Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 18211 

42See section 782(b) of the Act. 

43See Certification of Factual Information to 

Import Administration During Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Interim Final 

Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011) (‘‘Interim 

Final Rule’’) (amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) & (2)), 

as supplemented by Certification of Factual 

Information to Import Administration During 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Supplemental Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 

(September 2, 2011) (‘‘Supplemental Interim Final 

Rule’’). 

44Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and sounddeadening pads are not covered by the scope of 

these investigations if they are not included within 

the sales price of the Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks, 

regardless of whether they are shipped with or 

entered with Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks. 

Department considers the service of the 

public version of the Petition to the 

foreign producers/exporters satisfied by 

the delivery of the public version of the 

Petition to the PRC Government, 

consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than April 16, 2012, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of drawn stainless steel sinks 

from the PRC are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to a U.S. 

industry. A negative ITC determination 

with respect to any country will result 

in the investigation being terminated for 

that country; otherwise, this 

investigation will proceed according to 

statutory and regulatory time limits. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). 

On January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 

22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate 

in this investigation should ensure that 

they meet the requirements of these 

procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 

appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD/CVD proceeding 

must certify to the accuracy and 

completeness of that information.42

Parties are hereby reminded that revised 

certification requirements are in effect 

for company/government officials as 

well as their representatives in all 

segments of any AD/CVD proceeding 

initiated on or after March 14, 2011.43

The formats for the revised certifications 

are provided at the end of the Interim 

Final Rule and the Supplemental 

Interim Final Rule. The Department 

intends to reject factual submissions in 

any proceeding segments initiated on or 

after March 14, 2011, if the submitting 

party does not comply with the revised 

certification requirements. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 21, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by the scope of these 

investigations are stainless steel sinks with 

single or multiple drawn bowls, with or 

without drain boards, whether finished or 

unfinished, regardless of type of finish, 

gauge, or grade of stainless steel (‘‘Drawn 

Stainless Steel Sinks’’). Mounting clips, 

fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening pads 

are also covered by the scope of these 

investigations if they are included within the 

sales price of the Drawn Stainless Steel 

Sinks.44 For purposes of this scope 

definition, the term ‘‘drawn’’ refers to a 

manufacturing process using metal forming 

technology to produce a smooth basin with 

seamless, smooth, and rounded corners. 

Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks are available in 

various shapes and configurations and may 

be described in a number of ways including 

flush mount, top mount, or undermount (to 

indicate the attachment relative to the 

countertop). Stainless steel sinks with 

multiple drawn bowls that are joined through 

a welding operation to form one unit are 

covered by the scope of the investigations. 

Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks are covered by 

the scope of the investigations whether or not 

they are sold in conjunction with non-subject 

accessories such as faucets (whether attached 

or unattached), strainers, strainer sets, rinsing 

baskets, bottom grids, or other accessories. 

Excluded from the scope of the 

investigations are stainless steel sinks with 

fabricated bowls. Fabricated bowls do not 

have seamless corners, but rather are made 

by notching and bending the stainless steel, 

and then welding and finishing the vertical 

corners to form the bowls. Stainless steel 

sinks with fabricated bowls may sometimes 

be referred to as ‘‘zero radius’’ or ‘‘near zero 

radius’’ sinks. 

The products covered by these 

investigations are currently classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under statistical reporting 

number 7324.10.0000. Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience and 

customs purposes, the written description of 

the products under investigation is 

dispositive of its inclusion as subject 

merchandise. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7353 Filed 3–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–984] 

Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 27, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Subler and Hermes Pinilla, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0189 and (202) 

482–3477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On March 1, 2012, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) petition 

concerning imports of drawn stainless 

steel sinks from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by 

Elkay Manufacturing Company 

(‘‘Petitioner’’). See Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties Against Drawn 

Stainless Steel Sinks from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated March 1, 2012 

(‘‘the Petition’’). On March 6 and 7, 

2012, the Department issued requests to 

Petitioner for additional information 

and for clarification of certain areas of 

the CVD Petition. Based on the 

Department’s requests, Petitioner filed a 

supplement to the Petition on March 9, 

2012. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), Petitioner alleges that 

producers/exporters of drawn stainless 

steel sinks from the PRC received 

countervailable subsidies within the 

meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of 

the Act, and that imports from these 

producers/exporters materially injure, 

or threaten material injury to, an 

industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioner is 

an interested party, as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, and has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the investigation 

that it requests the Department to 

initiate (see ‘‘Determination of Industry 

Support for the Petition’’ below). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18212 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 

1Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and sounddeadening pads are not covered by the scope of this 

investigation if they are not included within the 

sales price of the Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks, 

regardless of whether they are shipped with or 

entered with Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks. 

2See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07- 

06/pdf/2011-16352.pdf for details of the 

Department’s Electronic Filing Requirements, 

which went into effect on August 5, 2011. 

Information on help using IA ACCESS can be found 

at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a 

handbook can be found at https:// 

iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on

%20Electronic%20Filing%20Procedures.pdf. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is January 

1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by the scope of 

this investigation are stainless steel 

sinks with single or multiple drawn 

bowls, with or without drain boards, 

whether finished or unfinished, 

regardless of type of finish, gauge, or 

grade of stainless steel (‘‘Drawn 

Stainless Steel Sinks’’). Mounting clips, 

fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening 

pads are also covered by the scope of 

the investigation if they are included 

within the sales price of the Drawn 

Stainless Steel Sinks.1 For purposes of 

this scope definition, the term ‘‘drawn’’ 

refers to a manufacturing process using 

metal forming technology to produce a 

smooth basin with seamless, smooth, 

and rounded corners. Drawn Stainless 

Steel Sinks are available in various 

shapes and configurations and may be 

described in a number of ways 

including flush mount, top mount, or 

undermount (to indicate the attachment 

relative to the countertop). Stainless 

steel sinks with multiple bowls that are 

joined through a welding operation to 

form one unit are covered by the scope 

of the investigation. Drawn Stainless 

Steel Sinks are covered by the scope of 

the investigation whether or not they are 

sold in conjunction with non-subject 

accessories such as faucets (whether 

attached or unattached), strainers, 

strainer sets, rinsing baskets, bottom 

grids, or other accessories. 

Excluded from the scope of the 

investigation are stainless steel sinks 

with fabricated bowls. Fabricated bowls 

do not have seamless corners, but rather 

are made by notching and bending the 

stainless steel, and then welding and 

finishing the vertical corners to form the 

bowls. Stainless steel sinks with 

fabricated bowls may sometimes be 

referred to as ‘‘zero radius’’ or ‘‘near 

zero radius’’ sinks. 

The products covered by the 

investigation are currently classified in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under 

statistical reporting number 

7324.10.000. Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the products under 

investigation is dispositive of its 

inclusion as subject merchandise. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioner to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. As a result, 

the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ language 

has been modified from the language in 

the Petition to reflect these 

clarifications. See March 15, 2012 letter 

from Petitioner regarding Drawn 

Stainless Steel Sinks from the People’s 

Republic of China: Petitioner’s Revision 

to the Proposed Scope of Investigations. 

Moreover, as discussed in the 

preamble to the regulations (see 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997)), we are setting aside a period of 

time for interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. The 

Department encourages interested 

parties to submit such comments by 5 

p.m. DST on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, 

which is twenty calendar days from the 

signature date of this notice. All 

comments must be filed on the records 

of both the PRC antidumping duty 

investigation as well as the PRC CVD 

investigation. 

Filing Requirements 

All submissions to the Department 

must be filed electronically using 

Import Administration’s Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). An electronically filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the Department’s 

electronic records system, IA ACCESS, 

by the time and date set by the 

Department. Documents excepted from 

the electronic submission requirements 

must be filed manually (i.e., in paper 

form) with the Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, and stamped 

with the date and time of receipt by the 

deadline noted above.2

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, on March 5, 2012, the 

Department invited representatives of 

the Government of the PRC (‘‘GOC’’) for 

consultations with respect to the CVD 

petition. Those consultations were held 

on March 15, 2012. See Ex-Parte 

Memorandum on Consultations with 

Officials from the Government of the 

People’s Republic of China on the 

Countervailing Duty Petition regarding 

Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks, dated 

March 19, 2012. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

‘‘industry.’’ 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product, or 

those producers whose collective output 

of a domestic like product constitutes a 

major proportion of the total domestic 

production of the product. Thus, to 

determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (section 

771(10) of the Act), 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. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 18213 

Int’l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel 

Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), 

aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. 

denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioner does not offer a 

definition of the domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that drawn 

stainless steel sinks constitute a single 

domestic like product and we have 

analyzed industry support in terms of 

that domestic like product. For a 

discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation 

Initiation Checklist: Drawn Stainless 

Steel Sinks from the People’s Republic 

of China’’ (CVD Initiation Checklist) at 

Attachment II, dated concurrently with 

this notice and on file electronically via 

IA ACCESS. Access to IA ACCESS is 

available in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU), Room 7046 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, we considered the industry 

support data contained in the Petition 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation’’ section of this notice. To 

establish industry support, Petitioner 

provided its own 2011 production of the 

domestic like product, and compared 

this to the total production of the 

domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry. See Volume I of the 

Petition, at 3 and Exhibit I–1, and 

General Issues Supplement, at 4; see 

also CVD Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submission, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that Petitioner 

has established industry support. See 

CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment 

II. First, the Petition established support 

from domestic producers (or workers) 

accounting for more than 50 percent of 

the total production of the domestic like 

product and, as such, the Department is 

not required to take further action in 

order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling). See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the 

Act; see also CVD Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product. See CVD Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition. See id. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

702(b)(1) of the Act. See id. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and it has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigation that it is requesting the 

Department initiate. See id. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleges that imports of the 

subject merchandise are benefitting 

from countervailable subsidies and that 

such imports are causing, or threaten to 

cause, material injury to the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product. In addition, Petitioner alleges 

that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioner contends that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share; underselling and 

price depression or suppression; decline 

in financial performance; lost sales and 

revenue; and production, capacity, 

capacity utilization, shipment, and 

employment data. See Volume I of the 

Petition, at 8–25 and Exhibits I–4 

through I–32, and General Issues 

Supplement, at 4. 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. See CVD 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III. 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

the Department to initiate a CVD 

proceeding whenever an interested 

party files a petition on behalf of an 

industry that: (1) Alleges the elements 

necessary for an imposition of a duty 

under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) 

is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to the petitioner(s) 

supporting the allegations. The 

Department has examined the Petition 

on drawn stainless steel sinks from the 

PRC and finds that it complies with the 

requirements of section 702(b) of the 

Act. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 702(b) of the Act, we are 

initiating a CVD investigation to 

determine whether manufacturers, 

producers, or exporters of drawn 

stainless steel sinks in the PRC receive 

countervailable subsidies. For a 

discussion of evidence supporting our 

initiation determination, see Initiation 

Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

Petition to have provided 

countervailable subsidies to producers 

and exporters of the subject 

merchandise in the PRC: 

A. Grant Programs 

1. The State Key Technology 

Renovation Fund. 

2. ‘‘Famous Brands’’ Awards. 

3. Grants to Cover Legal Fees in Trade 

Remedy Cases. 

4. Special Fund for Energy Saving 

Technology Reform. 

5. The Clean Production Technology 

Fund. 

6. Grants for Listing Shares. 

7. Export Assistance Grants. 

8. Guangdong Province Science and 

Technology Bureau Project Fund (aka 

Guangdong Industry, Research, 

University Cooperating Fund). 

9. Export Rebate for Mechanic, 

Electronic, and High-tech Products. 

10. Funds for Outward Expansion of 

Industries in Guangdong Province. 

11. Fund for Small and Medium 

Enterprises (‘‘SME’’) Bank-enterprise 

Cooperation Projects. 

12. Special Fund for Fostering Stable 

Growth of Foreign Trade. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18214 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 

13. Local Government Deposits Into 

Bank Accounts. 

B. Loans and Directed Credit 

1. Policy Loans. 

2. Preferential Export Financing. 

3. Treasury Bond Loans or Grants. 

4. Preferential Loans for State-owned 

Enterprises (‘‘SOEs’’). 

C. Income Tax Programs 

1. ‘‘Two Free, Three Half’’ Program. 

2. Provincial Tax Exemptions and 

Reductions for ‘‘Productive’’ Foreign 

Invested. Enterprises (‘‘FIEs’’). 

3. Tax Reductions for FIEs Purchasing 

Chinese-made Equipment. 

4. Tax Reductions for FIEs in 

Designated Geographic Locations. 

5. Tax Reductions for Technology- or 

Knowledge-intensive FIEs 

6. Tax Reductions for FIEs that are 

also High or New Technology 

Enterprises (‘‘HNTEs’’). 

7. Tax Reductions for HNTEs 

Involved in Designated Projects. 

8. Tax Offsets for Research and 

Development at FIEs. 

9. Tax Credits for Domestically 

Owned Companies Purchasing Chinesemade Equipment. 

10. Tax Reductions for Exportoriented FIEs. 

11. Tax Refunds for Reinvestment of 

FIE Profits in Export-Oriented 

Enterprises. 

12. Tax Reduction for High-tech 

Industries in Guangdong Province. 

D. Other Tax Programs 

1. Import Tariff and Value Added Tax 

(‘‘VAT’’) Exemptions for FIEs and 

Certain Domestic Enterprises Using 

Imported Equipment in Encouraged 

Industries. 

2. VAT Rebates on FIE Purchases of 

Domestically Produced Equipment. 

3. City Tax and Surcharge Exemptions 

for FIEs. 

4. Exemptions from Administrative 

Charges for Companies in Industrial 

Zones. 

5. Export Subsidies Characterized as 

‘‘VAT Rebates’’. 

6. VAT and Import Duty Exemptions 

on Imported Material. 

7. VAT Rebates on Domestically 

Produced Equipment. 

E. Government Provision of Goods or 

Services for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration (‘‘LTAR’’) 

1. Land to SOEs. 

2. Lands to Companies Located in 

Industrial or Other Special Economic 

Zones. 

3. Electricity. 

4. Stainless Steel Coils. 

F. Subsidies to Enterprises Located in 

Industrial Cluster Zones 

1. Exemptions from Land 

Development Fees. 

2. Land Purchase Grants. 

3. Grants to Hire Post-doctoral 

Workers. 

4. Financial Subsidies: Interest 

Subsidies, Preferential Loans, and 

Lowered Interest Rates. 

5. Tax Reductions or Exemptions. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise in 

the PRC: 

1. Tax Exemptions and Reductions for 

Enterprises That Utilize Recycled 

Materials. 

2. The State Science and Technology 

Support Scheme. 

3. Provincial Loan Discount Special 

Fund for SMEs. 

4. Tax Preferences Available to 

Companies That Operate at a Small 

Profit. 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is not investigating 

these programs, see CVD Initiation 

Checklist. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

expects to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. imports during the 

period of investigation. We intend to 

make our decision regarding respondent 

selection within 20 days of publication 

of this Federal Register notice. The 

Department invites comments regarding 

the CBP data and respondent selection 

within seven calendar days of 

publication of this Federal Register 

notice. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the Petition has been provided to the 

representatives of the GOC. Because of 

the particularly large number of 

producers/exporters identified at 

Exhibit I–2 of the Petition, the 

Department considers the service of the 

public version of the Petition to the 

foreign producers/exporters satisfied by 

the delivery of the public version to the 

GOC, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 45 days after the date on which 

the Petition is filed, whether there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of 

subsidized drawn stainless steel sinks 

from the PRC are causing material 

injury, or threatening to cause material 

injury, to a U.S. industry. See section 

703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC 

determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated; 

otherwise, the investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under 

protective orders in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the 

Department published Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634. Parties 

wishing to participate in this 

investigation should ensure that they 

meet the requirements of these 

procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 

appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD or CVD 

proceeding must certify to the accuracy 

and completeness of that information. 

See section 782(b) of the Act. Parties are 

hereby reminded that revised 

certification requirements are in effect 

for company/government officials as 

well as their representatives in all 

segments of any AD or CVD proceedings 

initiated on or after March 14, 2011. See 

Certification of Factual Information for 

Import Administration during 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 

7491 (February 10, 2011) (Interim Final 

Rule), amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) 

and (2). The formats for the revised 

certifications are provided at the end of 

the Interim Final Rule. Foreign 

governments and their officials may 

continue to submit certifications in 

either the format that was in use prior 

to the effective date of the Interim Final 

Rule, or in the format provided in the 

Interim Final Rule. See Certification of 

Factual Information to Import 

Administration During Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Supplemental Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 

54697 (September 2, 2011). The 

Department intends to reject factual 

information submissions in any 

proceeding segments initiated on or 

after March 14, 2011, if the submitting 

party does not comply with the revised 

certification requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 18215 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 21, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7331 Filed 3–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

U.S. Education Mission to Brazil; 

Brasilia, Rio de Janeiro and Sa ̃o Paulo, 

Brazil, August 30–September 6, 2012 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States Department 

of Commerce, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. and Foreign 

Commercial Service is publishing this 

supplement to the Notice of the U.S. 

Education Mission to Brazil, 77 FR 

13560, Mar. 7, 2012, to announce that 

the Mission will be executive-led and to 

amend the Notice to provide for 

selection of applicants on a rolling 

basis. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The U.S. Department of Commerce, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service 

now anticipates that this Mission will 

be led by a senior-level U.S. government 

official. For that reason, consistent with 

Department policy, participants will 

now be selected through a two-tier 

vetting process. In order to expedite the 

notification of applicants, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce will review 

applications and make selection 

decisions on a rolling basis. 

Amendments 

1. For the reasons stated above, the 

Timeframe for Recruitment and 

Applications section of the Notice of the 

Education Mission to Brazil, 77 FR 

13560, Mar. 7, 2012, is amended to read 

as follows: 

Timeframe for Recruitment and 

Applications 

Mission recruitment will be 

conducted in an open and public 

manner, including publication in the 

Federal Register, posting on the 

Commerce Department trade mission 

calendar (http://export.gov/industry/ 

education/) and other Internet web sites, 

press releases to general and trade 

media, direct mail, notices by industry 

trade associations and other multiplier 

groups, and publicity at industry 

meetings, symposia, conferences, and 

trade shows. Recruitment for the 

mission will begin immediately and 

conclude no later than August 15, 2012. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce will 

review applications and make selection 

decisions on a rolling basis beginning 

April 4, 2012. Applications received 

after August 15, 2012 will be considered 

only if space and scheduling constraints 

permit. 

Contact Information 

U.S. Commercial Service in Brazil 

Patricia S. Marega, Business 

Development Specialist, Sa ̃o Paulo, Tel: 

(55–11) 5186–7482, 

patricia.marega@trade.gov. 

U.S. Export Assistance Center 

Joan Kanlian, Westchester USEAC 

Director, Tel: 914–682–6712, Email: 

Joan.Kanlian@trade.gov. 

Elnora Moye, 

Trade Program Assistant. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7312 Filed 3–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–FP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for clearance the following 

proposal for collection of information 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

Agency: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO). 

Title: Rules for Patent Maintenance 

Fees. 

Form Number(s): PTO/SB/45/47/65/ 

66. 

Agency Approval Number: 0651– 

0016. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Burden: 43,605 hours annually. 

Number of Respondents: 573,161 

responses per year. 

Avg. Hours per Response: The USPTO 

estimates that it will take the public 

approximately 20 seconds (0.006 hours) 

to 8 hours to submit the information in 

this collection, including the time to 

gather the necessary information, 

prepare the appropriate form or petition, 

and submit the completed request to the 

USPTO. 

Needs and Uses: Under 35 U.S.C. 41 

and 37 CFR 1.20(e)–(i) and 1.362–1.378, 

the USPTO charges fees for maintaining 

in force all utility patents based on 

applications filed on or after December 

12, 1980. Payment of these maintenance 

fees is due at 31⁄2, 71⁄2, and 111⁄2 years 

after the date the patent was granted. If 

the USPTO does not receive payment of 

the appropriate maintenance fee and 

any applicable surcharge within a grace 

period of six months following each of 

the above due dates (at 4, 8, or 12 years 

after the date of grant), the patent will 

expire at that time. After a patent 

expires, it is no longer enforceable. The 

public uses this collection to submit 

patent maintenance fee payments, to file 

petitions regarding delayed or refused 

payments, and to designate an address 

to be used for fee-related 

correspondence. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; businesses or other forprofits; and not-for-profit institutions. 

Frequency: On occasion and three 

times at four-year intervals following 

the grant of the patent. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. 

OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser, 

email: 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov. 

Once submitted, the request will be 

publicly available in electronic format 

through the Information Collection 

Review page at www.reginfo.gov. 

Paper copies can be obtained by: 

• Email: 

InformationCollection@uspto.gov. 

Include ‘‘0651–0016 copy request’’ in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Susan K. Fawcett, Records 

Officer, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, 

Alexandria, VA 22313–1450. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent on 

or before April 26, 2012 to Nicholas A. 

Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov, or by 

fax to 202–395–5167, marked to the 

attention of Nicholas A. Fraser. 

Dated: March 22, 2012. 

Susan K. Fawcett, 

Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7284 Filed 3–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES