Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 19635 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: March 27, 2012. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7871 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–523–802] 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman: 

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 

Sultanate of Oman (‘‘Oman’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: April 2, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sergio Balbontin or Susan Kuhbach, 

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) 482–6478 and (202) 

482–0112, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the publication of the Department 

of Commerce’s (‘‘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. We received no 

comments. The CBP data showed two 

exporters of subject merchandise: Al 

Jazeera Tube Mills Company SAOG (‘‘Al 

Jazeera’’) and a second company with 

inconsequential exports because the 

quantity of exports was extremely small. 

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, 

Oman, the United Arab Emirates, 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 CarbonQuality Steel Pipe from India, the 

Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam,’’ dated December 15, 2011. 

This memorandum and others 

referenced in this determination are 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. 

On December 22, 2011, we issued a 

countervailing duty questionnaire to the 

Government of the Sultanate of Oman 

(‘‘GSO’’) and to Al Jazeera. We received 

responses from the GSO and Al Jazeera 

on February 17, 2012. See February 17, 

2012 Questionnaire Response of Al 

Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG (‘‘AJ 

QR’’) and February 17, 2012 

Questionnaire Response of the 

Government of the Sultanate of Oman 

(‘‘GSO QR’’). Supplemental 

questionnaires were sent to the GSO on 

February 27 and March 1, 2012, and to 

Al Jazeera on February 27, 2012, and we 

received responses from Al Jazeera on 

March 7, 2012, and from the GSO on 

March 16, 2012. See March 7, 2012 

Supplemental Questionnaire Response 

of Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG 

(‘‘AJ SQR’’) and March 16, 2012 

Response of the Government of the 

Sultanate of Oman to Supplemental 

Questionnaire and New Subsidies 

Allegation Questionnaire (‘‘GSO SQR’’). 

One of the petitioning parties, 

Wheatland Tube, requested two 

extensions of the deadline for filing new 

subsidy allegations. As a result, this 

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. 

A new subsidy allegation was 

received from Wheatland Tube on 

February 28, 2012. See Letter from 

Petitioner Wheatland Tube re New 

Subsidies Allegation and Additional 

Factual Information, dated February 28, 

2012. On March 5, 2012, the Department 

included the newly alleged subsidy in 

the investigation. See Memorandum: 

‘‘New Subsidy Allegations,’’ dated 

March 5, 2012. On March 6, 2012, the 

Department sent new subsidy allegation 

questionnaires to Al Jazeera and the 

GSO and their responses were received 

on March 13, and 16, respectively. See 

‘‘Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman: Al 

Jazeera New Subsidies Questionnaire 

Response,’’ dated March 15, 2012 (‘‘AJ 

NSQR’’), and GSO SQR. 

We received pre-preliminary 

comments from Wheatland Tube on 

March 14, 2012. 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the POI, is 

January 1, 2010, through December 31, 

2010. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19636 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 

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 

72173. On December 5, 2011, SeAH 

Steel VINA Corp. (‘‘SeAH VINA’’), a 

mandatory respondent in the concurrent 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) circular 

welded pipe from 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 welded 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 multistenciled 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; 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 19637 

1Finished scaffolding is defined as component 

parts of a 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. 

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: 

1.315 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 Oman. 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 

section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 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 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 

The average useful life (‘‘AUL’’) 

period in this proceeding, as described 

in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), is 15 years 

according to the U.S. Internal Revenue 

Service’s 1977 Class Life Asset 

Depreciation Range System. 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. 

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). 

Al Jazeera reported no affiliates in 

Oman and, consequently, has responded 

on behalf of itself. (AJ QR at 2–3.) Thus, 

the subsidies received by Al Jazeera 

have been attributed to its total sales, its 

sales of subject merchandise, or its 

export sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(1)-(5). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19638 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 

Benchmarks and Discount Rates 

Section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act states 

that the benefit for loans is the 

‘‘difference between the amount the 

recipient of the loan pays on the loan 

and the amount the recipient would pay 

on a comparable commercial loan that 

the recipient could actually obtain on 

the market.’’ In addition, 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(3)(i) stipulates that when 

selecting a comparable commercial loan 

that the recipient ‘‘could actually obtain 

on the market’’ the Department will 

normally rely on actual loans obtained 

by the firm. However, when there are no 

comparable commercial loans, the 

Department ‘‘may use a national average 

interest rate for comparable commercial 

loans,’’ pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(3)(ii). According to 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(2)(i), a ‘‘comparable’’ loan is 

similar in structure (fixed versus 

variable interest rate), maturity and 

currency denomination. 

In allocating benefits over time, the 

Department normally uses as the 

discount rate the company’s cost of 

long-term fixed rate debt at the time the 

government approves the subsidy. If 

such rates are not available, the 

Department will use the average cost of 

long-term fixed rate loans in the country 

in question. See 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3). 

Al Jazeera had government-provided 

loans outstanding during the POI for 

which benchmarks are needed. 

However, none of Al Jazeera’s nongovernment loans provides a suitable 

rate because none was taken out in the 

years the government loans were 

approved. Therefore, we are relying on 

the national average cost of long-term 

fixed-rate loans as reported by the 

World Bank and submitted by the GSO. 

(GSO QR at Appendices B.1.I–1 and 

B.1.I–2.) We have included in the 

average cost of fixed-rate long-term 

loans, the additional fees that would be 

incurred in obtaining loans from 

commercial banks, as reported by the 

GSO. (GSO QR at 25.) 

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 

To Be Countervailable 

A. Soft Loans for Industrial Projects 

Under Royal Decree 17/97 

Royal Decree (‘‘RD’’) 17/97 made soft 

loans available to the private sector with 

the goals of diversifying the economy of 

Oman and developing industry, 

agriculture, fisheries, tourism, 

education, health services, and 

traditional crafts in Oman. Under this 

program, applicants approved by the 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry 

received loans at three percent interest 

from commercial banks in Oman, with 

the difference between the three percent 

rate and the commercial interest rate 

covered by the GSO. (GSO QR at 15.) 

The soft loan program under RD 17/97 

originated in 1997 and terminated in 

2006. (GSO SQR at 12 and Appendix 

SQ–20.) Beginning in 2007, soft loans 

were made by the Oman Development 

Bank. (GSO QR at 16.) The GSO 

reported that Al Jazeera had soft loans 

under the earlier RD 17/97 program 

outstanding during the POI, but has not 

received any loans from the Oman 

Development Bank. (GSO QR at 15.) The 

two loans outstanding were granted in 

1998 and 2004, respectively. (GSO QR at 

24.) According to the GSO, both loans 

have now been repaid in full. (GSO SQR 

at 12.) 

According to the GSO, firms operating 

the agriculture, fisheries, industry, 

tourism, education, health and 

traditional crafts sectors could apply for 

loans to set up, support or expand a 

project. (GSO QR at 17.) After review by 

the relevant ministries, a ministerial 

committee would approve or disapprove 

of the loan. (GSO QR at 18.) According 

to Article 12 of RD 17/97, the maximum 

amounts that could be approved varied 

by region (150 percent of paid up capital 

if the applicant was located in the 

Governorate of Muscat and 250 percent 

of paid up capital elsewhere) and by 

corporate form (a maximum of 500,000 

Omani Rial (‘‘OR’’) or up to 5,000,000 

OR if the applicant was a public jointstock company which covered at least 

40 percent of its capital by public 

subscription). (GSO QR at 20.) 

In response to the Department’s 

request to provide information about the 

amounts of assistance provided under 

the program to the different recipients, 

the GSO provided the aggregate amount 

of loans approved during the pendency 

of the program broken out between 

industry, tourism, education, health, 

and agriculture/fishing. (GSO QR at 

Appendix B.1.G–3.) In response to the 

Department’s request for a breakdown of 

the information among different sectors 

under the ‘‘industry’’ heading, by year, 

the GSO responded that it does not 

maintain the information in that 

manner. Moreover, because there were 

no sectoral criteria that affect eligibility, 

the GSO stated there was no 

requirement to include that information 

in the applications. (GSO SQR at 15.) 

The GSO did provide the amounts of 

individual loans disbursed to recipients 

in the industrial category. (GSO SQR at 

Appendix SQ–24.) 

We preliminarily determine that the 

soft loans received by Al Jazeera under 

RD 17/97 confer a countervailable 

subsidy. The loans are a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds and they confer a 

benefit in the amount of the difference 

between the interest Al Jazeera paid on 

the loans and the amount the company 

would have paid on a comparable 

commercial loan. See sections 

771(5)(d)(i) and (e)(ii) of the Act. 

Additionally, we preliminarily 

determine that the subsidy was specific, 

under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) of the 

Act, because Al Jazeera was a 

predominant user of the program. 

To calculate the benefit, we computed 

the difference between the amounts Al 

Jazeera would have paid under the 

benchmark interest rates described 

above and the amounts it actually paid 

during the POI. Because the loans were 

given to finance Al Jazeera’s pipe mills, 

we divided the subsidy during the POI 

by Al Jazeera’s sales of circular welded 

pipe during the POI. 

On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine that Al Jazeera received a 

countervailable subsidy of 0.12 percent 

ad valorem under this program. See 

Memorandum to the File from Sergio 

Balbontin, ‘‘Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Calculation Memorandum for Al Jazeera 

Steel Products Co. SAOG,’’ dated March 

26, 2012. 

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Be Not Countervailable 

A. Tariff Exemptions on Imported 

Equipment, Machinery, Raw Materials, 

and Packaging Materials 

Under RD 61/2008, industrial 

enterprises in Oman are able to import 

machinery, equipment, parts, raw 

materials, semi-manufactured materials 

and packing material duty free. 

According to the GSO, the purpose of 

RD 61/2008 is to encourage and develop 

all industrial projects, to raise the 

contribution of the industrial sector in 

the gross domestic product, and to 

expand the bases of economic linkage in 

the Arab States of the Gulf. RD 61/2008 

supersedes similar earlier schemes 

under the Organization and Promotion 

of Industry Law (RD 1/79) and the 

Foreign Business Investment Law (102/ 

94). (GSO QR at 4 and Appendix A.1.D– 

1.) 

RD 1/79 entered into force on January 

4, 1979. According to the GSO, the 

purpose of this law was to encourage 

diversification of the Omani economy 

and to stimulate industrial 

development. (GSO SQR at 1.) Under 

Article 19 of RD 1/79, licensed or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 19639 

2See, e.g., Aluminum Extrusions From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 76 FR 18521, 

18524 (April 4, 2011), and Drill Pipe From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, Final 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, 

76 FR 1971 (January 11, 2011). 

registered industrial enterprises were 

exempted from customs duties on 

equipment, tools, spare parts, raw 

materials, and semi-manufactured 

goods. (GSO SQR at Appendix SQ–3.) 

Both RD 61/2008 and RD 1/79 provide 

similar definitions of the ‘‘industrial 

enterprises’’ that are eligible to receive 

the tariff exemptions: establishments 

whose basic objective is to convert raw 

materials or semi-manufactured goods 

into manufactured goods. (GSO QR at 

Appendices A.1.D–1 and GSO SQR at 

Appendix SQ–3.) Also, both decrees 

outline the process for receiving an 

industrial license. Under RD 61/2008, 

the procedure for obtaining an 

industrial license is ‘‘automatic,’’ 

according to the GSO, upon submission 

of the required documentation 

(commercial registration, business plan 

and approval from the Ministry of 

Environment). Further, the GSO states 

that there is no discretion in the 

procedure, as the application process 

has been fully automated through a 

‘‘one stop shop’’ IT system. (GSO QR at 

8.) 

Al Jazeera’s industrial license was 

obtained under RD 1/79, as well as its 

initial tariff exemption. According to 

Article 5 of RD 1/79, industrial 

enterprises could not be established or 

change their capacity, size, purpose or 

site without obtaining an industrial 

license from the Ministry of Commerce 

and Industry. To obtain an industrial 

license, companies would submit an 

application to the Ministry. This 

application requested a wide range of 

information including: a list of 

shareholders, estimated investment, a 

description of the products to be 

produced, annual output, a description 

of the manufacturing process, the 

numbers and types of labor required, 

market and marketing information 

(imports of the product, domestic 

production of the product, exports, and 

proposed distribution channels), details 

of plant and machinery, raw materials 

requirements, and utilities 

requirements. (GSO QR at Appendix 

A.1.G–6.) The decision of whether to 

grant the industrial license rested with 

the Directorate General of Industry 

(Ministry of Commerce and Industry). 

(GSO SQR at Appendix SQ–3.) 

According to the GSO, the Ministry 

relied upon non-binding guidelines for 

granting these licenses. (GSO SQR at 2.) 

To obtain the tariff exemption under 

RD 1/79, the industrial enterprise would 

submit to the Ministry of Commerce and 

Industry its industrial license along 

with a list of the materials and 

equipment it intended to import and the 

annual amounts. (GSO SQR at 2 and 

Appendix SQ–4.) The procedure under 

RD 61/2008 is similar except that final 

approval of the Ministry of Finance is 

also required in order to ensure that the 

application conforms with the uniform 

customs law of the Arab Gulf 

Cooperation Council. (GSO SQR at 3 

and Appendix SQ–6.) RD 61/2008 also 

provides at Article 16 that priority in 

granting the tariff exemptions will be 

given, inter alia, to enterprises 

producing goods for exports. (GSO QR 

at Appendix A.1.D–1.) 

As noted above, Al Jazeera received 

its industrial license and initial tariff 

exemption under RD 1/79. According to 

the GSO, if a company needs to import 

raw materials in excess of the amount 

for which the exemption was granted, it 

must file a new request with the 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry. 

(GSO QR at 6.) Al Jazeera received a 

new approval under RD 61/2008. (GSO 

QR at 11.) 

The GSO states that processes for 

granting industrial licenses in Oman are 

‘‘automatic.’’ Regarding the former, 

companies apply though an online 

system administered by the Ministry of 

Commerce and Industry. According to 

the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 

no firm that met the legal and regulatory 

requirements for an industrial license 

has been denied a license. (GSO QR at 

Appendix A.1.G–4 and GSO SQR at 6.) 

Specifically, rejections of license 

applications occur only when the 

applicant does not constitute an 

‘‘industrial enterprise,’’ or when the 

applicant cancels its plans and does not 

complete the steps for registration. (GSO 

QR at 8.) 

In its pre-preliminary comments, 

Wheatland Tube points to Al Jazeera’s 

application for its industrial license 

and, in particular, the section of the 

application that requests information 

about exports. Citing 19 CFR 351.514 

and prior findings by the Department,2

Wheatland Tube argues that the 

application by its terms renders the 

tariff exemptions an export subsidy. We 

preliminarily disagree. The application 

cited by Wheatland Tube is the 

application for an industrial license 

which, while necessary for the tariff 

exemption, is not in itself a subsidy 

program. Instead, as explained above, an 

industrial license is required to start, 

expand, or relocate any enterprise that 

converts raw materials or semimanufactured goods into manufactured 

goods. Thus, while we acknowledge our 

regulation, which looks to whether 

exportation or anticipated exportation is 

a condition for receipt of benefits under 

a program, and our past determinations 

in which we have found export 

contingency when an application for a 

subsidy required information on the 

firm’s exports, we do not agree that such 

questions on an application for 

something as fundamental as an 

industrial license necessarily means that 

a separate subsidy program is specific as 

an export subsidy. Therefore, we have 

focused our analysis on the procedures 

for obtaining the tariff exemptions. 

As explained above, applications for 

tariff exemptions are filed with the 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry. 

According to the GSO, the approval 

process for duty exemptions is 

automatic and does not take into 

account the export performance or 

potential of the applicant, the use of 

domestic over imported goods, the 

industry or sector in which the 

applicant operated, or the location of 

the applicant. (GSO QR at 9–10 and 

GSO SQR at 4–5.) More recently, the 

tariff exemptions application has also 

been referred to the Ministry of Finance, 

which carries out a formal check of 

whether the applicant corresponds to 

the company named in the industrial 

license, whether the capital goods 

pertain to the activity of the company, 

and whether the quantity the applicant 

seeks to import is consistent with its 

output. (GSO QR at 6.) The GSO states 

that there is no discretion in deciding 

whether to grant the duty exemption 

when the regulations are met (GSO QR 

at 6–7) and that no qualifying 

companies have been denied tariff 

exemptions. (GSO QR at Appendix 

A.F.1–2 and GSO SQR at 6.) The 

submitted data shows that hundreds of 

approvals are made per year. (GSO SQR 

at Appendix SQ–5.) The GSO further 

explains that the ‘‘priority’’ described in 

Article 16 of RD 61/2008 for granting 

tariff exemptions to certain enumerated 

sectors means that if two or more 

applications were filed 

contemporaneously, the enterprise in 

the designated sector would receive the 

tariff exemption prior to the other 

applicants. (GSO QR at 7–8.) 

In response to the Department’s 

request to provide information about the 

amounts of assistance provided under 

the program to the different industries 

in Oman, the GSO explained that it does 

not maintain this data. Specifically, 

recipients of the import duty 

exemptions are not classified by the 

International Standard Industrial 

Classification. (GSO SQR at 6.) Nor does 

the GSO maintain information on the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19640 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 

duties it would have collected but for 

the exemption. (GSO SQR at 7.) 

In summary, based on information 

submitted by the GSO, the tariff 

exemptions are granted automatically 

and without regard to the firm’s export 

performance or potential, use of 

domestic over imported goods, industry 

sector or location. Moreover, hundreds 

of applications are approved in a year 

and no applications have been rejected. 

The GSO has explained that it is not 

able to provide information regarding 

the distribution of duty exemptions 

because of the nature of the benefit 

(exemptions) and the manner in which 

the recipients submit their data. 

On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine that the GSO’s program 

providing tariff exemptions on imported 

raw materials and equipment does not 

confer a countervailable subsidy 

because it is not specific within the 

meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. 

At verification, we intend to examine 

the applications and the approval 

process to confirm that the tariff 

exemptions are, in fact, used by 

industries producing a wide variety of 

products. Also, we invite the parties to 

comment on the distinction we have 

made in this preliminary determination 

to focus on the application process for 

benefits under the tariff exemption 

program rather than on the application 

for the company’s industrial license. 

Provision of Electricity for Less Than 

Adequate Remuneration (‘‘LTAR’’) 

The provision of electricity to 

consumers in Oman is heavily 

regulated. (GSO QR at Appendix C.1–5 

at 15.) In particular, in accordance with 

Article 10 of RD78/2004, the rates that 

are charged for electricity are approved 

by the Council of Ministers. (GSO QR at 

Appendix C.1–1.) During the POI, all 

industrial users in all regions of Oman 

paid uniform rates. (GSO QR at 37.) To 

be eligible for the industrial user rate, a 

company must have a letter of 

recommendation from the Ministry of 

Commerce and Industry and meet a 

stipulated power factor. (GSO QR at 

Appendix C.1–3 at 37.) According to the 

GSO, letters of recommendation are 

given to all companies with an 

industrial license. (GSO QR at 39.) 

During the POI, there were over 1.5 

million industrial users of electricity in 

Oman. (GSO QR at Appendix C.1–3 at 

10.) 

The electricity bills submitted by Al 

Jazeera show that it paid the established 

rates. (AJ QR at Exhibit 13.) 

Because all industrial users pay the 

same rates for electricity, we 

preliminarily determine that any 

potential subsidy related to the GSO’s 

provision of electricity is not specific 

within the meaning of section 771(5A) 

of the Act. 

C. Provision of Water for LTAR 

Ministerial Decision 11/2000 

establishes a uniform water tariff for all 

commercial users in Oman. (GSO QR at 

Appendix C.2–1.) The water bills 

submitted by Al Jazeera show that it 

paid the established rates. (AJ QR at 

Exhibit 14.) 

Because all commercial users pay the 

same tariff for water, we preliminarily 

determine that any potential subsidy 

related to the GSO’s provision of water 

is not specific within the meaning of 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

D. Provision of Natural Gas for LTAR 

According to the GSO, the Ministry of 

Oil and Gas is the central buyer and 

seller of gas in the Sultanate. The 

Ministry buys gas from producers and 

resells it to power plants, industrial 

estates, and LNG producers. Further, 

according to the GSO, the natural gas 

network delivers gas for industrial 

purposes only and companies using gas 

for industrial purposes must be located 

in or close to an industrial estate. (GSO 

QR at 43.) 

The GSO states that virtually all 

industries in Oman are located in 

industrial estates or free trade zones. 

(GSO QR at 33.) This is due in part to 

infrastructural constraints, such as the 

fact that natural gas is not readily 

available outside of these areas. 

Additionally, according to the GSO, the 

zoning in the Sultanate is very strict: an 

industry seeking to locate outside an 

industrial estate or free trade zone 

would have to apply to have the land 

reclassified as industrial land. Id. 

Finally, industrial estates serve as ‘‘onestop-shops’’ where all the applications 

for an industrial installation can be 

made, rather than having to apply to 

many different agencies. Id. 

Regarding natural gas, all industrial 

companies located in all of industrial 

estates pay the same rate. (GSO QR at 

42.) Al Jazeera is located in the Sohar 

Industrial Estate and the natural gas 

bills it submitted show that it paid the 

standard rate charged to all industries 

located in Sohar Industrial Estate and 

all other industrial estates. (AJ QR at 

Exhibit 15.) Companies located nearby, 

but outside of industrial estates 

normally purchase gas from the 

Ministry of Oil and Gas, but are 

supplied by the industrial estates. 

According to the GSO, these companies 

would normally pay the same for 

natural gas as companies within the 

industrial estates, but might pay more if 

the cost of providing the gas was higher 

due, for example, to having constructed 

a pipeline. (GSO SQR at 13.) 

Because all industrial users proximate 

to the gas pipeline pay the same price 

for natural gas, we preliminarily 

determine that any potential subsidy 

related to the GSO’s provision of natural 

gas is not specific within the meaning 

of section 771(5A) of the Act. 

E. Provision of Land and/or Buildings 

for LTAR 

As explained above under ‘‘Provision 

of Natural Gas for LTAR,’’ the GSO 

states that virtually all industries in 

Oman are located in industrial estates or 

free trade zones. These estates and 

zones have been established on 

government-owned land and are 

managed by the Public Establishment 

for Industrial Estates. (GSO QR at 33.) A 

small number of very large industrial 

companies, established by the GSO, are 

located outside the industrial estates on 

government-owned land, but the GSO 

does not provide land under lease 

outside of the industrial estates. (GSO 

SQR at 13.) 

Privately owned ‘‘industrial land’’ 

outside of the estates differs from land 

in the estates, according to the GSO. 

(GSO SQR at 14.) The plots cannot 

exceed 85 square meters and rental 

periods are shorter than those in the 

estates (which range about 25 years). 

(GSO SQR at 14.) Companies located 

outside the estates are small workshops 

such as carwashes and welders which 

cannot rent land in the industrial estates 

because they are not industrial 

establishments per RD 61/2008. Id. The 

lease rates for these plots are set by the 

market and, according to the GSO, 

possibly range around .50 OR per square 

meter/month. Also according to the 

GSO, no land in the vicinity of the 

Sohar industrial estate (where Al Jazeera 

is located) is provided under lease to 

industrial establishments by private 

parties. Id. 

Regarding lease rates in the industrial 

estates, the GSO reports that they are set 

taking into account the location of the 

industrial estate and lease rates in 

neighboring countries. Id. Lease rates in 

the Sohar and Rusayl Industrial Estates 

are uniform at 0.5 OR per square meter 

per year, while the lease rates in effect 

for the five other industrial estates 

maintained by the GSO are 0.25 OR per 

square meter per year for the first five 

years and 0.5 OR per square meter per 

year thereafter. (GSO SQR at Appendix 

SQ–23.) Lease rates in the free trade 

zones are typically higher, ranging from 

1.5 to 2.5 OR per square meter per year. 

(GSO SQR at 15.) 

According to the GSO, these higher 

prices reflect additional services and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 19641 

benefits available in the free trade 

zones: one stop shop for industrial 

license and work permits, and various 

regulatory and policy exemptions. If the 

land in the free trade zone is not 

developed, the lease rates may be lower. 

Id. 

In summary, the GSO provides 

industrial land under leases in 

industrial estates and free trade zones. 

Companies locating in free trade zones 

receive benefits or services that are not 

received in the industrial estates and the 

lease rates in free trade zones are, 

therefore, higher. Within the industrial 

estates, the rates are uniform except for 

the existence of ‘‘introductory’’ rates in 

certain zones. Because Al Jazeera has 

been located in Sohar Industrial Estate 

beyond any ‘‘introductory’’ period in 

the other industrial estates, it would 

face the uniform rate of 0.50 OR. 

Because all recipients of industrial 

leases in the industrial estates that have 

been located there beyond five years pay 

the same lease rates, we preliminarily 

determine that any potential subsidy 

related to the GSO’s provision of 

industrial leases is not specific within 

the meaning of section 771(5A) of the 

Act. 

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Be Not Used By Respondents or To 

Not Provide Benefits During the POI 

A. Exemption from Corporate Income 

Tax 

Based on information included in Al 

Jazeera’s questionnaire response, 

Wheatland Tube alleged that Al Jazeera 

benefitted from a countervailable 

exemption from income tax during the 

POI. Al Jazeera’s response indicates that 

the company has a tax loss for 2009 

(relating to the tax return filed during 

the POI) (AJ SQR at 5) and did not 

belatedly pay corporate income taxes in 

2009 for prior years. (AJ NSQR at 2.) 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that any income tax exemption was not 

used during the POI. 

B. Pre-Shipment Export Credit 

Guarantees 

IV. Programs For Which More 

Information Is Required 

A. Export Credit Discounting Subsidy 

(identified as ‘‘Post-Shipment Financing 

Loans’’ in the Initiation Notice) 

The Export Credit Guarantee Agency 

of Oman (‘‘ECGA’’) is the national 

export credit agency of the Sultanate. 

Exporters whose sales are insured by 

ECGA can discount their export bills 

with commercial banks and ECGA 

provides a one percent subsidy on the 

export sales it has insured. (GSO QR at 

26.) Al Jazeera received an interest 

subsidy for a loan outstanding during 

the POI. (AJ QR at 13–14.) However, the 

interest subsidy for this loan was 

received after the POI. (AJ SQR at 4.) 

Consequently, the interest subsidy does 

not give rise to a benefit during the POI. 

We intend to seek further information 

from Al Jazeera regarding possible 

interest subsidies received during the 

POI arising from loans outstanding prior 

to the POI. 

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 an estimated countervailable 

subsidy rate for Al Jazeera. Further, 

because Al Jazeera is the only company 

for which a rate has been calculated, we 

are also assigning that rate to all other 

producers and exporters of circular 

welded pipe from Oman. 

Exporter/manufacturer Net subsidy 

rate 

Al Jazeera Tube Mills Company SAOG.0.12 percent 

All Others .............................. 0.12 percent 

Because all of the rates are de 

minimis, we preliminarily determine 

that no countervailable subsidies are 

being provided to the production or 

exportation of circular welded pipe 

from Oman. As such, we will not direct 

CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of 

the subject merchandise. 

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 nonprivileged 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 affirmative 

determination. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), we intend to disclose to the 

parties the calculations for this 

preliminary determination within five 

days of its announcement. 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, we intend to hold the 

hearing 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, N.W., 

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. 

See 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. 2012–7839 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES