean
market because most of the inputs are
commodity-type products that are
widely traded on world markets. To
calculate the variable and fixed
overhead costs, the Petitioners relied
upon the variable and fixed overhead
rates of the U.S. producer calculated as
a percentage of the labor costs adjusted
for known differences between the U.S.
and Korean markets. See Supplement to
the Petition at Exhibit 16.
To determine constructed value, the
Petitioners added to the cost of
manufacturing amounts for SG&A
expenses, financial expenses and profit
based on financial statements of the
Korean producers that manufactured the
specific transformers sold to the United
States pursuant to each U.S. sale
identified in the Petition. See
Supplement to the Petition at Exhibits
16 and 17; see also Checklist, at 8 and
9.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by
Petitioners, there is reason to believe
that imports of large power transformers
from Korea are being, or are likely to be,
sold in the United States at less than fair
value. Based on a comparison of EPs
and CV calculated in accordance with
section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the
estimated dumping margins for large
power transformers range from 43.01
percent to 60.81 percent. See Checklist
at 9.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon the examination of the
Petition on large power transformers
from Korea, the Department finds that
the Petition meets the requirements of
section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are
initiating an antidumping duty
investigation to determine whether
imports of large power transformers 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),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Aug 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determination no later than
140 days after the date of this initiation.
may be found on the Department’s Web
site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.
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
777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such
allegations are due no later than 45 days
before the scheduled date of the
preliminary determination.
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
Respondent Selection
Following standard practice in AD
investigations involving market
economy countries, in the event the
Department determines that the number
of known exporters or producers for this
investigation is large, the Department
intends to select respondents based on
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. imports under the
HTSUS numbers 8504.23.0040 and
8504.23.0080 for the large power
transformers.2 We intend to release the
CBP data under Administrative
Protective Order (‘‘APO’’) to all parties
with access to information protected by
APO within five days of publication of
this Federal Register notice and make
our decision regarding respondent
selection within 20 days of publication
of this notice. The Department invites
comments regarding the CBP data and
respondent selection within seven days
of publication of this Federal Register
notice.
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Instructions for filing such applications
2 The scope also covers HTSUS number
8504.90.9540 of all transformer parts. However, we
will not use this number in our respondent
selection analysis as it is a basket category and
would not allow for a meaningful analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Distribution of Copy of the Petition
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version
of the Petition has been provided to the
representatives of the Government of
Korea. 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 of the Petition to the
Government of Korea, consistent with
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
no later than August 29, 2011, whether
there is a reasonable indication that
imports of large power transformers
from Korea 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 APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department
published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures;
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate
in this investigation should ensure that
they meet the requirements of these
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD/CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and
completeness of that information. See
section 782(b) of the Act. 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 AD/CVD proceedings
initiated on or after March 14, 2011. 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). The formats for the revised
certifications are provided at the end of
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices
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: August 3, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers large
liquid dielectric power transformers (LPTs)
having a top power handling capacity greater
than or equal to 60,000 kilovolt amperes (60
megavolt amperes), whether assembled or
unassembled, complete or incomplete.
Incomplete LPTs are subassemblies
consisting of the active part and any other
parts attached to, imported with or invoiced
with the active parts of LPTs. The ‘‘active
part’’ of the transformer consists of one or
more of the following when attached to or
otherwise assembled with one another: the
steel core or shell, the windings, electrical
insulation between the windings, the
mechanical frame for an LPT.
The product definition encompasses all
such LPTs regardless of name designation,
including but not limited to step-up
transformers, step-down transformers,
autotransformers, interconnection
transformers, voltage regulator transformers,
rectifier transformers, and power rectifier
transformers.
The LPTs subject to this investigation are
currently classifiable under subheadings
8504.23.0040, 8504.23.0080 and
8504.90.9540 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of this investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2011–20336 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–972, A–583–848]
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening
Agents From the People’s Republic of
China, and Taiwan: Postponement of
Preliminary Determinations of
Antidumping Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sandra Stewart at (202) 482–0768 or
Hermes Pinilla at (202) 482–3477
(Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, Office 5;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Aug 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
Maisha Cryor at (202) 482–5831 or
Shaun Higgins at (202) 482–0679
(People’s Republic of China), AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Postponement of Preliminary
Determinations
On April 20, 2011, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) initiated
the antidumping duty investigations on
certain stilbenic optical brightening
agents from the People’s Republic of
China and Taiwan. See Certain Stilbenic
Optical Brightening Agents From the
People’s Republic of China and Taiwan:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 76 FR 23554 (April 27,
2011). The notice of initiation stated
that the Department would issue its
preliminary determinations for these
investigations no later than 140 days
after the issuance of the initiation in
accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1) unless
postponed.
On July 29, 2011, Clariant Corporation
(the petitioner) made a timely request
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e)
for postponement of the preliminary
determinations in these investigations.
The petitioner requested a 50-day
postponement of the preliminary
determinations in order to allow the
Department additional time to resolve a
number of complex issues in these
investigations.
The petitioner submitted a request for
postponement of the preliminary
determinations more than 25 days
before the scheduled date of the
preliminary determinations. Therefore,
because the petitioner provided reasons
for its request and the Department finds
no compelling reasons to deny the
request, the Department is postponing
the deadline for the preliminary
determinations in accordance with
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) by 50 days to
October 27, 2011. The deadline for the
final determinations will continue to be
75 days after the date of the preliminary
determinations unless extended.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Dated: August 4, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–20306 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49443
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–890]
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011.
SUMMARY: On February 18, 2011, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) initiated a new shipper
review of the antidumping duty order
on wooden bedroom furniture from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)
covering sale(s) of subject merchandise
made by Dongguan Yujia Furniture Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Yujia’’).1
The Department preliminarily
determines that Yujia has not made
sales at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’).
Upon completion of the final results of
review, the Department will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties
on entries of subject merchandise
during the period January 1, 2010
through December 31, 2010 (the period
of review or ‘‘POR’’), for which the
importer-specific assessment rates are
above de minimis.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patrick O’Connor or Jeff Pedersen, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0989 or (202) 482–
2769, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture from the PRC was
published on January 4, 2005.2 On
January 28, 2011, the Department
received a timely request for a new
shipper review from Yujia. On February
18, 2011, the Department initiated this
new shipper review. See Initiation
Notice. On February 24, 2011, the
Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire. From March 2011
through July 2011, the Department
1 See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 76 FR
10557 (February 25, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
2 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping
Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4,
2005).
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49439-49443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20336]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-867]
Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angelica Mendoza at (202) 482-3019 or
David Cordell at 202-482-0408, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On July 14, 2011, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
received a petition concerning imports of large liquid dielectric power
transformers (``large power transformers'') from the Republic of Korea
(``Korea''), filed in proper form on behalf of ABB Inc., Delta Star,
Inc. and Pennsylvania Transformer Technology, Inc., (collectively,
``the Petitioners''). See the Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Large Power Transformers from the Republic of
Korea, filed on July 14, 2011 (``the Petition''). On July 20, 2011, the
Department issued a request for additional information and
clarification of certain areas of the Petition. The Petitioners filed a
response to this request on July 26, 2011 (hereinafter, ``Supplement to
the Petition''). In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (``the Act''), the Petitioners allege that imports of
large power transformers from Korea 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. On July 28, 2011, the Petitioners filed an amendment to the
Petition in which they revised the scope language, amended the lost
sales listing and provided the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS'') page for HTSUS number 8504.90.9540, (hereinafter,
``Second Supplement to the Petition''). On August 1, 2011, the
Petitioners filed an additional amendment to the Petition with respect
to industry support for the Petition (hereinafter, ``Third Supplement
to the Petition'').
On July 28, 2011, the Department received a standing challenge to
the Petition by Hyosung Corporation, a Korean producer and exporter of
the subject merchandise, and its U.S. affiliate HICO America Inc.
(collectively, ``Hyosung''). On July 29, 2011, the Department received
a standing challenge to the petition by Hyundai Corporation, a Korean
producer and exporter of the subject merchandise, and its U.S.
affiliate Hyundai Corporation, USA (collectively, ``Hyundai''). The
Petitioners responded to HICO's and Hyundai's submission on August 1,
2011 (hereinafter, ``Fourth Supplement to the Petition'').
The Department finds that the Petitioners filed the Petition on
behalf of
[[Page 49440]]
the domestic industry because the Petitioners are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and have demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty
investigation which the Petitioners are requesting that the Department
initiate (see ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition''
section below).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2010, through June
30, 2011. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are large power
transformers from Korea. For a full description of the scope of the
investigation, please see the ``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 the
Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations (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 invites all
interested parties to submit such comments by August 23, 2011, 20
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 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.
All comments must be filed on the record of the investigation. If
filed after August 5, 2011, all comments and submissions to the
Department must be filed electronically using Import Administration's
Antidumping Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System
(``IA ACCESS'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-06/pdf/2011-16352.pdf for details of the Department's Electronic Filing
Requirements, which go into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on
help using IAACCESS can be found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaire
We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of large power transformers to be
reported in response to the Department's antidumping questionnaire.
This information will be used to identify the key physical
characteristics of the subject merchandise 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 any information or comments that
they feel 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 large power transformers, 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 hierarchy under which the physical characteristics
should be considered in product matching.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaire, we must
receive comments by August 23, 2011. Additionally, rebuttal comments
must be received by August 30, 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. Although 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 title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, the Petitioners do 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 large power transformers
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: Large Power Transformers from the
[[Page 49441]]
Republic of Korea (``Checklist''), at Attachment II, Analysis of
Industry Support for the Petition Covering Large Power Transformers
from Korea, on file in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building.
In determining whether the Petitioners have standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above. To
establish industry support, the Petitioners provided their production
of the domestic like product in 2010 and compared this to the estimated
total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry. See Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit 2 and Supplement to
the Petition, at Exhibit 9. To estimate total 2010 production of the
domestic like product, the Petitioners used their own data and industry
specific knowledge. See Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibit 2 and
Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit 9; see also Checklist at
Attachment II. We have relied upon data the Petitioners provided for
purposes of measuring industry support. For further discussion, see
Checklist at Attachment II.
As noted above, on July 28, 2011, and July 29, 2011, we received
submissions on behalf of Hyosung and Hyundai, respectively, Korean
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise, questioning the
domestic like product definition and the industry support calculation
in the Petition. On August 1, 2011, the Petitioners filed a reply. For
further discussion of these submissions, see Checklist at Attachment
II.
Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental
submissions, and other information obtained by the Department, we
determine that the domestic producers and workers have met the
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A) 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 and 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. See Checklist
at Attachment II for further details on the Department's evaluation of
industry support for 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.
The Department finds that the Petitioners filed the Petition on
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty
investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate, in
accordance with section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal value (``NV''). In addition, the
Petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share, reduced shipments, reduced
capacity utilization, underselling and price depression or suppression,
a decline in financial performance, lost sales and revenue, an increase
in import penetration, and threat of future injury. See Volume I of the
Petition, at 21-22, 24-33, and Exhibits 5, 7-9, and 10-11, and Second
Supplement to the Petition at 3 and at Attachment 1. 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 Checklist at Attachment
III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Petition Covering Large Power Transformers from the
Republic of Korea.
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 of large power transformers from
Korea. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating
to the U.S. price, and cost of production (``COP'') are also discussed
in the initiation checklist. See Checklist at 6-9.
Export Price
The Petitioners based U.S. export price (``EP'') on the prices of
four large power transformers manufactured in Korea and offered for
sale in the United States by two Korean producers/exporters. See
Checklist at 7; see also Volume II of the Petition at II-2 and Exhibit
AD-2 and Supplement to the Petition at 29, 30 and Exhibits 18 and 21.
Based on the stated sales and delivery terms, the Petitioners then
adjusted the U.S. prices to account for certain expenses associated
with exporting and delivering the product to the U.S. customers (i.e.,
U.S. inland rail freight, ocean freight and U.S. port fees). While the
Department will normally make additional downward adjustments to U.S.
price for U.S. brokerage and handling, foreign brokerage and handling,
direct selling and credit expenses, the Petitioners took a conservative
approach and did not include any such adjustments in their calculation
of U.S. price. See Checklist at 7; see also Volume II of the Petition
at page II-3, 5, 7, and 10 and Exhibits AD-2-3, and Supplement to the
Petition, at 29-31 and Exhibits 18-21.
Normal Value
According to the Petitioners, large power transformers are highly
complex and specialized products that are manufactured to a customer's
unique specifications. As such, identifying sales of identical or
similar large power transformers in the U.S. and Korean markets that
could be compared on a price-to-price basis is virtually impossible
because they differ substantially. Accordingly, the Petitioners based
normal value on constructed value (``CV'') in accordance with section
773(a)(4) of the Act.
