[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47210-47225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22187]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-944]


Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 
Preliminary Negative Critical Circumstances Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce preliminarily determines that 
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters 
of certain oil country tubular goods from the People's Republic of 
China. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: September 15, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Neubacher, Shane Subler, Magd 
Zalok, Maryanne Burke, and Henry Almond, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5823, (202) 482-0189, (202) 
482-4162, (202) 482-5604, and (202) 482-0049, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History

    The following events have occurred since the publication of the 
Department of Commerce's (``Department'') notice of initiation in the 
Federal Register. See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the 
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigation, 74 FR 20678 (May 5, 2009) (``Initiation Notice''), and 
the accompanying Initiation Checklist.
    On May 13, 2009, Maverick Tube Corporation, United States Steel 
Corporation, TMK IPSCO, V&M Star LP, Wheatland Tube Corporation, Evraz 
Rocky Mountain Steel, and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 
International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (``United Steelworkers'') 
(collectively, the ``petitioners'') submitted new subsidy allegations 
requesting the Department to expand its countervailing duty (``CVD'') 
investigation to include additional subsidy programs.\1\ On June 4, 
2009, the Department declined to investigate these allegations as the 
petitioners did not allege the elements necessary for the imposition of 
CVDs or failed to support these allegations with reasonably available 
evidence. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 1, ``Analysis of Petitioners' New Subsidy Allegations'' (June 4, 
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the petitioners' Submission of New Subsidy Allegations 
(May 13, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 3, 2009, the Department selected four Chinese producers/
exporters of certain oil country tubular goods (``OCTG'') as mandatory 
respondents, Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (``Changbao''), 
Tianjin Pipe (Group) Co. (``TPCO''), Wuxi Seamless Oil Pipe Co., Ltd. 
(``Wuxi''), and Zhejiang Jianli Enterprise Co., Ltd. (``Jianli''). See 
Memorandum to John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ``Respondent Selection 
Memo'' (June 3, 2009). This memorandum is on file in the Department's 
Central Records Unit in Room 1117 of the main Department building 
(``CRU''). On the same date, we issued the CVD questionnaires to the 
Government of the People's Republic of China (``GOC''), Changbao, TPCO, 
Wuxi, and Jianli.
    On June 10, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission (``ITC'') 
issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of allegedly subsidized imports of certain 
oil country tubular goods from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''). See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from China; 
Determinations, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-463 and 731-TA-1159, 74 FR 
27559 (June 10, 2009).
    On June 15, 2009, the Department postponed the deadline for the 
preliminary determination in this investigation until September 8, 
2009. See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic 
of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the 
Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 28220 (June 15, 2009).
    We received responses to our questionnaire from the GOC, Changbao, 
TPCO, Wuxi, and Jianli on July 20, 2009. See the GOC's Original 
Questionnaire Response (July 20, 2009) (``GQR''), Changbao's Original 
Questionnaire Response (July 20, 2009) (``CQR''), TPCO's Original 
Questionnaire Response (July 20, 2009) (``TQR''), Wuxi's Original 
Questionnaire Response (July 20, 2009) (``WQR''), and Jianli's Original 
Questionnaire Response (July 20, 2009) (``JQR''). On August 26, 2009, 
TPCO provided a response on behalf of TPCO Charging Development Co., 
Ltd. (``TCQR''). On September 1, 2009, TPCO provided a response on 
behalf of Tianjin Pipe Investment Holding Co., Ltd. (``TPCO Holding 
QR'').
    We sent supplemental questionnaires to Changbao, TPCO, Wuxi, and 
Jianli on August 7, 2009 and to the GOC on July 27, 2009, August 11, 
2009 and August 28, 2009. We received responses to these supplemental 
questionnaires as follows: Changbao's First Supplemental Response on 
August 21, 2009; Jianli's First Supplemental Response on August 21, 
2009; TPCO's First Supplemental Response, part 1 on August 21, 2009, 
and part 2 on August 26, 2009; Wuxi's First Supplemental response 
(``W1SR'') on August 24, 2009; the GOC's Cross-Owned Affiliates 
Supplemental on August 3, 2009; GOC's First Supplemental Response 
(``G1SR'') on August 26, 2009; and GOC's Second Supplemental Response 
(``G2SR'') on September 1, 2009.
    On July 23, 2009, Maverick Tube Corporation requested that the 
Department extend the deadline for the submission of new subsidy 
allegations beyond the July 30, 2009 deadline established by the 
Department's regulations. On July 24, 2009, we declined to extend the 
deadline. On July 30, 2009, the petitioners submitted additional new 
subsidy allegations to the Department.\2\ Jianli and the GOC

