42654 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices 

1See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from 

the petitioner re: ‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges from the 

People’s Republic of China and India: Petitions for 

the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties’’ (August 16, 2017) (the Petitions). 

2 Id., Volume I of the Petitions, at 1 and Exhibit 

I–1. 

3See Letter to the petitioners from the 

Department, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel 

Flanges from India: Supplemental Questions’’ 

(August 18, 2017) (India CVD Supplemental 

Questionnaire); see also Letter from the 

Department, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports 

of Stainless Steel Flanges from India and the 

People’s Republic of China: Supplemental 

Questions’’ (August 28, 2017) (General Issues 

Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter to the 

petitioners from the Department ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s Republic 

of China: Supplemental Questions’’ (August 18, 

2017) (PRC CVD Supplemental Questionnaire). 

4See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from 

the petitioners, ‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges from the 

People’s Republic of China and India: Supplement 

to the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duties—Response to the 

Department’s Supplemental Questions, Volume V 

Relating to India,’’ (August 22, 2017) (India CVD 

Supplement); see also Letter to the Secretary of 

Commerce from the petitioners, ‘‘Stainless Steel 

Flanges from the People’s Republic of China and 

India: Supplement to the Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties—Response to the Department’s 

Supplemental Questions, Volume I Relating to 

Common Issues and Injury (August 22, 2017) 

(General Issues Supplement); see also Letter to the 

Secretary of Commerce from the petitioners, 

‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s Republic 

of China and India: Supplement to the Petitions for 

the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties—Response to the Department’s 

Supplemental Questions, Volume III Relating to 

China,’’ (August 22, 2017) (PRC CVD Supplement). 

5See General Issues Supplement at Exhibit ISupp-5. 

that they meet the requirements of these 

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

appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) 

of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c). 

Dated: September 5, 2017. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix 

Scope of the Investigations 

The products covered by these 

investigations are certain forged stainless 

steel flanges, whether unfinished, semifinished, or finished (certain forged stainless 

steel flanges). Certain forged stainless steel 

flanges are generally manufactured to, but 

not limited to, the material specification of 

ASTM/ASME A/SA182 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications. Certain 

forged stainless steel flanges are made in 

various grades such as, but not limited to, 

304, 304L, 316, and 316L (or combinations 

thereof). The term ‘‘stainless steel’’ used in 

this scope refers to an alloy steel containing, 

by actual weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon 

and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with 

or without other elements. 

Unfinished stainless steel flanges possess 

the approximate shape of finished stainless 

steel flanges and have not yet been machined 

to final specification after the initial forging 

or like operations. These machining 

processes may include, but are not limited to, 

boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, 

threading, beveling, heating, or compressing. 

Semi-finished stainless steel flanges are 

unfinished stainless steel flanges that have 

undergone some machining processes. 

The scope includes six general types of 

flanges. They are: (1) Weld neck, generally 

used in butt-weld line connection; (2) 

threaded, generally used for threaded line 

connections; (3) slip-on, generally used to 

slide over pipe; (4) lap joint, generally used 

with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; 

(5) socket weld, generally used to fit pipe 

into a machine recession; and (6) blind, 

generally used to seal off a line. The sizes 

and descriptions of the flanges within the 

scope include all pressure classes of ASME 

B16.5 and range from one-half inch to 

twenty-four inches nominal pipe size. 

Specifically excluded from the scope of these 

orders are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast 

stainless steel flanges generally are 

manufactured to specification ASTM A351. 

The country of origin for certain forged 

stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, 

semi-finished, or finished is the country 

where the flange was forged. Subject 

merchandise includes stainless steel flanges 

as defined above that have been further 

processed in a third country. The processing 

includes, but is not limited to, boring, facing, 

spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, 

beveling, heating, or compressing, and/or any 

other processing that would not otherwise 

remove the merchandise from the scope of 

the investigations if performed in the country 

of manufacture of the stainless steel flanges. 

Merchandise subject to the investigations 

is typically imported under headings 

7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings 

and ASTM specifications are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19294 Filed 9–8–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–878; C–570–065] 

Stainless Steel Flanges From India and 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigations 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective September 11, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kabir Archuletta at (202) 482–2593; 

Carrie Bethea at (202) 482–1491 (the 

People’s Republic of China); Ryan 

Mullen at (202) 482–5260 (India), AD/ 

CVD Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On August 16, 2017, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) received countervailing 

duty (CVD) Petitions concerning 

imports of stainless steel flanges from 

India and the People’s Republic of 

China (the PRC), filed in proper form on 

behalf of the Coalition of American 

Flange Producers and its individual 

members, Core Pipe Products, Inc., and 

Maass Flange Corporation (collectively 

‘‘the petitioners’’). The CVD Petitions 

were accompanied by antidumping duty 

(AD) Petitions concerning imports of 

stainless steel flanges from both of the 

countries listed above.1 The petitioners 

are domestic producers of stainless steel 

flanges.2

On August 18, 2017, the Department 

requested supplemental information 

pertaining to certain areas of the 

Petitions.3 The petitioners filed 

responses to these requests on August 

22, 2017.4 The petitioners filed revised 

scope language on August 22, 2017.5

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), the petitioners allege that the 

Governments of India and the PRC are 

providing countervailable subsidies, 

within the meaning of sections 701 and 

771(5) of the Act, to imports of stainless 

steel flanges from India and the PRC, 

respectively, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, the domestic industry 

producing stainless steel flanges in the 

United States. Also, consistent with 

section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those 

alleged programs on which we are 

initiating a CVD investigation, the 

Petitions are accompanied by 

information reasonably available to the 

petitioners supporting their allegations. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed these Petitions on 

behalf of the domestic industry because 

the petitioners are interested parties as 

defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of 

the Act. The Department also finds that 

the petitioners demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices 42655 

6See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the 

Petition’’ section, below. 

7See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; 

see also General Issues Supplement. 

8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; 

Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 

9See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21). 

10See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 

Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 

39263 (July 6, 2011), see also Enforcement and 

Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System 

Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details 

of the Department’s electronic filing requirements, 

which went into effect on August 5, 2011. 

Information on help using ACCESS can be found at 

https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook 

can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/ 

Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20

Procedures.pdf. 

11See Letter to the Embassy of India, 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Stainless Steel 

Flanges from India: Invitation for Consultations to 

Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition’’ (August 

24, 2017); see also Letter to the Embassy of the 

People’s Republic of China, ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Petition on Stainless Steel Flanges from the 

People’s Republic of China: Invitation for 

Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty 

Petition’’ (August 24, 2017). 

12See section 771(10) of the Act. 

13See 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)). 

initiation of the CVD investigations that 

the petitioners are requesting.6

Period of Investigation 

Because the Petitions were filed on 

August 16, 2017, the period of 

investigation (POI) for both the 

investigation of India and the 

investigation of the PRC is January 1, 

2016, through December 31, 2016. 

Scope of the Investigations 

The products covered by these 

investigations are stainless steel flanges 

from India and the PRC. For a full 

description of the scope of these 

investigations, see the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigations,’’ in the Appendix to this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of the 

Investigations 

During our review of the Petitions, the 

Department issued questions to, and 

received responses from, the petitioners 

pertaining to the proposed scope to 

ensure that the scope language in the 

Petitions would be an accurate 

reflection of the products for which the 

domestic industry is seeking relief.7

As discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations, we are setting 

aside a period for interested parties to 

raise issues regarding product coverage 

(scope).8 The Department will consider 

all comments received from interested 

parties and, if necessary, will consult 

with the interested parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. If scope comments 

include factual information,9 all such 

factual information should be limited to 

public information. To facilitate 

preparation of its questionnaires, the 

Department requests all interested 

parties to submit such comments by 

5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on 

September 25, 2017, which is 20 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. Any rebuttal comments, 

which may include factual information, 

must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on 

October 5, 2017, which is 10 calendar 

days from the initial comments 

deadline. All such comments must be 

filed on the records of each of the 

concurrent AD and CVD investigations. 

The Department requests that any 

factual information the parties consider 

relevant to the scope of the 

investigations be submitted during this 

time period. However, if a party 

subsequently finds that additional 

factual information pertaining to the 

scope of the investigations may be 

relevant, the party may contact the 

Department and request permission to 

submit the additional information. 

Filing Requirements 

All submissions to the Department 

must be filed electronically using 

Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping Duty and Countervailing 

Duty Centralized Electronic Service 

System (ACCESS).10 An electronically 

filed document must be received 

successfully in its entirety by the time 

and date it is due. Documents exempted 

from the electronic submission 

requirements must be filed manually 

(i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement 

and Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, 

Room 18022, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20230, and 

stamped with the date and time of 

receipt by the applicable deadlines. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) 

and (ii) of the Act, the Department 

notified representatives of the 

Governments of India (GOI) and the PRC 

(GOC) of the receipt of the Petitions, and 

provided them the opportunity for 

consultations with respect to the CVD 

Petitions.11

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

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

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

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

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

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

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

‘‘industry.’’ 

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

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers, as a 

whole, of a domestic like product. 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,12 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.13

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 Petitions). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, the petitioners do not offer a 

definition of the domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that 

stainless steel flanges, as defined in the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
42656 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices 

14For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis as applied to these cases and information 

regarding industry support, see Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Stainless Steel 

Flanges from India (India CVD Initiation Checklist), 

at Attachment II, ‘‘Analysis of Industry Support for 

the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 

Covering Stainless Steel Flanges from India and the 

People’s Republic of China;’’ see also 

Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), 

at Attachment II, ‘‘Analysis of Industry Support for 

the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 

Covering Stainless Steel Flanges from India and the 

People’s Republic of China.’’ These checklists are 

dated concurrently with this notice and on file 

electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents 

filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central 

Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department 

of Commerce building. 

15See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2–3 and 

Exhibit I–3; see also General Issues Supplement, at 

6–7. 

16 Id. For further discussion, see India CVD 

Initiation Checklist and PRC CVD Initiation 

Checklist, at Attachment II. 

17See India CVD Initiation Checklist and PRC 

CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

18See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

India CVD Initiation Checklist and PRC CVD 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

19See India CVD Initiation Checklist and PRC 

CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

20 Id. 

21 Id. 

22See Volume I of the Petitions, at 19–20 and 

Exhibit I–8. 

23 Id. 

24See Volume I of the Petitions, at 9–32 and 

Exhibits I–4, I–8 and I–10; see also General Issues 

Supplement, at 1, 8–9 and Exhibit I-Supp-1. 25See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at 

Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and 

Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 

Covering Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s 

Republic of China and India (Attachment III); and 

India CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III. 26See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 

Pub. L. 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). 27See Dates of Application of Amendments to the 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made 

by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 

FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). 

The 2015 amendments may be found at https://

www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/ 

1295/text/pl. 28See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794–95. 

scope, constitute a single domestic like 

product, and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product.14

In determining whether the 

petitioners have standing under section 

702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petitions with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. The 

petitioners provided their own 2016 

production of the domestic like product, 

and compared this to the estimated total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry.15 We 

relied on data the petitioners provided 

for purposes of measuring industry 

support.16

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petitions, General Issues Supplement, 

and other information readily available 

to the Department indicates that the 

petitioners have established industry 

support for the Petitions.17 First, the 

Petitions 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).18 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

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

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petitions 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.19 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

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

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petitions 

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 Petitions.20 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the 

Petitions were filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 

of the domestic industry because they 

are interested parties as defined in 

sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act and 

they have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

CVD investigations that they are 

requesting that the Department 

initiate.21

Injury Test 

Because the PRC and India are 

‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’ 

within the meaning of section 701(b) of 

the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 

applies to these investigations. 

Accordingly, the ITC must determine 

whether imports of the subject 

merchandise from the PRC and India 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The petitioners allege that imports of 

the subject merchandise are benefitting 

from countervailable subsidies and that 

such imports are causing, or threaten to 

cause, material injury to the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product. In addition, the petitioners 

allege that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.22 In 

CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the 

Act provides that imports of subject 

merchandise from developing and least 

developed countries must exceed the 

negligibility threshold of four percent. 

The petitioners also demonstrate that 

subject imports from India, which has 

been designated as a least developed 

country under section 771(36)(B) of the 

Act, exceed the negligibility threshold 

of four percent.23

The petitioners contend that the 

industry’s injured condition is 

illustrated by reduced market share; 

underselling and price suppression or 

depression; lost sales and revenues; and 

declining financial performance.24 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.25

Initiation of CVD Investigations 

Based on the examination of the CVD 

Petitions, we find that the Petitions 

meet the requirements of section 702 of 

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating 

CVD investigations to determine 

whether imports of stainless steel 

flanges from India and the PRC benefit 

from countervailable subsidies 

conferred by the governments of these 

countries. In accordance with section 

703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will 

make our preliminary determination no 

later than 65 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Under the Trade Preferences 

Extension Act of 2015, numerous 

amendments to the AD and CVD laws 

were made.26 The 2015 law does not 

specify dates of application for those 

amendments. On August 6, 2015, the 

Department published an interpretative 

rule, in which it announced the 

applicability dates for each amendment 

to the Act, except for amendments 

contained in section 771(7) of the Act, 

which relate to determinations of 

material injury by the ITC.27 The 

amendments to sections 776 and 782 of 

the Act are applicable to all 

determinations made on or after August 

6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these 

CVD investigations.28

India 

Based on our review of the Petition, 

we find that there is sufficient 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices 42657 

29See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I–7; see 

also General Issues Supplement, at 1. 

30See Memorandum, ‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges 

from India: U.S. Customs Data for Respondent 

Selection,’’ dated August 31, 2017; Memorandum, 

‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges from the PRC: U.S. 

Customs Data for Respondent Selection,’’ dated 

August 31, 2017. 

31See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. 

32See section 703(a)(1) of the Act. 

33See 19 CFR 351.301(b). 

34See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). 

35See section 782(b) of the Act. 

36See Certification of Factual Information to 

Import Administration During Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 

Continued 

information to initiate a CVD 

investigation on 41 of the 44 alleged 

programs in India. For a full discussion 

of the basis for our decision to initiate 

or not initiate on each program, see the 

India CVD Initiation Checklist. A public 

version of the initiation checklist for 

this investigation is available on 

ACCESS. 

The PRC 

Based on our review of the Petition, 

we find that there is sufficient 

information to initiate a CVD 

investigation on 28 alleged programs 

and one other program, in part. For a 

full discussion of the basis for our 

decision to initiate on each program, see 

the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist. A 

public version of the initiation checklist 

for this investigation is available on 

ACCESS. 

In accordance with section 703(b)(1) 

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

unless postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determination no later than 

65 days after the date of this initiation. 

Respondent Selection 

The petitioners named 43 and 80 

companies as producers/exporters of 

stainless steel flanges in India and the 

PRC, respectively.29 The Department 

intends to follow its standard practice in 

CVD investigations and calculate 

company-specific subsidy rates in this 

investigation. In the event the 

Department determines that the number 

of companies is large and it cannot 

individually examine each company 

based upon the Department’s resources, 

where appropriate, the Department 

intends to select mandatory respondents 

based on U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of 

stainless steel flanges from India and the 

PRC during the POI under the 

appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States numbers listed in 

the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ in the 

Appendix. 

On August 31, 2017, the Department 

released CBP data under APO to all 

parties with access to information 

protected by APO and indicated that 

interested parties wishing to comment 

regarding the CBP data and respondent 

selection must do so within three 

business days of the publication date of 

the notice of initiation of this CVD 

investigation.30 The Department will 

not accept rebuttal comments regarding 

the CBP data or respondent selection. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s Web 

site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. 

Comments must be filed 

electronically using ACCESS. An 

electronically filed document must be 

received successfully, in its entirety, by 

ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on 

the date noted above. We intend to 

finalize our decisions regarding 

respondent selection within 20 days of 

publication of this notice. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions 

In accordance with section 

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

351.202(f), copies of the public version 

of the Petitions have been provided to 

the GOI and GOC via ACCESS. To the 

extent practicable, we will attempt to 

provide a copy of the public version of 

the Petitions to each exporter named in 

the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We will notify the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 45 days after the date on which 

the Petitions were filed, whether there 

is a reasonable indication that imports 

of stainless steel flanges from India and 

the PRC are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to, a U.S. 

industry.31 A negative ITC 

determination will result in the 

investigations being terminated.32

Otherwise, these investigations will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

Submission of Factual Information 

Factual information is defined in 19 

CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence 

submitted in response to questionnaires; 

(ii) evidence submitted in support of 

allegations; (iii) publicly available 

information to value factors under 19 

CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 

adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 

351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on 

the record by the Department; and (v) 

evidence other than factual information 

described in (i)–(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) 

requires any party, when submitting 

factual information, to specify under 

which subsection of 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(21) the information is being 

submitted 33 and, if the information is 

submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 

factual information already on the 

record, to provide an explanation 

identifying the information already on 

the record that the factual information 

seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.34 Time 

limits for the submission of factual 

information are addressed in 19 CFR 

351.301, which provides specific time 

limits based on the type of factual 

information being submitted. Interested 

parties should review the regulations 

prior to submitting factual information 

in these investigations. 

Extensions of Time Limits 

Parties may request an extension of 

time limits before the expiration of a 

time limit established under 19 CFR 

351.301, or as otherwise specified by the 

Secretary. In general, an extension 

request will be considered untimely if it 

is filed after the expiration of the time 

limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 

expires. For submissions that are due 

from multiple parties simultaneously, 

an extension request will be considered 

untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET 

on the due date. Under certain 

circumstances, we may elect to specify 

a different time limit by which 

extension requests will be considered 

untimely for submissions which are due 

from multiple parties simultaneously. In 

such a case, we will inform parties in 

the letter or memorandum setting forth 

the deadline (including a specified time) 

by which extension requests must be 

filed to be considered timely. An 

extension request must be made in a 

separate, stand-alone submission; under 

limited circumstances we will grant 

untimely-filed requests for the extension 

of time limits. Parties should review 

Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 

FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), 

available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013- 

22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 

information in these investigations. 

Certification Requirements 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD or CVD 

proceeding must certify to the accuracy 

and completeness of that information.35

Parties are hereby reminded that revised 

certification requirements are in effect 

for company/government officials, as 

well as their representatives.36


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
42658 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices 

17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’); see also frequently asked 

questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_

info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 

Investigations initiated on the basis of 

petitions filed on or after August 16, 

2013, and other segments of any AD or 

CVD proceedings initiated on or after 

August 16, 2013, should use the formats 

for the revised certifications provided in 

19 CFR 351.303(g). The Department 

intends to reject factual submissions if 

the submitting party does not comply 

with the applicable revised certification 

requirements. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 

January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (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)). 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 5, 2017. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix 

Scope of the Investigations 

The products covered by these 

investigations are certain forged stainless 

steel flanges, whether unfinished, semifinished, or finished (certain forged stainless 

steel flanges). Certain forged stainless steel 

flanges are generally manufactured to, but 

not limited to, the material specification of 

ASTM/ASME A/SA182 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications. Certain 

forged stainless steel flanges are made in 

various grades such as, but not limited to, 

304, 304L, 316, and 316L (or combinations 

thereof). The term ‘‘stainless steel’’ used in 

this scope refers to an alloy steel containing, 

by actual weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon 

and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with 

or without other elements. 

Unfinished stainless steel flanges possess 

the approximate shape of finished stainless 

steel flanges and have not yet been machined 

to final specification after the initial forging 

or like operations. These machining 

processes may include, but are not limited to, 

boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, 

threading, beveling, heating, or compressing. 

Semi-finished stainless steel flanges are 

unfinished stainless steel flanges that have 

undergone some machining processes. 

The scope includes six general types of 

flanges. They are: (1) Weld neck, generally 

used in butt-weld line connection; (2) 

threaded, generally used for threaded line 

connections; (3) slip-on, generally used to 

slide over pipe; (4) lap joint, generally used 

with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; 

(5) socket weld, generally used to fit pipe 

into a machine recession; and (6) blind, 

generally used to seal off a line. The sizes 

and descriptions of the flanges within the 

scope include all pressure classes of ASME 

B16.5 and range from one-half inch to 

twenty-four inches nominal pipe size. 

Specifically excluded from the scope of these 

orders are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast 

stainless steel flanges generally are 

manufactured to specification ASTM A351. 

The country of origin for certain forged 

stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, 

semi-finished, or finished is the country 

where the flange was forged. Subject 

merchandise includes stainless steel flanges 

as defined above that have been further 

processed in a third country. The processing 

includes, but is not limited to, boring, facing, 

spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, 

beveling, heating, or compressing, and/or any 

other processing that would not otherwise 

remove the merchandise from the scope of 

the investigations if performed in the country 

of manufacture of the stainless steel flanges. 

Merchandise subject to the investigations 

is typically imported under headings 

7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (HTS). While HTS subheadings and 

ASTM specifications are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19293 Filed 9–8–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF677 

Caribbean Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery 

Management Council’s Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a 

5-day meeting to discuss the items 

contained in the following agenda: 

DATES: The meetings will be held on 

September 25–29, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 

5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at 

the Council Office, 270 Mun ̃ oz Rivera 

Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto 

Rico. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 

270 Mun ̃ oz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1903; 

telephone: (787) 766–5926. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

—Call to Order 

—Adoption of Agenda 

—Overview 

Review outcomes from previous 

meeting 

—Review Acceptable Biological Catch 

(ABC) Control Rule Language 

Review suggestions from General 

Counsel and Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center (SEFSC) on text of 

Tier 4 of the control rule 

Develop language to define 

‘‘consensus’’ as used in determining 

Tier assignments (or otherwise alter 

language to remove the term) 

—Action 2: Finalize establishment of 

stock/stock complexes for each of 

the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. 

Thomas/St. John Fishery 

Management Plans (FMPs) 

—Determine use of Indicator Species 

to recommend to the Council 

—Finalize recommendations on: 

—Criteria used to select indicator 

species 

—How indicator species will be used 

to determine management reference 

points for stock complexes 

—Action 3: Management Reference 

Points for Stocks/Stock complexes 

in each of the Puerto Rico, St. 

Thomas/St. John and St Croix FMPs 

Tiered ABC Control Rule: 

—Review and finalize Tier 

assignments (4a or 4b): Puerto Rico, 

St. Croix, St. Thomas/St. John 

—Define process for determining the 

scalars used in Tiered ABC Control 

Rule 

—Define process for determining the 

buffer from the overfishing limit 

(OFL) to ABC (scientific uncertainty 

buffer) used in the Tiered ABC 

Control Rule 

—Choice of scalar and scientific 

uncertainty buffer for Tiers 4a and 

4b for the applicable stocks 

Stocks/stock complexes to which the 

Tiered ABC CR cannot be applied: 

—Recommendations on time series of 

landings data (year sequences) to 

establish reference points for the 

applicable stocks/stock complexes 

—Recommendations on the 

establishment of the maximum 

sustainable yield proxy (e.g., mean, 

median, following the Caribbean 

Annual Catch Limit Amendments’ 

approach) for the applicable stocks/ 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES