Stainless Steel Flanges From India and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 42654-42658 [2017-19293]

Download as PDF 42654 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c). Dated: September 5, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Appendix [FR Doc. 2017–19294 Filed 9–8–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Scope of the Investigations The products covered by these investigations are certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semifinished, or finished (certain forged stainless steel flanges). Certain forged stainless steel flanges are generally manufactured to, but not limited to, the material specification of ASTM/ASME A/SA182 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. Certain forged stainless steel flanges are made in various grades such as, but not limited to, 304, 304L, 316, and 316L (or combinations thereof). The term ‘‘stainless steel’’ used in this scope refers to an alloy steel containing, by actual weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. Unfinished stainless steel flanges possess the approximate shape of finished stainless steel flanges and have not yet been machined to final specification after the initial forging or like operations. These machining processes may include, but are not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing. Semi-finished stainless steel flanges are unfinished stainless steel flanges that have undergone some machining processes. The scope includes six general types of flanges. They are: (1) Weld neck, generally used in butt-weld line connection; (2) threaded, generally used for threaded line connections; (3) slip-on, generally used to slide over pipe; (4) lap joint, generally used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; (5) socket weld, generally used to fit pipe into a machine recession; and (6) blind, generally used to seal off a line. The sizes and descriptions of the flanges within the scope include all pressure classes of ASME B16.5 and range from one-half inch to twenty-four inches nominal pipe size. Specifically excluded from the scope of these orders are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A351. The country of origin for certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished is the country where the flange was forged. Subject merchandise includes stainless steel flanges as defined above that have been further processed in a third country. The processing includes, but is not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing, and/or any other processing that would not otherwise VerDate Sep<11>2014 remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the stainless steel flanges. Merchandise subject to the investigations is typically imported under headings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings and ASTM specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. 16:34 Sep 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 International Trade Administration [C–533–878; C–570–065] Stainless Steel Flanges From India and the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective September 11, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kabir Archuletta at (202) 482–2593; Carrie Bethea at (202) 482–1491 (the People’s Republic of China); Ryan Mullen at (202) 482–5260 (India), AD/ CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: The Petitions On August 16, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports of stainless steel flanges from India and the People’s Republic of China (the PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of the Coalition of American Flange Producers and its individual members, Core Pipe Products, Inc., and Maass Flange Corporation (collectively ‘‘the petitioners’’). The CVD Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of stainless steel flanges from both of the countries listed above.1 The petitioners are domestic producers of stainless steel flanges.2 On August 18, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information 1 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner re: ‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s Republic of China and India: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties’’ (August 16, 2017) (the Petitions). 2 Id., Volume I of the Petitions, at 1 and Exhibit I–1. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.3 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on August 22, 2017.4 The petitioners filed revised scope language on August 22, 2017.5 In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Governments of India and the PRC are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to imports of stainless steel flanges from India and the PRC, respectively, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing stainless steel flanges in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations. The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the 3 See Letter to the petitioners from the Department, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Supplemental Questions’’ (August 18, 2017) (India CVD Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter from the Department, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Flanges from India and the People’s Republic of China: Supplemental Questions’’ (August 28, 2017) (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter to the petitioners from the Department ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s Republic of China: Supplemental Questions’’ (August 18, 2017) (PRC CVD Supplemental Questionnaire). 4 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioners, ‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s Republic of China and India: Supplement to the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties—Response to the Department’s Supplemental Questions, Volume V Relating to India,’’ (August 22, 2017) (India CVD Supplement); see also Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioners, ‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s Republic of China and India: Supplement to the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties—Response to the Department’s Supplemental Questions, Volume I Relating to Common Issues and Injury (August 22, 2017) (General Issues Supplement); see also Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioners, ‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s Republic of China and India: Supplement to the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties—Response to the Department’s Supplemental Questions, Volume III Relating to China,’’ (August 22, 2017) (PRC CVD Supplement). 5 See General Issues Supplement at Exhibit ISupp-5. E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices initiation of the CVD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.6 Period of Investigation Because the Petitions were filed on August 16, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) for both the investigation of India and the investigation of the PRC is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Scope of the Investigations The products covered by these investigations are stainless steel flanges from India and the PRC. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the Appendix to this notice. Comments on Scope of the Investigations During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7 As discussed in the preamble to the Department’s regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).8 The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with the interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information,9 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on September 25, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on October 5, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations. The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party 6 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petition’’ section, below. 7 See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement. 8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Sep 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. Filing Requirements All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).10 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines. Consultations Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the Governments of India (GOI) and the PRC (GOC) of the receipt of the Petitions, and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petitions.11 Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(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 10 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011), see also Enforcement and Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of the Department’s electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/ Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20 Procedures.pdf. 11 See Letter to the Embassy of India, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition’’ (August 24, 2017); see also Letter to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s Republic of China: Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition’’ (August 24, 2017). PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 42655 domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the ‘‘industry.’’ Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,12 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.13 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 Petitions). With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that stainless steel flanges, as defined in the 12 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)). 13 See E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1 42656 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.14 In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in Appendix I of this notice. The petitioners provided their own 2016 production of the domestic like product, and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.15 We relied on data the petitioners provided for purposes of measuring industry support.16 Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.17 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).18 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like 14 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Stainless Steel Flanges from India (India CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, ‘‘Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Stainless Steel Flanges from India and the People’s Republic of China;’’ see also Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s Republic of China (PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, ‘‘Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Stainless Steel Flanges from India and the People’s Republic of China.’’ These checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. 15 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2–3 and Exhibit I–3; see also General Issues Supplement, at 6–7. 