Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 50623 

1See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from 

the petitioners re: ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Forged 

Steel Fittings from the People’s Republic of China, 

Italy, and Taiwan’’ (October 5, 2017) (the Petitions). 

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

I–1. 

3See Letter to the petitioners from the 

Department, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports 

of Forged Steel Fittings from the People’s Republic 

of China, Italy, and Taiwan: Supplemental 

Questions’’ (October 6, 2017)(General Issues 

Supplemental Questionnaire); Letter to the 

petitioners from the Department, ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Forged Steel Fittings from the People’s Republic of 

China: Supplemental Questions’’ (October 10, 2017) 

(PRC CVD Supplemental Questionnaire); and Letter 

to the petitioners from the Department, ‘‘Petitions 

for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 

Imports of Forged Steel Fittings from the People’s 

Republic of China: Supplemental Questions’’ 

(October 17, 2017) (PRC CVD Second Supplemental 

Questionnaire). 

4See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from 

the petitioners, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Forged Steel 

Fittings from the People’s Republic of China: 

Response to Supplemental Questions’’ (October 12, 

2017) (PRC CVD Supplement); see also Letter to the 

Secretary of Commerce from the petitioners, 

‘‘Forged Steel Fittings from the People’s Republic 

of China, Italy, and Taiwan: Response to 

Supplemental Questions—General Issues’’ (October 

11, 2017) (General Issues Supplement); and Letter 

to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioners, 

‘‘Forged Steel Fittings from the People’s Republic 

of China, Italy, and Taiwan: Response to Second 

Supplemental Question on Industry Support and 

Cumulation’’ (October 18, 2017) (Second General 

Issues Supplement). 

5See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from 

the petitioners, ‘‘Forged Steel Fittings from China, 

Italy, and Taiwan: Revised Scope’’ (October 19, 

2017). 

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) (defining ‘‘factual 

information’’). 

10See 19 CFR 351.303(b). 

11See 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, 

Continued 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–068] 

Forged Steel Fittings From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Applicable November 1, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith at (202) 482–1766 or Jaron 

Moore at (202) 482–3640, AD/CVD 

Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On October 5, 2017, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) received a countervailing 

duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports 

of forged steel fittings from the People’s 

Republic of China (the PRC), filed in 

proper form on behalf of Bonney Forge 

Corporation and the United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union 

(collectively, the petitioners). The CVD 

Petition was accompanied by 

antidumping duty (AD) Petitions 

concerning imports of forged steel 

fittings from the PRC, Italy, and 

Taiwan.1 The petitioners consist of a 

domestic producer of forged steel 

fittings and a certified union that 

represents workers produce forged steel 

fittings.2

On October 6, 10, and 17, 2017, the 

Department requested supplemental 

information pertaining to certain areas 

of the Petition.3 The petitioners filed 

responses to these requests on October 

11, 12 and 18, 2017, respectively.4 The 

petitioners filed revised scope language 

on October 19, 2017.5

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), the petitioners allege that the 

Government of the PRC is providing 

countervailable subsidies, within the 

meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of 

the Act, to imports of forged steel 

fittings from the PRC, and that such 

imports are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to, the 

domestic industry producing forged 

steel fittings in the United States. Also, 

consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those 

alleged programs on which we are 

initiating a CVD investigation, the 

Petition is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to the petitioners 

supporting their allegations. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because the 

petitioners are interested parties as 

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

the Act. The Department also finds that 

the petitioners demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

initiation of the CVD investigation that 

the petitioners are requesting.6

Period of Investigation 

Because the Petition was filed on 

October 5, 2017, the period of 

investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, 

through December 31, 2016. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The product covered by this 

investigation is forged steel fittings from 

the PRC. For a full description of the 

scope of this investigation, see the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ in the 

Appendix to this notice. 

Comments on Scope of the Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, the 

Department issued questions to, and 

received responses from, the petitioners 

pertaining to the proposed scope to 

ensure that the scope language in the 

Petition 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 

determination. 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 that all interested 

parties submit such comments by 5:00 

p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, 

November 14, 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 Friday, 

November 24, 2017, which is 10 

calendar days from the initial comments 

deadline.10

The Department requests that any 

factual information the parties consider 

relevant to the scope of the investigation 

be submitted during this time period. 

However, if a party subsequently finds 

that additional factual information 

pertaining to the scope of the 

investigation may be relevant, the party 

may contact the Department and request 

permission to submit the additional 

information. All scope 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).11 An electronically 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
50624 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 

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. 

12See Letter to the Embassy of the People’s 

Republic of China, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition 

on Forged Steel Fittings from the People’s Republic 

of China: Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the 

Countervailing Duty Petition’’ (October 6, 2017). 

13See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Consultations 

with Officials from the Government of China 

Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition 

Concerning Forged Steel Fittings’’ (October 20, 

2017). 

14See section 771(10) of the Act. 

15See 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)). 

16For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Forged Steel 

Fittings 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 Forged 

Steel Fittings from the People’s Republic of China, 

Italy, and Taiwan (Attachment II). The checklist is 

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. 

17See Volume I of the Petition, at 3–4 and Exhibit 

I–1; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1 and 

Exhibit I–15; and Second General Issues 

Supplement, at 1–2. 

18 Id. For further discussion, see PRC CVD 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

19See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at 

Attachment II. 

20See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

21See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at 

Attachment II. 

22 Id. 

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 

Government of the PRC of the receipt of 

the Petition, and provided them the 

opportunity for consultations with 

respect to the CVD Petition.12 These 

consultations were held via 

teleconference on October 20, 2017.13

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

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,14 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.15

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, the petitioners do not offer a 

definition of the domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of this 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that forged 

steel fittings, as defined in the scope, 

constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product.16

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 Petition with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ in the 

Appendix of this notice. The petitioners 

provided their own production of the 

domestic like product in 2016 and 

compared this to the total 2016 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry.17 We 

relied on the data the petitioners 

provided for purposes of measuring 

industry support.18

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, the supplements to the 

Petition, and other information readily 

available to the Department indicates 

that the petitioners have established 

industry support.19 First, the Petition 

established support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product 

and, as such, the Department is not 

required to take further action in order 

to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling).20 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 Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.21 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 Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition.22 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was 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 Petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in sections 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they 

have demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 50625 

23 Id. 

24See Volume I of the Petition, at 10 and Exhibit 

I–4. 

25 Id. at 10–23 and Exhibits I–4 and I–7 through 

I–13. 

26See 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 Forged Steel Fittings from the People’s 

Republic of China, Italy, and Taiwan. 

27See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 

Public Law 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). 

28See 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. 

29See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794–95. 

30See Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I–3. 

31See Memorandum, ‘‘Forged Steel Fittings from 

the PRC: U.S. Customs Data for Respondent 

Selection’’ (October 19, 2017). 

32See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. 

33See section 703(a)(1) of the Act. 

investigation that they are requesting 

the Department initiate.23

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

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.24

The petitioners contend that the 

industry’s injured condition is 

illustrated by a significant and 

increasing volume of imports from the 

subject country; reduced market share; 

underselling and price depression or 

suppression; and a negative impact on 

the domestic industry’s capacity 

utilization, employment, and profits.25

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.26

Initiation of CVD Investigation 

Based on the examination of the CVD 

Petition, we find that the Petition meets 

the requirements of section 702 of the 

Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD 

investigation to determine whether 

imports of forged steel fittings from the 

PRC benefit from countervailable 

subsidies conferred by the Government 

of the PRC. 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.27 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.28 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 this 

CVD investigation.29

Subsidy Allegations 

Based on our review of the Petition, 

we find that there is sufficient 

information to initiate a CVD 

investigation on 23 alleged programs. 

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 14 companies 

as producers/exporters of forged steel 

fittings in the PRC.30 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 

forged steel fittings from 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 October 19, 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 CVD investigation.31

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 Petition 

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 Petition has been provided to the 

Government of the PRC via ACCESS. To 

the extent practicable, we will attempt 

to provide a copy of the public version 

of the Petition to each exporter named 

in the Petition, 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 Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 45 days after the date on which 

the Petition was filed, whether there is 

a reasonable indication that imports of 

forged steel fittings from the PRC are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, a U.S. industry.32 A 

negative ITC determination will result 

in the investigation being terminated.33

Otherwise, this investigation 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; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
50626 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Notices 

34See 19 CFR 351.301(b). 

35See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). 

36See section 782(b) of the Act. 

37See 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. 

(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 34 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.35 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 this investigation. 

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 this investigation. 

Certification Requirements 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD or CVD 

proceeding must certify to the accuracy 

and completeness of that information.36

Parties are hereby reminded that revised 

certification requirements are in effect 

for company/government officials, as 

well as their representatives.37

Investigations initiated on the basis of 

the petition 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, and 19 CFR 351.203(c). 

Dated: October 25, 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 Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is carbon and alloy forged steel 

fittings, whether unfinished (commonly 

known as blanks or rough forgings) or 

finished. Such fittings are made in a variety 

of shapes including, but not limited to, 

elbows, tees, crosses, laterals, couplings, 

reducers, caps, plugs, bushings and unions. 

Forged steel fittings are covered regardless of 

end finish, whether threaded, socket-weld or 

other end connections. 

While these fittings are generally 

manufactured to specifications ASME 

B16.11, MSS SP–79, and MSS SP–83, ASTM 

A105, ASTM A350 and ASTM A182, the 

scope is not limited to fittings made to these 

specifications. 

The term forged is an industry term used 

to describe a class of products included in 

applicable standards, and does not reference 

an exclusive manufacturing process. Forged 

steel fittings are not manufactured from 

casting. Pursuant to the applicable standards, 

fittings may alsobe machined from bar stock 

or machined from seamless pipe and tube. 

All types of fittings are included in the 

scope regardless of nominal pipe size (which 

may or may not be expressed in inches of 

nominal pipe size), pressure rating (usually, 

but not necessarily expressed in pounds of 

pressure, e.g., 2,000 or 2M; 3,000 or 3M; 

6,000 or 6M; 9,000 or 9M), wall thickness, 

and whether or not heat treated. 

Excluded from this scope are all fittings 

entirely made of stainless steel. Also 

excluded are flanges, butt weld fittings, and 

nipples. 

Subject carbon and alloy forged steel 

fittings are normally entered under HTSUS 

7307.99.1000, 7307.99.3000, 7307.99.5045, 

and 7307.99.5060. They also may be entered 

under HTSUS 7307.92.3010, 7307.92.3030, 

7307.92.9000, and 7326.19.0010. 

The HTSUS subheadings and 

specifications are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes; the written 

description of the scope is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23759 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Notice of Localization and Tracking 

System Testing Consortium 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Research Consortium. 

SUMMARY: The National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), an 

agency of the United States Department 

of Commerce, is establishing the 

Localization and Tracking System (LTS) 

Testing Consortium and invites 

organizations to participate in this 

Consortium. Participants in this 

Consortium will have the opportunity to 

test their LTS leveraging a unique 

capability on the NIST Gaithersburg 

campus. The goals of the LTS Testing 

Consortium are to demonstrate and 

further develop standardized 

localization and tracking system testing 

procedures, and to assess current state 

of the art. The LTS Testing Consortium 

will not evaluate whether any 

individual system is commercially 

feasible. Participants in the Consortium 

will be required to sign a Cooperative 

Research and Development Agreement 

(CRADA). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES