1966 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 

1See Drill Pipe From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 75 FR 51004 (August 18, 2010); and 

Drill Pipe From the People’s Republic of China: 

Notice of Correction to the Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 75 FR 51014 (August 18, 2010) 

(collectively, ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

2We conducted verifications of the DP-Master 

Group and Yida, which produced the merchandise 

under investigation and sold it to the United States, 

and Baoshan, which produced the merchandise 

under investigation. See Memo to the File, from 

Toni Dach and Jerry Huang, International Trade 

Compliance Analysts, ‘‘Verification of the Sales and 

Factors of Production Response of DP-Master 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Jiangyin Liangda Drill 

Pipe Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Drill Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated October 26, 2010 (‘‘DPMaster Verification Report’’); Memo to the File, 

through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, from 

Matthew Renkey, Senior International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, and Susan Pulongbarit, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of 

the Yida Group in the Antidumping Investigation 

of Drill Pipe from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated October 27, 2010 (‘‘Yida Verification Report’’); 

Memo to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, 

Program Manager, from Susan Pulongbarit, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, and 

Matthew Renkey, Senior International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, ‘‘Verification of the Sales and 

Factors of Production Response of Baoshan Iron & 

Steel Co., Ltd. in the Investigation of Drill Pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated October 27, 

2010 (‘‘Baoshan Verification Report’’). Additionally, 

for Baoshan’s sales, we conducted verification of 

Baoshan’s North American affiliate, Baosteel 

America, Inc., which handled all of Baoshan’s POI 

sales. See Memo to the File, through Scot T. 

Fullerton, Program Manager, from Susan 

Pulongbarit, International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, and Matthew Renkey, Senior International 

Trade Compliance Analyst, ‘‘Verification of the CEP 

Sales Response of Baoshan Iron & Steel Inc. in the 

Investigation of Drill Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated October 27, 2010 

(‘‘Baoshan CEP Verification Report’’). 

3See Memorandum to the File dated November 

16, 2010. 

4The petitioners are VAM Drilling USA, Inc., 

Texas Steel Conversion, Inc., Rotary Drilling Tools, 

TMK IPSCO, and the United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers International Union, 

AFL–CIO–CLC (hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘Petitioners’’). 

5See Memorandum to the File dated December 3, 

2010. 

6See Memorandum to the File dated December 

14, 2010. 

7See Letters to Baoshan, the DP-Master Group, 

and Yida dated December 14, 2010. 

8See the DP–Master Group’s September 9, 2010, 

response to the Department’s 8th supplemental 

questionnaire (‘‘8th Supplemental Response’’). 

9See I&D Memo at Comment 7. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–965] 

Drill Pipe From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Critical 

Circumstances 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 11, 2011. 

SUMMARY: On August 18, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the Preliminary Determination 

of sales at less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’) 

and critical circumstances, in part, in 

the antidumping investigation of drill 

pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’).1 The period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’) is April 1, 2009, 

through September 30, 2009. Based on 

our analysis of the comments received, 

we have made changes to the margin 

calculation for DP-Master 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Jiangyin 

Liangda Drill Pipe Co., Ltd. (collectively 

‘‘the DP-Master Group’’), Baoshan Iron & 

Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Baoshan’’), and Shanxi 

Yida Special Steel Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Yida’’). We continue to find that drill 

pipe from the PRC is being, or is likely 

to be, sold in the United States at LTFV 

as provided in section 735 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni 

Dach, Susan Pulongbarit, or Matthew 

Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1655, 

(202) 482–4031, or (202) 482–2312, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department conducted sales and 

factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) 

verifications for the DP-Master Group 

and Yida, and an FOP verification for 

Baoshan, from September 20 through 

October 1, 2010, and sales verification 

for Baoshan on October 13 and 14, 

2010.2 See the ‘‘Verification’’ section 

below for additional information. 

On November 16, 2010, the 

Department placed labor wage rate data 

on the record and invited parties to 

comment on the Department’s labor 

wage rate methodology.3

Between November 5, 2010 and 

November 12, 2010, we received case 

and rebuttal briefs from Petitioners,4 the 

government of the PRC (‘‘GOC’’), the DPMaster Group, Baoshan, and Yida. 