16 Id. For further discussion, see India CVD Initiation Checklist and PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 17 See India CVD Initiation Checklist and PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 18 See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also India CVD Initiation Checklist and PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Sep 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 product.19 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.20 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that they are requesting that the Department initiate.21 Injury Test Because the PRC and India are ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’ within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC and India materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.22 In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise from developing and least developed countries must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent. The petitioners also demonstrate that subject imports from India, which has been designated as a least developed country under section 771(36)(B) of the Act, exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent.23 19 See India CVD Initiation Checklist and PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 19–20 and Exhibit I–8. 23 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The petitioners contend that the industry’s injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; and declining financial performance.24 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.25 Initiation of CVD Investigations Based on the examination of the CVD Petitions, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of stainless steel flanges from India and the PRC benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the governments of these countries. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation. Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.26 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.27 The amendments to sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these CVD investigations.28 India Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient 24 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 9–32 and Exhibits I–4, I–8 and I–10; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 8–9 and Exhibit I-Supp-1. 25 See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s Republic of China and India (Attachment III); and India CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III. 26 See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). 27 See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). The 2015 amendments may be found at https:// www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/ 1295/text/pl. 28 See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794–95. E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices information to initiate a CVD investigation on 41 of the 44 alleged programs in India. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the India CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES The PRC Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 28 alleged programs and one other program, in part. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation. Respondent Selection The petitioners named 43 and 80 companies as producers/exporters of stainless steel flanges in India and the PRC, respectively.29 The Department intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in this investigation. In the event the Department determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department’s resources, where appropriate, the Department intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of stainless steel flanges from India and the PRC during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ in the Appendix. On August 31, 2017, the Department released CBP data under APO to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of this CVD investigation.30 The Department will 29 See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I–7; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1. 30 See Memorandum, ‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges from India: U.S. Customs Data for Respondent Selection,’’ dated August 31, 2017; Memorandum, ‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges from the PRC: U.S. Customs Data for Respondent Selection,’’ dated August 31, 2017. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Sep 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department’s Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. We intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the GOI and GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determinations by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of stainless steel flanges from India and the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.31 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigations being terminated.32 Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. Submission of Factual Information Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)–(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 31 See 32 See PO 00000 section 703(a)(2) of the Act. section 703(a)(1) of the Act. Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 42657 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 33 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.34 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. Extensions of Time Limits Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/201322853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. Certification Requirements Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD 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.36 33 See 19 CFR 351.301(b). 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). 35 See section 782(b) of the Act. 36 See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 34 See Continued E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1 42658 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements. Notification to Interested Parties Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: September 5, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Appendix Scope of the Investigations The products covered by these investigations are certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semifinished, or finished (certain forged stainless steel flanges). Certain forged stainless steel flanges are generally manufactured to, but not limited to, the material specification of ASTM/ASME A/SA182 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. Certain forged stainless steel flanges are made in various grades such as, but not limited to, 304, 304L, 316, and 316L (or combinations thereof). The term ‘‘stainless steel’’ used in this scope refers to an alloy steel containing, by actual weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. Unfinished stainless steel flanges possess the approximate shape of finished stainless steel flanges and have not yet been machined to final specification after the initial forging or like operations. These machining processes may include, but are not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing. Semi-finished stainless steel flanges are 17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Sep 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 unfinished stainless steel flanges that have undergone some machining processes. The scope includes six general types of flanges. They are: (1) Weld neck, generally used in butt-weld line connection; (2) threaded, generally used for threaded line connections; (3) slip-on, generally used to slide over pipe; (4) lap joint, generally used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; (5) socket weld, generally used to fit pipe into a machine recession; and (6) blind, generally used to seal off a line. The sizes and descriptions of the flanges within the scope include all pressure classes of ASME B16.5 and range from one-half inch to twenty-four inches nominal pipe size. Specifically excluded from the scope of these orders are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A351. The country of origin for certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished is the country where the flange was forged. Subject merchandise includes stainless steel flanges as defined above that have been further processed in a third country. The processing includes, but is not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing, and/or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the stainless steel flanges. Merchandise subject to the investigations is typically imported under headings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). While HTS subheadings and ASTM specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2017–19293 Filed 9–8–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XF677 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. AGENCY: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a 5-day meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda: DATES: The meetings will be held on September 25–29, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at ˜ the Council Office, 270 Munoz Rivera SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, ˜ 270 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1903; telephone: (787) 766–5926. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: —Call to Order —Adoption of Agenda —Overview Review outcomes from previous meeting —Review Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rule Language Review suggestions from General Counsel and Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) on text of Tier 4 of the control rule Develop language to define ‘‘consensus’’ as used in determining Tier assignments (or otherwise alter language to remove the term) —Action 2: Finalize establishment of stock/stock complexes for each of the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. Thomas/St. John Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) —Determine use of Indicator Species to recommend to the Council —Finalize recommendations on: —Criteria used to select indicator species —How indicator species will be used to determine management reference points for stock complexes —Action 3: Management Reference Points for Stocks/Stock complexes in each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John and St Croix FMPs Tiered ABC Control Rule: —Review and finalize Tier assignments (4a or 4b): Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. Thomas/St. John —Define process for determining the scalars used in Tiered ABC Control Rule —Define process for determining the buffer from the overfishing limit (OFL) to ABC (scientific uncertainty buffer) used in the Tiered ABC Control Rule —Choice of scalar and scientific uncertainty buffer for Tiers 4a and 4b for the applicable stocks Stocks/stock complexes to which the Tiered ABC CR cannot be applied: —Recommendations on time series of landings data (year sequences) to establish reference points for the applicable stocks/stock complexes —Recommendations on the establishment of the maximum sustainable yield proxy (e.g., mean, median, following the Caribbean Annual Catch Limit Amendments’ approach) for the applicable stocks/ E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42654-42658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19293]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-878; C-570-065]


Stainless Steel Flanges From India and the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective September 11, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kabir Archuletta at (202) 482-2593; 
Carrie Bethea at (202) 482-1491 (the People's Republic of China); Ryan 
Mullen at (202) 482-5260 (India), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and 
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On August 16, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the 
Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning 
imports of stainless steel flanges from India and the People's Republic 
of China (the PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of the Coalition of 
American Flange Producers and its individual members, Core Pipe 
Products, Inc., and Maass Flange Corporation (collectively ``the 
petitioners''). The CVD Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty 
(AD) Petitions concerning imports of stainless steel flanges from both 
of the countries listed above.\1\ The petitioners are domestic 
producers of stainless steel flanges.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner 
re: ``Stainless Steel Flanges from the People's Republic of China 
and India: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties'' (August 16, 2017) (the Petitions).
    \2\ Id., Volume I of the Petitions, at 1 and Exhibit I-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 18, 2017, the Department requested supplemental 
information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.\3\ The 
petitioners filed responses to these requests on August 22, 2017.\4\ 
The petitioners filed revised scope language on August 22, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter to the petitioners from the Department, 
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 
Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Supplemental Questions'' (August 
18, 2017) (India CVD Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter 
from the Department, ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Flanges from 
India and the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions'' 
(August 28, 2017) (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see 
also Letter to the petitioners from the Department ``Petition for 
the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Stainless 
Steel Flanges from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental 
Questions'' (August 18, 2017) (PRC CVD Supplemental Questionnaire).
    \4\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the 
petitioners, ``Stainless Steel Flanges from the People's Republic of 
China and India: Supplement to the Petitions for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties--Response to the Department's 
Supplemental Questions, Volume V Relating to India,'' (August 22, 
2017) (India CVD Supplement); see also Letter to the Secretary of 
Commerce from the petitioners, ``Stainless Steel Flanges from the 
People's Republic of China and India: Supplement to the Petitions 
for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties--
Response to the Department's Supplemental Questions, Volume I 
Relating to Common Issues and Injury (August 22, 2017) (General 
Issues Supplement); see also Letter to the Secretary of Commerce 
from the petitioners, ``Stainless Steel Flanges from the People's 
Republic of China and India: Supplement to the Petitions for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties--Response to the 
Department's Supplemental Questions, Volume III Relating to China,'' 
(August 22, 2017) (PRC CVD Supplement).
    \5\ See General Issues Supplement at Exhibit I-Supp-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Governments of India 
and the PRC are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning 
of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to imports of stainless steel 
flanges from India and the PRC, respectively, and that such imports are 
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic 
industry producing stainless steel flanges in the United States. Also, 
consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged 
programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petitions 
are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners 
supporting their allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested 
parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act. The 
Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the

[[Page 42655]]

initiation of the CVD investigations that the petitioners are 
requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' 
section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on August 16, 2017, the period of 
investigation (POI) for both the investigation of India and the 
investigation of the PRC is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are stainless steel 
flanges from India and the PRC. For a full description of the scope of 
these investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the 
Appendix to this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the 
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would 
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic 
industry is seeking relief.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also 
General Issues Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage (scope).\8\ The Department will consider all 
comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will 
consult with the interested parties prior to the issuance of the 
preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual 
information,\9\ all such factual information should be limited to 
public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, 
the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments 
by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on September 25, 2017, which is 20 
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal 
comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 
p.m. ET on October 5, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the initial 
comments deadline. All such comments must be filed on the records of 
each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \9\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties 
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted 
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that 
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the 
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department 
and request permission to submit the additional information.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing 
Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\10\ An 
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the 
electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in 
paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 
18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 
the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011), see also Enforcement and 
Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 
(November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic 
filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. 
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations

    Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the 
Department notified representatives of the Governments of India (GOI) 
and the PRC (GOC) of the receipt of the Petitions, and provided them 
the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD 
Petitions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Letter to the Embassy of India, ``Countervailing Duty 
Petition on Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Invitation for 
Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition'' (August 
24, 2017); see also Letter to the Embassy of the People's Republic 
of China, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on Stainless Steel Flanges 
from the People's Republic of China: Invitation for Consultations to 
Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition'' (August 24, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(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 702(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product,\12\ 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \13\ 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 
Petitions).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that stainless steel 
flanges, as defined in the

[[Page 42656]]

scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed 
industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as 
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, 
see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Stainless Steel Flanges from India (India CVD Initiation Checklist), 
at Attachment II, ``Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Stainless Steel Flanges 
from India and the People's Republic of China;'' see also 
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Stainless 
Steel Flanges from the People's Republic of China (PRC CVD 
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, ``Analysis of Industry 
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Stainless Steel Flanges from India and the People's 
Republic of China.'' These checklists are dated concurrently with 
this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to 
documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records 
Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of 
this notice. The petitioners provided their own 2016 production of the 
domestic like product, and compared this to the estimated total 
production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic 
industry.\15\ We relied on data the petitioners provided for purposes 
of measuring industry support.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3 and Exhibit I-3; see 
also General Issues Supplement, at 6-7.
    \16\ Id. For further discussion, see India CVD Initiation 
Checklist and PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues 
Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for 
the Petitions.\17\ First, the Petitions established support from 
domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the 
Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate 
industry support (e.g., polling).\18\ Second, the domestic producers 
(or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or 
workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product.\19\ Finally, the 
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the 
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the Petitions.\20\ Accordingly, the Department 
determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic 
industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See India CVD Initiation Checklist and PRC CVD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \18\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also India CVD 
Initiation Checklist and PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 
II.
    \19\ See India CVD Initiation Checklist and PRC CVD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act and they have 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD 
investigations that they are requesting that the Department 
initiate.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because the PRC and India are ``Subsidies Agreement Countries'' 
within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of 
the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must 
determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC and 
India materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. 
industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are 
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are 
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry 
producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners 
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided 
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\22\ In CVD petitions, section 
771(24)(B) of the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise from 
developing and least developed countries must exceed the negligibility 
threshold of four percent. The petitioners also demonstrate that 
subject imports from India, which has been designated as a least 
developed country under section 771(36)(B) of the Act, exceed the 
negligibility threshold of four percent.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 19-20 and Exhibit I-8.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression 
or depression; lost sales and revenues; and declining financial 
performance.\24\ 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.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 9-32 and Exhibits I-4, I-
8 and I-10; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 8-9 and 
Exhibit I-Supp-1.
    \25\ See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Stainless Steel Flanges from the People's Republic of China 
and India (Attachment III); and India CVD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of CVD Investigations

    Based on the examination of the CVD Petitions, we find that the 
Petitions meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, 
we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of 
stainless steel flanges from India and the PRC benefit from 
countervailable subsidies conferred by the governments of these 
countries. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.\26\ The 2015 law does not 
specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, 
the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced 
the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for 
amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to 
determinations of material injury by the ITC.\27\ The amendments to 
sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations 
made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these CVD 
investigations.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-
27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \27\ See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension 
Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). 
The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
    \28\ See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

India

    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is 
sufficient

[[Page 42657]]

information to initiate a CVD investigation on 41 of the 44 alleged 
programs in India. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision 
to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the India CVD 
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for 
this investigation is available on ACCESS.

The PRC

    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 28 alleged 
programs and one other program, in part. For a full discussion of the 
basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD 
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for 
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    The petitioners named 43 and 80 companies as producers/exporters of 
stainless steel flanges in India and the PRC, respectively.\29\ The 
Department intends to follow its standard practice in CVD 
investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in this 
investigation. In the event the Department determines that the number 
of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company 
based upon the Department's resources, where appropriate, the 
Department intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of stainless 
steel flanges from India and the PRC during the POI under the 
appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers 
listed in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I-7; see also 
General Issues Supplement, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 31, 2017, the Department released CBP data under APO to 
all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated 
that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and 
respondent selection must do so within three business days of the 
publication date of the notice of initiation of this CVD 
investigation.\30\ The Department will not accept rebuttal comments 
regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Memorandum, ``Stainless Steel Flanges from India: U.S. 
Customs Data for Respondent Selection,'' dated August 31, 2017; 
Memorandum, ``Stainless Steel Flanges from the PRC: U.S. Customs 
Data for Respondent Selection,'' dated August 31, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such 
applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An 
electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its 
entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. 
We intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent selection 
within 20 days of publication of this notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the GOI and GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we 
will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions 
to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 
351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
702(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of stainless steel flanges from India and the 
PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. 
industry.\31\ A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigations being terminated.\32\ Otherwise, these investigations 
will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
    \32\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence 
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires 
any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which 
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 
\33\ and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 
factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation 
identifying the information already on the record that the factual 
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.\34\ Time limits for 
the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, 
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. Interested parties should review the 
regulations prior to submitting factual information in these 
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \34\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as 
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request 
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the 
time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions 
that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request 
will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the 
due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a 
different time limit by which extension requests will be considered 
untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties 
simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or 
memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by 
which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An 
extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; 
under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for 
the extension of time limits. Parties should review Extension of Time 
Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior 
to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD 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.\36\

[[Page 42658]]

Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after 
August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings 
initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the 
revised certifications provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). The Department 
intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not 
comply with the applicable 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, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (``Final Rule''); see also 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the 
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should 
ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the 
filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: September 5, 2017.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are certain forged 
stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or 
finished (certain forged stainless steel flanges). Certain forged 
stainless steel flanges are generally manufactured to, but not 
limited to, the material specification of ASTM/ASME A/SA182 or 
comparable domestic or foreign specifications. Certain forged 
stainless steel flanges are made in various grades such as, but not 
limited to, 304, 304L, 316, and 316L (or combinations thereof). The 
term ``stainless steel'' used in this scope refers to an alloy steel 
containing, by actual weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements.
    Unfinished stainless steel flanges possess the approximate shape 
of finished stainless steel flanges and have not yet been machined 
to final specification after the initial forging or like operations. 
These machining processes may include, but are not limited to, 
boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, 
beveling, heating, or compressing. Semi-finished stainless steel 
flanges are unfinished stainless steel flanges that have undergone 
some machining processes.
    The scope includes six general types of flanges. They are: (1) 
Weld neck, generally used in butt-weld line connection; (2) 
threaded, generally used for threaded line connections; (3) slip-on, 
generally used to slide over pipe; (4) lap joint, generally used 
with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; (5) socket weld, 
generally used to fit pipe into a machine recession; and (6) blind, 
generally used to seal off a line. The sizes and descriptions of the 
flanges within the scope include all pressure classes of ASME B16.5 
and range from one-half inch to twenty-four inches nominal pipe 
size. Specifically excluded from the scope of these orders are cast 
stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are 
manufactured to specification ASTM A351.
    The country of origin for certain forged stainless steel 
flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished is the 
country where the flange was forged. Subject merchandise includes 
stainless steel flanges as defined above that have been further 
processed in a third country. The processing includes, but is not 
limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, 
threading, beveling, heating, or compressing, and/or any other 
processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the 
scope of the investigations if performed in the country of 
manufacture of the stainless steel flanges.
    Merchandise subject to the investigations is typically imported 
under headings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). While HTS subheadings 
and ASTM specifications are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2017-19293 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P