Silica Bricks and Shapes From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73982-73986 [2012-29976]
Download as PDF
73982
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Notices
importer-specific assessment rates for
the merchandise subject to the review.
Also, the Department recently
announced a refinement to its
assessment practice in NME cases.
Pursuant to this refinement in practice,
for merchandise that was not reported
in the U.S. sales databases submitted by
an exporter individually examined
during this review, but that entered
under the case number of that exporter
(i.e., at the individually-examined
exporter’s cash deposit rate), the
Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate such entries at the NME-wide
rate. In addition, if the Department
determines that an exporter under
review had no shipments of the subject
merchandise, any suspended entries
that entered under that exporter’s case
number (i.e., at that exporter’s rate) will
be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.10
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, will apply
to all shipments of subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication of the final results of this
administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
the exporters listed above, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established
in these final results of review (except,
if the rate is zero or de minimis, a zero
cash deposit rate will be required for
that company); (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that have
separate rates (i.e., those companies
with no shipments listed in Appendix
I), the cash deposit rate will continue to
be the exporter-specific rate published
for the most recent period; (3) for all
PRC exporters of subject merchandise
which have not been found to be
entitled to a separate rate, the cash
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate
of $4.71 per kilogram; and (4) for all
non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter that supplied that non-PRC
exporter. These requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Department’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these
preliminary results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the
Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: December 3, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Companies That Have Certified No
Shipments
1. Chengwu County Yuanxiang Industry &
Commerce Co., Ltd.
2. Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd.
3. Jinxiang Chengda Import & Export Co., Ltd.
4. Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd.
5. Qingdao Sea-line International Trading Co.
Appendix II
List of Companies Subject to the PRC-Wide
Rate
1. Foshan Fuyi Food Co., Ltd.
2. Henan Weite Industrial Co., Ltd.
3. Jining Yongjia Trade Co., Ltd.
4. Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd.
5. Shandong Chenhe Intl Trading Co., Ltd.
6. Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd.
7. Sunny Import & Export Limited
8. Yantai Jinyan Trading Co., Ltd.
9. Zhengzhou Huachao Industrial Co., Ltd.
10. Zhengzhou Yuanli Trading Co., Ltd.
Appendix III
List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum
Preliminary Determination of No Shipments
Separate Rates
Separate Rate for Non-Selected Companies
PRC-Wide Entity
Surrogate Country
Date of Sale
Fair-Value Comparisons
Export Price
Normal Value
Raw Garlic Bulb Input Valuation
Labor
Financial Ratios
Other Surrogate Values
Currency Conversion
[FR Doc. 2012–29986 Filed 12–11–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
a full discussion of this practice, see NonMarket Economy Antidumping Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694
(October 24, 2011).
15:48 Dec 11, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
International Trade Administration
[A–570–988]
Silica Bricks and Shapes From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Investigation
DATES:
Effective Date: December 12,
2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Pedersen or Rebecca Pandolph,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, (202)
482–2769 or (202) 482–3627,
respectively; Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 15, 2012, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a
petition concerning imports of silica
bricks and shapes (‘‘silica bricks’’) from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)
filed in proper form by Utah
Refractories Corporation (‘‘Petitioner’’).1
On November 16, 2012, Petitioner refiled the petition to correct the
bracketing of business proprietary
information in certain exhibits. On
November 19, 2012, the Department
issued a supplemental questionnaire
requesting information and clarification
of certain areas of the Petition.
Petitioner timely filed additional
information on November 21, 2012
(‘‘Lost Sales and Revenue Supplement’’)
and November 26, 2012 (‘‘First
Supplement to the Petition’’). At the
Department’s request, Petitioner filed
additional information on November 28,
2012 (‘‘Second Supplement to the
Petition’’). At the Department’s request,
Petitioner filed further information on
December 4, 2012.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
April 1, 2012, through September 30,
2012.2
The Petition
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), Petitioner alleges that imports of
silica bricks 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
1 See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties: Silica Bricks and Shapes from the People’s
Republic of China dated November 15, 2012
(‘‘Petition’’).
2 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
10 For
VerDate Mar<15>2010
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Notices
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, as an
interested party, as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act, Petitioner filed the
Petition on behalf of the domestic
industry and has demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect
to the Petition (see ‘‘Determination of
Industry Support for the Petition’’
section below).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by the scope of
this investigation are silica bricks from
the PRC. For a full description of the
scope of the investigation, see ‘‘Scope of
Investigation’’ in Appendix I of this
notice.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we
discussed the scope with Petitioner to
ensure that it is an accurate reflection of
the product for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief.3 Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the
regulations (Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR
27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are
setting aside a period for interested
parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage. The Department encourages
all interested parties to submit such
comments by December 26, 2012, 5:00
p.m. Eastern Standard Time, 21
calendar days from the signature date of
this notice.4 All comments should be
filed on the record of this antidumping
investigation using Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’).5 An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
3 See Memorandum to the File from Whitney
Schablik, Import Policy Analyst, entitled ‘‘Phone
Call to Counsel for Petitioner,’’ dated November 21,
2012; see also Memorandum to the File from
Rebecca Pandolph, International Trade Analyst,
Office 4, AD/CVD Operations regarding ‘‘Petition
for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Imports of Silica Bricks and Shapes from the
People’s Republic of China: Conference Call’’ dated
November 29, 2012.
4 Because the normal 20 day deadline falls on a
federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next
business day.
5 See, generally, 19 CFR 351.303; see also
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative
Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6,
2011) for details of the Department’s electronic
filing requirements, which went into effect on
August 5, 2011. Information on help using IA
ACCESS can be found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/
help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20
Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:48 Dec 11, 2012
Jkt 229001
in its entirety by the Department’s
electronic records system, IA ACCESS,
by the time and date noted above.
Documents excepted from the electronic
submission requirements must be filed
manually (i.e., in paper form) with
Import Administration’s APO/Dockets
Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230,
and stamped with the date and time of
receipt by the deadline noted above.
Comments on Product Characteristics
for Antidumping Duty Questionnaire
We are requesting comments from
interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of
silica bricks to be reported in response
to the Department’s antidumping
questionnaire. This information will be
used to identify the key physical
characteristics of the merchandise under
consideration in order to more
accurately report the relevant factors of
production, as well as to develop
appropriate product comparison
criteria.
Interested parties may provide
information or comments that they
believe are relevant to the development
of an accurate listing of physical
characteristics. Specifically, they may
provide comments as to which
characteristics are appropriate to use in
defining unique products. We note that
it is not always appropriate to use all
product characteristics to define
products. 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 silica
bricks, it may be that only a select few
product characteristics take into account
commercially meaningful physical
characteristics.
In order to consider the suggestions of
interested parties in developing and
issuing the antidumping duty
questionnaire, we must receive
comments filed electronically using IA
ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. on December 26,
2012. Additionally, rebuttal comments
must be received by 5:00 p.m. on
January 4, 2013.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73983
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method to poll the
industry if there is a large number of
producers in the industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The U.S.
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,6 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.7
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 domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of
6 See
section 771(10) of the Act
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)).
7 See
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
73984
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Notices
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
conservatively made no adjustments to
U.S. price.19
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; lost
sales and revenue; reduced capacity
utilization and stunted production and
shipments; reduced employment, hours
worked, and wages paid; and decline in
financial performance.14 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.15
Normal Value
Petitioner claims the PRC is a nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’) country and
that this designation remains in effect
today.20 The presumption of NME status
for the PRC has not been revoked by the
Department and, therefore, in
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, remains in effect for purposes
of the initiation of this investigation.
Accordingly, the NV of the product for
the investigation is appropriately based
on factors of production valued in a
surrogate market-economy country in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act. In the course of this investigation,
all parties, including the public, will
have the opportunity to provide relevant
information related to the issues of the
PRC’s NME status and the granting of
separate rates to individual exporters.
Petitioner contends that Ukraine is
the appropriate surrogate country for the
PRC because: (1) It is at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the PRC, (2) it is a significant
producer of identical merchandise, and
(3) the availability and quality of data
are good.21 Based on the information
provided by Petitioner, we believe that
it is appropriate to use Ukraine as a
surrogate country for initiation
purposes.22 After initiation of the
investigation, interested parties will
have the opportunity to submit
comments regarding surrogate country
selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an
opportunity to submit publicly available
information to value factors of
production within 40 days after the date
of publication of the preliminary
determination.
Petitioner calculated NV and the
dumping margins using the
Department’s NME methodology as
required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C)
and 19 CFR 351.408. In calculating NV,
Petitioner based the quantity of each of
the inputs used to manufacture the
subject merchandise on its own
consumption experience, which
Petitioner asserts that, to the best of its
knowledge, is similar to the
consumption of PRC producers.23
Factors of production values were
based on reasonably available, public
surrogate country data, specifically,
Ukraine import data from the Global
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that silica
bricks constitute a single domestic like
product and we have analyzed industry
support in terms of that domestic like
product.8
In determining whether Petitioner has
standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of
the Act, we considered the industry
support data contained in the Petition
with reference to the domestic like
product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of
Investigation’’ section above. To
establish industry support, Petitioner
demonstrated that it was the sole
producer of the domestic like product
and provided its production quantity for
the domestic like product for the year
2011.9 We have relied upon data
Petitioners provided for purposes of
measuring industry support.10
Based on information provided in the
Petition, supplemental submissions, and
other information readily available to
the Department, we determine that
Petitioner has met the statutory criteria
for industry support under section
732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because
Petitioner accounts for at least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product.11 Based on
information provided in the Petition
and other submissions, Petitioner has
met the statutory criteria for industry
support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of
the Act because Petitioner accounts for
more than 50 percent of the production
of the domestic like product produced
by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petition. Accordingly, the
Department determines that the Petition
was filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section
732(b)(1) of the Act.12
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) of the Act and it has
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the antidumping
duty investigation it is requesting the
Department initiate.13
Petitioner calculated an export price
(‘‘EP’’) based on price quotes for silica
bricks from seven PRC producers of
silica bricks.17 Petitioner substantiated
the U.S. price quotes with price quotes
received from the Chinese producers
and an affidavit explaining that the
price quotes were obtained in response
to email queries.18 The terms of sale for
these invoices were free on board
(‘‘FOB’’) China port. Petitioners
8 See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Silica Bricks and Shapes from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’),
at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for
the Petitions Covering Silica Bricks and Shapes
from the People’s Republic of China, on file in the
Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building.
9 See Petition, at 5 and Exhibits 1 and 9.
10 See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
11 See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 See Petition, at 17–25 and Exhibits 1, 8–9, and
11; see also Lost Sales and Revenue Supplement;
see also First Supplement to the Petition, at
questions 5–7.
15 See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Petition Covering
Silica Bricks and Shapes from the People’s Republic
of China.
16 See Initiation Checklist, at 5–7.
17 See Petition, at 15 and Exhibits 5 and 6.
18 See Petition, at Exhibit 6; see also First
Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit 12.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:48 Dec 11, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 silica bricks from the PRC.
The sources of data for the deductions
and adjustments relating to the U.S.
price and the factors of production are
also discussed in the Initiation
Checklist.16
U.S. Price
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19 See First Supplement to the Petition, at
questions 9–10.
20 See Petition, at 14.
21 See Petition, at 14–15.
22 See Initiation Checklist at 6.
23 See Petition, at 16; see also First Supplement
to the Petition at answers to questions 13–14.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Notices
Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’).24 In addition,
Petitioner made currency conversions,
where necessary, based on the POIaverage hryvnia/U.S. dollar exchange
rate based on Federal Reserve exchange
rates.25 The Department determines that
the surrogate values used by Petitioner
are reasonably available and, thus,
acceptable for purposes of initiation.
Petitioner determined energy costs
using reasonably available
information.26 Petitioner valued
electricity using Ukrainian electricity
rate for grade 1 and 2 voltage reported
by the National Electricity Regulatory
Commission of Ukraine. Petitioner
valued natural gas using a price quote
in a March 19, 2012 article from
UPI.com. Petitioner valued propane
using November 15, 2011 prices from
Argus International LPG. Petitioner did
not inflate the surrogate value for
propane because the value only changes
periodically and not regularly with
inflation.27 Lastly, Petitioner valued
water based on Utilities Ministry of
Ukraine data.
Petitioner determined labor
consumption, in hours, using its own
production experience. Petitioner
valued labor using data collected by the
International Labor Organization
(‘‘ILO’’) and disseminated in Chapter 6A
of the ILO Yearbook of Labor
Statistics.28 Petitioner adjusted labor
costs using consumer price index data
published by the International Monetary
Fund.
Petitioner determined packing
material consumption using reasonably
available information. The relevant
factors were then valued using data
from GTA.29
Financial ratios for factory overhead
and selling, general and administrative
expenses were based on data from the
2011 financial statements of
Krasnogorivs’kij Refractory Plant, a
Ukrainian producer of refractory
bricks.30
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by
Petitioner, there is reason to believe that
imports of silica bricks from the PRC are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
24 See Initiation Checklist; see also Petition, at
Exhibit 5; see also First and Second Supplements
to the Petition, both at Exhibits 5.
25 See id.
26 See id. (for all surrogate values used to value
energy inputs).
27 See First Supplement to the Petition at the
answers to question 30.
28 See Initiation Checklist; see also First
Supplement to the Petition at Exhibits 5.
29 See Initiation Checklist; see also Petition, at
Exhibit 5; see also First and Second Supplements
to the Petition, both at Exhibits 5.
30 See id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:48 Dec 11, 2012
Jkt 229001
United States at less than fair value.
Based on a comparison of U.S. prices
and NV calculated in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, as described
above, the estimated dumping margins
range from 118.47 percent to 290.12
percent.31
Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation
Based upon our examination of the
Petition on silica bricks from the PRC,
the Department finds the Petition meets
the requirements of section 732 of the
Act. Therefore, we are initiating an
antidumping duty investigation to
determine whether imports of silica
bricks from the PRC are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value. In accordance with
section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed,
we will make our preliminary
determination no later than 140 days
after the date of this initiation.
Application of an Alternative
Comparison Methodology
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1)
(2012), in calculating the weightedaverage dumping margins in this
investigation, the Department will
compare weighted-average EPs (or
constructed export prices) with
weighted-average NVs (the average-toaverage method) unless it is determined
that another method is appropriate in a
particular case. If any interested party
wishes to request that the Department
consider whether it is appropriate in
this investigation to apply an alternative
comparison methodology pursuant to 19
CFR 351.414(c)(1) (2012), such requests
are due no later than 45 days before the
scheduled date of the preliminary
determination.
Respondent Selection
Petitioner identified 10 PRC
producers/exporters of silica bricks. The
Department will issue quantity and
value questionnaires to each of the 10
producers/exporters of silica bricks
named in the Petition, and will make its
respondent selection decision based on
the responses to the questionnaires it
receives. Parties that do not receive a
quantity and value questionnaire from
the Department may file a quantity and
value questionnaire by the applicable
deadline if they wish to be included in
the pool of companies from which the
Department will select mandatory
respondents.
The Department requires that the
respondents submit a response to both
31 See Initiation Checklist; see also Second
Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73985
the quantity and value questionnaire
and the separate-rate application by the
respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status.
On the date of the publication of this
initiation notice in the Federal Register,
the Department will post the quantity
and value questionnaire along with the
filing instructions on the Import
Administration Web site at (https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html). In order for the Department
to consider a quantity and value
questionnaire response, we must receive
the response filed electronically using
IA ACCESS by no later than 5:00 p.m.
on December 26, 2012.32
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Instructions for filing such applications
may be found on the Department’s Web
site at (https://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo).
Separate-Rate Application
In order to obtain separate-rate status
in NME investigations, exporters and
producers must submit a separate-rate
status application.33 The specific
requirements for submitting the
separate-rate application in this
investigation are outlined in detail in
the application itself, which will be
available on the Department’s Web site
at (https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlightsand-news.html) on the date of
publication of this initiation notice in
the Federal Register. The separate-rate
application must be filed electronically
with the Department using IA ACCESS
by no later than 60 days after
publication of this initiation notice. For
exporters and producers who submit a
separate-rate status application and
subsequently are selected as mandatory
respondents, these exporters and
producers will no longer be eligible for
consideration for separate rate status
unless they respond to all parts of the
questionnaire as mandatory
respondents. As noted in the
‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section above,
the Department requires that
respondents submit a response to both
the quantity and value questionnaire
and the separate rate application by the
32 See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless
Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR
10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist
Canvas From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR
21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005).
33 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates
Practice and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries, dated April 5, 2005 (‘‘Policy
Bulletin’’), available on the Department’s Web site
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–1.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
73986
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Notices
respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status.
The quantity and value questionnaire
will be available on the Department’s
Web site at (https://ia.ita.doc.gov/iahighlights-and-news.html) on the date of
the publication of this initiation notice
in the Federal Register.
Use of Combination Rates in an NME
Investigation
The Department will calculate
combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. The
relevant Policy Bulletin states:
While continuing the practice of assigning
separate rates only to exporters, all separate
rates that the Department will now assign in
its NME investigations will be specific to
those producers that supplied the exporter
during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the
exporter and all of the producers which
supplied subject merchandise to it during the
period of investigation. This practice applies
both to mandatory respondents receiving an
individually calculated separate rate as well
as the pool of non-investigated firms
receiving the weighted-average of the
individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ‘‘combination
rates’’ because such rates apply to specific
combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to
an exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter
during the period of investigation.34
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public versions
of the Petition have been provided to
the representatives of the Government of
the PRC. The Department considers the
service of the public version of the
Petition to the foreign producers/
exporters satisfied by the delivery of the
public version to the Government of the
PRC, consistent with 19 CFR
351.203(c)(2).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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 December 31, 2012,
whether there is a reasonable indication
that imports of silica bricks from the
PRC are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to a U.S.
industry. A negative ITC determination
will result in the investigation being
terminated; otherwise, this investigation
34 See
Policy Bulletin at 6 (emphasis added).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:48 Dec 11, 2012
Jkt 229001
will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
purposes, the written description of the
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Notification to Interested Parties
[FR Doc. 2012–29976 Filed 12–11–12; 8:45 am]
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department
published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures;
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634. Parties
wishing to participate in this
investigation should ensure that they
meet the requirements of these
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
Any party submitting factual
information in an antidumping duty or
countervailing duty proceeding must
certify to the accuracy and completeness
of that information.35 Parties are hereby
reminded that revised certification
requirements are in effect for company/
government officials as well as their
representatives in all segments of any
antidumping duty or countervailing
duty proceeding initiated on or after
March 14, 2011 as supplemented.36 The
formats for the revised certifications are
provided at the end of the Interim Final
Rule. The Department intends to reject
factual submissions in any proceeding
segments initiated on or after March 14,
2011, if the submitting party does not
comply with the revised certification
requirements.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: December 5, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by the scope of this
investigation are bricks and shapes,
regardless of size, containing at least 90
percent silica (also known as silicon dioxide
(Si02)), regardless of other materials in the
bricks and shapes. The products covered by
the scope of this investigation are currently
classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings
6902.20.1020 and 6902.20.5020. Imports of
subject merchandise may also be entered
under HTSUS subheading 6901.00.0000.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
35 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
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’’) as supplemented 76 FR 54697
(September 2, 2011) (this rulemaking modified 19
CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2)).
36 See
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XC371
Marine Mammals; Issuance of Permits
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of permits.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
individuals and institutions have been
issued Letters of Confirmation for
activities conducted under the General
Authorization for Scientific Research on
marine mammals. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for a list of names and
address of recipients.
ADDRESSES: The Letters of Confirmation
and related documents are available for
review upon written request or by
appointment in the following office:
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705,
Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone
(301)427–8401; fax (301)713–0376.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Office of Protected Resources, Permits
and Conservation Division, (301)427–
8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
requested Letters of Confirmation have
been issued under the authority of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and
the regulations governing the taking and
importing of marine mammals (50 CFR
part 216). The General Authorization
allows for bona fide scientific research
that may result only in taking by level
B harassment of marine mammals. The
following Letters of Confirmation (LOC)
were issued in Fiscal Year 2012.
File No. 809–1902: Issued to the
Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science
Center Foundation, Virginia Beach, VA
on February 21, 2007, was extended on
March 8, 2012. The purpose of the
research is to collect and maintain a
long-term record of bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) in the coastal
waters of Virginia and to test the current
stock hypothesis for Atlantic coastal
dolphins. The expiration date of the
LOC was extended from February 28,
2012 to November 30, 2012.
File No. 13427: Issued to Gregory D.
Kaufman, Pacific Whale Foundation,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73982-73986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29976]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-988]
Silica Bricks and Shapes From the People's Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation
DATES: Effective Date: December 12, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Pedersen or Rebecca Pandolph,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, (202) 482-2769 or (202) 482-3627,
respectively; Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 15, 2012, the Department of
Commerce (``Department'') received a petition concerning imports of
silica bricks and shapes (``silica bricks'') from the People's Republic
of China (``PRC'') filed in proper form by Utah Refractories
Corporation (``Petitioner'').\1\ On November 16, 2012, Petitioner re-
filed the petition to correct the bracketing of business proprietary
information in certain exhibits. On November 19, 2012, the Department
issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting information and
clarification of certain areas of the Petition. Petitioner timely filed
additional information on November 21, 2012 (``Lost Sales and Revenue
Supplement'') and November 26, 2012 (``First Supplement to the
Petition''). At the Department's request, Petitioner filed additional
information on November 28, 2012 (``Second Supplement to the
Petition''). At the Department's request, Petitioner filed further
information on December 4, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties:
Silica Bricks and Shapes from the People's Republic of China dated
November 15, 2012 (``Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2012, through
September 30, 2012.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petition
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), Petitioner alleges that imports of silica bricks
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
[[Page 73983]]
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, as an interested party, as defined in
section 771(9)(C) of the Act, Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry and has demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the Petition (see ``Determination of Industry
Support for the Petition'' section below).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by the scope of this investigation are silica
bricks from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the
investigation, see ``Scope of Investigation'' in Appendix I of this
notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with
Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the product
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.\3\ Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)),
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested
parties to submit such comments by December 26, 2012, 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time, 21 calendar days from the signature date of this
notice.\4\ All comments should be filed on the record of this
antidumping investigation using Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA
ACCESS'').\5\ An electronically filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records
system, IA ACCESS, by the time and date noted above. Documents excepted
from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually
(i.e., in paper form) with Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit,
Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of
receipt by the deadline noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum to the File from Whitney Schablik, Import
Policy Analyst, entitled ``Phone Call to Counsel for Petitioner,''
dated November 21, 2012; see also Memorandum to the File from
Rebecca Pandolph, International Trade Analyst, Office 4, AD/CVD
Operations regarding ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Imports of Silica Bricks and Shapes from the People's
Republic of China: Conference Call'' dated November 29, 2012.
\4\ Because the normal 20 day deadline falls on a federal
holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next business day.
\5\ See, generally, 19 CFR 351.303; see also Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6,
2011) for details of the Department's electronic filing
requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information
on help using IA ACCESS can be found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaire
We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of silica bricks to be reported in
response to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. This
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics
of the merchandise under consideration in order to more accurately
report the relevant factors of production, as well as to develop
appropriate product comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide information or comments that they
believe are relevant to the development of an accurate listing of
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to
which characteristics are appropriate to use in defining unique
products. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product
characteristics to define products. 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 silica bricks, it may be that only a select
few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful
physical characteristics.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaire, we must
receive comments filed electronically using IA ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. on
December 26, 2012. Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by
5:00 p.m. on January 4, 2013.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department
shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a
statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry if there is a
large number of producers in the industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The U.S. 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,\6\ 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See section 771(10) of the Act
\7\ 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 domestic like product distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of
[[Page 73984]]
the information submitted on the record, we have determined that silica
bricks constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed
industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Silica Bricks and Shapes from the People's Republic of China
(``Initiation Checklist''), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Petitions Covering Silica Bricks and Shapes from the
People's Republic of China, on file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above. To
establish industry support, Petitioner demonstrated that it was the
sole producer of the domestic like product and provided its production
quantity for the domestic like product for the year 2011.\9\ We have
relied upon data Petitioners provided for purposes of measuring
industry support.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Petition, at 5 and Exhibits 1 and 9.
\10\ See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department,
we determine that Petitioner has met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because
Petitioner accounts for at least 25 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product.\11\ Based on information provided in the
Petition and other submissions, Petitioner has met the statutory
criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because Petitioner accounts for more than 50 percent of the production
of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. Accordingly,
the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the
domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the
Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
\12\ 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) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the antidumping duty investigation it
is requesting the Department initiate.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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; lost sales and revenue; reduced capacity utilization
and stunted production and shipments; reduced employment, hours worked,
and wages paid; and decline in financial performance.\14\ 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Petition, at 17-25 and Exhibits 1, 8-9, and 11; see
also Lost Sales and Revenue Supplement; see also First Supplement to
the Petition, at questions 5-7.
\15\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Petition Covering Silica Bricks and Shapes from the People's
Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 silica bricks from the PRC.
The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the
U.S. price and the factors of production are also discussed in the
Initiation Checklist.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Initiation Checklist, at 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Price
Petitioner calculated an export price (``EP'') based on price
quotes for silica bricks from seven PRC producers of silica bricks.\17\
Petitioner substantiated the U.S. price quotes with price quotes
received from the Chinese producers and an affidavit explaining that
the price quotes were obtained in response to email queries.\18\ The
terms of sale for these invoices were free on board (``FOB'') China
port. Petitioners conservatively made no adjustments to U.S. price.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Petition, at 15 and Exhibits 5 and 6.
\18\ See Petition, at Exhibit 6; see also First Supplement to
the Petition, at Exhibit 12.
\19\ See First Supplement to the Petition, at questions 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Petitioner claims the PRC is a non-market economy (``NME'') country
and that this designation remains in effect today.\20\ The presumption
of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and,
therefore, in accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, remains
in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation.
Accordingly, the NV of the product for the investigation is
appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate
market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In
the course of this investigation, all parties, including the public,
will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to
the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates
to individual exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Petition, at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner contends that Ukraine is the appropriate surrogate
country for the PRC because: (1) It is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC, (2) it is a significant
producer of identical merchandise, and (3) the availability and quality
of data are good.\21\ Based on the information provided by Petitioner,
we believe that it is appropriate to use Ukraine as a surrogate country
for initiation purposes.\22\ After initiation of the investigation,
interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments
regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly
available information to value factors of production within 40 days
after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Petition, at 14-15.
\22\ See Initiation Checklist at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner calculated NV and the dumping margins using the
Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C)
and 19 CFR 351.408. In calculating NV, Petitioner based the quantity of
each of the inputs used to manufacture the subject merchandise on its
own consumption experience, which Petitioner asserts that, to the best
of its knowledge, is similar to the consumption of PRC producers.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Petition, at 16; see also First Supplement to the
Petition at answers to questions 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factors of production values were based on reasonably available,
public surrogate country data, specifically, Ukraine import data from
the Global
[[Page 73985]]
Trade Atlas (``GTA'').\24\ In addition, Petitioner made currency
conversions, where necessary, based on the POI-average hryvnia/U.S.
dollar exchange rate based on Federal Reserve exchange rates.\25\ The
Department determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioner are
reasonably available and, thus, acceptable for purposes of initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Initiation Checklist; see also Petition, at Exhibit 5;
see also First and Second Supplements to the Petition, both at
Exhibits 5.
\25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner determined energy costs using reasonably available
information.\26\ Petitioner valued electricity using Ukrainian
electricity rate for grade 1 and 2 voltage reported by the National
Electricity Regulatory Commission of Ukraine. Petitioner valued natural
gas using a price quote in a March 19, 2012 article from UPI.com.
Petitioner valued propane using November 15, 2011 prices from Argus
International LPG. Petitioner did not inflate the surrogate value for
propane because the value only changes periodically and not regularly
with inflation.\27\ Lastly, Petitioner valued water based on Utilities
Ministry of Ukraine data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See id. (for all surrogate values used to value energy
inputs).
\27\ See First Supplement to the Petition at the answers to
question 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner determined labor consumption, in hours, using its own
production experience. Petitioner valued labor using data collected by
the International Labor Organization (``ILO'') and disseminated in
Chapter 6A of the ILO Yearbook of Labor Statistics.\28\ Petitioner
adjusted labor costs using consumer price index data published by the
International Monetary Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Initiation Checklist; see also First Supplement to the
Petition at Exhibits 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner determined packing material consumption using reasonably
available information. The relevant factors were then valued using data
from GTA.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Initiation Checklist; see also Petition, at Exhibit 5;
see also First and Second Supplements to the Petition, both at
Exhibits 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial ratios for factory overhead and selling, general and
administrative expenses were based on data from the 2011 financial
statements of Krasnogorivs'kij Refractory Plant, a Ukrainian producer
of refractory bricks.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of silica bricks from the PRC are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based
on a comparison of U.S. prices and NV calculated in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, as described above, the estimated dumping
margins range from 118.47 percent to 290.12 percent.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Initiation Checklist; see also Second Supplement to the
Petition, at Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation
Based upon our examination of the Petition on silica bricks from
the PRC, the Department finds the Petition meets the requirements of
section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping
duty investigation to determine whether imports of silica bricks from
the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this
initiation.
Application of an Alternative Comparison Methodology
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1) (2012), in calculating the
weighted-average dumping margins in this investigation, the Department
will compare weighted-average EPs (or constructed export prices) with
weighted-average NVs (the average-to-average method) unless it is
determined that another method is appropriate in a particular case. If
any interested party wishes to request that the Department consider
whether it is appropriate in this investigation to apply an alternative
comparison methodology pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1) (2012), such
requests are due no later than 45 days before the scheduled date of the
preliminary determination.
Respondent Selection
Petitioner identified 10 PRC producers/exporters of silica bricks.
The Department will issue quantity and value questionnaires to each of
the 10 producers/exporters of silica bricks named in the Petition, and
will make its respondent selection decision based on the responses to
the questionnaires it receives. Parties that do not receive a quantity
and value questionnaire from the Department may file a quantity and
value questionnaire by the applicable deadline if they wish to be
included in the pool of companies from which the Department will select
mandatory respondents.
The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to
both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status. On the date of the publication
of this initiation notice in the Federal Register, the Department will
post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing
instructions on the Import Administration Web site at (https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html). In order for the
Department to consider a quantity and value questionnaire response, we
must receive the response filed electronically using IA ACCESS by no
later than 5:00 p.m. on December 26, 2012.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from
the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas From the
People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order (``APO'') in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the
Department's Web site at (https://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo).
Separate-Rate Application
In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status
application.\33\ The specific requirements for submitting the separate-
rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the
application itself, which will be available on the Department's Web
site at (https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html) on the date
of publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. The
separate-rate application must be filed electronically with the
Department using IA ACCESS by no later than 60 days after publication
of this initiation notice. For exporters and producers who submit a
separate-rate status application and subsequently are selected as
mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be
eligible for consideration for separate rate status unless they respond
to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents. As noted in
the ``Respondent Selection'' section above, the Department requires
that respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value
questionnaire and the separate rate application by the
[[Page 73986]]
respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-
rate status. The quantity and value questionnaire will be available on
the Department's Web site at (https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html) on the date of the publication of this initiation notice in
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, dated April 5, 2005
(``Policy Bulletin''), available on the Department's Web site at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this
investigation. The relevant Policy Bulletin states:
While continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only
to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign
in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period
of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of
investigation.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Policy Bulletin at 6 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the Petition have been
provided to the representatives of the Government of the PRC. The
Department considers the service of the public version of the Petition
to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery of the
public version to the Government of the PRC, consistent with 19 CFR
351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than December 31,
2012, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of silica
bricks from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material
injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in
the investigation being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634. Parties
wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they
meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters
of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or
countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and
completeness of that information.\35\ Parties are hereby reminded that
revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government
officials as well as their representatives in all segments of any
antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding initiated on or
after March 14, 2011 as supplemented.\36\ The formats for the revised
certifications are provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule. The
Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding
segments initiated on or after March 14, 2011, if the submitting party
does not comply with the revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\36\ 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'') as supplemented 76 FR 54697 (September 2,
2011) (this rulemaking modified 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: December 5, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by the scope of this investigation are
bricks and shapes, regardless of size, containing at least 90
percent silica (also known as silicon dioxide (Si02)),
regardless of other materials in the bricks and shapes. The products
covered by the scope of this investigation are currently classified
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
subheadings 6902.20.1020 and 6902.20.5020. Imports of subject
merchandise may also be entered under HTSUS subheading 6901.00.0000.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2012-29976 Filed 12-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P