On December 3, 2010, the Department 

placed additional surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) 

information on the record and invited 

parties to comment on the Department’s 

selection of an SV for tool joints,5 and 

received comments on this data from 

the DP-Master Group and Petitioners 

between December 8 and 10, 2010. On 

December 14, 2010, the Department 

placed additional SV information on the 

record regarding galvanizing and zinc 

values,6 and received comments on this 

data from Baoshan on December 20, 

2010. Also on December 14, 2010, the 

Department requested additional 

shipment data from Baoshan, the DPMaster Group, and Yida,7 and received 

their responses on December 17, 2010. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the ‘‘Drill 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final 

Determination’’ (‘‘I&D Memo’’), dated 

concurrently with this notice and which 

is hereby adopted by this notice. A list 

of the issues which parties raised, and 

to which we respond in the I&D Memo, 

are attached to this notice as Appendix 

I. The I&D Memo is a public document 

and is on file in the Central Records 

Unit, Room 7046, and is accessible on 

the World Wide Web at http://trade.gov/ 

ia/index.asp. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of information 

on the record of this investigation, we 

have made changes to the DP–Master 

Group’s, Baoshan’s, and Yida’s margin 

calculations for the final determination. 

The DP–Master Group 

• Subsequent to the Preliminary 

Determination, at the Department’s 

request, the DP–Master Group provided 

a revised FOP database, including data 

from the six-month period immediately 

prior to the POI. Because this database 

more accurately reflects the FOPs 

consumed by the DP–Master Group in 

producing the merchandise under 

investigation than the database on the 

record prior to the Preliminary 

Determination, we have determined that 

it is appropriate to use FOP data from 

the period October 1, 2008, to 

September 30, 2009, in calculating the 

DP–Master Group’s margin for the final 

determination.8

• We have changed the SV for green 

tubes used in the DP–Master Group’s 

margin calculation.9


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 1967 

10See I&D Memo at Comment 6. 

11See 8th Supplemental Response; see also Final 

Analysis Memo for the DP–Master Group, issued 

concurrently with this notice. 

12See DP–Master Verification Report at 2, 6–8, 

and 10–11. 

13See I&D Memo at the ‘‘Changes from 

Verification’’ section, part A. 

14See I&D Memo at Comment 12. 

15See I&D Memo at Comment 5B. 

16See I&D Memo at Comment 13. 

17 See I&D Memo at Comment 11. 

18See I&D Memo at the ‘‘Changes from 

Verification’’ section, part B. 

19See I&D Memo at the ‘‘Changes from 

Verification’’ section, part C. 

20See Yida Verification Report. 

21See Final Analysis Memorandum for Yida, 

issued concurrently with this notice; see also I&D 

Memo at Comment 15. 

22See I&D Memo at Comment 2. 

23See DP–Master Verification Report, Yida 

Verification Report, Baoshan Verification Report, 

and Baoshan CEP Verification Report. 

• We have changed the SV for tool 

joints used in the DP–Master Group’s 

margin calculation.10

• We have disallowed a by-product 

offset for brown aluminum oxide in the 

DP–Master Group’s internal plastic 

coating process.11

• Based on our findings at 

verification,12 we are applying partial 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) to the 

DP–Master Group’s phosphate treatment 

toller’s consumption of direct materials 

in its production of the merchandise 

under investigation.13

Baoshan 

• We have used Baoshan’s inputs to 

its intermediate inputs consumed in the 

production of the merchandise under 

investigation, instead of valuing 

Baoshan’s intermediate inputs.14

• We have determined that it is more 

appropriate to use only the Jindal Saw, 

Ltd. (‘‘Jindal Saw’’) financial statement 

as the basis for Baoshan’s surrogate 

financial ratios rather than the average 

of the Jindal Saw and Tata Steel Limited 

financial statements.15

• We have not granted Baoshan a byproduct offset for its production of 

pulverized ash, because it did not 

receive income for the by-product given 

free of charge to unaffiliated parties.16

• To calculate the SV of iron ore, we 

have included Baoshan’s purchases of 

iron ore pellets from its affiliated 

supplier based on our determination 

that the affiliate’s prices are reflective of 

unaffiliated market economy (‘‘ME’’) 

prices. Including these purchases will 

increase Baoshan’s ME purchases to 

above the 33% threshold. Accordingly, 

we have weight-averaged Baoshan’s ME 

purchase prices to value all of its iron 

ore purchases.17

• At verification, we found that 

certain of Baoshan’s indirect selling 

expenses (‘‘ISEs’’) were not included in 

its ISEs ratio. We have corrected this for 

the final determination.18

• At verification, we found that 

Baoshan did not report credit expenses 

for the payments it received from its 

U.S. customer. We have included these 

credit expenses in Baoshan’s margin for 

the final determination.19

Yida 

• At verification, we found that Yida 

consumed rubber pads in its production 

of the merchandise under 

investigation.20 Therefore, we are 

including rubber pads as an FOP in 

calculating Yida’s final margin.21

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by the 

investigation are steel drill pipe, and 

steel drill collars, whether or not 

conforming to American Petroleum 

Institute (‘‘API’’) or non-API 

specifications. Included are finished 

drill pipe and drill collars without 

regard to the specific chemistry of the 

steel (i.e., carbon, stainless steel, or 

other alloy steel), and without regard to 

length or outer diameter. Also included 

are unfinished drill collars (including 

all drill collar green tubes) and 

unfinished drill pipe (including drill 

pipe green tubes, which are tubes 

meeting the following description: 

seamless tubes with an outer diameter 

of less than or equal to 65⁄8 inches 

(168.28 millimeters), containing 

between 0.16 and 0.75 percent 

molybdenum, and containing between 

0.75 and 1.45 percent chromium). The 

scope does not include tool joints not 

attached to the drill pipe, nor does it 

include unfinished tubes for casing or 

tubing covered by any other 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

order. 

The subject products are currently 

classified in the following Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) categories: 7304.22.0030, 

7304.22.0045, 7304.22.0060, 

7304.23.3000, 7304.23.6030, 

7304.23.6045, 7304.23.6060, 

8431.43.8040 and may also enter under 

8431.43.8060, 8431.43.4000, 

7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 

7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 

7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 

7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 

7304.49.0015, 7304.49.0060, 

7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 

7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 

7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 

7304.59.8050, and 7304.59.8055. 

While HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department indicated that it would 

solicit additional comments from parties 

regarding the specifications of drill pipe 

green tube. Between September 13 and 

23, 2010, Petitioners and the DP–Master 

Group placed additional information on 

the record of this investigation regarding 

the characteristics of drill pipe green 

tube. Additionally, Petitioners and the 

DP–Master Group commented on the 

scope of the investigation in their case 

briefs. Based on analysis of this 

information and argument, the 

Department has modified the scope of 

the investigation to define drill pipe 

green tubes which were previously 

described as ‘‘green tubes suitable for 

drill pipe.’’ 22

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we conducted verification of the 

information submitted by the DP– 

Master Group, Baoshan, and Yida for 

use in our final determination.23 We 

used standard verification procedures, 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, as 

well as original source documents 

provided by the respondents. 

Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

if, necessary information is not available 

on the record, or an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested, subject to subsections 

782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a determination 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from {the 

Department} for information, notifies 

{the Department} that such party is 

unable to submit the information in the 

requested form and manner, together 

with a full explanation and suggested 

alternative form in which such party is 

able to submit the information,’’ the 

Department may modify its information 

request requirements to avoid imposing 

an unreasonable burden on that party. 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
1968 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 

24See Letter from Baoshan, to Secretary of 

Commerce, Regarding Drill Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China/Supplemental Sections C and D 

Questionnaire Responses, dated September 14, 

2010. 

25 Global Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’). 

26See I&D Memo at Comment 12. 

27See Sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) and 776(b) of 

the Act; see also Certain Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 74 FR 14514, 14516 (March 31, 2009). 

28See I&D Memo at the ‘‘Changes from 

Verification’’ section, part A. 

29See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 51006. 

30As noted in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section below, 

these include Shanxi Fenglei Drilling Tools Co., 

Ltd.; Jiangsu Shuguang Huayang Drilling Tool, Co. 

Ltd.; and Jiangyin Long-Bright Drill Pipe 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

31See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 51011. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e), disregard all or part of 

the original and subsequent responses, 

as appropriate. 

In reaching a determination under 

section 735 of the Act, section 782(e) of 

the Act states that the Department shall 

not decline to consider information 

deemed ‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) 

if: (1) The information is submitted by 

the established deadline; (2) the 

information can be verified; (3) the 

information is not so incomplete that it 

cannot serve as a reliable basis for 

reaching the applicable determination; 

(4) the interested party has 

demonstrated that it acted to the best of 

its ability; and (5) the information can 

be used without undue difficulties. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the administering authority 

finds that an interested party has not 

acted to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information, the 

administering authority may, in 

reaching its determination, use an 

inference that is adverse to that party. 

The adverse inference may be based 

upon: (1) The petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation under 

this title, (3) any previous review under 

section 751 of the Act or determination 

under section 753 of the Act, or (4) any 

other information placed on the record. 

Baoshan 

Following the Preliminary 

Determination, Baoshan provided 

additional information to the 

Department concerning which of its 

FOPs were consumed to produce 

intermediate products.24 Based on this 

additional information, the Department 

has decided to value the FOPs Baoshan 

consumed in producing intermediate 

inputs in this final determination. 

However, because Baoshan provided an 

insufficient description of certain inputs 

to electricity, namely ‘‘power coal’’ and 

‘‘light oil,’’ the Department has 

determined that, pursuant to section 

776(a)(B), it is appropriate to use facts 

available to value these inputs. Thus, for 

power coal, the Department has 

averaged publicly-available, 

contemporaneous, India-wide GTA 25

values for anthracite coal, bituminous 

coal, and steam coal. We note that, 

although Baoshan requested that the 

Department use 2007 Tata Energy 

Research Institute’s Energy Data 

Directory & Yearbook (‘‘TERI Data’’) to 

value this input, Baoshan provided 

neither the source data or the useful 

heat value of power coal necessary to 

use TERI Data in valuing this input. 

Additionally, for light oil, the 

Department has valued this input using 

the publicly-available, 

contemporaneous, and India-wide GTA 

value for ‘‘heavy oil’’ because it is also 

used in the electricity production 

process and no information concerning 

the value of ‘‘light oil’’ was placed on the 

record of this investigation.26

The DP-Master Group 

As noted above, based on findings at 

verification, the Department is applying 

partial AFA to the FOPs reported by the 

D-Master Group’s phosphate treatment 

toller. Specifically, the DP-Master 

Group’s unaffiliated phosphate 

treatment toller’s consumption of FOPs 

could not be verified by the Department 

and, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) 

and (D) of the Act, we have determined 

that the application of facts available is 

appropriate. Further, we find that the 

application of partial AFA is also 

appropriate because the DP-Master 

Group failed to act to the best of its 

ability in responding to the 

Department’s requests for information 

and significantly impeded the 

Department’s proceeding.27

Accordingly, we have used the 

maximum monthly reported 

consumption for each material input in 

calculating the total consumption of 

inputs by the DP-Master Group’s 

phosphate treatment toller.28

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we selected India as an 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation because: (1) Pursuant 

to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, we 

determined that it is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise 

and it is at a similar level of economic 

development to the PRC; and (2) we 

have reliable data from India on the 

record of this investigation that we can 

use to value the FOPs.29 For the final 

determination, we received no 

comments and made no changes to our 

findings with respect to the selection of 

a surrogate country. 

Critical Circumstances 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department determined that, in 

accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the 

Act, critical circumstances existed with 

respect to the DP-Master Group, the 

separate rate respondents,30 and the 

PRC-wide entity.31

For the final determination, we 

collected additional shipment data from 

each of the three respondents being 

individually investigated. We collected 

four months of additional shipment data 

(two months for the base period and two 

months for the comparison period). 

Based on this additional data we 

continue to find that critical 

circumstances do not exist for Yida and 

Baoshan. 

With respect to the DP-Master Group, 

we find that the additional data no 

longer supports a finding of critical 

circumstances. Specifically, we no 

longer find that there has been an 

increase in imports greater than 15 

percent when comparing the base 

period to the comparison period. See 

Memorandum to The File, from 

Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, 

through Paul Walker, Acting Program 

Manager, regarding ‘‘Investigation of 

Drill Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination Critical 

Circumstances Analysis,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice (‘‘Final 

Critical Circumstances Memo’’). 

Consistent with our Preliminary 

Determination, the Department relied 

upon import data from the three 

individually investigated companies in 

determining whether there have been 

massive imports for the separate rate 

respondents. See Preliminary 

Determination, 75 FR at 51013. Based 

on the analysis of the additional data 

submitted for each of the three 

individually investigated companies, we 

no longer find that critical 

circumstances exist for the separate rate 

respondents. See Final Critical 

Circumstances Memo, Attachment 1. 

Specifically, we no longer find that 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 1969 

32See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s 

Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994), and 

19 CFR 351.107(d). 

33See also Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 

vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). 

34See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 

(May 3, 2000). 

35See SAA at 870. 

36See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

37See Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value, 75 FR 32366 (June 8, 2010) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

38See I&D Memo at Comment 4. 

39See Drill Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 75 FR 4531 (January 28, 2010) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

40See Memorandum to the File, through Paul 

Walker, Acting Program Manager, from Toni Dach, 

Case Analyst, ‘‘Investigation of Drill Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: DP-Master Group,’’ 

dated concurrently with this notice. 

there has been an increase in imports 

greater than 15 percent when comparing 

the base period to the comparison 

period, which is based on a weightedaverage of data for the three 

individually investigated companies. 

Finally, consistent with our 

Preliminary Determination, and as 

described below, the PRC-wide entity 

continues to receive AFA. See 

Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 

51013. Thus, as AFA, we find that the 

critical circumstances exist for the PRCwide entity. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate.32 In the Preliminary 

Determination, we found that Shanxi 

Fenglei Drilling Tools Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu 

Shuguang Huayang Drilling Tool, Co. 

Ltd.; and Jiangyin Long-Bright Drill Pipe 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd., demonstrated 

their eligibility for, and were hence 

assigned, separate-rate status. No party 

has commented on the eligibility of 

these companies for separate rate status. 

Consequently, for the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by these companies 

demonstrates both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control with 

respect to their exports of the 

merchandise under investigation. Thus, 

we continue to find that the separate 

rate respondents are eligible for 

separate-rate status. 

PRC-Wide Entity 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

treated PRC exporters/producers that 

did not respond to the Department’s 

request for information as part of the 

PRC-wide entity because they did not 

demonstrate that they operate free of 

government control. No additional 

information has been placed on the 

record with respect to these entities 

after the Preliminary Determination. 

The PRC-wide entity has not provided 

the Department with the requested 

information; therefore, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the 

Department continues to find that the 

use of facts available is appropriate to 

determine the PRC-wide rate. Section 

776(b) of the Act provides that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information.33 We find 

that, because the PRC-wide entity did 

not respond to our request for 

information, it has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability and that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the PRCwide entity. Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

an NME country are subject to 

government control, and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate, i.e., 

the PRC-wide rate, to all other exporters 

of the merchandise under consideration 

from the PRC. Such companies did not 

demonstrate entitlement to a separate 

rate.34 The PRC-wide rate applies to all 

entries of the merchandise under 

consideration, except for those 

companies which have received a 

separate rate. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning merchandise subject to this 

investigation, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation.’’ 35 To ‘‘corroborate’’ 

means simply that the Department will 

satisfy itself that the secondary 

information to be used has probative 

value. Independent sources used to 

corroborate may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. To corroborate secondary 

information, the Department will, to the 

extent practicable, examine the 

reliability and relevance of the 

information used.36

The AFA rate that the Department 

used is from the petition; however, we 

have updated the labor wage rate used 

to calculate the petition rates. The 

Department’s practice is not to 

recalculate dumping margins provided 

in petitions, but rather to corroborate 

the applicable petition rate when 

applying that rate as AFA.37 In this case, 

however, the surrogate wage rate used 

in the petition was based upon the 

Department’s methodology under 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(3) that the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘CAFC’’) found unlawful in Dorbest 

Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 

(Fed. Cir. 2010).38 In light of the CAFC’s 

decision, the Department has adjusted 

the petition rate using the updated SV 

for labor used in this final 

determination. 

Petitioners’ methodology for 

calculating the United States price and 

normal value in the petition is 

discussed in the Initiation Notice.39 To 

corroborate the AFA margin that we 

have selected, we compared this margin 

to the margins we found for the DPMaster Group. We found that the margin 

of 429.95 percent has probative value 

because it is in the range of the modelspecific margins that we found for the 

DP-Master Group.40 Accordingly, we 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
1970 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 

41See Drill Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, dated concurrently with this notice. 

42See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 

23 From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November 17, 

2004). 

43This treatment of the separate rate respondents 

is consistent with Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks 

From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 

FR 45472 (August 2, 2010) and Certain Seamless 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Critical Circumstances, in Part, 75 FR 

57449 (September 21, 2010). 

find that the rate of 429.95 percent has 

probative value and is, therefore, 

corroborated within the meaning of 

section 776(c) of the Act. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted-average margins 

exist for the following entities for the 

POI: 

Exporter Producer Weighted-average 

margin 

The DP-Master Group .......................................................... The DP-Master Group .......................................................... 69.32 

Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd ............................................. Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd ............................................. de minimis 

Shanxi Yida Special Steel Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd .................. Shanxi Yida Special Steel Group Co., Ltd ........................... de minimis 

Shanxi Fenglei Drilling Tools Co., Ltd .................................. Shanxi Fenglei Drilling Tools Co., Ltd ................................. 69.32 

Jiangsu Shuguang Huayang Drilling Tool, Co. Ltd .............. Jiangsu Shuguang Huayang Drilling Tool, Co. Ltd .............. 69.32

Jiangyin Long-Bright Drill Pipe Manufacturing Co., Ltd ....... Jiangyin Long-Bright Drill Pipe Manufacturing Co., Ltd ....... 69.32

PRC-wide Entity .................................................................... ............................................................................................... 429.95 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of the 

merchandise under consideration from 

the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

August 18, 2010, with respect to the DPMaster Group and the separate rate 

respondents. With regard to the DPMaster Group and the separate rate 

respondents, we will instruct CBP to 

terminate suspension and to release any 

bond or other security, and refund any 

cash deposit made, to secure the 

payment of estimated antidumping 

duties with respect to entries of the 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after May 20, 2010 (i.e., 90 days prior to 

the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register), but before August 18, 

2010 (the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination). CBP shall 

continue to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond equal to the estimated 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds the U.S. price as shown above. 

These instructions suspending 

liquidation will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

With respect to the PRC-wide entity, 

pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act, and consistent with our finding of 

critical circumstances, pursuant to 

section 733(e)(2) of the Act, we will 

instruct CBP to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of the 

merchandise under consideration from 

the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

May 20, 2010, which is 90 days prior to 

the date on which the suspension of 

liquidation was first ordered, i.e., 90 

days prior to the date of publication of 

the Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. CBP shall continue to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the estimated amount by 

which the normal value exceeds the 

U.S. price as shown above. These 

instructions suspending liquidation will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Additionally, the Department 

determined in its final determination for 

the companion countervailing duty 

(‘‘CVD’’) investigation that the DP-Master 

Group’s merchandise benefited from 

export subsidies.41 Therefore, we will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which normal value 

exceeds U.S. price for the DP-Master 

Group, as indicated above, minus the 

amount determined to constitute an 

export subsidy.42

With respect to the separate rate 

respondents, we note that the rate 

applied in this proceeding as a separate 

rate is the calculated rate received by 

the DP-Master Group. As noted above, 

in the companion CVD investigation, 

the Department found that the DPMaster Group’s merchandise benefited 

from export subsidies during the POI 

and, consequently, all other exporters 

were found to have benefited from 

export subsidies based upon the DPMaster Group’s results. Therefore, for 

the separate rate respondents we will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which normal value 

exceeds U.S. price for the DP-Master 

Group, as indicated above, minus the 

amount determined to constitute an 

export subsidy.43

With respect to Baoshan and Yida, 

because their rates were found to be de 

minimis, the Department will not 

instruct CBP to require an antidumping 

cash deposit or the posting of a bond. 

With respect to the PRC-wide entity, 

as AFA, we applied to highest rate from 

the petition that we were able to 

corroborate. See the ‘‘Corroboration’’ 

section above. We note that, although in 

the companion CVD investigation the 

Department found that all-other 

exporters were found to have benefited 

from export subsidies, because we have 

applied AFA to the PRC-wide entity, we 

will not instruct CBP to deduct any 

export subsidy from the PRC-wide 

entity’s cash deposit rate. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. Because our final LTFV 

determination is affirmative, in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, within 45 days the ITC will 

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the merchandise under 

consideration. If the ITC determines that 

material injury or threat of material 

injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Notices 1971 

1A public version of these documents and all 

public documents are available on the public file 

located in the Department’s Central Records Unit 

(CRU), Room 7046 of the main Commerce building. 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or 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 determination and notice is 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: January 3, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Double Remedy 

Comment 2: Scope of the Investigation 

Comment 3: Whether the Department Should 

Correct the Preliminary Determination 

A. Whether the Department Correctly 

Calculated the Surrogate Value for Green 

Tubes 

B. Whether the Department Correctly 

Calculated Sealer (‘‘SEALRES’’) 

C. Whether the Department Overlooked 

Surrogate Values on the Record for Tool 

Joints 

Comment 4: Labor Rate 

Comment 5: Selection of Surrogate Financial 

Ratios 

A. The DP–Master Group 

B. Baoshan 

Company-Specific Issues 

The DP–Master Group 

Comment 6: Selection of a Surrogate Value 

for Tool Joints 

Comment 7: Selection of a Surrogate Value 

for Green Tubes 

Comment 8: Selection of a Surrogate Value 

for Alloy Steel Bars for Tool Joints 

Comment 9: Critical Circumstances 

Baoshan 

Comment 10: Date of Sale 

Comment 11: Market Economy Purchases of 

Iron Ore Pellet Made through Affiliated 

Companies 

Comment 12: Self-Produced Inputs 

Comment 13: By-Product Offset for 

Pulverized Fuel Ash 

Comment 14: Valuation of Baoshan’s Copper 

Plating Tolling Factors of Production 

Yida 

Comment 15: Yida’s Reporting of Rubber 

Pads as a Packing Material 

Comment 16: Yida’s Unreported Overhead 

Materials Discovered at Verification 

Changes From Verification 

A. DP–Master Group’s Phosphate Treatment 

Tolling Factors of Production 

B. Baoshan’s Indirect Selling Expenses 

C. Baoshan’s Credit Expenses 

[FR Doc. 2011–390 Filed 1–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–966] 

Drill Pipe From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 

Final Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

drill pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China (the PRC). For information on the 

estimated subsidy rates, see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 11, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Johnson or Eric B. Greynolds, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4793 

and (202) 482–6071, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This investigation covers 40 

programs. The respondent in this 

investigation is the DP Master Group, 

which consists of the following 

companies: DP Master Manufacturing 

Co., Ltd. (DP Master), Jiangyin Sanliang 

Petroleum Machinery Co., Ltd. (SPM), 

Jiangyin Liangda Drill Pipe Co., Ltd. 

(Liangda), Jiangyin Sanliang Steel Pipe 

Trading Co., Ltd. (SSP), and Jiangyin 

Chuangxin Oil Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd. 

(Chuangxin) (collectively, the DP Master 

Group). Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., 

Ltd. (Xigang) and Wuxi Seamless Pipe 

Co., Ltd. (WSP) were also selected 

mandatory respondents; however, both 

companies reported to the Department 

that they did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the period of investigation (POI). The 

petitioners in this investigation are 

VAM Drilling USA, Inc., Texas Steel 

Conversion, Inc., Rotary Drilling Tools, 

TMK IPSCO, and United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, AFL–CIO. 

Period of Investigation 

The POI for which we are measuring 

subsidies is January 1, 2009, through 

December 31, 2009, which corresponds 

to the PRC’s most recently completed 

fiscal year at the time we initiated this 

investigation. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the Department signed the 

Preliminary Determination on June 7, 

2010. See Drill Pipe From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 75 FR 33245 (June 11, 

2010) (Preliminary Determination). On 

June 18, 2010, we issued second 

supplemental questionnaires to the DP 

Master Group and the Government of 

the People’s Republic of China (GOC).1

On June 21, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

notice to align this final countervailing 

duty (CVD) determination with the final 

antidumping duty determination. See 

Drill Pipe From the People’s Republic of 

China: Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

75 FR 34974 (June 21, 2010). 

On June 30, 2010, the DP Master 

Group made a factual submission 

regarding technical specifications of 

casing, tubing, and drill pipe. We 

received the DP Master Group’s second 

supplemental questionnaire response on 

July 7, 2010, and the GOC’s second 

supplemental questionnaire response on 

July 9, 2010. On July 7, 8, and 12, 2010, 

we received requests to hold a hearing 

from the DP Master Group, petitioners, 

and the GOC, respectively. 

On July 8, 2010, petitioners submitted 

a critical circumstances allegation. On 

July 12, 2010, we issued to the DP 

Master Group a third supplemental 

questionnaire and received the 

company’s response on July 21, 2010. 

On July 13, 2010, petitioners submitted 

U.S. Census Data in support of its 

critical circumstances allegation. 

On August 2, 2010, we issued a third 

supplemental questionnaire to the GOC 

and received the government’s response 

on August 16, 2010. On August 3, 2010, 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS