Stainless Steel Flanges From India and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 42649-42654 [2017-19294]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices withdrawal from, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Notification Regarding Administrative Protection Order This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or the conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: September 1, 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. [FR Doc. 2017–19169 Filed 9–8–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–877, A–570–064] Stainless Steel Flanges From India and the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: DATES: Effective September 11, 2017. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annathea Cook at (202) 482–0250 (India) and Kenneth Hawkins at (202) 482–6491 (the People’s Republic of China), 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Sep 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 Department) received antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of stainless steel flanges from India and the People’s Republic of China (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).1 The AD Petitions were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports of stainless steel flanges from India and the PRC. The petitioners are domestic producers of stainless steel flanges.2 On August 18 and 21, 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 30, 2017.5 In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of stainless steel flanges from India and the PRC are likely to be sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing stainless steel flanges in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations. The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on 1 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce 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 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2. 3 See Letters from the Department, to the petitioners, dated August 18, 2017. 4 See Letter from the petitioners, ‘‘Re: 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 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 IV Relating to India (India AD Supplemental Response); and 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 II Relating to China (PRC AD Supplemental Response). All of these documents are dated August 22, 2017. 5 See Letter 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-Revision to Scope,’’ dated August 30, 2017 (Scope Supplement). PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 42649 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 initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.6 Periods of Investigation Because the Petitions were filed on August 16, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) for the investigation for India is July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017. Because the PRC is a nonmarket economy (NME) country, the POI for this investigation is January 1, 2017, through June 30, 2017. 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 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 Monday, 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 Thursday, October 5, 2017, which is 10 6 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions’’ section, below. 7 See Attachment to the Scope Supplement. 8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual information’’). E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1 42650 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices calendar days from the initial comments deadline.10 11 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. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations. 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).12 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. Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of stainless steel flanges to be reported in response to the Department’s AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate productcomparison criteria. 10 See 19 CFR 351.303(b). Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 12 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. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 11 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Sep 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe stainless steel flanges, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on September 25, 2017. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on October 5, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of India and the PRC less-than-fair-value investigations. Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions 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 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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,13 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.14 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 scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.15 13 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)). 15 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Stainless Steel Flanges from India (India AD 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’’ (Attachment II); see also Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated 14 See E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the Appendix to 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.16 We relied on data the petitioners provided for purposes of measuring industry support.17 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.18 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).19 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.20 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the 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.21 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the 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. 16 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2–3 and Exhibit I–3; see also General Issues Supplement, at 6–7. 17 Id. For further discussion, see India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 18 See India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 19 See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 20 See India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 21 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Sep 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(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 AD investigations that they are requesting that the Department initiate.22 Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.23 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 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 AD investigations of imports of stainless steel flanges from India and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists. Export Price For India, the petitioners based the U.S. price on export price (EP) using sales of stainless steel flanges produced in and exported from India to an unaffiliated U.S. customer.26 For the 22 Id. 23 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 19–20 and Exhibit I–8. 24 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 9–32 and Exhibits I–4, I–8, and I–10. 25 See PRC AD 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 AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III. 26 See India AD Initiation Checklist. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 42651 PRC, the petitioners based U.S. price on EP using price quotes for sales of stainless steel flanges produced in and exported from the PRC to unaffiliated U.S. customers.27 Where applicable, the petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement and other expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.28 Normal Value For India, the petitioners provided home market price information for stainless steel flanges produced in, and sold or offered for sale in India.29 The petitioners provided a declaration establishing the terms of sale.30 Because the prices were provided on an exworks basis, the petitioners did not make any deductions.31 With respect to the PRC, the petitioners stated that the Department has found this country to be a nonmarket economy (NME) country in prior administrative proceedings in which they were involved.32 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, NV in the PRC is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.33 In the course of this investigation, all parties, and the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. The petitioners claim that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country for the PRC, because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from Thailand is available to value all material input factors.34 Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we determine that it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection 27 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. PRC AD Initiation Checklist and India AD Initiation Checklist. 29 See India AD Initiation Checklist. 30 Id. 31 Id. 32 See Volume II of the Petitions, at 10–11. 33 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 34 See Volume II of the Petitions at 13–20 and Exhibit AD–CH–21. 28 See E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1 42652 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs no later than 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination. Factors of Production Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by the PRC producers/exporters is not available, the petitioners relied on the production experience of a domestic producer of stainless steel flanges in the United States as an estimate of PRC manufacturers’ FOPs.35 The petitioners valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from Thailand.36 Additionally, for the surrogate values denominated in Thai Baht, the petitioners converted Thai Baht prices into U.S. Dollars using the average exchange rate obtained from the Department.37 Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of stainless steel flanges from the PRC and India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for stainless steel flanges for each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) PRC—99.23 to 257.11 percent; 38 and (2) India—78.49 to 145.25 39 percent. Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of stainless steel flanges from the PRC and India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous 35 See Volume II of the Petitions at 13–14 and Exhibit AD–CH–19. 36 See Volume II of the Petitions at 1, 10 and Exhibit AD–CH–21. 37 See Volume II of the Petitions at 17 and Exhibit AD–CH–20; see also PRC AD Supplemental Response, at 4–5 and Exhibits AD–CH–Supp–6, AD–CH–Supp–8, and AD–CH–Supp–9. 38 See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 39 See India AD Initiation Checklist. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Sep 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 amendments to the AD and CVD law were made.40 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.41 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these AD investigations.42 Respondent Selection The petitioners named 43 companies in India as producers/exporters of stainless steel flanges.43 Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, in the event the Department determines that the number of companies in India identified above is large, the Department intends to review U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of stainless steel flanges during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings, and if it determines that it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department’s resources, then the Department will select respondents based on that data. On August 31, 2017, the Department released CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (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 AD investigation.44 The Department will 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:// 40 See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). 41 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). 42 Id. at 46794–95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/1295/text/pl. 43 See India AD Supplemental Response, at Exhibit I–Supp–2. 44 See Memorandum, ‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges from India Antidumping Duty Petition: Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,’’ dated, August 31, 2017. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 enforcement.trade.gov/apo. Comments for this investigation must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department’s electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET, by the date noted above. We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. With respect to the PRC, the petitioners named 80 producers/ exporters of stainless steel flanges from the PRC.45 In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in AD cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation and, if necessary, base respondent selection on the responses received. For this NME investigation, the Department will request Q&V information from known exporters and producers identified with complete contact information in the Petitions. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instructions on Enforcement and Compliance’s Web site at http:// www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. Producers/exporters of stainless steel flanges from the PRC that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Enforcement & Compliance’s Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant PRC exporters/producers no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on September 19, 2017. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS. Separate Rates In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.46 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in the PRC investigations 45 Though the petitioners listed 84 ‘‘known producers of stainless steel flanges from the PRC’’ in Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I–7, they clarified in the Supplement Response to Volume I of the Petitions at 1 and Exhibit I–Supp–2 that ‘‘publicly available information {shows} that Vinox Manufacturing Co., Ltd and Yih Kuang Metal Corp. have manufacturing facilities in China. At this time, the petitioners do not have information indicating that the other Taiwanese entities are affiliated with producers or exporters in China. Accordingly, the petitioners have removed these entities from the revised list of foreign producers and exporters.’’ 46 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 05.1). E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on the Department’s Web site at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-seprate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.47 Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they timely respond to all parts of the Department’s AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that companies from the PRC submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separaterate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Companies not filing a timely Q&V response will not receive separate-rate consideration. exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). Use of Combination Rates Submission of Factual Information The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states: 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 51 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.52 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. {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of ‘‘combination rates’’ because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.48 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of the PRC and India via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each 47 Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that ‘‘the Secretary may request any person to submit factual information at any time during a proceeding,’’ this deadline is now 30 days. 48 See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:34 Sep 08, 2017 Jkt 241001 ITC Notification We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(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 the PRC and India, are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.49 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.50 Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. 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 49 See section 773(a) of the Act. 50 Id. 51 See 52 See PO 00000 19 CFR 351.301(b). 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 42653 is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. 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.53 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives.54 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 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 these investigations should ensure 53 See section 782(b) of the Act. 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. 54 See E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM 11SEN1 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

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42649-42654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-877, A-570-064]


Stainless Steel Flanges From India and the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

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


DATES: Effective September 11, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annathea Cook at (202) 482-0250 
(India) and Kenneth Hawkins at (202) 482-6491 (the People's Republic of 
China), 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 antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports 
of stainless steel flanges from India and the People's Republic of 
China (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).\1\ The AD Petitions were accompanied by countervailing 
duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports of stainless steel flanges from 
India and the PRC. The petitioners are domestic producers of stainless 
steel flanges.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce 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\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 18 and 21, 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 30, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letters from the Department, to the petitioners, dated 
August 18, 2017.
    \4\ See Letter from the petitioners, ``Re: 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 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 IV 
Relating to India (India AD Supplemental Response); and 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 II Relating to China (PRC AD Supplemental 
Response). All of these documents are dated August 22, 2017.
    \5\ See Letter 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-Revision to Scope,'' dated August 30, 2017 (Scope 
Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of stainless 
steel flanges from India and the PRC are likely to be sold in the 
United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 
of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or 
threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing 
stainless steel flanges in the United States. Also, consistent with 
section 732(b)(1) of the Act, 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 initiation of the AD 
investigations that the petitioners are requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Periods of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on August 16, 2017, the period of 
investigation (POI) for the investigation for India is July 1, 2016, 
through June 30, 2017. Because the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) 
country, the POI for this investigation is January 1, 2017, through 
June 30, 2017.

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 Attachment to the Scope 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 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 Monday, 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 Thursday, October 5, 2017, which is 10

[[Page 42650]]

calendar days from the initial comments deadline.10 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \9\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual 
information'').
    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
    \11\ See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next Business 
Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to 
the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. All such 
comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and 
CVD investigations.

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).\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of stainless steel 
flanges to be reported in response to the Department's AD 
questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key 
physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in 
order to report the relevant costs of production accurately as well as 
to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, although there 
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers 
to describe stainless steel flanges, it may be that only a select few 
product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful 
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment 
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in 
matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most 
important physical characteristics first and the least important 
characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product 
characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on September 25, 
2017. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on October 5, 
2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of 
India and the PRC less-than-fair-value investigations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product,\13\ 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \14\ 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 scope, constitute a single domestic like 
product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that 
domestic like product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as 
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, 
see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Stainless 
Steel Flanges from India (India AD 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'' (Attachment II); see 
also Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Stainless 
Steel Flanges from the People's Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation 
Checklist), at Attachment II. 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.

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

[[Page 42651]]

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the Appendix to 
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.\16\ We relied on data the petitioners provided for purposes 
of measuring industry support.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3 and Exhibit I-3; see 
also General Issues Supplement, at 6-7.
    \17\ Id. For further discussion, see India AD Initiation 
Checklist and PRC AD 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.\18\ 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).\19\ Second, the domestic producers 
(or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or 
workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product.\20\ Finally, the 
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the 
domestic producers (or workers) who support the 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.\21\ Accordingly, the Department 
determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic 
industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \19\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also India AD 
Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 
II.
    \20\ See India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \21\ 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 AD 
investigations that they are requesting that the Department 
initiate.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the 
petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
    \25\ See PRC AD 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 AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate AD investigations of imports of stainless steel flanges from 
India and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and 
adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater 
detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

Export Price

    For India, the petitioners based the U.S. price on export price 
(EP) using sales of stainless steel flanges produced in and exported 
from India to an unaffiliated U.S. customer.\26\ For the PRC, the 
petitioners based U.S. price on EP using price quotes for sales of 
stainless steel flanges produced in and exported from the PRC to 
unaffiliated U.S. customers.\27\ Where applicable, the petitioners made 
deductions from U.S. price for movement and other expenses, consistent 
with the terms of sale.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
    \27\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
    \28\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and India AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    For India, the petitioners provided home market price information 
for stainless steel flanges produced in, and sold or offered for sale 
in India.\29\ The petitioners provided a declaration establishing the 
terms of sale.\30\ Because the prices were provided on an ex-works 
basis, the petitioners did not make any deductions.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the PRC, the petitioners stated that the Department 
has found this country to be a non-market economy (NME) country in 
prior administrative proceedings in which they were involved.\32\ In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of 
NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The 
presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the 
Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the 
initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, NV in the PRC is 
appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a 
surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act.\33\ In the course of this investigation, all parties, and the 
public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information 
related to the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at 10-11.
    \33\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners claim that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate 
country for the PRC, because it is a market economy country that is at 
a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information 
from Thailand is available to value all material input factors.\34\ 
Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we determine that 
it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for initiation 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Volume II of the Petitions at 13-20 and Exhibit AD-CH-
21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments 
regarding surrogate country selection

[[Page 42652]]

and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an 
opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs no 
later than 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary 
determination.

Factors of Production

    Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by the 
PRC producers/exporters is not available, the petitioners relied on the 
production experience of a domestic producer of stainless steel flanges 
in the United States as an estimate of PRC manufacturers' FOPs.\35\ The 
petitioners valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from 
Thailand.\36\ Additionally, for the surrogate values denominated in 
Thai Baht, the petitioners converted Thai Baht prices into U.S. Dollars 
using the average exchange rate obtained from the Department.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Volume II of the Petitions at 13-14 and Exhibit AD-CH-
19.
    \36\ See Volume II of the Petitions at 1, 10 and Exhibit AD-CH-
21.
    \37\ See Volume II of the Petitions at 17 and Exhibit AD-CH-20; 
see also PRC AD Supplemental Response, at 4-5 and Exhibits AD-CH-
Supp-6, AD-CH-Supp-8, and AD-CH-Supp-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of stainless steel flanges from the PRC and India 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with 
sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for 
stainless steel flanges for each of the countries covered by this 
initiation are as follows: (1) PRC--99.23 to 257.11 percent; \38\ and 
(2) India--78.49 to 145.25 \39\ percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
    \39\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions, we find that the 
Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, 
we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of 
stainless steel flanges from the PRC and India are being, or are likely 
to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance 
with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless 
postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 
140 days after the date of this initiation.
    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD law were made.\40\ 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.\41\ The amendments to 
sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all 
determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply 
to these AD investigations.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-
27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \41\ 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).
    \42\ Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    The petitioners named 43 companies in India as producers/exporters 
of stainless steel flanges.\43\ Following standard practice in AD 
investigations involving market economy countries, in the event the 
Department determines that the number of companies in India identified 
above is large, the Department intends to review U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of stainless steel 
flanges during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States subheadings, and if it determines that it cannot 
individually examine each company based upon the Department's 
resources, then the Department will select respondents based on that 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See India AD Supplemental Response, at Exhibit I-Supp-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 31, 2017, the Department released CBP data under 
Administrative Protective Order (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 AD investigation.\44\ The Department will 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 for this investigation must be 
filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document 
must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's 
electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET, by the date noted 
above. We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent 
selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Memorandum, ``Stainless Steel Flanges from India 
Antidumping Duty Petition: Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection,'' dated, August 31, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the PRC, the petitioners named 80 producers/
exporters of stainless steel flanges from the PRC.\45\ In accordance 
with our standard practice for respondent selection in AD cases 
involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) 
questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise subject to this 
investigation and, if necessary, base respondent selection on the 
responses received. For this NME investigation, the Department will 
request Q&V information from known exporters and producers identified 
with complete contact information in the Petitions. In addition, the 
Department will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing 
instructions on Enforcement and Compliance's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Though the petitioners listed 84 ``known producers of 
stainless steel flanges from the PRC'' in Volume I of the Petition 
at Exhibit I-7, they clarified in the Supplement Response to Volume 
I of the Petitions at 1 and Exhibit I-Supp-2 that ``publicly 
available information {shows{time}  that Vinox Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd and Yih Kuang Metal Corp. have manufacturing facilities in 
China. At this time, the petitioners do not have information 
indicating that the other Taiwanese entities are affiliated with 
producers or exporters in China. Accordingly, the petitioners have 
removed these entities from the revised list of foreign producers 
and exporters.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Producers/exporters of stainless steel flanges from the PRC that do 
not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to 
the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire 
from Enforcement & Compliance's Web site. The Q&V response must be 
submitted by the relevant PRC exporters/producers no later than 5:00 
p.m. ET on September 19, 2017. All Q&V responses must be filed 
electronically via ACCESS.

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.\46\ 
The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in 
the PRC investigations

[[Page 42653]]

are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on 
the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after 
publication of this initiation notice.\47\ Exporters and producers who 
submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory 
respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status 
only if they timely respond to all parts of the Department's AD 
questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that 
companies from the PRC submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire 
and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order 
to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Companies not filing 
a timely Q&V response will not receive separate-rate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 
05.1).
    \47\ Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, 
consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that ``the Secretary 
may request any person to submit factual information at any time 
during a proceeding,'' this deadline is now 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Combination Rates

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

{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates 
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now 
assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers 
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the 
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period 
of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory 
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as 
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is 
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such 
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more 
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply 
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and 
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the governments of the PRC and India 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 
732(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 the PRC and 
India, are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. 
industry.\49\ A negative ITC determination for any country will result 
in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.\50\ 
Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See section 773(a) of the Act.
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
\51\ 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.\52\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \52\ 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. 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.\53\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their 
representatives.\54\ 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 applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \54\ 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 these investigations 
should ensure

[[Page 42654]]

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.

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 (HTSUS). While HTSUS 
subheadings and ASTM specifications are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the scope is 
dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2017-19294 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P