Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19219 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), we will 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, the hearing will be held 

two days after the deadline for 

submission of the rebuttal briefs, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), at the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, 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. 

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. 2012–7748 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–520–806] 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe From the United Arab Emirates: 

Preliminary Negative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Alignment of 

Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination With Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

preliminarily determines that 

countervailable subsidies are not being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

circular welded carbon-quality steel 

pipe (‘‘circular welded pipe’’) from the 

United Arab Emirates (‘‘UAE’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Morris or Dustin Ross, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1779 and (202) 

482–0747, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the publication of the Department 

of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) 

notice of initiation in the Federal 

Register. See Circular Welded CarbonQuality Steel Pipe from India, the 

Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing 

Duty Investigations, 76 FR 72173 

(November 22, 2011) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’), and the accompanying 

Initiation Checklist. 

On November 22, 2011, the 

Department released the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data on 

imports of subject merchandise during 

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’), 

under administrative protective order 

(‘‘APO’’) to all parties with APO access. 

See Memorandum to the File from 

Joshua Morris, ‘‘Release of Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) Data,’’ dated 

November 22, 2011. On November 30, 

2011, we received comments on the data 

from Wheatland Tube, one of the 

petitioners in this investigation. On 

December 16, 2011, the Department 

selected two Emirati producers/ 

exporters of circular welded pipe as 

mandatory company respondents: (1) 

Abu Dhabi Metal Pipes & Profiles 

Industries Complex LLC (‘‘ADPICO’’); 

and (2) Universal Tube and Plastic 

Industries, Ltd. (‘‘Universal Plastic’’). 

See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, 

‘‘Respondent Selection Memorandum,’’ 

dated December 16, 2011. This 

memorandum is on file electronically in 

Import Administration’s Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’), with access to IA ACCESS 

available in the Department’s Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), room 7046 of the 

main Department building. 

Also on December 16, 2011, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

published its affirmative preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of allegedly subsidized imports 

of circular welded pipe from India, the 

Sultanate of Oman, the UAE, and the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe from India, Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and Vietnam, 76 FR 78313 

(December 16, 2011). 

On December 19, 2011, the 

Department postponed the deadline for 

the preliminary determination in this 

investigation until March 26, 2012. See 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe from India, the Sultanate of Oman, 

the United Arab Emirates, and the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigations, 76 FR 78615 

(December 19, 2011). In conjunction 

with this postponement, the Department 

also postponed the deadline for the 

submission of new subsidy allegations 

until February 15, 2012. See 

Memorandum to the File from Joshua S. 

Morris, ‘‘New Subsidy Allegation 

Deadline: Circular Welded CarbonQuality Steel Pipe from India, the 

Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam,’’ dated, December 15, 2011. 

On December 21, 2011, the 

Department issued countervailing duty 

(‘‘CVD’’) questionnaires to the 

Government of the UAE (‘‘GUAE’’), 

ADPICO, and Universal Plastic. The 

Department received responses from 

Universal Plastic (‘‘UQR’’) on February 

16, 2012, and both the GUAE (‘‘GQR’’) 

and ADPICO (‘‘AQR’’) on February 17, 

2012. The Department received 

responses to supplemental 

questionnaires from ADPICO on March 

14, 2012, and from Universal Plastic, 

and the GUAE (‘‘GSR’’) on March 16, 

2012. 

Wheatland Tube requested two 

extensions of the deadline for filing new 

subsidy allegations. As a result, this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19220 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

deadline was extended from February 

15 to February 24, and then to February 

28, 2012. See Memorandum to the File 

from Susan Kuhbach, ‘‘New Subsidy 

Allegation Deadline: Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, 

the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam,’’ dated February 6, 2012, and 

Letter to Interested Parties, dated 

February 24, 2012. 

On February 28, 2012, Wheatland 

Tube submitted new subsidy allegations 

requesting the Department to expand its 

CVD investigation to include an 

additional subsidy program, while also 

requesting that the Department modify 

its investigation of already alleged 

programs in light of information placed 

on the record of the proceeding by the 

respondents. See Letter from Petitioner 

Wheatland Tube, ‘‘New Subsidies 

Allegation and Additional Factual 

Information,’’ dated February 28, 2012. 

On March 16, 2012, the Department 

initiated an investigation into the new 

subsidy allegations. See Memorandum 

to Susan H. Kuhbach, ‘‘Analysis of 

Petitioners’ New Subsidy Allegations,’’ 

dated March 16, 2012. On March 26, 

2012, the Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires regarding 

this new subsidy allegation to the 

GUAE, ADPICO, and Universal Plastic. 

On March 19, 2012, Wheatland Tube 

submitted pre-preliminary 

determination comments with respect to 

this investigation. On March 22, 2012, 

the GUAE also submitted prepreliminary determination comments. 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

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

January 1, 2010, through December 31, 

2010. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

the Department’s regulations, we set 

aside a period of time in our Initiation 

Notice for parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage, and 

encouraged all parties to submit 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

publication of that notice. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997), and Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 

72173. On December 5, 2011, SeAH 

Steel VINA Corp. (‘‘SeAH VINA’’), a 

mandatory respondent in the concurrent 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) circular 

welded pipe from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam investigation, filed 

comments arguing that the treatment of 

double and triple stenciled pipe in the 

scope of these investigations differs 

from previous treatment of these 

products under other orders on circular 

pipe. Specifically, SeAH VINA claims 

that the Brazilian, Korean, and Mexican 

orders on these products exclude 

‘‘Standard pipe that is dual or triple 

certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as 

line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas 

pipelines * * *’’ See, e.g., Certain 

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 

from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and 

Taiwan; and Certain Circular Welded 

Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From 

Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited 

Third Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 66899, 

66900 (Oct. 28, 2011). According to 

SeAH VINA: (i) If the term ‘‘class or 

kind of merchandise’’ has meaning, it 

cannot have a different meaning when 

applied to the same products in two 

different cases; and (ii) the distinction 

between standard and line pipe 

reflected in the Brazil, Korean and 

Mexican orders derives from customs 

classifications administered by CBP 

and, thus, is more administrable. 

On December 14, 2011, Allied Tube 

and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and 

Wheatland Tube (collectively, ‘‘certain 

Petitioners’’) responded to SeAH VINA’s 

comments stating that the scope as it 

appeared in the Initiation Notice 

reflected Petitioners’ intended coverage. 

Certain Petitioners contend that pipe 

that is multi-stenciled to both line pipe 

and standard pipe specifications and 

meets the physical characteristics listed 

in the scope (i.e., is 32 feet in length or 

less; is less than 2.0 inches (50mm) in 

outside diameter; has a galvanized and/ 

or painted (e.g., polyester coated) 

surface finish; or has a threaded and/or 

coupled end finish) is ordinarily used in 

standard pipe applications. In recent 

years, certain Petitioners state, the 

Department has rejected end-use scope 

classifications, preferring instead to rely 

on physical characteristics to define 

coverage, and the scope of these 

investigations has been written 

accordingly. Therefore, certain 

Petitioners ask the Department to reject 

SeAH VINA’s proposed scope 

modification. 

We agree with certain Petitioners that 

the Department seeks to define the 

scopes of its proceedings based on the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Moreover, we disagree with SeAH 

VINA’s contention that once a ‘‘class or 

kind of merchandise’’ has been 

established that the same scope 

description must apply across all 

proceedings involving the product. For 

example, as the Department has gained 

experience in administering 

antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) and CVD 

orders, it has shifted away from end use 

classifications to scopes defined by the 

physical characteristics. Id. Thus, 

proceedings initiated on a given product 

many years ago may have end use 

classifications while more recent 

proceedings on the product would not. 

Compare Countervailing Duty Order: Oil 

Country Tubular Goods from Canada, 

51 FR 21783 (June 16, 1986) (describing 

subject merchandise as being ‘‘intended 

for use in drilling for oil and gas’’) with 

Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Amended Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203 

(January 20, 2010) (describing the 

subject merchandise in terms of 

physical characteristics without regard 

to use or intended use). Finally, certain 

Petitioners have indicated the domestic 

industry’s intent to include 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; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19221 

1Finished scaffolding is defined as component 

parts of final, finished scaffolding that enters the 

United States unassembled as a ‘‘kit.’’ A ‘‘kit’’ is 

understood to mean a packaged combination of 

component parts that contain, at the time of 

importation, all the necessary component parts to 

fully assemble a final, finished scaffolding. 

(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten; 

(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum; 

(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium; 

(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium; 

(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; 

(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium. 

Subject pipe is ordinarily made to 

ASTM specifications A53, A135, and 

A795, but can also be made to other 

specifications. Structural pipe is made 

primarily to ASTM specifications A252 

and A500. Standard and structural pipe 

may also be produced to proprietary 

specifications rather than to industry 

specifications. Fence tubing is included 

in the scope regardless of certification to 

a specification listed in the exclusions 

below, and can also be made to the 

ASTM A513 specification. Sprinkler 

pipe is designed for sprinkler fire 

suppression systems and may be made 

to industry specifications such as ASTM 

A53 or to proprietary specifications. 

These products are generally made to 

standard O.D. and wall thickness 

combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a 

standard and/or structural specification 

and to other specifications, such as 

American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) 

API–5L specification, is also covered by 

the scope of this investigation when it 

meets the physical description set forth 

above, and also has one or more of the 

following characteristics: Is 32 feet in 

length or less; is less than 2.0 inches 

(50mm) in outside diameter; has a 

galvanized and/or painted (e.g., 

polyester coated) surface finish; or has 

a threaded and/or coupled end finish. 

The scope of this investigation does 

not include: (a) Pipe suitable for use in 

boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, 

refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, 

whether or not cold drawn; (b) finished 

electrical conduit; (c) finished 

scaffolding;1 (d) tube and pipe hollows 

for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular 

goods produced to API specifications; (f) 

line pipe produced to only API 

specifications; and (g) mechanical 

tubing, whether or not cold-drawn. 

However, products certified to ASTM 

mechanical tubing specifications are not 

excluded as mechanical tubing if they 

otherwise meet the standard sizes (e.g., 

outside diameter and wall thickness) of 

standard, structural, fence and sprinkler 

pipe. Also, products made to the 

following outside diameter and wall 

thickness combinations, which are 

recognized by the industry as typical for 

fence tubing, would not be excluded 

from the scope based solely on their 

being certified to ASTM mechanical 

tubing specifications: 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.035 inch wall 

thickness (gage 20) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall 

thickness (gage 18) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall 

thickness (gage 17) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall 

thickness (gage 16) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall 

thickness (gage 15) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall 

thickness (gage 14) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall 

thickness (gage 13) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall 

thickness (gage 18) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall 

thickness (gage 17) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall 

thickness (gage 16) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall 

thickness (gage 15) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall 

thickness (gage 14) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall 

thickness (gage 13) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall 

thickness (gage 18) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall 

thickness (gage 17) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall 

thickness (gage 16) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall 

thickness (gage 15) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall 

thickness (gage 13) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall 

thickness (gage 18) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall 

thickness (gage 17) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall 

thickness (gage 16) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall 

thickness (gage 15) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall 

thickness (gage 13) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.120 inch wall 

thickness (gage 11) 

2.875 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

2.875 inch O.D. and 0.134 inch wall 

thickness (gage 10) 

2.875 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall 

thickness (gage 8) 

3.500 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

3.500 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall 

thickness (gage 9) 

3.500 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall 

thickness (gage 8) 

4.000 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall 

thickness (gage 9) 

4.000 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall 

thickness (gage 8) 

4.500 inch O.D. and 0.203 inch wall 

thickness (gage 7) 

The pipe subject to this investigation 

is currently classifiable in Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical reporting numbers 

7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 

7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 

7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 

7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 

7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 

7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 

7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under the investigation is 

dispositive. 

Alignment of Final Determination 

On November 22, 2011, the 

Department initiated an AD 

investigation concurrent with this CVD 

investigation of circular welded pipe 

from the UAE. See Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, 

the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 76 FR 72164 

(November 22, 2011). The scope of the 

merchandise being covered is the same 

for both the AD and CVD investigations. 

On March 23, 2012, Petitioners 

submitted a letter, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.210(b)(4)(i), requesting 

alignment of the final CVD 

determination with the final 

determination in the companion AD 

investigation. Therefore, in accordance 

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

of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’) and 19 CFR 

351.210(b)(4), the final CVD 

determination will be issued on the 

same date as the final AD 

determination, which is currently 

scheduled to be issued on August 6, 

2012. 

Subsidies Valuation Information 

Allocation Period 

Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), the 

Department presumes the allocation 

period for non-recurring subsidies to be 

the average useful life (‘‘AUL’’) of the 

renewable physical assets for the 

industry concerned, as listed in the 

tables of the U.S. Internal Revenue 

Service’s (‘‘IRS’’) 1977 Class Life Asset 

Depreciation Range System, as updated 

by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. 

According to the updated AUL tables of 

the IRS, the AUL period for the relevant 

industry in this proceeding is 15 years. 

See U.S. Internal Revenue Service 

Publication 946 (2008), How to 

Depreciate Property, at Table B–2: Table 

of Class Lives and Recovery Periods. No 

party in this proceeding has disputed 

this allocation period. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19222 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

Attribution of Subsidies 

The Department’s regulations at 19 

CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that the 

Department will normally attribute a 

subsidy to the products produced by the 

corporation that received the subsidy. 

However, 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii) 

through (v) directs that the Department 

will attribute subsidies received by 

certain other companies to the 

combined sales of those companies if (1) 

cross-ownership exists between the 

companies, and (2) the cross-owned 

companies produce the subject 

merchandise, are a holding or parent 

company of the subject company, 

produce an input that is primarily 

dedicated to the production of the 

downstream product, or transfer a 

subsidy to a cross-owned company. 

According to 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists 

between two or more corporations 

where one corporation can use or direct 

the individual assets of the other 

corporation(s) in essentially the same 

ways it can use its own assets. This 

regulation states that this standard will 

normally be met where there is a 

majority voting interest between two 

corporations or through common 

ownership of two (or more) 

corporations. The Court of International 

Trade (‘‘CIT’’) has upheld the 

Department’s authority to attribute 

subsidies based on whether a company 

could use or direct the subsidy benefits 

of another company in essentially the 

same way it could use its own subsidy 

benefits. See Fabrique de Fer de 

Charleroi, SA v. United States, 166 F. 

Supp. 2d 593, 600–604 (CIT 2001). 

ADPICO 

ADPICO stated that it is a UAEregistered limited liability company, 

with 51 percent ownership by a UAE 

national, and 49 percent ownership by 

a Swiss-registered company. ADPICO 

also stated that it has no affiliates and 

responded to the Department’s original 

and supplemental questionnaires on 

behalf of itself. 

Universal Plastic 

Universal Plastic responded to the 

Department’s original and supplemental 

questionnaires on behalf of itself and 

two affiliates: KHK Scaffolding and 

Formwork LLC (‘‘KHK’’) and Universal 

Tube and Pipe Industries LLC 

(‘‘Universal Pipe’’). 

We preliminarily determine that 

Universal Plastic, KHK, and Universal 

Pipe are cross-owned within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) by 

virtue of common ownership. Moreover, 

because KHK and Universal Pipe are 

also producers of subject merchandise, 

any subsidies received by Universal 

Plastic, KHK, and Universal Pipe would 

be attributed to the combined sales of 

Universal Plastic, KHK, and Universal 

Pipe (excluding intercompany sales), in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6)(ii). 

Analysis of Programs 

Based upon our analysis of the 

petition and the responses to our 

questionnaires, we preliminarily 

determine the following: 

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

Not To Exist 

A. Profit Tax Exemptions Under UAE 

Federal Law No.1 of 1979 (‘‘1979 

Federal Law’’) 

According to the GUAE, (1) the 

provisions of the 1979 Federal Law that 

provide for profit tax exemptions were 

never implemented, and (2) the only 

entities in the UAE subject to income 

tax are foreign-owned banks and 

foreign-owned energy companies. See 

GQR at 6. Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that this program does not 

exist. 

B. Provision of Electricity for LTAR 

Under the 1979 Federal Law and the 

Gulf Cooperation Council (‘‘GCC’’) 

Common Industrial Regulatory Law 

According to the GUAE, the 

provisions of the 1979 Federal Law and 

the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory 

Law that relate to the provision of 

electricity at incentivized rates were 

never implemented. See GQR at 4; see 

also GSR at 17. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program does not exist. 

C. Provision of Land and/or Buildings 

for LTAR Under the 1979 Federal Law 

and the GCC Common Industrial 

Regulatory Law 

According to the GUAE, the 

provisions of the 1979 Federal Law and 

the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory 

Law that relate to the provision of land 

and/or buildings at incentivized rates 

were never implemented. See GQR at 7; 

see also GSR at 17. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program does not exist. 

D. Provision of Water for LTAR Under 

the 1979 Federal Law and the GCC 

Common Industrial Regulatory Law 

According to the GUAE, the 

provisions of the 1979 Federal Law and 

the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory 

Law that relate to the provision of water 

at incentivized rates were never 

implemented. See GQR at 8; see also 

GSR at 17. Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that this program does not 

exist. 

E. Preferential Export Lending Under 

the 1979 Federal Law 

According to the GUAE, the 

provisions of the 1979 Federal Law that 

relate to preferential export lending 

were never implemented. See GQR at 5. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that this program does not exist. 

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

Not To Be Countervailable 

A. Dubai Commodity Receipts (‘‘DCRs’’) 

DCRs are negotiable warehouse 

receipts that are issued electronically by 

the Dubai Multi Commodities Center 

(‘‘DMCC’’), a GUAE-owned facility, to 

facilitate the financing of goods. 

Petitioners have alleged that, by virtue 

of the GUAE’s role through DMCC, DCRbacked financing comes with an 

implicit government guarantee, which 

allows lenders to obtain lower financing 

costs that they could otherwise obtain 

outside the DMCC facility. 

Beginning in 2004, the DCR platform 

consists of three types of parties: 

commodity owners (the ‘‘originators’’), 

warehouse keepers (the ‘‘issuers’’), and 

financiers. The DCR platform allows 

commodity owners (i.e., originators) to 

request warehouse keepers (i.e., issuers) 

to issue DCRs, which represent goods 

stored at a warehouse or vault which is 

managed by the issuer. Originators then 

‘‘pledge’’ the receipt to financiers to 

obtain inventory-backed loans from the 

financiers. According to the GUAE, the 

program is open to financiers around 

the world, provided they are approved 

by the DMCC. See GQR at 30. 

During the POI, ADPICO was the only 

respondent to participate in this 

program. Id. at 29. In particular, 

ADPICO had outstanding loans as part 

of its trade financing arrangements with 

a bank in Switzerland during the POI. 

Id. The GUAE asserts that at no point 

did the DMCC offer a guarantee, implicit 

or otherwise, on loan agreements 

between ADPICO and its financiers, or 

act as bank guarantor of the DCR 

platform. See GQR at Exhibit 11. 

Moreover, the DMCC’s Rules clearly 

indicate that the DMCC assumes no 

liabilities for DCR-backed financing that 

may default. In relevant parts, the Rules 

state the following: 

5.4 Liability of DMCC 

5.4.1 Each DCR Member confirms that the 

liability of DMCC for acting as its 

commission agent pursuant to the Rules 

(including under this Clause 5) shall be 

limited by Clause 13 (Limitation of Liability 

of DMCC). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19223 

5.4.2 Each Legal Owner and each 

Financier acknowledges that DMCC provides 

close out settlement services under these 

Rules, and acts as commission agent for any 

Legal Owner, solely for the purposes of 

facilitating the smooth operation of the DCR 

System and the efficient settlement of the 

liabilities of the Legal Owners and the 

Financiers following a Close Out Trigger 

Event. The DCR Members confirm that DMCC 

shall have no liability to any Legal Owner, 

any Financier or any other DCR Member by 

virtue of its appointment as commission 

agent for a Legal Owner under this Clause 5 

or any exercise by DMCC of its obligation to 

sell any DCR (or the Goods represented by 

that DCR) following a Close Out Trigger 

Event as provided for in this Clause 5. 

* * * * * 

13.1 Limitation of Liability 

* * * * * 

(b) [T]hese Rules expressly set forth all the 

duties of DMCC with respect to any and all 

matters pertinent hereto, and shall not be 

interpreted so as to impose any implied 

duties or obligations on DMCC. DMCC shall 

not be bound by the provisions of any prior 

agreement with any DCR Member to the 

extent that such prior agreement conflicts 

with these Rules. 

See GQR at Exhibit 12 (emphases added). 

In light of the above, we find that 

DCR-backed financing obtained by DCR 

holders is not subject to any guarantee, 

implicit or otherwise, that is provided 

by the government through DMCC and, 

thus, does not give rise to a transfer, or 

potential transfer, of government funds 

to the participants in the DCR financing 

facility. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that, while ADPICO did 

participate in the DCR financing 

program, no financial contribution 

exists within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program is not countervailable. 

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Not Be Used by Respondents During 

the POI 

A. Concessionary Lending From the 

Emirates Industrial Bank 

In addition to investigating 

preferential export loans granted under 

the 1979 Federal Law, the Department 

also investigated preferential export 

loans extended through the Emirates 

Industrial Bank (now called the 

‘‘Emirates National Bank’’). We 

preliminarily determine that none of the 

respondents had loans from the 

Emirates National Bank outstanding 

during the POI. 

IV. Programs for Which More 

Information Is Required 

A. Tariff Exemptions Under 1979 

Federal Law and GCC Common 

Industrial Regulatory Law 

Implemented in 1980, pursuant to the 

1979 Federal Law, and subsequently 

available in accordance with the GCC 

Customs Union Agreement (2003), 

industrial establishments operating 

within the UAE may be exempted from 

the five percent customs duty on 

imports of raw materials and capital 

goods. See GQR at 9. In 2005, the GUAE 

issued Federal Decree No. 73, which 

implemented the GCC Common 

Industrial Regulatory Law (2004), 

establishing the current process for 

industrial companies to be eligible for, 

and receive, a tariff exemption. Id. at 4 

and 11–14. 

To receive this duty exemption, an 

industrial establishment operating with 

a valid industrial license applies 

through an online electronic processing 

system, known as the Duty Exemption 

Service. Id. at 11–12 and 16. This 

application is automatically and 

immediately analyzed on the basis of 

the information that has previously been 

provided by the applicant during the 

registration proceedings to get its 

industrial license, i.e., the applicant is 

required to submit the list of all items 

that it intends to import to run its 

industrial activity upon applying for its 

industrial license. Id. at 12–14. The 

GUAE further states that the 1979 

Federal Law and the GCC Common 

Industrial Regulatory Law do not apply 

to companies in free trade zones. Id. at 

4. The tariff exemption program is 

administered by the Section of Duty 

Exemptions within the Directorate of 

Industrial Development under the 

Industrial Affairs Department as part of 

the Ministry of Economy. Id. at 9. 

ADPICO has benefited from this 

program since 2002. See AQR at 

Appendix 5. Universal Plastic and the 

GUAE reported that Universal Plastic 

operates within the Jebel Ali Free Trade 

Zone (‘‘JAFZ’’) and, therefore, could not 

have benefited from any alleged 

subsidies under the 1979 Federal Law or 

the GCC Common Industrial Regulatory 

Law. See UQR at 13 and GQR at 4. 

However, Universal Pipe and KHK did 

benefit from this program. 

Under Chapter Seven of the GCC 

Common Industrial Regulatory Law, 

Article (16) states that certain 

‘‘industrial projects shall have the 

priority of privileges and exemptions,’’ 

and lists ‘‘projects producing export 

goods’’ among the activities that will 

benefit from the ‘‘priority of privileges 

and exemptions.’’ See GQR Exhibit 4 at 

page 12. We find that the Department 

needs additional information to better 

assess whether tariff exemptions 

provided under this program are 

specific within the meaning of section 

771(5A) of the Act. In particular, we 

intend to seek information regarding the 

meaning of ‘‘priority’’ in this context 

and how it is implemented in granting 

tariff exemptions. We intend to seek 

additional information, and further 

address this program in a postpreliminary analysis. 

B. Provision of Natural Gas for LTAR 

As discussed above, new subsidy 

allegation questionnaires were sent to 

the respondents on March 26, 2012, and 

responses are still outstanding with 

respect to this program. Because we lack 

necessary information to make a 

preliminary determination at this time, 

we intend to address the 

countervailability of this program in the 

post-preliminary analysis. 

Verification 

In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of 

the Act, we will verify the information 

submitted by the respondents prior to 

making our final determination. 

Preliminary Negative Determination 

In accordance with section 

703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have 

calculated individual subsidy rates for 

ADPICO and Universal Plastic, the two 

mandatory producers/exporters. Section 

705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act provides that 

the all others rate will generally be an 

amount equal to the weighted average 

countervailable subsidy rates 

established for exporters or producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis countervailable 

subsidy rates and any rates determined 

entirely on the basis of fact available. In 

this case, however, the countervailable 

subsidy rates for all of the individually 

investigated exporters or producers are 

zero. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act 

provides that, when this is the case, the 

administering authority may use any 

reasonable method to establish the all 

others rate, including averaging the 

weighted average countervailable 

subsidy rates determined for the 

exporters and producers individually 

examined. Thus, to calculate the all 

others rate, we averaged the individual 

rates of the ADPICO and Universal 

Plastic. Therefore, we assigned a zero 

rate to all other producers and 

exporters. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19224 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

Exporter/manufacturer Net subsidy rate 

Abu Dhabi Metal Pipes & Profiles Industries Complex LLC ............................................................................................................ Zero. 

Universal Tube and Plastic Industries, Ltd.; KHK Scaffolding and Formwork LLC; and Universal Tube and Pipe Industries LLC Zero.

All Others .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Zero. 

Because all of the rates are zero, we 

preliminarily determine that no 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to the production or 

exportation of circular welded pipe in 

the UAE. As such, we will not direct 

CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of 

circular welded pipe from the UAE. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 703(f) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all 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 

determination. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

Due to the anticipated timing of 

verification and issuance of verification 

reports, case briefs for this investigation 

must be submitted no later than one 

week after the issuance of the last 

verification report. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(i) for a further discussion of 

case briefs. Rebuttal briefs must be filed 

within five days after the deadline for 

submission of case briefs, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities 

relied upon, a table of contents, and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. Executive summaries 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

Section 774 of the Act provides that 

the Department will hold a public 

hearing to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs, 

provided that such a hearing is 

requested by an interested party. If a 

request for a hearing is made in this 

investigation, the hearing will be held 

two days after the deadline for 

submission of the rebuttal briefs, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), at the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the time, date, and 

place of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must electronically submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

using IA ACCESS, within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 

contain: (1) The party’s name, address, 

and telephone; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. Oral presentations will 

be limited to issues raised in the briefs. 

Id. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: March 26, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7746 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Advisory Committee on Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction Meeting 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR 

or Committee), will hold a meeting via 

teleconference on Friday, April 20, 2012 

from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Time. The 

primary purpose of this meeting is to 

develop the Committee’s draft annual 

report to the NIST Director. Any draft 

meeting materials will be posted on the 

NEHRP Web site at http://nehrp.gov/. 

Interested members of the public will be 

able to participate in the meeting from 

remote locations by calling into a 

central phone number. 

DATES: The ACEHR will hold a meeting 

via teleconference on Friday, April 20, 

2012, from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. Eastern 

Time. 

ADDRESSES: Questions regarding the 

meeting should be sent to National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

Director, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail 

Stop 8604, Gaithersburg, Maryland 

20899–8604. For instructions on how to 

participate in the meeting, please see 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Jack Hayes, National Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction Program Director, 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail 

Stop 8604, Gaithersburg, Maryland 

20899–8604. Dr. Hayes’ email address is 

jack.hayes@nist.gov and his phone 

number is (301) 975–5640. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Committee was established in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Section 103 of the NEHRP 

Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 

108–360). The Committee is composed 

of 12 members appointed by the 

Director of NIST, who were selected for 

their technical expertise and experience, 

established records of distinguished 

professional service, and their 

knowledge of issues affecting the 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program. In addition, the Chairperson of 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory 

Committee (SESAC) serves in an exofficio capacity on the Committee. The 

Committee assesses: 

• Trends and developments in the 

science and engineering of earthquake 

hazards reduction; 

• The effectiveness of NEHRP in 

performing its statutory activities 

(improved design and construction 

methods and practices; land use 

controls and redevelopment; prediction 

techniques and early-warning systems; 

coordinated emergency preparedness 

plans; and public education and 

involvement programs); 

• Any need to revise NEHRP; and 

• The management, coordination, 

implementation, and activities of 

NEHRP. 

Background information on NEHRP 

and the Advisory Committee is available 

at http://nehrp.gov/. 

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app., notice is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES