Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 18207-18211 [2012-7353]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18207-18211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7353]



[[Page 18207]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-983]


Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: March 27, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith or Eve Wang at (202) 
482-4295 or (202) 482-6231, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition

    On March 1, 2012, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received an antidumping duty (``AD'') petition (hereafter, 
``Petition'') concerning imports of drawn stainless steel sinks from 
the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') filed in proper form on behalf 
of Elkay Manufacturing Company (``Petitioner'').\1\ On March 6, 2012, 
the Department issued a request for additional information and 
clarification of certain areas of the Petition. On March 9, 2012, 
Petitioner filed a response with respect to general questions about 
information in the Petition (``General Issues Supplement''). On March 
9, 2012, Petitioner also filed responses specific to the AD Petition 
(``Supplement to AD Petition''). On March 15, 2012, Petitioner also 
filed a revision to the proposed scope language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties And 
Countervailing Duties Against Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From The 
People's Republic of China,'' filed on March 1, 2012 (``Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the ``Act''), Petitioner alleges that imports of drawn 
stainless steel sinks 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 the Petition was filed on behalf of the 
domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that 
Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to 
the antidumping duty investigation that Petitioner is 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, 2011, through 
December 31, 2011.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is drawn stainless steel 
sinks from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the 
Investigation, please see the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in 
Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on Scope of the 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. 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 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 determinations. The Department encourages all interested 
parties to submit such comments by April 10, 2012, twenty calendar days 
from the signature date of this notice. All comments must be filed on 
the records of both the PRC antidumping and countervailing duty 
investigations. Comments should be filed electronically using Import 
Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). An electronically filed document 
must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's 
electronic records system, IA ACCESS. Documents excepted from the 
electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in 
paper form) with the APO/Dockets Unit in Room 1870 and stamped with the 
date and time of receipt by the deadline noted above.

Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Questionnaires

    We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the 
appropriate physical characteristics of drawn stainless steel sinks to 
be reported in response to the Department's antidumping questionnaires. 
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 drawn stainless steel sinks, 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 questionnaires, we must receive 
comments by April 10, 2012. Additionally, rebuttal comments must be 
received by April 17, 2012. All comments and submissions to the 
Department must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS, as referenced 
above.

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

[[Page 18208]]

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, or those producers 
whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major 
proportion of the total domestic production of the 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,\3\ 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \4\ 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, Petitioner does not offer 
a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that drawn stainless steel sinks 
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: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from 
the PRC (``AD Initiation Checklist'') at Attachment II dated 
concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via IA ACCESS. 
Access to documents filed via IA ACCESS is also available 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 the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this 
notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its own 2011 
production of the domestic like product, and compared this to the total 
production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic 
industry.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Volume I of the Petition at 3 and Exhibit I-1, and 
General Issues Supplement at 4; see also AD 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.\6\ First, 
the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) 
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to 
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling).\7\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) 
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the 
Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product.\8\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) 
have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the 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.\9\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
    \7\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also AD Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment II.
    \8\ See AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
    \9\ See 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 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; underselling and price depression or suppression; decline in 
financial performance; lost sales and revenue; and production, 
capacity, capacity utilization, shipment, and employment data.\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 8-25 and Exhibits I-4 
through I-32, and General Issues Supplement, at 4.
    \12\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate this investigation of imports of drawn stainless steel sinks 
from the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments 
relating to the U.S. price and the factors of production (``FOPs'') are 
also discussed in the initiation checklists.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See AD Initiation Checklist at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Export Price

    Petitioner calculated export price (``EP'') based on price quotes 
of certain drawn stainless steel sinks obtained from Chinese producers, 
as identified in affidavits regarding price offers and U.S.

[[Page 18209]]

price.\14\ Based on the price quotes and delivery terms, Petitioner 
deducted from these prices the charges and expenses associated with 
exporting and delivering the product to the U.S. customer (brokerage 
and handling and domestic inland freight).\15\ Petitioner made no other 
adjustments.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See AD Initiation Checklist at 6; see also Supplement to AD 
Petition at 7-8 and Exhibit II-S9.
    \15\ See AD Initiation Checklist at 5-6; see also Volume II of 
the Petition at 10 and Exhibits II-4; see also Supplement to AD 
Petition at 4-6 and Exhibits II-S1, II-S2, II-S3, II-S5 and II-S6.
    \16\ See AD Initiation Checklist at 6 for additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Petitioner states that the Department has long treated the PRC as a 
non-market economy (``NME'') country and this designation remains in 
effect today.\17\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, 
the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the 
Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been 
revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for 
purposes of the initiation of the PRC investigation. Accordingly, the 
NV of the product for the PRC investigation is appropriately based on 
FOPs valued in a surrogate market-economy (``ME'') country in 
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of the 
investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide 
relevant information related to the issue of the PRC's NME status and 
the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Volume II of the Petition at I-2; see also Utility 
Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of China and the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, 77 FR 3440 (January 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner claims that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country 
under 19 CFR 351.408(a) because it is an ME country that is at a 
comparable level of economic development to the PRC and surrogate 
values data from Thailand are available and reliable. Petitioner also 
believes that Thailand is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. Based on the information provided by Petitioner, we 
believe that it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country 
for initiation purposes. In the course 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 FOPs within 40 days after the date of publication 
of the preliminary determination.
    Petitioner calculated the NV and dumping margins for the U.S. 
price, as discussed above, using the Department's NME methodology as 
required by section 773(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 
19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner calculated NV based on its own consumption 
rates.\18\ Petitioner asserts that, to the best of Petitioner's 
knowledge, these consumption rates are very similar to the consumption 
rates of the PRC producers.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Volume II of the Petition at 4.
    \19\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner valued by-products and most FOPs based on reasonably 
available, public surrogate country data, specifically, Thai import 
statistics from the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'').\20\ Petitioner 
excluded from these import statistics values from countries previously 
determined by the Department to be NME countries, and from India, 
Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea, as the Department has previously 
excluded prices from these countries because they maintain broadly 
available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. Finally, the import 
statistics average unit value excludes imports that were labeled as 
originating from an ``unspecified'' country, because the Department 
could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a 
country with generally available export subsidies.\21\ For valuing 
other FOPs, Petitioner used sources selected by the Department in 
recent proceedings involving the PRC or publicly available sources from 
Thailand.\22\ In addition, Petitioner made Thai Baht/U.S. dollar 
(``USD'') currency conversions. The Department recalculated average 
exchange rates for the POI, based on Federal Reserve exchange rates, to 
use data for all months of the POI.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Volume II of the Petition at 6-8 and Exhibit II-5; see 
also Supplement to AD Petition at 2-3.
    \21\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), 
unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008); see also Volume 
II of the Petition at Exhibit II-5.
    \22\ See Volume II of the Petition at 5-8 and Exhibits II-4, II-
6-7, II-10-12, II-15 and II-17; see also Supplement to AD Petition 
at Exhibit II-S6.
    \23\ See Volume II of the Petition at Exhibit II-9; see also AD 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner determined labor costs using the labor consumption rates 
derived from a U.S. producer.\24\ Petitioner valued labor costs using 
Thai wage rates for manufacturing industries, as reported by the 
International Labor Organization (``ILO'') in Table 6A of its Yearbook 
of Labor Statistics.\25\ Petitioner inflated the wage rate to be 
contemporaneous with the POI using the International Financial 
Statistics' consumer price index inflators, consistent with the 
Department's practice.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibit II-2 and II-
6; see also Supplement to AD Petition at Exhibit II-S8.
    \25\ See AD Initiation Checklist at 7.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner used information published by the ``Board of Investment 
of Thailand'' (``BOI''), available on the Government of Thailand's 
official Web site, to value electricity and water.\27\ Since the water 
rates are not contemporaneous with the POI, Petitioner used Thai CPI as 
the inflating factor. However, Petitioner inadvertently calculated a 
deflator when they meant to calculate an inflator. We recalculated the 
inflator for water and revised the margin calculation, where 
appropriate.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See AD Initiation Checklist at 8.
    \28\ See Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at 7 and Exhibit II-
S3. See also AD Initiation Checklist at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner determined natural gas costs using Indian gas prices 
from the Indian Gas Utility Gail and substantiated these prices by 
Chemical Weekly in February 2005.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ For purposes of this Petition, the Petitioner 
conservatively relied on the Gail India rate because it is not aware 
of any case where the Department specified a Thai industrial natural 
gas rate for surrogate value purposes. See Volume II of the Petition 
at 7 and Exhibit II-12. See also AD Initiation Checklist at 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner based factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and profit on data from the 
financial statements of Siam Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. (``Siam'') and 
Green Power Engineering Co., Ltd. (``Green Power''), both of which 
Petitioner asserts are Thai producers of comparable merchandise.\30\ We 
determined that Siam's statements best reflect the U.S. producer's 
production experience. In our examination of Green Power's financial 
statements, we found no indication that Green Power produced 
merchandise comparable to the merchandise under investigation.\31\ 
Therefore, for purposes of initiation, we have relied solely on the 
financial statements of Siam to calculate factory overhead, selling, 
SG&A, and profit.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Volume II of the Petition at II-13 and Supplement to AD 
Petition at 3-4; see also AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
    \31\ See Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at 4.
    \32\ See 19 CFR 351.408(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner determined packing material costs using the consumption

[[Page 18210]]

rates derived from U.S. producer's experience, adjusted to reflect 
certain differences between U.S. and Chinese packing structures.\33\ 
Petitioner valued packing materials using GTA Thai import 
statistics.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Volume II of the Petition at 8 and Exhibit II-2; see 
also Supplement to AD Petition at Exhibit II-S8.
    \34\ See Volume II of the Petition at Exhibit II-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of drawn stainless steel sinks 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 EPs and NV calculated, in accordance 
with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for drawn 
stainless steel sinks from the PRC range from 22.81 percent to 76.53 
percent.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See AD Initiation Checklist at 9 and Attachment V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the Petition on drawn stainless steel 
sinks from the PRC, the Department finds that the Petition meets the 
requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an 
antidumping investigation to determine whether imports of drawn 
stainless steel sinks 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 determinations 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).\36\ 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.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing 
Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 74930 
(December 10, 2008).
    \37\ See id., 73 FR at 74931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to accomplish this objective, if any interested party 
wishes to make a targeted dumping allegation in either of these 
investigations 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 and Quantity and Value Questionnaire

    The Department will request quantity and value information from all 
known exporters and producers identified with complete contact 
information in the Petition.\38\ The quantity and value data received 
from Chinese exporters/producers will be used as the basis for 
selecting 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, as discussed below and in the Separate Rate section, in 
order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See General Issues Supplement.
    \39\ See, e.g., 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); see also 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 
From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value 
questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Import 
Administration Web site (https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html). Exporters and producers of drawn stainless steel sinks that 
do not receive quantity and value questionnaires but intend to submit a 
response can obtain a copy from the Import Administration Web site. The 
quantity and value questionnaire must be submitted by all Chinese 
exporters/producers no later than April 11, 2012, 21 days after the 
signature date 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 may be found on the Department's Web site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status 
application.\40\ 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://trade.gov/ia/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 
the PRC 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://trade.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html 
on the date of the publication of this initiation notice in the Federal 
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (``Separate 
Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin''), available on the 
Department's Web site at https://trade.gov/ia/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Combination Rates

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

    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise 
to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both 
to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated 
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms 
receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. 
This practice is referred to as the application of ``combination 
rates'' because such rates apply to specific combinations of 
exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned 
to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the 
firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 
during the period of investigation.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Separate Rates and Combination Rates 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), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been 
provided to the representatives of the Chinese Government. Because of 
the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the 
Petition, the

[[Page 18211]]

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 PRC Government, 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 April 16, 2012, 
whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of drawn 
stainless steel sinks from the PRC are materially injuring, or 
threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC 
determination with respect to any country will result in the 
investigation being terminated for that country; 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(b). 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.\42\ 
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 proceeding initiated on 
or after March 14, 2011.\43\ The formats for the revised certifications 
are provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule and the Supplemental 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \43\ 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) & (2)), as 
supplemented by Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Supplemental Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 (September 
2, 2011) (``Supplemental Interim Final Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Dated: March 21, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by the scope of these investigations are 
stainless steel sinks with single or multiple drawn bowls, with or 
without drain boards, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of 
type of finish, gauge, or grade of stainless steel (``Drawn 
Stainless Steel Sinks''). Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and 
sound-deadening pads are also covered by the scope of these 
investigations if they are included within the sales price of the 
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks.\44\ For purposes of this scope 
definition, the term ``drawn'' refers to a manufacturing process 
using metal forming technology to produce a smooth basin with 
seamless, smooth, and rounded corners. Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks 
are available in various shapes and configurations and may be 
described in a number of ways including flush mount, top mount, or 
undermount (to indicate the attachment relative to the countertop). 
Stainless steel sinks with multiple drawn bowls that are joined 
through a welding operation to form one unit are covered by the 
scope of the investigations. Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks are covered 
by the scope of the investigations whether or not they are sold in 
conjunction with non-subject accessories such as faucets (whether 
attached or unattached), strainers, strainer sets, rinsing baskets, 
bottom grids, or other accessories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening pads 
are not covered by the scope of these investigations if they are not 
included within the sales price of the Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks, 
regardless of whether they are shipped with or entered with Drawn 
Stainless Steel Sinks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluded from the scope of the investigations are stainless 
steel sinks with fabricated bowls. Fabricated bowls do not have 
seamless corners, but rather are made by notching and bending the 
stainless steel, and then welding and finishing the vertical corners 
to form the bowls. Stainless steel sinks with fabricated bowls may 
sometimes be referred to as ``zero radius'' or ``near zero radius'' 
sinks.
    The products covered by these investigations are currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') under statistical reporting number 7324.10.0000. 
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the products under 
investigation is dispositive of its inclusion as subject 
merchandise.

[FR Doc. 2012-7353 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P