[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19219-19224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7746]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-520-806]


Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the United Arab 
Emirates: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce preliminarily determines that 
countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and 
exporters of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (``circular 
welded pipe'') from the United Arab Emirates (``UAE'').

DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Morris or Dustin Ross, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1779 and (202) 482-0747, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History

    The following events have occurred since the publication of the 
Department of Commerce's (``the Department'') notice of initiation in 
the Federal Register. See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe 
from India, the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigations, 76 FR 72173 (November 22, 2011) (``Initiation 
Notice''), and the accompanying Initiation Checklist.
    On November 22, 2011, the Department released the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') data on imports of subject merchandise 
during the period of investigation (``POI''), under administrative 
protective order (``APO'') to all parties with APO access. See 
Memorandum to the File from Joshua Morris, ``Release of Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') Data,'' dated November 22, 2011. On 
November 30, 2011, we received comments on the data from Wheatland 
Tube, one of the petitioners in this investigation. On December 16, 
2011, the Department selected two Emirati producers/exporters of 
circular welded pipe as mandatory company respondents: (1) Abu Dhabi 
Metal Pipes & Profiles Industries Complex LLC (``ADPICO''); and (2) 
Universal Tube and Plastic Industries, Ltd. (``Universal Plastic''). 
See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, ``Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' 
dated December 16, 2011. This memorandum is on file electronically in 
Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''), with access to IA ACCESS 
available in the Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), room 7046 
of the main Department building.
    Also on December 16, 2011, the U.S. International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') published its affirmative preliminary determination that 
there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States 
is materially injured by reason of allegedly subsidized imports of 
circular welded pipe from India, the Sultanate of Oman, the UAE, and 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality 
Steel Pipe from India, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, 76 
FR 78313 (December 16, 2011).
    On December 19, 2011, the Department postponed the deadline for the 
preliminary determination in this investigation until March 26, 2012. 
See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, the Sultanate 
of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the 
Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 78615 (December 19, 2011). In 
conjunction with this postponement, the Department also postponed the 
deadline for the submission of new subsidy allegations until February 
15, 2012. See Memorandum to the File from Joshua S. Morris, ``New 
Subsidy Allegation Deadline: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe 
from India, the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' dated, December 15, 2011.
    On December 21, 2011, the Department issued countervailing duty 
(``CVD'') questionnaires to the Government of the UAE (``GUAE''), 
ADPICO, and Universal Plastic. The Department received responses from 
Universal Plastic (``UQR'') on February 16, 2012, and both the GUAE 
(``GQR'') and ADPICO (``AQR'') on February 17, 2012. The Department 
received responses to supplemental questionnaires from ADPICO on March 
14, 2012, and from Universal Plastic, and the GUAE (``GSR'') on March 
16, 2012.
    Wheatland Tube requested two extensions of the deadline for filing 
new subsidy allegations. As a result, this

[[Page 19220]]

deadline was extended from February 15 to February 24, and then to 
February 28, 2012. See Memorandum to the File from Susan Kuhbach, ``New 
Subsidy Allegation Deadline: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe 
from India, the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' dated February 6, 2012, and Letter to 
Interested Parties, dated February 24, 2012.
    On February 28, 2012, Wheatland Tube submitted new subsidy 
allegations requesting the Department to expand its CVD investigation 
to include an additional subsidy program, while also requesting that 
the Department modify its investigation of already alleged programs in 
light of information placed on the record of the proceeding by the 
respondents. See Letter from Petitioner Wheatland Tube, ``New Subsidies 
Allegation and Additional Factual Information,'' dated February 28, 
2012. On March 16, 2012, the Department initiated an investigation into 
the new subsidy allegations. See Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach, 
``Analysis of Petitioners' New Subsidy Allegations,'' dated March 16, 
2012. On March 26, 2012, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires regarding this new subsidy allegation to the GUAE, 
ADPICO, and Universal Plastic.
    On March 19, 2012, Wheatland Tube submitted pre-preliminary 
determination comments with respect to this investigation. On March 22, 
2012, the GUAE also submitted pre-preliminary determination comments.

Period of Investigation

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e., the POI, is 
January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
set aside a period of time in our Initiation Notice for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to 
submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of that notice. 
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 
19, 1997), and Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72173. On December 5, 2011, 
SeAH Steel VINA Corp. (``SeAH VINA''), a mandatory respondent in the 
concurrent countervailing duty (``CVD'') circular welded pipe from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam investigation, filed comments arguing 
that the treatment of double and triple stenciled pipe in the scope of 
these investigations differs from previous treatment of these products 
under other orders on circular pipe. Specifically, SeAH VINA claims 
that the Brazilian, Korean, and Mexican orders on these products 
exclude ``Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that 
enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines * 
* *'' See, e.g., Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from 
Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan; and Certain Circular Welded 
Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Final Results of the 
Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 
66899, 66900 (Oct. 28, 2011). According to SeAH VINA: (i) If the term 
``class or kind of merchandise'' has meaning, it cannot have a 
different meaning when applied to the same products in two different 
cases; and (ii) the distinction between standard and line pipe 
reflected in the Brazil, Korean and Mexican orders derives from customs 
classifications administered by CBP and, thus, is more administrable.
    On December 14, 2011, Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and 
Wheatland Tube (collectively, ``certain Petitioners'') responded to 
SeAH VINA's comments stating that the scope as it appeared in the 
Initiation Notice reflected Petitioners' intended coverage. Certain 
Petitioners contend that pipe that is multi-stenciled to both line pipe 
and standard pipe specifications and meets the physical characteristics 
listed in the scope (i.e., is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 
2.0 inches (50mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted 
(e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or 
coupled end finish) is ordinarily used in standard pipe applications. 
In recent years, certain Petitioners state, the Department has rejected 
end-use scope classifications, preferring instead to rely on physical 
characteristics to define coverage, and the scope of these 
investigations has been written accordingly. Therefore, certain 
Petitioners ask the Department to reject SeAH VINA's proposed scope 
modification.
    We agree with certain Petitioners that the Department seeks to 
define the scopes of its proceedings based on the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from 
the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 2008) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Moreover, we 
disagree with SeAH VINA's contention that once a ``class or kind of 
merchandise'' has been established that the same scope description must 
apply across all proceedings involving the product. For example, as the 
Department has gained experience in administering antidumping duty 
(``AD'') and CVD orders, it has shifted away from end use 
classifications to scopes defined by the physical characteristics. Id. 
Thus, proceedings initiated on a given product many years ago may have 
end use classifications while more recent proceedings on the product 
would not. Compare Countervailing Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods 
from Canada, 51 FR 21783 (June 16, 1986) (describing subject 
merchandise as being ``intended for use in drilling for oil and gas'') 
with Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of 
China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203 (January 20, 2010) (describing 
the subject merchandise in terms of physical characteristics without 
regard to use or intended use). Finally, certain Petitioners have 
indicated the domestic industry's intent to include multi-stenciled 
products that otherwise meet the physical characteristics set out in 
the scope. Therefore, the Department is not adopting SeAH VINA's 
proposed modification of the scope.

Scope of the Investigation

    This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and 
tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (``O.D.'') 
not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, 
surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain 
end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 
industry specification (e.g., American Society for Testing and 
Materials International (``ASTM''), proprietary, or other) generally 
known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler pipe, and 
structural pipe (although subject product may also be referred to as 
mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term ``carbon quality'' includes 
products in which: (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the 
other contained elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, 
by weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the 
quantity, by weight, as indicated:
    (i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
    (ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
    (iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
    (iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
    (v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
    (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
    (vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
    (viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;

[[Page 19221]]

    (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
    (x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
    (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
    (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
    (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium;
    (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
    Subject pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, 
and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe 
is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and 
structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications 
rather than to industry specifications. Fence tubing is included in the 
scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the 
exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. 
Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and 
may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to 
proprietary specifications. These products are generally made to 
standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to 
a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, 
such as American Petroleum Institute (``API'') API-5L specification, is 
also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the 
physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the 
following characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 
2.0 inches (50mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted 
(e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or 
coupled end finish.
    The scope of this investigation does not include: (a) Pipe suitable 
for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces 
and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b) finished 
electrical conduit; (c) finished scaffolding;\1\ (d) tube and pipe 
hollows for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API 
specifications; (f) line pipe produced to only API specifications; and 
(g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn. However, products 
certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications are not excluded as 
mechanical tubing if they otherwise meet the standard sizes (e.g., 
outside diameter and wall thickness) of standard, structural, fence and 
sprinkler pipe. Also, products made to the following outside diameter 
and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry 
as typical for fence tubing, would not be excluded from the scope based 
solely on their being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing 
specifications:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Finished scaffolding is defined as component parts of final, 
finished scaffolding that enters the United States unassembled as a 
``kit.'' A ``kit'' is understood to mean a packaged combination of 
component parts that contain, at the time of importation, all the 
necessary component parts to fully assemble a final, finished 
scaffolding.

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.035 inch wall thickness (gage 20)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.120 inch wall thickness (gage 11)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.134 inch wall thickness (gage 10)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9)
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
4.500 inch O.D. and 0.203 inch wall thickness (gage 7)

    The pipe subject to this investigation is currently classifiable in 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') statistical 
reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 
7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 
7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5050, 
and 7306.50.5070. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under the investigation is dispositive.

Alignment of Final Determination

    On November 22, 2011, the Department initiated an AD investigation 
concurrent with this CVD investigation of circular welded pipe from the 
UAE. See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, the 
Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76 FR 72164 
(November 22, 2011). The scope of the merchandise being covered is the 
same for both the AD and CVD investigations. On March 23, 2012, 
Petitioners submitted a letter, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.210(b)(4)(i), requesting alignment of the final CVD determination 
with the final determination in the companion AD investigation. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``Act'') and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the final CVD 
determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD 
determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued on August 6, 
2012.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

    Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), the Department presumes the allocation 
period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life 
(``AUL'') of the renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, 
as listed in the tables of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's 
(``IRS'') 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated 
by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. According to the updated AUL 
tables of the IRS, the AUL period for the relevant industry in this 
proceeding is 15 years. See U.S. Internal Revenue Service Publication 
946 (2008), How to Depreciate Property, at Table B-2: Table of Class 
Lives and Recovery Periods. No party in this proceeding has disputed 
this allocation period.

[[Page 19222]]

Attribution of Subsidies

    The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that 
the Department will normally attribute a subsidy to the products 
produced by the corporation that received the subsidy. However, 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(ii) through (v) directs that the Department will 
attribute subsidies received by certain other companies to the combined 
sales of those companies if (1) cross-ownership exists between the 
companies, and (2) the cross-owned companies produce the subject 
merchandise, are a holding or parent company of the subject company, 
produce an input that is primarily dedicated to the production of the 
downstream product, or transfer a subsidy to a cross-owned company.
    According to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists 
between two or more corporations where one corporation can use or 
direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially 
the same ways it can use its own assets. This regulation states that 
this standard will normally be met where there is a majority voting 
interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two 
(or more) corporations. The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') has 
upheld the Department's authority to attribute subsidies based on 
whether a company could use or direct the subsidy benefits of another 
company in essentially the same way it could use its own subsidy 
benefits. See Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi, SA v. United States, 166 F. 
Supp. 2d 593, 600-604 (CIT 2001).

ADPICO

    ADPICO stated that it is a UAE-registered limited liability 
company, with 51 percent ownership by a UAE national, and 49 percent 
ownership by a Swiss-registered company. ADPICO also stated that it has 
no affiliates and responded to the Department's original and 
supplemental questionnaires on behalf of itself.

Universal Plastic

    Universal Plastic responded to the Department's original and 
supplemental questionnaires on behalf of itself and two affiliates: KHK 
Scaffolding and Formwork LLC (``KHK'') and Universal Tube and Pipe 
Industries LLC (``Universal Pipe'').
    We preliminarily determine that Universal Plastic, KHK, and 
Universal Pipe are cross-owned within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(vi) by virtue of common ownership. Moreover, because KHK 
and Universal Pipe are also producers of subject merchandise, any 
subsidies received by Universal Plastic, KHK, and Universal Pipe would 
be attributed to the combined sales of Universal Plastic, KHK, and 
Universal Pipe (excluding intercompany sales), in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii).

Analysis of Programs

    Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our 
questionnaires, we preliminarily determine the following:

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Exist

A. Profit Tax Exemptions Under UAE Federal Law No.1 of 1979 (``1979 
Federal Law'')
    According to the GUAE, (1) the provisions of the 1979 Federal Law 
that provide for profit tax exemptions were never implemented, and (2) 
the only entities in the UAE subject to income tax are foreign-owned 
banks and foreign-owned energy companies. See GQR at 6. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that this program does not exist.
B. Provision of Electricity for LTAR Under the 1979 Federal Law and the 
Gulf Cooperation Council (``GCC'') Common Industrial Regulatory Law
    According to the GUAE, the provisions of the 1979 Federal Law and 
the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory Law that relate to the provision 
of electricity at incentivized rates were never implemented. See GQR at 
4; see also GSR at 17. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this 
program does not exist.
C. Provision of Land and/or Buildings for LTAR Under the 1979 Federal 
Law and the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory Law
    According to the GUAE, the provisions of the 1979 Federal Law and 
the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory Law that relate to the provision 
of land and/or buildings at incentivized rates were never implemented. 
See GQR at 7; see also GSR at 17. Therefore, we preliminarily determine 
that this program does not exist.
D. Provision of Water for LTAR Under the 1979 Federal Law and the GCC 
Common Industrial Regulatory Law
    According to the GUAE, the provisions of the 1979 Federal Law and 
the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory Law that relate to the provision 
of water at incentivized rates were never implemented. See GQR at 8; 
see also GSR at 17. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this 
program does not exist.
E. Preferential Export Lending Under the 1979 Federal Law
    According to the GUAE, the provisions of the 1979 Federal Law that 
relate to preferential export lending were never implemented. See GQR 
at 5. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this program does not 
exist.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Countervailable

A. Dubai Commodity Receipts (``DCRs'')
    DCRs are negotiable warehouse receipts that are issued 
electronically by the Dubai Multi Commodities Center (``DMCC''), a 
GUAE-owned facility, to facilitate the financing of goods. Petitioners 
have alleged that, by virtue of the GUAE's role through DMCC, DCR-
backed financing comes with an implicit government guarantee, which 
allows lenders to obtain lower financing costs that they could 
otherwise obtain outside the DMCC facility.
    Beginning in 2004, the DCR platform consists of three types of 
parties: commodity owners (the ``originators''), warehouse keepers (the 
``issuers''), and financiers. The DCR platform allows commodity owners 
(i.e., originators) to request warehouse keepers (i.e., issuers) to 
issue DCRs, which represent goods stored at a warehouse or vault which 
is managed by the issuer. Originators then ``pledge'' the receipt to 
financiers to obtain inventory-backed loans from the financiers. 
According to the GUAE, the program is open to financiers around the 
world, provided they are approved by the DMCC. See GQR at 30.
    During the POI, ADPICO was the only respondent to participate in 
this program. Id. at 29. In particular, ADPICO had outstanding loans as 
part of its trade financing arrangements with a bank in Switzerland 
during the POI. Id. The GUAE asserts that at no point did the DMCC 
offer a guarantee, implicit or otherwise, on loan agreements between 
ADPICO and its financiers, or act as bank guarantor of the DCR 
platform. See GQR at Exhibit 11. Moreover, the DMCC's Rules clearly 
indicate that the DMCC assumes no liabilities for DCR-backed financing 
that may default. In relevant parts, the Rules state the following:

5.4 Liability of DMCC

    5.4.1 Each DCR Member confirms that the liability of DMCC for 
acting as its commission agent pursuant to the Rules (including 
under this Clause 5) shall be limited by Clause 13 (Limitation of 
Liability of DMCC).

[[Page 19223]]

    5.4.2 Each Legal Owner and each Financier acknowledges that DMCC 
provides close out settlement services under these Rules, and acts 
as commission agent for any Legal Owner, solely for the purposes of 
facilitating the smooth operation of the DCR System and the 
efficient settlement of the liabilities of the Legal Owners and the 
Financiers following a Close Out Trigger Event. The DCR Members 
confirm that DMCC shall have no liability to any Legal Owner, any 
Financier or any other DCR Member by virtue of its appointment as 
commission agent for a Legal Owner under this Clause 5 or any 
exercise by DMCC of its obligation to sell any DCR (or the Goods 
represented by that DCR) following a Close Out Trigger Event as 
provided for in this Clause 5.
* * * * *

13.1 Limitation of Liability

* * * * *
    (b) [T]hese Rules expressly set forth all the duties of DMCC 
with respect to any and all matters pertinent hereto, and shall not 
be interpreted so as to impose any implied duties or obligations on 
DMCC. DMCC shall not be bound by the provisions of any prior 
agreement with any DCR Member to the extent that such prior 
agreement conflicts with these Rules.
    See GQR at Exhibit 12 (emphases added).

    In light of the above, we find that DCR-backed financing obtained 
by DCR holders is not subject to any guarantee, implicit or otherwise, 
that is provided by the government through DMCC and, thus, does not 
give rise to a transfer, or potential transfer, of government funds to 
the participants in the DCR financing facility.
    Consequently, we preliminarily determine that, while ADPICO did 
participate in the DCR financing program, no financial contribution 
exists within the meaning of section 771(5)(D) of the Act. Therefore, 
we preliminarily determine that this program is not countervailable.

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Not Be Used by Respondents 
During the POI

A. Concessionary Lending From the Emirates Industrial Bank
    In addition to investigating preferential export loans granted 
under the 1979 Federal Law, the Department also investigated 
preferential export loans extended through the Emirates Industrial Bank 
(now called the ``Emirates National Bank''). We preliminarily determine 
that none of the respondents had loans from the Emirates National Bank 
outstanding during the POI.

IV. Programs for Which More Information Is Required

A. Tariff Exemptions Under 1979 Federal Law and GCC Common Industrial 
Regulatory Law
    Implemented in 1980, pursuant to the 1979 Federal Law, and 
subsequently available in accordance with the GCC Customs Union 
Agreement (2003), industrial establishments operating within the UAE 
may be exempted from the five percent customs duty on imports of raw 
materials and capital goods. See GQR at 9. In 2005, the GUAE issued 
Federal Decree No. 73, which implemented the GCC Common Industrial 
Regulatory Law (2004), establishing the current process for industrial 
companies to be eligible for, and receive, a tariff exemption. Id. at 4 
and 11-14.
    To receive this duty exemption, an industrial establishment 
operating with a valid industrial license applies through an online 
electronic processing system, known as the Duty Exemption Service. Id. 
at 11-12 and 16. This application is automatically and immediately 
analyzed on the basis of the information that has previously been 
provided by the applicant during the registration proceedings to get 
its industrial license, i.e., the applicant is required to submit the 
list of all items that it intends to import to run its industrial 
activity upon applying for its industrial license. Id. at 12-14. The 
GUAE further states that the 1979 Federal Law and the GCC Common 
Industrial Regulatory Law do not apply to companies in free trade 
zones. Id. at 4. The tariff exemption program is administered by the 
Section of Duty Exemptions within the Directorate of Industrial 
Development under the Industrial Affairs Department as part of the 
Ministry of Economy. Id. at 9.
    ADPICO has benefited from this program since 2002. See AQR at 
Appendix 5. Universal Plastic and the GUAE reported that Universal 
Plastic operates within the Jebel Ali Free Trade Zone (``JAFZ'') and, 
therefore, could not have benefited from any alleged subsidies under 
the 1979 Federal Law or the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory Law. See 
UQR at 13 and GQR at 4. However, Universal Pipe and KHK did benefit 
from this program.
    Under Chapter Seven of the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory Law, 
Article (16) states that certain ``industrial projects shall have the 
priority of privileges and exemptions,'' and lists ``projects producing 
export goods'' among the activities that will benefit from the 
``priority of privileges and exemptions.'' See GQR Exhibit 4 at page 
12. We find that the Department needs additional information to better 
assess whether tariff exemptions provided under this program are 
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. In 
particular, we intend to seek information regarding the meaning of 
``priority'' in this context and how it is implemented in granting 
tariff exemptions. We intend to seek additional information, and 
further address this program in a post-preliminary analysis.
B. Provision of Natural Gas for LTAR
    As discussed above, new subsidy allegation questionnaires were sent 
to the respondents on March 26, 2012, and responses are still 
outstanding with respect to this program. Because we lack necessary 
information to make a preliminary determination at this time, we intend 
to address the countervailability of this program in the post-
preliminary analysis.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the 
information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final 
determination.

Preliminary Negative Determination

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have 
calculated individual subsidy rates for ADPICO and Universal Plastic, 
the two mandatory producers/exporters. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the 
Act provides that the all others rate will generally be an amount equal 
to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for 
exporters or producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or 
de minimis countervailable subsidy rates and any rates determined 
entirely on the basis of fact available. In this case, however, the 
countervailable subsidy rates for all of the individually investigated 
exporters or producers are zero. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act 
provides that, when this is the case, the administering authority may 
use any reasonable method to establish the all others rate, including 
averaging the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates determined 
for the exporters and producers individually examined. Thus, to 
calculate the all others rate, we averaged the individual rates of the 
ADPICO and Universal Plastic. Therefore, we assigned a zero rate to all 
other producers and exporters.

[[Page 19224]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Exporter/manufacturer                   Net subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Dhabi Metal Pipes & Profiles Industries    Zero.
 Complex LLC.
Universal Tube and Plastic Industries, Ltd.;   Zero.
 KHK Scaffolding and Formwork LLC; and
 Universal Tube and Pipe Industries LLC.
All Others...................................  Zero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because all of the rates are zero, we preliminarily determine that 
no countervailable subsidies are being provided to the production or 
exportation of circular welded pipe in the UAE. As such, we will not 
direct CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of circular welded pipe 
from the UAE.
ITC Notification
    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent 
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    In accordance with section 705(b)(3) of the Act, if our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination 
within 75 days after the Department makes its final determination.

Disclosure and Public Comment

    Due to the anticipated timing of verification and issuance of 
verification reports, case briefs for this investigation must be 
submitted no later than one week after the issuance of the last 
verification report. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) for a further discussion 
of case briefs. Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five days after 
the deadline for submission of case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities relied upon, a table of contents, 
and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs 
submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to 
five pages total, including footnotes. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and 
(d)(2).
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing 
is made in this investigation, the hearing will be held two days after 
the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.310(d), at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm 
by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before 
the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must electronically submit a written request to 
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration using IA ACCESS, 
within 30 days of the publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and 
telephone; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues 
to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in 
the briefs. Id.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 26, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. 2012-7746 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P