[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23554-23559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10188]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-972, A-583-848]
Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the People's
Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Higgins at (202) 482-0679 or
Robert Bolling at (202) 482-3434 (People's Republic of China), AD/CVD
Enforcement, Office 4 or Hermes Pinilla at (202) 482-3477 or Sandra
Stewart at (202) 482-0768 (Taiwan), AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 5,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
[[Page 23555]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On March 31, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain
stilbenic optical brightening agents (stilbenic OBAs) from the People's
Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan filed in proper form by the Clariant
Corporation (the petitioner). See Antidumping Duty Petitions on Certain
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of
China and Taiwan (March 31, 2011) (the Petitions). The petitioner is a
domestic producer of stilbenic OBAs. On April 4, 2011, the Department
issued a request for additional information and clarification of
certain areas of the Petitions. On April 7, 2011, in response to the
Department's request, the petitioner filed an amendment to the
Petitions. See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the
People's Republic of China and Taiwan; Amendment to Petitions (April 7,
2011) (Supplement to the PRC AD Petition or Supplement to the Taiwan AD
Petition).
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of stilbenic
OBAs from the PRC and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in
the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section
731 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed these Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD
investigations that the petitioner is requesting. See the
``Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions'' section below.
Period of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on March 31, 2011, the period of
investigation (POI) for the PRC investigation is July 1, 2010, through
December 31, 2010. The POI for the Taiwan investigation is January 1,
2010, through December 31, 2010. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of the Investigations
The products covered by these investigations are certain OBAs from
the PRC and Taiwan. For a full description of the scope of the
investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I
of this notice.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also Memorandum to File from Shawn Higgins, dated April
14, 2011, regarding telephone conversation with counsel for the
petitioner regarding the scope of the Petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with the
petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)),
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested
parties to submit such comments by May 10, 2011, twenty calendar days
from the signature of this notice. Comments should be addressed to
Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the
Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to
consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determinations.
Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Questionnaires
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding
the appropriate physical characteristics of stilbenic OBAs 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
factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop
appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to
which characteristics are appropriate to use as (1) general product
characteristics and (2) the product-comparison criteria. We find that
it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as
product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on
meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while
there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by
manufacturers to describe stilbenic OBAs, 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, we must receive comments
at the above address by May 10, 2011. Additionally, rebuttal comments
limited to those issues raised in the comments must be received by May
17, 2011.
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 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
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 if there
is a large number of producers in 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 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 (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes
and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the
[[Page 23556]]
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and
information because the Department determines industry support at the
time of initiation. Although this may result in different definitions
of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the
decision of either agency contrary to law. See 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 (CAFC 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
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 petitioner does not
offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of
these investigations. Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that stilbenic OBAs
constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed
industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a
discussion of the domestic like-product analysis in these cases, see
the Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the PRC (PRC Initiation
Checklist) at Attachment II and the Antidumping Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from
Taiwan (Taiwan Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II, on file in the
Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce
building.
In determining whether the petitioner has 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 Appendix I of this
notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own
2010 production data of the domestic like product and compared this to
total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry. See Volume I of the Petitions at 3 and Exhibits I-1 and I-16;
see also PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II and Taiwan
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
The Department's review of the data provided in the Petitions,
supplemental responses, and other information readily available to the
Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry
support. First, based on information provided in the Petitions, the
petitioner 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). See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC Initiation
Checklist at Attachment II and Taiwan Initiation Checklist at
Attachment II. 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. See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment
II and Taiwan Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 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. 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. See id.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that
it is requesting the Department to initiate. See id.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the
petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales, reduced production, a
lower capacity-utilization rate, fewer shipments, underselling, price
depression or suppression, lost revenue, decline in financial
performance, and an increase in import penetration. We have assessed
the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are supported
by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation. See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment III and Taiwan
Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.
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 investigations of imports of stilbenic OBAs from the PRC and
Taiwan. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating
to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the PRC
Initiation Checklist and Taiwan Initiation Checklist.
Alleged U.S. Price and NV: The PRC
The petitioner states that PRC exporters/producers first sell
subject merchandise in the United States to unaffiliated resellers. See
Volume III of the Petitions at 13-14. The petitioner does not have
access, however, to the prices charged by PRC producers to U.S.
resellers. Id. As a result, to calculate export price (EP), the
petitioner based its calculation on the prices charged by U.S.
resellers of PRC stilbenic OBAs to a U.S. customer. Id. Specifically,
the petitioner calculated EP based on a price at which revenues were
lost due to a competing bid from a supplier of PRC stilbenic OBAs. See
Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibits 32 and 33. The petitioner
substantiated the price used as a basis for the EP calculation with an
affidavit. See Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibit 32. The
price used as a basis for the EP calculation is a delivered price to an
end-user for stilbenic OBAs supplied in a solution state. See Volume
III of the Petitions at 14. To calculate EP for stilbenic OBAs in a
solution state, the petitioner adjusted the EP based on the terms of
sale for brokerage and handling in the port of export, international
freight, U.S. customs duties, U.S. reseller markup, and U.S. inland
freight. To calculate EP for stilbenic OBAs in a powder state, the
petitioner adjusted the EP based on the terms of sale for brokerage and
handling in the port of export, international freight, U.S. customs
duties, U.S. reseller markup, further manufacturing (i.e., dilution),
and U.S. inland freight.
[[Page 23557]]
See Volume III of the Petitions at 13-17 and Supplement to the PRC AD
Petition at Exhibit 33.
The petitioner states that the PRC is a non-market economy (NME)
country and no determination to the contrary has been made by the
Department. See Volume III of the Petitions at 2-3. In accordance with
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains
in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME
status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and,
therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of the PRC
investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product for the PRC
investigation is appropriately based on factors of production valued in
a surrogate market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act. In the course of the PRC investigation, all parties, including
the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information
related to the issue of the PRC's NME status and the granting of
separate rates to individual exporters.
Citing section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner contends that
India is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because it is at
a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and it is
a significant producer of stilbenic OBAs. See Volume III of the
Petitions at 3-5 and Exhibit III-1. Also, the petitioner states that
Indian data for valuing factors of production are available and
reliable. See Volume III of the Petitions at 3. Based on the
information provided by the petitioner, we believe that it is
appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation
purposes. After initiation of the investigation, interested parties
will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate-
country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be
provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to
value factors of production within 40 days after the date of
publication of the preliminary determination.
The petitioner calculated the NV and dumping margins for the U.S.
prices, discussed above, using the Department's NME methodology as
required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. The
petitioner calculated NVs for stilbenic OBAs in both solution and
powder state based on its own consumption rates for producing stilbenic
OBAs. See Volume III of the Petitions at 5-6, 11-12, and Exhibit III-2.
In calculating NV, the petitioner based the quantity of each of the
inputs used to manufacture and pack stilbenic OBAs in the PRC based on
its own production experience during the POI because it stated that the
actual usage rates of the foreign manufacturers of stilbenic OBAs were
not reasonably available. Id. The petitioner stated, however, that its
production process and cost structure is representative of the PRC
stilbenic OBAs producers because the production of stilbenic OBAs
``involves the same basic technology worldwide.'' See Volume III of the
Petitions at 6. The petitioner adjusted its factor inputs to reflect
any known differences between the petitioner's production process and
the process employed by PRC producers. See Volume III of the Petitions
at 11-12 and Exhibit III-2. The petitioner also adjusted its factor
inputs to reflect higher usage rates for energy and labor in the
production of stilbenic OBAs in powder state. See Volume III of the
Petitions at 12 and Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibit 31.
The petitioner valued the factors of production based on reasonably
available, public surrogate-country data, including Indian import
statistics from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA). See Volume III of the
Petitions at 6-7 and Exhibit III-4 and Supplement to the PRC AD
Petition at Exhibit 29. The petitioner excluded from these import
statistics imports from countries previously determined by the
Department to be NME countries, i.e., it excluded imports from
Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand, as the Department has
previously excluded prices from these countries because they maintain
broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies, and it
excluded imports labeled as being from ``unspecified countries.'' See
Volume III of the Petitions at 6-7 and Exhibit III-4. In addition, the
petitioner made currency conversions, where necessary, based on the
POI-average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate as reported on the
Department's Web site. See Volume III of the Petitions at 12 and
Exhibit III-13 and Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibits 30-31.
The petitioner determined labor costs using the labor consumption, in
hours, derived from its own experience. See Volume III of the Petitions
at 11 and Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibits 30-31. The
petitioner valued labor costs using the Department's current
methodology of calculating an hourly wage rate by averaging industry-
specific earnings and/or wages in countries that are economically
comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers of comparable
merchandise. See Volume III of the Petitions at 7-8 and 10 and
Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at 3 and Exhibit 28.
The petitioner determined electricity costs using the electricity
consumption, in kilowatt hours, derived from its own experience. See
Volume III of the Petitions at 11-12 and Supplement to the PRC AD
Petition at Exhibits 30-31. The petitioner valued electricity using the
Indian electricity rate reported by the Central Electric Authority of
the Government of India. See Volume III of the Petitions at 8-9 and
Exhibit III-26.
The petitioner determined natural gas costs using the natural gas
consumption derived from its own experience. See Volume III of the
Petitions at 11-12 and supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibits
30-31. The petitioner valued natural gas using data obtained from the
Government of India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as well as
the gas transmission costs from the Gas Authority of India Ltd. See
Volume III of the Petitions at 9 and Exhibit III-8.
The petitioner determined water costs using the water consumption
derived from its own experience. See Volume III of the Petitions at 11-
12 and Supplement to the PRC AD Petition at Exhibits 30-31. The
petitioner valued water based on information that is contemporaneous
with the POI from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation.
See Volume III of the Petitions at 9 and Supplement to the PRC AD
Petition at 2 and Exhibit 27.
The petitioner based factory overhead, selling, general and
administrative (SG&A), and profit on data from Daikaffil Chemicals
India Limited (Daikaffil Chemicals), an Indian producer of stilbenic
OBAs, for the fiscal year April 2009 through March 2010. See Volume III
of the Petitions at 10 and Exhibits III-9 and III-10. The petitioner
states that Daikaffil Chemicals was an Indian producer of stilbenic
OBAs during fiscal year 2009-2010. See Volume III of the Petitions at
10. Therefore, for purposes of the initiation, the Department finds the
petitioner's use of Daikaffil Chemicals' financial ratios appropriate.
See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4).
Alleged U.S. Price and NV: Taiwan
The petitioner calculated two constructed export prices (CEPs) (one
for stilbenic OBAs in solution and one in powder state) using a price
quote it obtained from a credible source for stilbenic OBAs in the
solution state. The petitioner substantiated the U.S. price quote with
an affidavit and a declaration from the person who obtained the
information. To calculate CEP for stilbenic OBAs in a solution state,
the petitioner adjusted the CEP based on the
[[Page 23558]]
terms of sale for brokerage and handling incurred in Taiwan and the
United States, international freight, U.S. customs duties, U.S inland
freight, U.S. indirect selling expenses, and CEP profit. To calculate
CEP for stilbenic OBAs in a powder state, the petitioner adjusted the
CEP based on the terms of sale for brokerage and handling incurred in
Taiwan and the United States, international freight, U.S. customs
duties, U.S. inland freight, U.S. indirect selling expenses, further
manufacturing (i.e., dilution), and CEP profit. See Volume II of the
Petitions at 7-19, Exhibits II-18 through II-26, Supplement to the
Taiwan AD Petition at Exhibit 28, and Taiwan Initiation Checklist.
With respect to NV, the petitioner calculated NV based on
constructed value (CV). The petitioner computed a CV for stilbenic OBAs
in the solution state and in the powder state, using the same
methodology described below.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the petitioner calculated
CV using the cost of manufacturing, SG&A expenses, packing expenses,
and financial expenses. The petitioner then added the average profit
rate based on the most recent financial statements of a company in the
same general industry in Taiwan as the producer. See Taiwan Initiation
Checklist.
The petitioner calculated raw materials, labor, energy, and packing
based on its own production experience, adjusted for known differences
to manufacture stilbenic OBAs in Taiwan using publically available
data. See Taiwan Initiation Checklist for details of the calculation of
raw materials, labor, energy, and packing. To calculate the factory
overhead, SG&A, financial expenses, and the profit rate, the petitioner
relied on cost data from a Taiwanese producer of optical brighteners.
See Volume II of the Petitions at 8-12 and Exhibits II-16 and II-17 and
Taiwan Initiation Checklist.
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of stilbenic OBAs from the PRC and Taiwan are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair
value. Based on comparisons of EPs to NVs in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for stilbenic OBAs
from the PRC range from 80.64 percent to 203.16 percent. See the PRC
Initiation Checklist. Based on comparisons of CEPs to CVs in accordance
with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for
stilbenic OBAs from Taiwan range from 61.79 percent to 109.45 percent.
See Taiwan Initiation Checklist.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigations
Based upon the examination of the Petitions on stilbenic OBAs from
the PRC and Taiwan, 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 stilbenic OBAs from the PRC and Taiwan
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than
fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this
initiation.
Targeted Dumping Allegations
On December 10, 2008, the Department issued an interim final rule
for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 351.414(f) and (g), the
regulatory provisions governing the targeted dumping analysis in AD
investigations, and the corresponding regulation governing the deadline
for targeted dumping allegations, 19 CFR 351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal
of the Regulatory Provisions Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping
Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008). The Department
stated that ``withdrawal will allow the Department to exercise the
discretion intended by the statute and, thereby, develop a practice
that will allow interested parties to pursue all statutory avenues of
relief in this area.'' Id. at 74931.
In order to accomplish this objective, if any interested party
wishes to make a targeted dumping allegation in these investigations
pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such allegation is due no
later than 45 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary
determinations.
Respondent Selection
The PRC
Following standard practice in AD investigations involving NME
countries, the Department will request quantity and value information
from all known exporters and producers identified with complete contact
information in Volume III of the Petitions and Supplement to the PRC AD
Petition. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters/
producers will be used as the basis to select the mandatory
respondents.
The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to
both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status. See Circular Welded Austenitic
Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26,
2008), and Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist
Canvas From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April
28, 2005). On the date of publication of this initiation notice in the
Federal Register, the Department will post the quantity and value
questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Import
Administration Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html and a response to the quantity and value questionnaire is due
no later than May 11, 2011. Also, the Department will send the quantity
and value questionnaire to those PRC companies identified in Volume I
of the Petitions at Exhibit I-8.
Taiwan
Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market-
economy countries, the Department intends to select respondents based
on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under
HTSUS number 3204.20.80 during the POI. We intend to release the CBP
data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with
access to information protected by APO within five days of publication
of this Federal Register notice and make our decision regarding
respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. The
Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent
selection within 10 days of publication of this Federal Register
notice.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such
applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application.
See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market-
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate Rates and Combination Rates
Bulletin), available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. Based on our experience in
[[Page 23559]]
processing the separate-rate applications in previous AD
investigations, we have modified the application for this investigation
to make it more administrable and easier for applicants to complete.
See, e.g., Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New
Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China, 72 FR
43591, 43594-95 (August 6, 2007). The specific requirements for
submitting the separate-rate application in the NME investigation are
outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available
on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of publication of this initiation notice in
the Federal Register. The separate-rate application will be due 60 days
after publication of this initiation notice. For exporters and
producers who submit a separate-rate status application and
subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and
producers will no longer be eligible for consideration for separate-
rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as
mandatory respondents. As explained in the ``Respondent Selection''
section above, the Department requires that respondents submit a
response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-
rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status.
Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin
states:
{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will
now assign in its NME investigations 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.
See Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin at 6 (emphasis
added).
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 Government of the PRC and Taiwan authorities. Because
of the large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petitions,
the Department considers the service of the public version of the
Petitions to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery
of the public version to the Government of the PRC and Taiwan
authorities, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than May 16, 2011,
whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of stilbenic OBAs
from the PRC and Taiwan are materially injuring or threatening material
injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country
will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that
country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures (73 FR 3634). Parties
wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they
meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters
of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or countervailing
duty (CVD) proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of
that information. See section 782(b) of the Act. Parties are hereby
reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for
company/government officials as well as their representatives in all
segments of any AD/CVD proceedings initiated on or after March 14,
2011. See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration
During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Interim Final
Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011) (Interim Final Rule), amending 19
CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2). The formats for the revised certifications
are provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule. The Department
intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments
initiated on or after March 14, 2011, if the submitting party does not
comply with the revised certification requirements.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: April 20, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigations
The certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (``OBA'')
covered by these investigations are all forms (whether free acid or
salt) of compounds known as triazinylaminostilbenes (i.e., all
derivatives of 4,4'-bis [1,3,5- triazin-2-yl] amino-2,2'-
stilbenedisulfonic acid), except for compounds listed in the
following paragraph. The certain stilbenic OBAs covered by these
investigations include final stilbenic OBA products, as well as
intermediate products that are themselves triazinylaminostilbenes
produced during the synthesis of final stilbenic OBA products.
Excluded from these investigations are all forms of 4,4'-bis[4-
anilino-6-morpholino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl] amino-2,2'-
stilbenedisulfonic acid,
C40H40N12O8S2
(``Fluorescent Brightener 71''). These investigations cover the
above-described compounds in any state (including but not limited to
powder, slurry, or solution), of any concentrations of active
certain stilbenic OBA ingredient, as well as any compositions
regardless of additives (i.e., mixtures or blends, whether of
certain stilbenic OBAs with each other, or of certain stilbenic OBAs
with additives that are not certain stilbenic OBAs), and in any type
of packaging.
These stilbenic OBAs are classifiable under subheading
3204.20.8000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''), but they may also enter under subheadings 2933.69.6050,
2921.59.4000 and 2921.59.8090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the merchandise is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2011-10188 Filed 4-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P