Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 18207 

1See ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties And Countervailing Duties 

Against Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From The 

People’s Republic of China,’’ filed on March 1, 2012 

(‘‘Petition’’). 2See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–983] 

Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 27, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Veith or Eve Wang at (202) 482– 

4295 or (202) 482–6231, respectively, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On March 1, 2012, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received an 

antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition 

(hereafter, ‘‘Petition’’) concerning 

imports of drawn stainless steel sinks 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form on behalf 

of Elkay Manufacturing Company 

(‘‘Petitioner’’).1 On March 6, 2012, the 

Department issued a request for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petition. On 

March 9, 2012, Petitioner filed a 

response with respect to general 

questions about information in the 

Petition (‘‘General Issues Supplement’’). 

On March 9, 2012, Petitioner also filed 

responses specific to the AD Petition 

(‘‘Supplement to AD Petition’’). On 

March 15, 2012, Petitioner also filed a 

revision to the proposed scope language. 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’), Petitioner alleges that imports of 

drawn stainless steel sinks from the PRC 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. Also, consistent with 

section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition 

is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to Petitioner 

supporting its allegations. 

The Department finds that the 

Petition was filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioner is 

an interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department 

also finds that Petitioner has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigation that Petitioner is 

requesting that the Department initiate 

(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support 

for the Petition’’ section below). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

July 1, 2011, through December 31, 

2011.2

Scope of the Investigation 

The product covered by this 

investigation is drawn stainless steel 

sinks from the PRC. For a full 

description of the scope of the 

Investigation, please see the ‘‘Scope of 

the Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of the 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. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations (Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997)), we are setting aside a period for 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. The period 

of scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. The Department 

encourages all interested parties to 

submit such comments by April 10, 

2012, twenty calendar days from the 

signature date of this notice. All 

comments must be filed on the records 

of both the PRC antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations. 

Comments should 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. 

Documents excepted from the electronic 

submission requirements must be filed 

manually (i.e., in paper form) with the 

APO/Dockets Unit in Room 1870 and 

stamped with the date and time of 

receipt by the deadline noted above. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

drawn stainless steel sinks to be 

reported in response to the 

Department’s antidumping 

questionnaires. This information will be 

used to identify the key physical 

characteristics of the subject 

merchandise in order to more accurately 

report the relevant factors and costs of 

production, as well as to develop 

appropriate product comparison 

criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they feel 

are relevant to the development of an 

accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as 

(1) general product characteristics and 

(2) the product comparison criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product comparison criteria. We base 

product comparison criteria on 

meaningful commercial differences 

among products. In other words, while 

there may be some physical product 

characteristics utilized by 

manufacturers to describe drawn 

stainless steel sinks, it may be that only 

a select few product characteristics take 

into account commercially meaningful 

physical characteristics. In addition, 

interested parties may comment on the 

order in which the physical 

characteristics should be used in 

product matching. Generally, the 

Department attempts to list the most 

important physical characteristics first 

and the least important characteristics 

last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping questionnaires, 

we must receive comments by April 10, 

2012. Additionally, rebuttal comments 

must be received by April 17, 2012. All 

comments and submissions to the 

Department must be filed electronically 

using IA ACCESS, as referenced above. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18208 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 

3See section 771(10) of the Act. 

4See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 

2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. 

v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988)), 

aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 

U.S. 919 (1989). 

5See Volume I of the Petition at 3 and Exhibit I– 

1, and General Issues Supplement at 4; see also AD 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 6See AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 7See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also AD 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

8See AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

9See id. 

10See id. 

11See Volume I of the Petition, at 8–25 and 

Exhibits I–4 through I–32, and General Issues 

Supplement, at 4. 

12See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III. 

13See AD Initiation Checklist at 5. 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

‘‘industry.’’ 

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

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product, 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,3 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.4

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 Antidumping 

Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the 

PRC (‘‘AD Initiation Checklist’’) at 

Attachment II dated concurrently with 

this notice and on file electronically via 

IA ACCESS. Access to documents filed 

via IA ACCESS is also available in the 

Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 

of the main Department of Commerce 

building. 

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing under section 732(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,’’ in Appendix I 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.5

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that Petitioner 

has established industry support.6 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).7 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.8 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the 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.9 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

732(b)(1) of the Act. 

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 antidumping 

duty investigation that it is requesting 

the Department initiate.10

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleges that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, 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.11 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.12

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate this investigation of 

imports of drawn stainless steel sinks 

from the PRC. The sources of data for 

the deductions and adjustments relating 

to the U.S. price and the factors of 

production (‘‘FOPs’’) are also discussed 

in the initiation checklists.13

Export Price 

Petitioner calculated export price 

(‘‘EP’’) based on price quotes of certain 

drawn stainless steel sinks obtained 

from Chinese producers, as identified in 

affidavits regarding price offers and U.S. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 18209 

14See AD Initiation Checklist at 6; see also 

Supplement to AD Petition at 7–8 and Exhibit II– 

S9. 

15See AD Initiation Checklist at 5–6; see also 

Volume II of the Petition at 10 and Exhibits II–4; 

see also Supplement to AD Petition at 4–6 and 

Exhibits II–S1, II–S2, II–S3, II–S5 and II–S6. 

16See AD Initiation Checklist at 6 for additional 

details. 

17See Volume II of the Petition at I–2; see also 

Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People’s 

Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 77 FR 3440 (January 24, 2012). 

18See Volume II of the Petition at 4. 

19See id. 

20See Volume II of the Petition at 6–8 and Exhibit 

II–5; see also Supplement to AD Petition at 2–3. 

21See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), 

unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008); see 

also Volume II of the Petition at Exhibit II–5. 

22See Volume II of the Petition at 5–8 and 

Exhibits II–4, II–6–7, II–10–12, II–15 and II–17; see 

also Supplement to AD Petition at Exhibit II–S6. 

23See Volume II of the Petition at Exhibit II–9; 

see also AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment V. 

24See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibit 

II–2 and II–6; see also Supplement to AD Petition 

at Exhibit II–S8. 

25See AD Initiation Checklist at 7. 

26See id. 

27See AD Initiation Checklist at 8. 

28See Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at 7 

and Exhibit II–S3. See also AD Initiation Checklist 

at 8. 

29For purposes of this Petition, the Petitioner 

conservatively relied on the Gail India rate because 

it is not aware of any case where the Department 

specified a Thai industrial natural gas rate for 

surrogate value purposes. See Volume II of the 

Petition at 7 and Exhibit II–12. See also AD 

Initiation Checklist at 8 

30See Volume II of the Petition at II–13 and 

Supplement to AD Petition at 3–4; see also AD 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment V. 

31See Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at 4. 

32See 19 CFR 351.408(4). 

price.14 Based on the price quotes and 

delivery terms, Petitioner deducted from 

these prices the charges and expenses 

associated with exporting and 

delivering the product to the U.S. 

customer (brokerage and handling and 

domestic inland freight).15 Petitioner 

made no other adjustments.16

Normal Value 

Petitioner states that the Department 

has long treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’) country and 

this designation remains in effect 

today.17 In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 

presumption of NME status remains in 

effect until revoked by the Department. 

The presumption of NME status for the 

PRC has not been revoked by the 

Department and, therefore, remains in 

effect for purposes of the initiation of 

the PRC investigation. Accordingly, the 

NV of the product for the PRC 

investigation is appropriately based on 

FOPs valued in a surrogate marketeconomy (‘‘ME’’) country in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Act. In the 

course of the investigation, all parties 

will have the opportunity to provide 

relevant information related to the issue 

of the PRC’s NME status and the 

granting of separate rates to individual 

exporters. 

Petitioner claims that Thailand is an 

appropriate surrogate country under 19 

CFR 351.408(a) because it is an ME 

country that is at a comparable level of 

economic development to the PRC and 

surrogate values data from Thailand are 

available and reliable. Petitioner also 

believes that Thailand is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

Based on the information provided by 

Petitioner, we believe that it is 

appropriate to use Thailand as a 

surrogate country for initiation 

purposes. In the course of the 

investigation, interested parties will 

have the opportunity to submit 

comments regarding surrogate country 

selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an 

opportunity to submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 40 

days after the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination. 

Petitioner calculated the NV and 

dumping margins for the U.S. price, as 

discussed above, using the Department’s 

NME methodology as required by 

section 773(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 

351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. 

Petitioner calculated NV based on its 

own consumption rates.18 Petitioner 

asserts that, to the best of Petitioner’s 

knowledge, these consumption rates are 

very similar to the consumption rates of 

the PRC producers.19

Petitioner valued by-products and 

most FOPs based on reasonably 

available, public surrogate country data, 

specifically, Thai import statistics from 

the Global Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’).20

Petitioner excluded from these import 

statistics values from countries 

previously determined by the 

Department to be NME countries, and 

from India, Indonesia, and the Republic 

of Korea, as the Department has 

previously excluded prices from these 

countries because they maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies. Finally, the import statistics 

average unit value excludes imports that 

were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country, because the 

Department could not be certain that 

they were not from either an NME 

country or a country with generally 

available export subsidies.21 For valuing 

other FOPs, Petitioner used sources 

selected by the Department in recent 

proceedings involving the PRC or 

publicly available sources from 

Thailand.22 In addition, Petitioner made 

Thai Baht/U.S. dollar (‘‘USD’’) currency 

conversions. The Department 

recalculated average exchange rates for 

the POI, based on Federal Reserve 

exchange rates, to use data for all 

months of the POI.23

Petitioner determined labor costs 

using the labor consumption rates 

derived from a U.S. producer.24

Petitioner valued labor costs using Thai 

wage rates for manufacturing industries, 

as reported by the International Labor 

Organization (‘‘ILO’’) in Table 6A of its 

Yearbook of Labor Statistics.25

Petitioner inflated the wage rate to be 

contemporaneous with the POI using 

the International Financial Statistics’ 

consumer price index inflators, 

consistent with the Department’s 

practice.26

Petitioner used information published 

by the ‘‘Board of Investment of 

Thailand’’ (‘‘BOI’’), available on the 

Government of Thailand’s official Web 

site, to value electricity and water.27

Since the water rates are not 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

Petitioner used Thai CPI as the inflating 

factor. However, Petitioner 

inadvertently calculated a deflator when 

they meant to calculate an inflator. We 

recalculated the inflator for water and 

revised the margin calculation, where 

appropriate.28

Petitioner determined natural gas 

costs using Indian gas prices from the 

Indian Gas Utility Gail and 

substantiated these prices by Chemical 

Weekly in February 2005.29

Petitioner based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and profit on data 

from the financial statements of Siam 

Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Siam’’) and 

Green Power Engineering Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Green Power’’), both of which 

Petitioner asserts are Thai producers of 

comparable merchandise.30 We 

determined that Siam’s statements best 

reflect the U.S. producer’s production 

experience. In our examination of Green 

Power’s financial statements, we found 

no indication that Green Power 

produced merchandise comparable to 

the merchandise under investigation.31

Therefore, for purposes of initiation, we 

have relied solely on the financial 

statements of Siam to calculate factory 

overhead, selling, SG&A, and profit.32

Petitioner determined packing 

material costs using the consumption 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18210 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 

33See Volume II of the Petition at 8 and Exhibit 

II–2; see also Supplement to AD Petition at Exhibit 

II–S8. 

34See Volume II of the Petition at Exhibit II–5. 

35See AD Initiation Checklist at 9 and 

Attachment V. 

36See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions 

Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008). 

37See id., 73 FR at 74931. 

38See General Issues Supplement. 

39See, e.g., Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); see also 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: 

Certain Artist Canvas From the People’s Republic 

of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). 

40See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (‘‘Separate Rates 

and Combination Rates Bulletin’’), available on the 

Department’s Web site at http://trade.gov/ia/policy/ 

bull05-1.pdf. 

41See Separate Rates and Combination Rates 

Bulletin, at 6 (emphasis added). 

rates derived from U.S. producer’s 

experience, adjusted to reflect certain 

differences between U.S. and Chinese 

packing structures.33 Petitioner valued 

packing materials using GTA Thai 

import statistics.34

Fair Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioner, there is reason to believe that 

imports of drawn stainless steel sinks 

from the PRC are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value. Based on a comparison of EPs 

and NV calculated, in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated 

dumping margins for drawn stainless 

steel sinks from the PRC range from 

22.81 percent to 76.53 percent.35

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition on drawn stainless steel sinks 

from the PRC, the Department finds that 

the Petition meets the requirements of 

section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 

initiating an antidumping investigation 

to determine whether imports of drawn 

stainless steel sinks from the PRC are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. In 

accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), 

unless postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determinations no later 

than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Targeted Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeted 

dumping analysis in antidumping duty 

investigations, and the corresponding 

regulation governing the deadline for 

targeted dumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5).36 The Department stated 

that ‘‘{w}ithdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ 37

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted dumping allegation in either 

of these investigations pursuant to 

section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such 

allegations are due no later than 45 days 

before the scheduled date of the 

preliminary determination. 

Respondent Selection and Quantity and 

Value Questionnaire 

The Department will request quantity 

and value information from all known 

exporters and producers identified with 

complete contact information in the 

Petition.38 The quantity and value data 

received from Chinese exporters/ 

producers will be used as the basis for 

selecting the mandatory respondents. 

The Department requires that the 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate-rate application by the 

respective deadlines, as discussed 

below and in the Separate Rate section, 

in order to receive consideration for 

separate-rate status.39

In addition, the Department will post 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

along with the filing instructions on the 

Import Administration Web site (http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html). Exporters and producers of 

drawn stainless steel sinks that do not 

receive quantity and value 

questionnaires but intend to submit a 

response can obtain a copy from the 

Import Administration Web site. The 

quantity and value questionnaire must 

be submitted by all Chinese exporters/ 

producers no later than April 11, 2012, 

21 days after the signature date of this 

Federal Register notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s Web 

site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in an NME investigation, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

status application.40 The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate-rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, which will be 

available on the Department’s Web site 

at http://trade.gov/ia/ia-highlights-andnews.html on the date of publication of 

this initiation notice in the Federal 

Register. The separate-rate application 

will be due 60 days after publication of 

this initiation notice. For exporters and 

producers who submit a separate-rate 

status application and subsequently are 

selected as mandatory respondents, 

these exporters and producers will no 

longer be eligible for consideration for 

separate rate status unless they respond 

to all parts of the questionnaire as 

mandatory respondents. As noted in the 

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section above, 

the Department requires that the PRC 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate-rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

The quantity and value questionnaire 

will be available on the Department’s 

Web site at http://trade.gov/iahighlights-and-news.html on the date of 

the publication of this initiation notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Use of Combination Rates 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

Separate Rates and Combination Rates 

Bulletin states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its NME Investigation will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. 

Note, however, that one rate is calculated for 

the exporter and all of the producers which 

supplied subject merchandise to it during the 

period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination 

rates’’ because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation.41

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) 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 Chinese 

Government. Because of the particularly 

large number of producers/exporters 

identified in the Petition, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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