Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices 42649 

1See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce 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). 2See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2. 3See Letters from the Department, to the 

petitioners, dated August 18, 2017. 4See Letter from the petitioners, ‘‘Re: 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 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 IV Relating to 

India (India AD Supplemental Response); and 

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 II Relating to 

China (PRC AD Supplemental Response). All of 

these documents are dated August 22, 2017. 

5See Letter 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-Revision to Scope,’’ dated August 30, 2017 

(Scope Supplement). 

6See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions’’ section, below. 

7See Attachment to the Scope Supplement. 

8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 

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

9See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual 

information’’). 

withdrawal from, for consumption, 

during the period January 1, 2015, 

through December 31, 2015, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protection Order 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or the 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 751 of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: September 1, 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. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19169 Filed 9–8–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–877, A–570–064] 

Stainless Steel Flanges From India and 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigations 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective September 11, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Annathea Cook at (202) 482–0250 

(India) and Kenneth Hawkins at (202) 

482–6491 (the People’s Republic of 

China), 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 antidumping duty 

(AD) Petitions concerning imports of 

stainless steel flanges from India and the 

People’s Republic of China (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).1 The AD Petitions were 

accompanied by countervailing duty 

(CVD) Petitions concerning imports of 

stainless steel flanges from India and the 

PRC. The petitioners are domestic 

producers of stainless steel flanges.2

On August 18 and 21, 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 30, 2017.5

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), the petitioners allege that imports 

of stainless steel flanges from India and 

the PRC 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, the domestic industry 

producing stainless steel flanges in the 

United States. Also, consistent with 

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

initiation of the AD investigations that 

the petitioners are requesting.6

Periods of Investigation 

Because the Petitions were filed on 

August 16, 2017, the period of 

investigation (POI) for the investigation 

for India is July 1, 2016, through June 

30, 2017. Because the PRC is a nonmarket economy (NME) country, the 

POI for this investigation is January 1, 

2017, through June 30, 2017. 

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 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 Monday, 

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 

Thursday, October 5, 2017, which is 10 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
42650 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices 

10See 19 CFR 351.303(b). 

11See Notice of Clarification: Application of 

‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative 

Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act 

of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 

12See 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. 

13See section 771(10) of the Act. 

14See 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)). 

15For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis as applied to these cases and information 

regarding industry support, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Stainless Steel 

Flanges from India (India AD 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’’ (Attachment II); see 

also Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Stainless Steel Flanges from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at 

Attachment II. These checklists are dated 

calendar days from the initial comments 

deadline.10 11

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. All 

such comments must be filed on the 

records of each of the concurrent AD 

and CVD investigations. 

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).12 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. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for AD Questionnaires 

The Department will provide 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the appropriate physical 

characteristics of stainless steel flanges 

to be reported in response to the 

Department’s AD questionnaires. This 

information will be used to identify the 

key physical characteristics of the 

merchandise under consideration in 

order to report the relevant costs of 

production accurately as well as to 

develop appropriate productcomparison criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they feel 

are relevant to the development of an 

accurate list of physical characteristics. 

Specifically, they may provide 

comments as to which characteristics 

are appropriate to use as: (1) General 

product characteristics and (2) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is 

not always appropriate to use all 

product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful 

commercial differences among products. 

In other words, although there may be 

some physical product characteristics 

utilized by manufacturers to describe 

stainless steel flanges, 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 matching products. 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 AD questionnaires, all 

product characteristics comments must 

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

25, 2017. Any rebuttal comments must 

be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on October 5, 

2017. All comments and submissions to 

the Department must be filed 

electronically using ACCESS, as 

explained above, on the records of India 

and the PRC less-than-fair-value 

investigations. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

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 

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. 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,13 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.14

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 

scope, constitute a single domestic like 

product, and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product.15


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices 42651 

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. 

16See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2–3 and 

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

6–7. 

17 Id. For further discussion, see India AD 

Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation 

Checklist, at Attachment II. 

18See India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

19See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD Initiation 

Checklist, at Attachment II. 

20See India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

21 Id. 

22 Id. 

23See Volume I of the Petitions, at 19–20 and 

Exhibit I–8. 

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

Exhibits I–4, I–8, and I–10. 

25See PRC AD 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 AD Initiation 

Checklist, at Attachment III. 

26See India AD Initiation Checklist. 

27See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 

28See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and India AD 

Initiation Checklist. 

29See India AD Initiation Checklist. 

30 Id. 

31 Id. 

32See Volume II of the Petitions, at 10–11. 

33See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 

34See Volume II of the Petitions at 13–20 and 

Exhibit AD–CH–21. 

In determining whether the 

petitioners have standing under section 

732(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 the 

Appendix to 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.16 We 

relied on data the petitioners provided 

for purposes of measuring industry 

support.17

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.18 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).19 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 Petitions 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.20 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 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.21 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the 

Petitions were filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 732(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 AD 

investigations that they are requesting 

that the Department initiate.22

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The petitioners allege 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, the petitioners 

allege that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

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

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 AD investigations of 

imports of stainless steel flanges from 

India and the PRC. The sources of data 

for the deductions and adjustments 

relating to U.S. price and NV are 

discussed in greater detail in the 

country-specific initiation checklists. 

Export Price 

For India, the petitioners based the 

U.S. price on export price (EP) using 

sales of stainless steel flanges produced 

in and exported from India to an 

unaffiliated U.S. customer.26 For the 

PRC, the petitioners based U.S. price on 

EP using price quotes for sales of 

stainless steel flanges produced in and 

exported from the PRC to unaffiliated 

U.S. customers.27 Where applicable, the 

petitioners made deductions from U.S. 

price for movement and other expenses, 

consistent with the terms of sale.28

Normal Value 

For India, the petitioners provided 

home market price information for 

stainless steel flanges produced in, and 

sold or offered for sale in India.29 The 

petitioners provided a declaration 

establishing the terms of sale.30 Because 

the prices were provided on an exworks basis, the petitioners did not 

make any deductions.31

With respect to the PRC, the 

petitioners stated that the Department 

has found this country to be a nonmarket economy (NME) country in prior 

administrative proceedings in which 

they were involved.32 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 

this investigation. Accordingly, NV in 

the PRC is appropriately based on 

factors of production (FOPs) valued in 

a surrogate market economy country, in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act.33 In the course of this investigation, 

all parties, and the public, will have the 

opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

The petitioners claim that Thailand is 

an appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC, because it is a market economy 

country that is at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

PRC, it is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise, and public 

information from Thailand is available 

to value all material input factors.34

Based on the information provided by 

the petitioners, we determine that it is 

appropriate to use Thailand as a 

surrogate country for initiation 

purposes. 

Interested parties will have the 

opportunity to submit comments 

regarding surrogate country selection 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
42652 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices 

35See Volume II of the Petitions at 13–14 and 

Exhibit AD–CH–19. 

36See Volume II of the Petitions at 1, 10 and 

Exhibit AD–CH–21. 

37See Volume II of the Petitions at 17 and Exhibit 

AD–CH–20; see also PRC AD Supplemental 

Response, at 4–5 and Exhibits AD–CH–Supp–6, 

AD–CH–Supp–8, and AD–CH–Supp–9. 

38See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 

39See India AD Initiation Checklist. 

40See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 

Pub. L. 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). 

41See 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). 

42 Id. at 46794–95. The 2015 amendments may be 

found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/1295/text/pl. 

43See India AD Supplemental Response, at 

Exhibit I–Supp–2. 

44See Memorandum, ‘‘Stainless Steel Flanges 

from India Antidumping Duty Petition: Release of 

Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection,’’ dated, August 31, 2017. 

45Though the petitioners listed 84 ‘‘known 

producers of stainless steel flanges from the PRC’’ 

in Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I–7, they 

clarified in the Supplement Response to Volume I 

of the Petitions at 1 and Exhibit I–Supp–2 that 

‘‘publicly available information {shows} that Vinox 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd and Yih Kuang Metal Corp. 

have manufacturing facilities in China. At this time, 

the petitioners do not have information indicating 

that the other Taiwanese entities are affiliated with 

producers or exporters in China. Accordingly, the 

petitioners have removed these entities from the 

revised list of foreign producers and exporters.’’ 

46See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf 

(Policy Bulletin 05.1). 

and, pursuant to 19 CFR 

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

opportunity to submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs no later than 

30 days before the scheduled date of the 

preliminary determination. 

Factors of Production 

Because information regarding the 

volume of inputs consumed by the PRC 

producers/exporters is not available, the 

petitioners relied on the production 

experience of a domestic producer of 

stainless steel flanges in the United 

States as an estimate of PRC 

manufacturers’ FOPs.35 The petitioners 

valued the estimated FOPs using 

surrogate values from Thailand.36

Additionally, for the surrogate values 

denominated in Thai Baht, the 

petitioners converted Thai Baht prices 

into U.S. Dollars using the average 

exchange rate obtained from the 

Department.37

Fair Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by the 

petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of stainless steel flanges 

from the PRC and India are being, or are 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value. Based on 

comparisons of EP to NV in accordance 

with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, 

the estimated dumping margins for 

stainless steel flanges for each of the 

countries covered by this initiation are 

as follows: (1) PRC—99.23 to 257.11 

percent; 38 and (2) India—78.49 to 

145.25 39 percent. 

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigations 

Based upon the examination of the 

AD Petitions, we find that the Petitions 

meet the requirements of section 732 of 

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD 

investigations to determine whether 

imports of stainless steel flanges from 

the PRC and India 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. 

Under the Trade Preferences 

Extension Act of 2015, numerous 

amendments to the AD and CVD law 

were made.40 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.41 The 

amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 

776, and 782 of the Act are applicable 

to all determinations made on or after 

August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to 

these AD investigations.42

Respondent Selection 

The petitioners named 43 companies 

in India as producers/exporters of 

stainless steel flanges.43 Following 

standard practice in AD investigations 

involving market economy countries, in 

the event the Department determines 

that the number of companies in India 

identified above is large, the Department 

intends to review U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. 

imports of stainless steel flanges during 

the POI under the appropriate 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States subheadings, and if it 

determines that it cannot individually 

examine each company based upon the 

Department’s resources, then the 

Department will select respondents 

based on that data. 

On August 31, 2017, the Department 

released CBP data under Administrative 

Protective Order (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 AD investigation.44 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 

for this investigation must be filed 

electronically using ACCESS. An 

electronically-filed document must be 

received successfully in its entirety by 

the Department’s electronic records 

system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET, by 

the date noted above. We intend to 

finalize our decision regarding 

respondent selection within 20 days of 

publication of this notice. 

With respect to the PRC, the 

petitioners named 80 producers/ 

exporters of stainless steel flanges from 

the PRC.45 In accordance with our 

standard practice for respondent 

selection in AD cases involving NME 

countries, we intend to issue quantity 

and value (Q&V) questionnaires to 

producers/exporters of merchandise 

subject to this investigation and, if 

necessary, base respondent selection on 

the responses received. For this NME 

investigation, the Department will 

request Q&V information from known 

exporters and producers identified with 

complete contact information in the 

Petitions. In addition, the Department 

will post the Q&V questionnaires along 

with filing instructions on Enforcement 

and Compliance’s Web site at http://

www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. 

Producers/exporters of stainless steel 

flanges from the PRC that do not receive 

Q&V questionnaires by mail may still 

submit a response to the Q&V 

questionnaire and can obtain a copy of 

the Q&V questionnaire from 

Enforcement & Compliance’s Web site. 

The Q&V response must be submitted 

by the relevant PRC exporters/producers 

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

19, 2017. All Q&V responses must be 

filed electronically via ACCESS. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in an NME investigation, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

application.46 The specific requirements 

for submitting a separate-rate 

application in the PRC investigations 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Notices 42653 

47Although in past investigations this deadline 

was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), 

which states that ‘‘the Secretary may request any 

person to submit factual information at any time 

during a proceeding,’’ this deadline is now 30 days. 

48See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added). 

49See section 773(a) of the Act. 

50 Id. 

51See 19 CFR 351.301(b). 

52See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). 

53See section 782(b) of the Act. 

54See Certification of Factual Information to 

Import Administration during Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 

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. 

are outlined in detail in the application 

itself, which is available on the 

Department’s Web site at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-seprate.html. The separate-rate application 

will be due 30 days after publication of 

this initiation notice.47 Exporters and 

producers who submit a separate-rate 

application and have been selected as 

mandatory respondents will be eligible 

for consideration for separate-rate status 

only if they timely respond to all parts 

of the Department’s AD questionnaire as 

mandatory respondents. The 

Department requires that companies 

from the PRC submit a response to both 

the Q&V questionnaire and the separaterate application by the respective 

deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

Companies not filing a timely Q&V 

response will not receive separate-rate 

consideration. 

Use of Combination Rates 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in an NME 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.48

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), copies of the public version 

of the Petitions have been provided to 

the governments of the PRC and India 

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 732(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 the PRC 

and India, are materially injuring or 

threatening material injury to a U.S. 

industry.49 A negative ITC 

determination for any country will 

result in the investigation being 

terminated with respect to that 

country.50 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 51 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.52 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. 

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.53

Parties are hereby reminded that revised 

certification requirements are in effect 

for company/government officials, as 

well as their representatives.54

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 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 these investigations should ensure 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
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