Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the United Arab Emirates: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 19219-19224 [2012-7746]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Disclosure and Public Comment
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b), we will disclose to the
parties the calculations for this
preliminary determination within five
days of its announcement. Due to the
anticipated timing of verification and
issuance of verification reports, case
briefs for this investigation must be
submitted no later than one week after
the issuance of the last verification
report. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) (for a
further discussion of case briefs).
Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five
days after the deadline for submission of
case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities relied
upon, a table of contents, and an
executive summary of issues should
accompany any briefs submitted to the
Department. Executive summaries
should be limited to five pages total,
including footnotes. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
Section 774 of the Act provides that
the Department will hold a public
hearing to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on arguments
raised in case or rebuttal briefs,
provided that such a hearing is
requested by an interested party. If a
request for a hearing is made in this
investigation, the hearing will be held
two days after the deadline for
submission of the rebuttal briefs,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), at the
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should
confirm by telephone the time, date, and
place of the hearing 48 hours before the
scheduled time.
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must electronically submit a
written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration
using IA ACCESS, within 30 days of the
publication of this notice, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should
contain: (1) The party’s name, address,
and telephone; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of the issues
to be discussed. Oral presentations will
be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
Id.
This determination is published
pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of
the Act.
International Trade Administration
Dated: March 26, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–7748 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
[C–520–806]
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel
Pipe From the United Arab Emirates:
Preliminary Negative Countervailing
Duty Determination and Alignment of
Final Countervailing Duty
Determination With Final Antidumping
Duty Determination
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
preliminarily determines that
countervailable subsidies are not being
provided to producers and exporters of
circular welded carbon-quality steel
pipe (‘‘circular welded pipe’’) from the
United Arab Emirates (‘‘UAE’’).
DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua Morris or Dustin Ross, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1779 and (202)
482–0747, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Case History
The following events have occurred
since the publication of the Department
of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’)
notice of initiation in the Federal
Register. See Circular Welded CarbonQuality Steel Pipe from India, the
Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab
Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing
Duty Investigations, 76 FR 72173
(November 22, 2011) (‘‘Initiation
Notice’’), and the accompanying
Initiation Checklist.
On November 22, 2011, the
Department released the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data on
imports of subject merchandise during
the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’),
under administrative protective order
(‘‘APO’’) to all parties with APO access.
See Memorandum to the File from
Joshua Morris, ‘‘Release of Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) Data,’’ dated
November 22, 2011. On November 30,
2011, we received comments on the data
from Wheatland Tube, one of the
petitioners in this investigation. On
December 16, 2011, the Department
selected two Emirati producers/
exporters of circular welded pipe as
mandatory company respondents: (1)
Abu Dhabi Metal Pipes & Profiles
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19219
Industries Complex LLC (‘‘ADPICO’’);
and (2) Universal Tube and Plastic
Industries, Ltd. (‘‘Universal Plastic’’).
See Memorandum to Christian Marsh,
‘‘Respondent Selection Memorandum,’’
dated December 16, 2011. This
memorandum is on file electronically in
Import Administration’s Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’), with access to IA ACCESS
available in the Department’s Central
Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), room 7046 of the
main Department building.
Also on December 16, 2011, the U.S.
International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
published its affirmative preliminary
determination that there is a reasonable
indication that an industry in the
United States is materially injured by
reason of allegedly subsidized imports
of circular welded pipe from India, the
Sultanate of Oman, the UAE, and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel
Pipe from India, Oman, the United Arab
Emirates, and Vietnam, 76 FR 78313
(December 16, 2011).
On December 19, 2011, the
Department postponed the deadline for
the preliminary determination in this
investigation until March 26, 2012. See
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel
Pipe from India, the Sultanate of Oman,
the United Arab Emirates, and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Postponement of Preliminary
Determinations in the Countervailing
Duty Investigations, 76 FR 78615
(December 19, 2011). In conjunction
with this postponement, the Department
also postponed the deadline for the
submission of new subsidy allegations
until February 15, 2012. See
Memorandum to the File from Joshua S.
Morris, ‘‘New Subsidy Allegation
Deadline: Circular Welded CarbonQuality Steel Pipe from India, the
Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab
Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam,’’ dated, December 15, 2011.
On December 21, 2011, the
Department issued countervailing duty
(‘‘CVD’’) questionnaires to the
Government of the UAE (‘‘GUAE’’),
ADPICO, and Universal Plastic. The
Department received responses from
Universal Plastic (‘‘UQR’’) on February
16, 2012, and both the GUAE (‘‘GQR’’)
and ADPICO (‘‘AQR’’) on February 17,
2012. The Department received
responses to supplemental
questionnaires from ADPICO on March
14, 2012, and from Universal Plastic,
and the GUAE (‘‘GSR’’) on March 16,
2012.
Wheatland Tube requested two
extensions of the deadline for filing new
subsidy allegations. As a result, this
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
19220
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
deadline was extended from February
15 to February 24, and then to February
28, 2012. See Memorandum to the File
from Susan Kuhbach, ‘‘New Subsidy
Allegation Deadline: Circular Welded
Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India,
the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab
Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam,’’ dated February 6, 2012, and
Letter to Interested Parties, dated
February 24, 2012.
On February 28, 2012, Wheatland
Tube submitted new subsidy allegations
requesting the Department to expand its
CVD investigation to include an
additional subsidy program, while also
requesting that the Department modify
its investigation of already alleged
programs in light of information placed
on the record of the proceeding by the
respondents. See Letter from Petitioner
Wheatland Tube, ‘‘New Subsidies
Allegation and Additional Factual
Information,’’ dated February 28, 2012.
On March 16, 2012, the Department
initiated an investigation into the new
subsidy allegations. See Memorandum
to Susan H. Kuhbach, ‘‘Analysis of
Petitioners’ New Subsidy Allegations,’’
dated March 16, 2012. On March 26,
2012, the Department issued
supplemental questionnaires regarding
this new subsidy allegation to the
GUAE, ADPICO, and Universal Plastic.
On March 19, 2012, Wheatland Tube
submitted pre-preliminary
determination comments with respect to
this investigation. On March 22, 2012,
the GUAE also submitted prepreliminary determination comments.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Period of Investigation
The period for which we are
measuring subsidies, i.e., the POI, is
January 1, 2010, through December 31,
2010.
Scope Comments
In accordance with the preamble to
the Department’s regulations, we set
aside a period of time in our Initiation
Notice for parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage, and
encouraged all parties to submit
comments within 20 calendar days of
publication of that notice. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19,
1997), and Initiation Notice, 76 FR at
72173. On December 5, 2011, SeAH
Steel VINA Corp. (‘‘SeAH VINA’’), a
mandatory respondent in the concurrent
countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) circular
welded pipe from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam investigation, filed
comments arguing that the treatment of
double and triple stenciled pipe in the
scope of these investigations differs
from previous treatment of these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
products under other orders on circular
pipe. Specifically, SeAH VINA claims
that the Brazilian, Korean, and Mexican
orders on these products exclude
‘‘Standard pipe that is dual or triple
certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as
line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas
pipelines * * *’’ See, e.g., Certain
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and
Taiwan; and Certain Circular Welded
Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From
Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited
Third Sunset Reviews of the
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 66899,
66900 (Oct. 28, 2011). According to
SeAH VINA: (i) If the term ‘‘class or
kind of merchandise’’ has meaning, it
cannot have a different meaning when
applied to the same products in two
different cases; and (ii) the distinction
between standard and line pipe
reflected in the Brazil, Korean and
Mexican orders derives from customs
classifications administered by CBP
and, thus, is more administrable.
On December 14, 2011, Allied Tube
and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and
Wheatland Tube (collectively, ‘‘certain
Petitioners’’) responded to SeAH VINA’s
comments stating that the scope as it
appeared in the Initiation Notice
reflected Petitioners’ intended coverage.
Certain Petitioners contend that pipe
that is multi-stenciled to both line pipe
and standard pipe specifications and
meets the physical characteristics listed
in the scope (i.e., is 32 feet in length or
less; is less than 2.0 inches (50mm) in
outside diameter; has a galvanized and/
or painted (e.g., polyester coated)
surface finish; or has a threaded and/or
coupled end finish) is ordinarily used in
standard pipe applications. In recent
years, certain Petitioners state, the
Department has rejected end-use scope
classifications, preferring instead to rely
on physical characteristics to define
coverage, and the scope of these
investigations has been written
accordingly. Therefore, certain
Petitioners ask the Department to reject
SeAH VINA’s proposed scope
modification.
We agree with certain Petitioners that
the Department seeks to define the
scopes of its proceedings based on the
physical characteristics of the
merchandise. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Affirmative Final
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon
Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5,
2008) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
Moreover, we disagree with SeAH
VINA’s contention that once a ‘‘class or
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
kind of merchandise’’ has been
established that the same scope
description must apply across all
proceedings involving the product. For
example, as the Department has gained
experience in administering
antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) and CVD
orders, it has shifted away from end use
classifications to scopes defined by the
physical characteristics. Id. Thus,
proceedings initiated on a given product
many years ago may have end use
classifications while more recent
proceedings on the product would not.
Compare Countervailing Duty Order: Oil
Country Tubular Goods from Canada,
51 FR 21783 (June 16, 1986) (describing
subject merchandise as being ‘‘intended
for use in drilling for oil and gas’’) with
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
From the People’s Republic of China:
Amended Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination and
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203
(January 20, 2010) (describing the
subject merchandise in terms of
physical characteristics without regard
to use or intended use). Finally, certain
Petitioners have indicated the domestic
industry’s intent to include multistenciled products that otherwise meet
the physical characteristics set out in
the scope. Therefore, the Department is
not adopting SeAH VINA’s proposed
modification of the scope.
Scope of the Investigation
This investigation covers welded
carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of
circular cross-section, with an outside
diameter (‘‘O.D.’’) not more than 16
inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall
thickness, surface finish (e.g., black,
galvanized, or painted), end finish
(plain end, beveled end, grooved,
threaded, or threaded and coupled), or
industry specification (e.g., American
Society for Testing and Materials
International (‘‘ASTM’’), proprietary, or
other) generally known as standard
pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler
pipe, and structural pipe (although
subject product may also be referred to
as mechanical tubing). Specifically, the
term ‘‘carbon quality’’ includes products
in which: (a) Iron predominates, by
weight, over each of the other contained
elements; (b) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and (c) none
of the elements listed below exceeds the
quantity, by weight, as indicated:
(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium;
(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Subject pipe is ordinarily made to
ASTM specifications A53, A135, and
A795, but can also be made to other
specifications. Structural pipe is made
primarily to ASTM specifications A252
and A500. Standard and structural pipe
may also be produced to proprietary
specifications rather than to industry
specifications. Fence tubing is included
in the scope regardless of certification to
a specification listed in the exclusions
below, and can also be made to the
ASTM A513 specification. Sprinkler
pipe is designed for sprinkler fire
suppression systems and may be made
to industry specifications such as ASTM
A53 or to proprietary specifications.
These products are generally made to
standard O.D. and wall thickness
combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a
standard and/or structural specification
and to other specifications, such as
American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’)
API–5L specification, is also covered by
the scope of this investigation when it
meets the physical description set forth
above, and also has one or more of the
following characteristics: Is 32 feet in
length or less; is less than 2.0 inches
(50mm) in outside diameter; has a
galvanized and/or painted (e.g.,
polyester coated) surface finish; or has
a threaded and/or coupled end finish.
The scope of this investigation does
not include: (a) Pipe suitable for use in
boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers,
refining furnaces and feedwater heaters,
whether or not cold drawn; (b) finished
electrical conduit; (c) finished
scaffolding;1 (d) tube and pipe hollows
for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular
goods produced to API specifications; (f)
line pipe produced to only API
specifications; and (g) mechanical
tubing, whether or not cold-drawn.
However, products certified to ASTM
mechanical tubing specifications are not
excluded as mechanical tubing if they
otherwise meet the standard sizes (e.g.,
outside diameter and wall thickness) of
standard, structural, fence and sprinkler
pipe. Also, products made to the
following outside diameter and wall
thickness combinations, which are
recognized by the industry as typical for
fence tubing, would not be excluded
1 Finished scaffolding is defined as component
parts of final, finished scaffolding that enters the
United States unassembled as a ‘‘kit.’’ A ‘‘kit’’ is
understood to mean a packaged combination of
component parts that contain, at the time of
importation, all the necessary component parts to
fully assemble a final, finished scaffolding.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
from the scope based solely on their
being certified to ASTM mechanical
tubing specifications:
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.035 inch wall
thickness (gage 20)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall
thickness (gage 18)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall
thickness (gage 17)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall
thickness (gage 16)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall
thickness (gage 15)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall
thickness (gage 14)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall
thickness (gage 13)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall
thickness (gage 18)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall
thickness (gage 17)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall
thickness (gage 16)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall
thickness (gage 15)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall
thickness (gage 14)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall
thickness (gage 13)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall
thickness (gage 12)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall
thickness (gage 18)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall
thickness (gage 17)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall
thickness (gage 16)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall
thickness (gage 15)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall
thickness (gage 13)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall
thickness (gage 12)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall
thickness (gage 18)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall
thickness (gage 17)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall
thickness (gage 16)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall
thickness (gage 15)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall
thickness (gage 13)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall
thickness (gage 12)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.120 inch wall
thickness (gage 11)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall
thickness (gage 12)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.134 inch wall
thickness (gage 10)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall
thickness (gage 8)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall
thickness (gage 12)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall
thickness (gage 9)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall
thickness (gage 8)
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall
thickness (gage 9)
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall
thickness (gage 8)
4.500 inch O.D. and 0.203 inch wall
thickness (gage 7)
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19221
The pipe subject to this investigation
is currently classifiable in Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical reporting numbers
7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050,
7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150,
7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025,
7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040,
7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085,
7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000,
7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise under the investigation is
dispositive.
Alignment of Final Determination
On November 22, 2011, the
Department initiated an AD
investigation concurrent with this CVD
investigation of circular welded pipe
from the UAE. See Circular Welded
Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India,
the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab
Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping
Duty Investigations, 76 FR 72164
(November 22, 2011). The scope of the
merchandise being covered is the same
for both the AD and CVD investigations.
On March 23, 2012, Petitioners
submitted a letter, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.210(b)(4)(i), requesting
alignment of the final CVD
determination with the final
determination in the companion AD
investigation. Therefore, in accordance
with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’) and 19 CFR
351.210(b)(4), the final CVD
determination will be issued on the
same date as the final AD
determination, which is currently
scheduled to be issued on August 6,
2012.
Subsidies Valuation Information
Allocation Period
Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), the
Department presumes the allocation
period for non-recurring subsidies to be
the average useful life (‘‘AUL’’) of the
renewable physical assets for the
industry concerned, as listed in the
tables of the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service’s (‘‘IRS’’) 1977 Class Life Asset
Depreciation Range System, as updated
by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
According to the updated AUL tables of
the IRS, the AUL period for the relevant
industry in this proceeding is 15 years.
See U.S. Internal Revenue Service
Publication 946 (2008), How to
Depreciate Property, at Table B–2: Table
of Class Lives and Recovery Periods. No
party in this proceeding has disputed
this allocation period.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
19222
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
Attribution of Subsidies
The Department’s regulations at 19
CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that the
Department will normally attribute a
subsidy to the products produced by the
corporation that received the subsidy.
However, 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii)
through (v) directs that the Department
will attribute subsidies received by
certain other companies to the
combined sales of those companies if (1)
cross-ownership exists between the
companies, and (2) the cross-owned
companies produce the subject
merchandise, are a holding or parent
company of the subject company,
produce an input that is primarily
dedicated to the production of the
downstream product, or transfer a
subsidy to a cross-owned company.
According to 19 CFR
351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists
between two or more corporations
where one corporation can use or direct
the individual assets of the other
corporation(s) in essentially the same
ways it can use its own assets. This
regulation states that this standard will
normally be met where there is a
majority voting interest between two
corporations or through common
ownership of two (or more)
corporations. The Court of International
Trade (‘‘CIT’’) has upheld the
Department’s authority to attribute
subsidies based on whether a company
could use or direct the subsidy benefits
of another company in essentially the
same way it could use its own subsidy
benefits. See Fabrique de Fer de
Charleroi, SA v. United States, 166 F.
Supp. 2d 593, 600–604 (CIT 2001).
ADPICO
ADPICO stated that it is a UAEregistered limited liability company,
with 51 percent ownership by a UAE
national, and 49 percent ownership by
a Swiss-registered company. ADPICO
also stated that it has no affiliates and
responded to the Department’s original
and supplemental questionnaires on
behalf of itself.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Universal Plastic
Universal Plastic responded to the
Department’s original and supplemental
questionnaires on behalf of itself and
two affiliates: KHK Scaffolding and
Formwork LLC (‘‘KHK’’) and Universal
Tube and Pipe Industries LLC
(‘‘Universal Pipe’’).
We preliminarily determine that
Universal Plastic, KHK, and Universal
Pipe are cross-owned within the
meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) by
virtue of common ownership. Moreover,
because KHK and Universal Pipe are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
also producers of subject merchandise,
any subsidies received by Universal
Plastic, KHK, and Universal Pipe would
be attributed to the combined sales of
Universal Plastic, KHK, and Universal
Pipe (excluding intercompany sales), in
accordance with 19 CFR
351.525(b)(6)(ii).
Analysis of Programs
Based upon our analysis of the
petition and the responses to our
questionnaires, we preliminarily
determine the following:
I. Programs Preliminarily Determined
Not To Exist
A. Profit Tax Exemptions Under UAE
Federal Law No.1 of 1979 (‘‘1979
Federal Law’’)
According to the GUAE, (1) the
provisions of the 1979 Federal Law that
provide for profit tax exemptions were
never implemented, and (2) the only
entities in the UAE subject to income
tax are foreign-owned banks and
foreign-owned energy companies. See
GQR at 6. Therefore, we preliminarily
determine that this program does not
exist.
B. Provision of Electricity for LTAR
Under the 1979 Federal Law and the
Gulf Cooperation Council (‘‘GCC’’)
Common Industrial Regulatory Law
According to the GUAE, the
provisions of the 1979 Federal Law and
the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory
Law that relate to the provision of
electricity at incentivized rates were
never implemented. See GQR at 4; see
also GSR at 17. Therefore, we
preliminarily determine that this
program does not exist.
C. Provision of Land and/or Buildings
for LTAR Under the 1979 Federal Law
and the GCC Common Industrial
Regulatory Law
According to the GUAE, the
provisions of the 1979 Federal Law and
the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory
Law that relate to the provision of land
and/or buildings at incentivized rates
were never implemented. See GQR at 7;
see also GSR at 17. Therefore, we
preliminarily determine that this
program does not exist.
D. Provision of Water for LTAR Under
the 1979 Federal Law and the GCC
Common Industrial Regulatory Law
According to the GUAE, the
provisions of the 1979 Federal Law and
the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory
Law that relate to the provision of water
at incentivized rates were never
implemented. See GQR at 8; see also
GSR at 17. Therefore, we preliminarily
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
determine that this program does not
exist.
E. Preferential Export Lending Under
the 1979 Federal Law
According to the GUAE, the
provisions of the 1979 Federal Law that
relate to preferential export lending
were never implemented. See GQR at 5.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine
that this program does not exist.
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined
Not To Be Countervailable
A. Dubai Commodity Receipts (‘‘DCRs’’)
DCRs are negotiable warehouse
receipts that are issued electronically by
the Dubai Multi Commodities Center
(‘‘DMCC’’), a GUAE-owned facility, to
facilitate the financing of goods.
Petitioners have alleged that, by virtue
of the GUAE’s role through DMCC, DCRbacked financing comes with an
implicit government guarantee, which
allows lenders to obtain lower financing
costs that they could otherwise obtain
outside the DMCC facility.
Beginning in 2004, the DCR platform
consists of three types of parties:
commodity owners (the ‘‘originators’’),
warehouse keepers (the ‘‘issuers’’), and
financiers. The DCR platform allows
commodity owners (i.e., originators) to
request warehouse keepers (i.e., issuers)
to issue DCRs, which represent goods
stored at a warehouse or vault which is
managed by the issuer. Originators then
‘‘pledge’’ the receipt to financiers to
obtain inventory-backed loans from the
financiers. According to the GUAE, the
program is open to financiers around
the world, provided they are approved
by the DMCC. See GQR at 30.
During the POI, ADPICO was the only
respondent to participate in this
program. Id. at 29. In particular,
ADPICO had outstanding loans as part
of its trade financing arrangements with
a bank in Switzerland during the POI.
Id. The GUAE asserts that at no point
did the DMCC offer a guarantee, implicit
or otherwise, on loan agreements
between ADPICO and its financiers, or
act as bank guarantor of the DCR
platform. See GQR at Exhibit 11.
Moreover, the DMCC’s Rules clearly
indicate that the DMCC assumes no
liabilities for DCR-backed financing that
may default. In relevant parts, the Rules
state the following:
5.4 Liability of DMCC
5.4.1 Each DCR Member confirms that the
liability of DMCC for acting as its
commission agent pursuant to the Rules
(including under this Clause 5) shall be
limited by Clause 13 (Limitation of Liability
of DMCC).
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
5.4.2 Each Legal Owner and each
Financier acknowledges that DMCC provides
close out settlement services under these
Rules, and acts as commission agent for any
Legal Owner, solely for the purposes of
facilitating the smooth operation of the DCR
System and the efficient settlement of the
liabilities of the Legal Owners and the
Financiers following a Close Out Trigger
Event. The DCR Members confirm that DMCC
shall have no liability to any Legal Owner,
any Financier or any other DCR Member by
virtue of its appointment as commission
agent for a Legal Owner under this Clause 5
or any exercise by DMCC of its obligation to
sell any DCR (or the Goods represented by
that DCR) following a Close Out Trigger
Event as provided for in this Clause 5.
*
*
*
*
*
13.1
Limitation of Liability
*
*
*
*
*
(b) [T]hese Rules expressly set forth all the
duties of DMCC with respect to any and all
matters pertinent hereto, and shall not be
interpreted so as to impose any implied
duties or obligations on DMCC. DMCC shall
not be bound by the provisions of any prior
agreement with any DCR Member to the
extent that such prior agreement conflicts
with these Rules.
See GQR at Exhibit 12 (emphases added).
In light of the above, we find that
DCR-backed financing obtained by DCR
holders is not subject to any guarantee,
implicit or otherwise, that is provided
by the government through DMCC and,
thus, does not give rise to a transfer, or
potential transfer, of government funds
to the participants in the DCR financing
facility.
Consequently, we preliminarily
determine that, while ADPICO did
participate in the DCR financing
program, no financial contribution
exists within the meaning of section
771(5)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we
preliminarily determine that this
program is not countervailable.
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined
To Not Be Used by Respondents During
the POI
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. Concessionary Lending From the
Emirates Industrial Bank
In addition to investigating
preferential export loans granted under
the 1979 Federal Law, the Department
also investigated preferential export
loans extended through the Emirates
Industrial Bank (now called the
‘‘Emirates National Bank’’). We
preliminarily determine that none of the
respondents had loans from the
Emirates National Bank outstanding
during the POI.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
IV. Programs for Which More
Information Is Required
A. Tariff Exemptions Under 1979
Federal Law and GCC Common
Industrial Regulatory Law
Implemented in 1980, pursuant to the
1979 Federal Law, and subsequently
available in accordance with the GCC
Customs Union Agreement (2003),
industrial establishments operating
within the UAE may be exempted from
the five percent customs duty on
imports of raw materials and capital
goods. See GQR at 9. In 2005, the GUAE
issued Federal Decree No. 73, which
implemented the GCC Common
Industrial Regulatory Law (2004),
establishing the current process for
industrial companies to be eligible for,
and receive, a tariff exemption. Id. at 4
and 11–14.
To receive this duty exemption, an
industrial establishment operating with
a valid industrial license applies
through an online electronic processing
system, known as the Duty Exemption
Service. Id. at 11–12 and 16. This
application is automatically and
immediately analyzed on the basis of
the information that has previously been
provided by the applicant during the
registration proceedings to get its
industrial license, i.e., the applicant is
required to submit the list of all items
that it intends to import to run its
industrial activity upon applying for its
industrial license. Id. at 12–14. The
GUAE further states that the 1979
Federal Law and the GCC Common
Industrial Regulatory Law do not apply
to companies in free trade zones. Id. at
4. The tariff exemption program is
administered by the Section of Duty
Exemptions within the Directorate of
Industrial Development under the
Industrial Affairs Department as part of
the Ministry of Economy. Id. at 9.
ADPICO has benefited from this
program since 2002. See AQR at
Appendix 5. Universal Plastic and the
GUAE reported that Universal Plastic
operates within the Jebel Ali Free Trade
Zone (‘‘JAFZ’’) and, therefore, could not
have benefited from any alleged
subsidies under the 1979 Federal Law or
the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory
Law. See UQR at 13 and GQR at 4.
However, Universal Pipe and KHK did
benefit from this program.
Under Chapter Seven of the GCC
Common Industrial Regulatory Law,
Article (16) states that certain
‘‘industrial projects shall have the
priority of privileges and exemptions,’’
and lists ‘‘projects producing export
goods’’ among the activities that will
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19223
benefit from the ‘‘priority of privileges
and exemptions.’’ See GQR Exhibit 4 at
page 12. We find that the Department
needs additional information to better
assess whether tariff exemptions
provided under this program are
specific within the meaning of section
771(5A) of the Act. In particular, we
intend to seek information regarding the
meaning of ‘‘priority’’ in this context
and how it is implemented in granting
tariff exemptions. We intend to seek
additional information, and further
address this program in a postpreliminary analysis.
B. Provision of Natural Gas for LTAR
As discussed above, new subsidy
allegation questionnaires were sent to
the respondents on March 26, 2012, and
responses are still outstanding with
respect to this program. Because we lack
necessary information to make a
preliminary determination at this time,
we intend to address the
countervailability of this program in the
post-preliminary analysis.
Verification
In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of
the Act, we will verify the information
submitted by the respondents prior to
making our final determination.
Preliminary Negative Determination
In accordance with section
703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have
calculated individual subsidy rates for
ADPICO and Universal Plastic, the two
mandatory producers/exporters. Section
705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act provides that
the all others rate will generally be an
amount equal to the weighted average
countervailable subsidy rates
established for exporters or producers
individually investigated, excluding any
zero or de minimis countervailable
subsidy rates and any rates determined
entirely on the basis of fact available. In
this case, however, the countervailable
subsidy rates for all of the individually
investigated exporters or producers are
zero. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act
provides that, when this is the case, the
administering authority may use any
reasonable method to establish the all
others rate, including averaging the
weighted average countervailable
subsidy rates determined for the
exporters and producers individually
examined. Thus, to calculate the all
others rate, we averaged the individual
rates of the ADPICO and Universal
Plastic. Therefore, we assigned a zero
rate to all other producers and
exporters.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
19224
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
Exporter/manufacturer
Net subsidy rate
Abu Dhabi Metal Pipes & Profiles Industries Complex LLC ............................................................................................................
Universal Tube and Plastic Industries, Ltd.; KHK Scaffolding and Formwork LLC; and Universal Tube and Pipe Industries LLC
All Others ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
Because all of the rates are zero, we
preliminarily determine that no
countervailable subsidies are being
provided to the production or
exportation of circular welded pipe in
the UAE. As such, we will not direct
CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of
circular welded pipe from the UAE.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) of
the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. In addition, we are
making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary
information relating to this
investigation. We will allow the ITC
access to all privileged and business
proprietary information in our files,
provided the ITC confirms that it will
not disclose such information, either
publicly or under an administrative
protective order, without the written
consent of the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration.
In accordance with section 705(b)(3)
of the Act, if our final determination is
affirmative, the ITC will make its final
determination within 75 days after the
Department makes its final
determination.
Disclosure and Public Comment
Due to the anticipated timing of
verification and issuance of verification
reports, case briefs for this investigation
must be submitted no later than one
week after the issuance of the last
verification report. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(i) for a further discussion of
case briefs. Rebuttal briefs must be filed
within five days after the deadline for
submission of case briefs, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities
relied upon, a table of contents, and an
executive summary of issues should
accompany any briefs submitted to the
Department. Executive summaries
should be limited to five pages total,
including footnotes. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
Section 774 of the Act provides that
the Department will hold a public
hearing to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on arguments
raised in case or rebuttal briefs,
provided that such a hearing is
requested by an interested party. If a
request for a hearing is made in this
investigation, the hearing will be held
two days after the deadline for
submission of the rebuttal briefs,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), at the
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should
confirm by telephone the time, date, and
place of the hearing 48 hours before the
scheduled time.
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must electronically submit a
written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration
using IA ACCESS, within 30 days of the
publication of this notice, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should
contain: (1) The party’s name, address,
and telephone; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of the issues
to be discussed. Oral presentations will
be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
Id.
This determination is published
pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: March 26, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–7746 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Advisory Committee on Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Meeting
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
AGENCY:
The Advisory Committee on
Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR
or Committee), will hold a meeting via
teleconference on Friday, April 20, 2012
from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Time. The
primary purpose of this meeting is to
develop the Committee’s draft annual
report to the NIST Director. Any draft
meeting materials will be posted on the
NEHRP Web site at https://nehrp.gov/.
Interested members of the public will be
able to participate in the meeting from
remote locations by calling into a
central phone number.
DATES: The ACEHR will hold a meeting
via teleconference on Friday, April 20,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Zero.
Zero.
Zero.
2012, from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. Eastern
Time.
ADDRESSES: Questions regarding the
meeting should be sent to National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
Director, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail
Stop 8604, Gaithersburg, Maryland
20899–8604. For instructions on how to
participate in the meeting, please see
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Jack Hayes, National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program Director,
National Institute of Standards and
Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail
Stop 8604, Gaithersburg, Maryland
20899–8604. Dr. Hayes’ email address is
jack.hayes@nist.gov and his phone
number is (301) 975–5640.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Committee was established in
accordance with the requirements of
Section 103 of the NEHRP
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L.
108–360). The Committee is composed
of 12 members appointed by the
Director of NIST, who were selected for
their technical expertise and experience,
established records of distinguished
professional service, and their
knowledge of issues affecting the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program. In addition, the Chairperson of
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee (SESAC) serves in an exofficio capacity on the Committee. The
Committee assesses:
• Trends and developments in the
science and engineering of earthquake
hazards reduction;
• The effectiveness of NEHRP in
performing its statutory activities
(improved design and construction
methods and practices; land use
controls and redevelopment; prediction
techniques and early-warning systems;
coordinated emergency preparedness
plans; and public education and
involvement programs);
• Any need to revise NEHRP; and
• The management, coordination,
implementation, and activities of
NEHRP.
Background information on NEHRP
and the Advisory Committee is available
at https://nehrp.gov/.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app., notice is
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19219-19224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7746]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-520-806]
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the United Arab
Emirates: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final
Antidumping Duty Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce preliminarily determines that
countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and
exporters of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (``circular
welded pipe'') from the United Arab Emirates (``UAE'').
DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Morris or Dustin Ross, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1779 and (202) 482-0747, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The following events have occurred since the publication of the
Department of Commerce's (``the Department'') notice of initiation in
the Federal Register. See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe
from India, the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigations, 76 FR 72173 (November 22, 2011) (``Initiation
Notice''), and the accompanying Initiation Checklist.
On November 22, 2011, the Department released the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP'') data on imports of subject merchandise
during the period of investigation (``POI''), under administrative
protective order (``APO'') to all parties with APO access. See
Memorandum to the File from Joshua Morris, ``Release of Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP'') Data,'' dated November 22, 2011. On
November 30, 2011, we received comments on the data from Wheatland
Tube, one of the petitioners in this investigation. On December 16,
2011, the Department selected two Emirati producers/exporters of
circular welded pipe as mandatory company respondents: (1) Abu Dhabi
Metal Pipes & Profiles Industries Complex LLC (``ADPICO''); and (2)
Universal Tube and Plastic Industries, Ltd. (``Universal Plastic'').
See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, ``Respondent Selection Memorandum,''
dated December 16, 2011. This memorandum is on file electronically in
Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''), with access to IA ACCESS
available in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), room 7046
of the main Department building.
Also on December 16, 2011, the U.S. International Trade Commission
(``ITC'') published its affirmative preliminary determination that
there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States
is materially injured by reason of allegedly subsidized imports of
circular welded pipe from India, the Sultanate of Oman, the UAE, and
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality
Steel Pipe from India, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, 76
FR 78313 (December 16, 2011).
On December 19, 2011, the Department postponed the deadline for the
preliminary determination in this investigation until March 26, 2012.
See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, the Sultanate
of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the
Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 78615 (December 19, 2011). In
conjunction with this postponement, the Department also postponed the
deadline for the submission of new subsidy allegations until February
15, 2012. See Memorandum to the File from Joshua S. Morris, ``New
Subsidy Allegation Deadline: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe
from India, the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' dated, December 15, 2011.
On December 21, 2011, the Department issued countervailing duty
(``CVD'') questionnaires to the Government of the UAE (``GUAE''),
ADPICO, and Universal Plastic. The Department received responses from
Universal Plastic (``UQR'') on February 16, 2012, and both the GUAE
(``GQR'') and ADPICO (``AQR'') on February 17, 2012. The Department
received responses to supplemental questionnaires from ADPICO on March
14, 2012, and from Universal Plastic, and the GUAE (``GSR'') on March
16, 2012.
Wheatland Tube requested two extensions of the deadline for filing
new subsidy allegations. As a result, this
[[Page 19220]]
deadline was extended from February 15 to February 24, and then to
February 28, 2012. See Memorandum to the File from Susan Kuhbach, ``New
Subsidy Allegation Deadline: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe
from India, the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' dated February 6, 2012, and Letter to
Interested Parties, dated February 24, 2012.
On February 28, 2012, Wheatland Tube submitted new subsidy
allegations requesting the Department to expand its CVD investigation
to include an additional subsidy program, while also requesting that
the Department modify its investigation of already alleged programs in
light of information placed on the record of the proceeding by the
respondents. See Letter from Petitioner Wheatland Tube, ``New Subsidies
Allegation and Additional Factual Information,'' dated February 28,
2012. On March 16, 2012, the Department initiated an investigation into
the new subsidy allegations. See Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach,
``Analysis of Petitioners' New Subsidy Allegations,'' dated March 16,
2012. On March 26, 2012, the Department issued supplemental
questionnaires regarding this new subsidy allegation to the GUAE,
ADPICO, and Universal Plastic.
On March 19, 2012, Wheatland Tube submitted pre-preliminary
determination comments with respect to this investigation. On March 22,
2012, the GUAE also submitted pre-preliminary determination comments.
Period of Investigation
The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e., the POI, is
January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.
Scope Comments
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we
set aside a period of time in our Initiation Notice for parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to
submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of that notice.
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May
19, 1997), and Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72173. On December 5, 2011,
SeAH Steel VINA Corp. (``SeAH VINA''), a mandatory respondent in the
concurrent countervailing duty (``CVD'') circular welded pipe from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam investigation, filed comments arguing
that the treatment of double and triple stenciled pipe in the scope of
these investigations differs from previous treatment of these products
under other orders on circular pipe. Specifically, SeAH VINA claims
that the Brazilian, Korean, and Mexican orders on these products
exclude ``Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that
enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines *
* *'' See, e.g., Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from
Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan; and Certain Circular Welded
Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Final Results of the
Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR
66899, 66900 (Oct. 28, 2011). According to SeAH VINA: (i) If the term
``class or kind of merchandise'' has meaning, it cannot have a
different meaning when applied to the same products in two different
cases; and (ii) the distinction between standard and line pipe
reflected in the Brazil, Korean and Mexican orders derives from customs
classifications administered by CBP and, thus, is more administrable.
On December 14, 2011, Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and
Wheatland Tube (collectively, ``certain Petitioners'') responded to
SeAH VINA's comments stating that the scope as it appeared in the
Initiation Notice reflected Petitioners' intended coverage. Certain
Petitioners contend that pipe that is multi-stenciled to both line pipe
and standard pipe specifications and meets the physical characteristics
listed in the scope (i.e., is 32 feet in length or less; is less than
2.0 inches (50mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted
(e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or
coupled end finish) is ordinarily used in standard pipe applications.
In recent years, certain Petitioners state, the Department has rejected
end-use scope classifications, preferring instead to rely on physical
characteristics to define coverage, and the scope of these
investigations has been written accordingly. Therefore, certain
Petitioners ask the Department to reject SeAH VINA's proposed scope
modification.
We agree with certain Petitioners that the Department seeks to
define the scopes of its proceedings based on the physical
characteristics of the merchandise. See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from
the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 2008) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Moreover, we
disagree with SeAH VINA's contention that once a ``class or kind of
merchandise'' has been established that the same scope description must
apply across all proceedings involving the product. For example, as the
Department has gained experience in administering antidumping duty
(``AD'') and CVD orders, it has shifted away from end use
classifications to scopes defined by the physical characteristics. Id.
Thus, proceedings initiated on a given product many years ago may have
end use classifications while more recent proceedings on the product
would not. Compare Countervailing Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods
from Canada, 51 FR 21783 (June 16, 1986) (describing subject
merchandise as being ``intended for use in drilling for oil and gas'')
with Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of
China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203 (January 20, 2010) (describing
the subject merchandise in terms of physical characteristics without
regard to use or intended use). Finally, certain Petitioners have
indicated the domestic industry's intent to include multi-stenciled
products that otherwise meet the physical characteristics set out in
the scope. Therefore, the Department is not adopting SeAH VINA's
proposed modification of the scope.
Scope of the Investigation
This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and
tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (``O.D.'')
not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness,
surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain
end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or
industry specification (e.g., American Society for Testing and
Materials International (``ASTM''), proprietary, or other) generally
known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler pipe, and
structural pipe (although subject product may also be referred to as
mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term ``carbon quality'' includes
products in which: (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the
other contained elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less,
by weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the
quantity, by weight, as indicated:
(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
[[Page 19221]]
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium;
(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Subject pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135,
and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe
is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and
structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications
rather than to industry specifications. Fence tubing is included in the
scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the
exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification.
Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and
may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to
proprietary specifications. These products are generally made to
standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to
a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications,
such as American Petroleum Institute (``API'') API-5L specification, is
also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the
physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the
following characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or less; is less than
2.0 inches (50mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted
(e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or
coupled end finish.
The scope of this investigation does not include: (a) Pipe suitable
for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces
and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b) finished
electrical conduit; (c) finished scaffolding;\1\ (d) tube and pipe
hollows for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API
specifications; (f) line pipe produced to only API specifications; and
(g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn. However, products
certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications are not excluded as
mechanical tubing if they otherwise meet the standard sizes (e.g.,
outside diameter and wall thickness) of standard, structural, fence and
sprinkler pipe. Also, products made to the following outside diameter
and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry
as typical for fence tubing, would not be excluded from the scope based
solely on their being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing
specifications:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Finished scaffolding is defined as component parts of final,
finished scaffolding that enters the United States unassembled as a
``kit.'' A ``kit'' is understood to mean a packaged combination of
component parts that contain, at the time of importation, all the
necessary component parts to fully assemble a final, finished
scaffolding.
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.035 inch wall thickness (gage 20)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.120 inch wall thickness (gage 11)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.134 inch wall thickness (gage 10)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9)
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
4.500 inch O.D. and 0.203 inch wall thickness (gage 7)
The pipe subject to this investigation is currently classifiable in
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') statistical
reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110,
7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040,
7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5050,
and 7306.50.5070. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise under the investigation is dispositive.
Alignment of Final Determination
On November 22, 2011, the Department initiated an AD investigation
concurrent with this CVD investigation of circular welded pipe from the
UAE. See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, the
Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76 FR 72164
(November 22, 2011). The scope of the merchandise being covered is the
same for both the AD and CVD investigations. On March 23, 2012,
Petitioners submitted a letter, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.210(b)(4)(i), requesting alignment of the final CVD determination
with the final determination in the companion AD investigation.
Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (``Act'') and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the final CVD
determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD
determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued on August 6,
2012.
Subsidies Valuation Information
Allocation Period
Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), the Department presumes the allocation
period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life
(``AUL'') of the renewable physical assets for the industry concerned,
as listed in the tables of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's
(``IRS'') 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated
by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. According to the updated AUL
tables of the IRS, the AUL period for the relevant industry in this
proceeding is 15 years. See U.S. Internal Revenue Service Publication
946 (2008), How to Depreciate Property, at Table B-2: Table of Class
Lives and Recovery Periods. No party in this proceeding has disputed
this allocation period.
[[Page 19222]]
Attribution of Subsidies
The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that
the Department will normally attribute a subsidy to the products
produced by the corporation that received the subsidy. However, 19 CFR
351.525(b)(6)(ii) through (v) directs that the Department will
attribute subsidies received by certain other companies to the combined
sales of those companies if (1) cross-ownership exists between the
companies, and (2) the cross-owned companies produce the subject
merchandise, are a holding or parent company of the subject company,
produce an input that is primarily dedicated to the production of the
downstream product, or transfer a subsidy to a cross-owned company.
According to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists
between two or more corporations where one corporation can use or
direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially
the same ways it can use its own assets. This regulation states that
this standard will normally be met where there is a majority voting
interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two
(or more) corporations. The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') has
upheld the Department's authority to attribute subsidies based on
whether a company could use or direct the subsidy benefits of another
company in essentially the same way it could use its own subsidy
benefits. See Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi, SA v. United States, 166 F.
Supp. 2d 593, 600-604 (CIT 2001).
ADPICO
ADPICO stated that it is a UAE-registered limited liability
company, with 51 percent ownership by a UAE national, and 49 percent
ownership by a Swiss-registered company. ADPICO also stated that it has
no affiliates and responded to the Department's original and
supplemental questionnaires on behalf of itself.
Universal Plastic
Universal Plastic responded to the Department's original and
supplemental questionnaires on behalf of itself and two affiliates: KHK
Scaffolding and Formwork LLC (``KHK'') and Universal Tube and Pipe
Industries LLC (``Universal Pipe'').
We preliminarily determine that Universal Plastic, KHK, and
Universal Pipe are cross-owned within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.525(b)(6)(vi) by virtue of common ownership. Moreover, because KHK
and Universal Pipe are also producers of subject merchandise, any
subsidies received by Universal Plastic, KHK, and Universal Pipe would
be attributed to the combined sales of Universal Plastic, KHK, and
Universal Pipe (excluding intercompany sales), in accordance with 19
CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii).
Analysis of Programs
Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our
questionnaires, we preliminarily determine the following:
I. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Exist
A. Profit Tax Exemptions Under UAE Federal Law No.1 of 1979 (``1979
Federal Law'')
According to the GUAE, (1) the provisions of the 1979 Federal Law
that provide for profit tax exemptions were never implemented, and (2)
the only entities in the UAE subject to income tax are foreign-owned
banks and foreign-owned energy companies. See GQR at 6. Therefore, we
preliminarily determine that this program does not exist.
B. Provision of Electricity for LTAR Under the 1979 Federal Law and the
Gulf Cooperation Council (``GCC'') Common Industrial Regulatory Law
According to the GUAE, the provisions of the 1979 Federal Law and
the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory Law that relate to the provision
of electricity at incentivized rates were never implemented. See GQR at
4; see also GSR at 17. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this
program does not exist.
C. Provision of Land and/or Buildings for LTAR Under the 1979 Federal
Law and the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory Law
According to the GUAE, the provisions of the 1979 Federal Law and
the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory Law that relate to the provision
of land and/or buildings at incentivized rates were never implemented.
See GQR at 7; see also GSR at 17. Therefore, we preliminarily determine
that this program does not exist.
D. Provision of Water for LTAR Under the 1979 Federal Law and the GCC
Common Industrial Regulatory Law
According to the GUAE, the provisions of the 1979 Federal Law and
the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory Law that relate to the provision
of water at incentivized rates were never implemented. See GQR at 8;
see also GSR at 17. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this
program does not exist.
E. Preferential Export Lending Under the 1979 Federal Law
According to the GUAE, the provisions of the 1979 Federal Law that
relate to preferential export lending were never implemented. See GQR
at 5. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this program does not
exist.
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Countervailable
A. Dubai Commodity Receipts (``DCRs'')
DCRs are negotiable warehouse receipts that are issued
electronically by the Dubai Multi Commodities Center (``DMCC''), a
GUAE-owned facility, to facilitate the financing of goods. Petitioners
have alleged that, by virtue of the GUAE's role through DMCC, DCR-
backed financing comes with an implicit government guarantee, which
allows lenders to obtain lower financing costs that they could
otherwise obtain outside the DMCC facility.
Beginning in 2004, the DCR platform consists of three types of
parties: commodity owners (the ``originators''), warehouse keepers (the
``issuers''), and financiers. The DCR platform allows commodity owners
(i.e., originators) to request warehouse keepers (i.e., issuers) to
issue DCRs, which represent goods stored at a warehouse or vault which
is managed by the issuer. Originators then ``pledge'' the receipt to
financiers to obtain inventory-backed loans from the financiers.
According to the GUAE, the program is open to financiers around the
world, provided they are approved by the DMCC. See GQR at 30.
During the POI, ADPICO was the only respondent to participate in
this program. Id. at 29. In particular, ADPICO had outstanding loans as
part of its trade financing arrangements with a bank in Switzerland
during the POI. Id. The GUAE asserts that at no point did the DMCC
offer a guarantee, implicit or otherwise, on loan agreements between
ADPICO and its financiers, or act as bank guarantor of the DCR
platform. See GQR at Exhibit 11. Moreover, the DMCC's Rules clearly
indicate that the DMCC assumes no liabilities for DCR-backed financing
that may default. In relevant parts, the Rules state the following:
5.4 Liability of DMCC
5.4.1 Each DCR Member confirms that the liability of DMCC for
acting as its commission agent pursuant to the Rules (including
under this Clause 5) shall be limited by Clause 13 (Limitation of
Liability of DMCC).
[[Page 19223]]
5.4.2 Each Legal Owner and each Financier acknowledges that DMCC
provides close out settlement services under these Rules, and acts
as commission agent for any Legal Owner, solely for the purposes of
facilitating the smooth operation of the DCR System and the
efficient settlement of the liabilities of the Legal Owners and the
Financiers following a Close Out Trigger Event. The DCR Members
confirm that DMCC shall have no liability to any Legal Owner, any
Financier or any other DCR Member by virtue of its appointment as
commission agent for a Legal Owner under this Clause 5 or any
exercise by DMCC of its obligation to sell any DCR (or the Goods
represented by that DCR) following a Close Out Trigger Event as
provided for in this Clause 5.
* * * * *
13.1 Limitation of Liability
* * * * *
(b) [T]hese Rules expressly set forth all the duties of DMCC
with respect to any and all matters pertinent hereto, and shall not
be interpreted so as to impose any implied duties or obligations on
DMCC. DMCC shall not be bound by the provisions of any prior
agreement with any DCR Member to the extent that such prior
agreement conflicts with these Rules.
See GQR at Exhibit 12 (emphases added).
In light of the above, we find that DCR-backed financing obtained
by DCR holders is not subject to any guarantee, implicit or otherwise,
that is provided by the government through DMCC and, thus, does not
give rise to a transfer, or potential transfer, of government funds to
the participants in the DCR financing facility.
Consequently, we preliminarily determine that, while ADPICO did
participate in the DCR financing program, no financial contribution
exists within the meaning of section 771(5)(D) of the Act. Therefore,
we preliminarily determine that this program is not countervailable.
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Not Be Used by Respondents
During the POI
A. Concessionary Lending From the Emirates Industrial Bank
In addition to investigating preferential export loans granted
under the 1979 Federal Law, the Department also investigated
preferential export loans extended through the Emirates Industrial Bank
(now called the ``Emirates National Bank''). We preliminarily determine
that none of the respondents had loans from the Emirates National Bank
outstanding during the POI.
IV. Programs for Which More Information Is Required
A. Tariff Exemptions Under 1979 Federal Law and GCC Common Industrial
Regulatory Law
Implemented in 1980, pursuant to the 1979 Federal Law, and
subsequently available in accordance with the GCC Customs Union
Agreement (2003), industrial establishments operating within the UAE
may be exempted from the five percent customs duty on imports of raw
materials and capital goods. See GQR at 9. In 2005, the GUAE issued
Federal Decree No. 73, which implemented the GCC Common Industrial
Regulatory Law (2004), establishing the current process for industrial
companies to be eligible for, and receive, a tariff exemption. Id. at 4
and 11-14.
To receive this duty exemption, an industrial establishment
operating with a valid industrial license applies through an online
electronic processing system, known as the Duty Exemption Service. Id.
at 11-12 and 16. This application is automatically and immediately
analyzed on the basis of the information that has previously been
provided by the applicant during the registration proceedings to get
its industrial license, i.e., the applicant is required to submit the
list of all items that it intends to import to run its industrial
activity upon applying for its industrial license. Id. at 12-14. The
GUAE further states that the 1979 Federal Law and the GCC Common
Industrial Regulatory Law do not apply to companies in free trade
zones. Id. at 4. The tariff exemption program is administered by the
Section of Duty Exemptions within the Directorate of Industrial
Development under the Industrial Affairs Department as part of the
Ministry of Economy. Id. at 9.
ADPICO has benefited from this program since 2002. See AQR at
Appendix 5. Universal Plastic and the GUAE reported that Universal
Plastic operates within the Jebel Ali Free Trade Zone (``JAFZ'') and,
therefore, could not have benefited from any alleged subsidies under
the 1979 Federal Law or the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory Law. See
UQR at 13 and GQR at 4. However, Universal Pipe and KHK did benefit
from this program.
Under Chapter Seven of the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory Law,
Article (16) states that certain ``industrial projects shall have the
priority of privileges and exemptions,'' and lists ``projects producing
export goods'' among the activities that will benefit from the
``priority of privileges and exemptions.'' See GQR Exhibit 4 at page
12. We find that the Department needs additional information to better
assess whether tariff exemptions provided under this program are
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. In
particular, we intend to seek information regarding the meaning of
``priority'' in this context and how it is implemented in granting
tariff exemptions. We intend to seek additional information, and
further address this program in a post-preliminary analysis.
B. Provision of Natural Gas for LTAR
As discussed above, new subsidy allegation questionnaires were sent
to the respondents on March 26, 2012, and responses are still
outstanding with respect to this program. Because we lack necessary
information to make a preliminary determination at this time, we intend
to address the countervailability of this program in the post-
preliminary analysis.
Verification
In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the
information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final
determination.
Preliminary Negative Determination
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have
calculated individual subsidy rates for ADPICO and Universal Plastic,
the two mandatory producers/exporters. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the
Act provides that the all others rate will generally be an amount equal
to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for
exporters or producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
de minimis countervailable subsidy rates and any rates determined
entirely on the basis of fact available. In this case, however, the
countervailable subsidy rates for all of the individually investigated
exporters or producers are zero. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act
provides that, when this is the case, the administering authority may
use any reasonable method to establish the all others rate, including
averaging the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates determined
for the exporters and producers individually examined. Thus, to
calculate the all others rate, we averaged the individual rates of the
ADPICO and Universal Plastic. Therefore, we assigned a zero rate to all
other producers and exporters.
[[Page 19224]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter/manufacturer Net subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Dhabi Metal Pipes & Profiles Industries Zero.
Complex LLC.
Universal Tube and Plastic Industries, Ltd.; Zero.
KHK Scaffolding and Formwork LLC; and
Universal Tube and Pipe Industries LLC.
All Others................................... Zero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because all of the rates are zero, we preliminarily determine that
no countervailable subsidies are being provided to the production or
exportation of circular welded pipe in the UAE. As such, we will not
direct CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of circular welded pipe
from the UAE.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
In accordance with section 705(b)(3) of the Act, if our final
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination
within 75 days after the Department makes its final determination.
Disclosure and Public Comment
Due to the anticipated timing of verification and issuance of
verification reports, case briefs for this investigation must be
submitted no later than one week after the issuance of the last
verification report. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) for a further discussion
of case briefs. Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five days after
the deadline for submission of case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities relied upon, a table of contents,
and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs
submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to
five pages total, including footnotes. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and
(d)(2).
Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a
public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment
on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a
hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing
is made in this investigation, the hearing will be held two days after
the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.310(d), at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm
by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before
the scheduled time.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
if one is requested, must electronically submit a written request to
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration using IA ACCESS,
within 30 days of the publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.310(c). Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and
telephone; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues
to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in
the briefs. Id.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 26, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-7746 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