Constructed value consists of the cost of manufacturing, selling,
general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, financial expenses and
profit. See section 773(a)(4) of the Act. The Petitioners calculated
constructed value based on the U.S. producer's bid proposal cost of
production model for the U.S. sales of large power transformers used in
the Petition. The U.S. producer develops the cost of production for
each transformer when bidding on large power transformers contracts in
the United States, and thus the costs were developed based on the
specific transformer for each U.S. sale identified in the Petition.
In calculating constructed value, the Petitioners adjusted the U.S.
producer's cost of manufacturing for known differences, where
available, between the U.S. and Korean markets. Specifically, the
Petitioners based the cost of labor on the Korean manufacturing wage
from the International Labor Statistics as published on the
Department's Web site.
[[Page 49442]]
See Supplement to the Petition at Exhibit 13. The Petitioners also
adjusted the U.S. producer's energy costs based on publicly available
Korean electricity and natural gas costs. See Supplement to the
Petition at Exhibits 14 and 15. The Petitioners did not adjust the U.S.
producer's cost of materials for the differences between the U.S. and
Korean markets. According to the Petitioners such an adjustment is not
practical because the materials used in the production of large power
transformers are specialized inputs, the costs of which are not
reflected accurately in published data. The Petitioners also state that
the U.S. material costs are comparable to the costs in the Korean
market because most of the inputs are commodity-type products that are
widely traded on world markets. To calculate the variable and fixed
overhead costs, the Petitioners relied upon the variable and fixed
overhead rates of the U.S. producer calculated as a percentage of the
labor costs adjusted for known differences between the U.S. and Korean
markets. See Supplement to the Petition at Exhibit 16.
To determine constructed value, the Petitioners added to the cost
of manufacturing amounts for SG&A expenses, financial expenses and
profit based on financial statements of the Korean producers that
manufactured the specific transformers sold to the United States
pursuant to each U.S. sale identified in the Petition. See Supplement
to the Petition at Exhibits 16 and 17; see also Checklist, at 8 and 9.
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of large power transformers from Korea are being,
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value.
Based on a comparison of EPs and CV calculated in accordance with
section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for large
power transformers range from 43.01 percent to 60.81 percent. See
Checklist at 9.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon the examination of the Petition on large power
transformers from Korea, the Department finds that the Petition meets
the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are
initiating an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether
imports of large power transformers 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 allegations are due
no later than 45 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary
determination.
Respondent Selection
Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market
economy countries, in the event the Department determines that the
number of known exporters or producers for this investigation is large,
the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP'') data for U.S. imports under the HTSUS
numbers 8504.23.0040 and 8504.23.0080 for the large power
transformers.\2\ We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative
Protective Order (``APO'') to all parties with access to information
protected by APO within five days of publication of this Federal
Register notice and make our decision regarding respondent selection
within 20 days of publication of this notice. The Department invites
comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within seven
days of publication of this Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The scope also covers HTSUS number 8504.90.9540 of all
transformer parts. However, we will not use this number in our
respondent selection analysis as it is a basket category and would
not allow for a meaningful analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
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.
Distribution of Copy of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been
provided to the representatives of the Government of Korea. 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 of the Petition to the Government of Korea, 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 Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than August 29,
2011, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of large
power transformers from Korea 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
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should
ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the
filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
Any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. See
section 782(b) of the Act. 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 AD/
CVD proceedings initiated on or after March 14, 2011. 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). The formats for the revised certifications are
provided at the end of
[[Page 49443]]
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: August 3, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers large liquid dielectric
power transformers (LPTs) having a top power handling capacity
greater than or equal to 60,000 kilovolt amperes (60 megavolt
amperes), whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete.
Incomplete LPTs are subassemblies consisting of the active part
and any other parts attached to, imported with or invoiced with the
active parts of LPTs. The ``active part'' of the transformer
consists of one or more of the following when attached to or
otherwise assembled with one another: the steel core or shell, the
windings, electrical insulation between the windings, the mechanical
frame for an LPT.
The product definition encompasses all such LPTs regardless of
name designation, including but not limited to step-up transformers,
step-down transformers, autotransformers, interconnection
transformers, voltage regulator transformers, rectifier
transformers, and power rectifier transformers.
The LPTs subject to this investigation are currently
classifiable under subheadings 8504.23.0040, 8504.23.0080 and
8504.90.9540 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2011-20336 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P