[[Page 47211]]

filed comments on the new subsidy allegations on August 3 and 5, 2009, 
respectively. The Department is currently reviewing these new subsidy 
allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioners, collectively, alleged that the GOC confers 
a subsidy on OCTG through its export restrictions on steel rounds. 
Maverick Tube Corporation made allegations regarding subsidies to 
respondent Jianli. United States Steel Corporation made allegations 
regarding subsidies to respondents TPCO and Wuxi. TMK IPSCO, V&M 
Star L.P., Wheatland Tube, Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel and the United 
Steelworkers made allegations regarding subsidies to respondent 
Changbao.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 29, 2009, the petitioners submitted comments on the 
questionnaire responses filed by the GOC and the respondents.\3\ The 
petitioners provided comments on August 25, 26, 28 and 31, regarding 
certain issues for the preliminary determination.\4\ Jianli provided 
comments on September 1, 2009. The GOC provided comments on August 31, 
2009, and September 4, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Maverick Tube Corporation submitted comments on the JQR and 
GQR. United States Steel Corporation submitted comments on the TQR 
and WQR. TMK IPSCO, V&M Star L.P., Wheatland Tube, Evraz Rocky 
Mountain Steel and the United Steelworkers submitted comments on the 
CQR.
    \4\ Maverick Tube Corporation, TMK IPSCO, V&M Star L.P., 
Wheatland Tube, Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel and the United 
Steelworkers submitted comments relations related to the GOC. 
Maverick Tube Corporation submitted comments on issues relating to 
Jianli and the GOC. United States Steel Corporation submitted 
comments on the provision of steel rounds and coke, TPCO, and Wuxi. 
TMK IPSCO, V&M Star L.P., Wheatland Tube, Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel 
and the United Steelworkers submitted comments on Changbao.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
set aside a period of time in our Initiation Notice for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to 
submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of that notice. 
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 
19, 1997), and Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 20678. We did not receive 
comments concerning the scope of the antidumping duty (``AD'') and CVD 
investigations of OCTG from the PRC.

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation consists of OCTG, which are hollow 
steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and 
tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and 
alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (e.g., 
whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or 
not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (``API'') or non-API 
specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG 
products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG 
products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of 
the investigation also covers OCTG coupling stock. Excluded from the 
scope of the investigation are: casing or tubing containing 10.5 
percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached 
couplings; and unattached thread protectors.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 
7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 
7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 
7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 
7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 
7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 
7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 
7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 
7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 
7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 
7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 
7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 
7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 
7306.29.81.50.
    The OCTG coupling stock covered by the investigation may also enter 
under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 
7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 
7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 
7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 
7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 
7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 
7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 
7304.59.80.70, and 7304.59.80.80.
    The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes only, the written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e., the period 
of investigation (``POI''), is January 1, 2008, through December 31, 
2008.

Critical Circumstances

    In their April 8, 2009, petition, the petitioners requested that 
the Department make an expedited finding that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of OCTG from the PRC. Section 703(e)(1) 
of the Act states that if the petitioner alleges critical 
circumstances, the Department will determine, on the basis of 
information available to it at the time, if there is a reason to 
believe or suspect the alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent 
with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and 
whether there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over 
a relatively short period.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), because the petitioners 
submitted a critical circumstances allegation more than 20 days before 
the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the Department 
must issue a preliminary critical circumstances determination not later 
than the date of the preliminary determination. See, e.g., Change in 
Policy Regarding Timing of Issuance of Critical Circumstances 
Determinations, 63 FR 55364 (October 15, 1998). However, due to 
resource constraints and the complex issues involved in this case, we 
were unable to accommodate the petitioners' request that the Department 
make our determination on an expedited basis.
    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to section 703(e)(1)(B) of the 
Act, the Department normally compares the import volume of the subject 
merchandise for three months immediately preceding the filing of the 
petition (i.e., the base period) with the three months following the 
filing of the petition (i.e., the comparison period). See 19 CFR 
351.206(i). However, this regulation further provides that ``if the 
Secretary finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason 
to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding that 
a proceeding was likely, then the Secretary may consider a period of 
not less than three months from that earlier time.'' In their critical 
circumstances allegation, the petitioners allege that exporters and 
producers had reason to believe a proceeding covering OCTG from the PRC 
would likely be instituted as of July 2008. Consequently, the 
petitioners request that the Department use January through July 2008 
as the base period and July through December 2008 as the comparison 
period.
    In this allegation, the petitioners assert that producers and 
exporters had reason to believe a proceeding was likely well in advance 
to the ultimate filing of the petition based on the

[[Page 47212]]

following events: An October 2007 conference presentation alluding to a 
possible ``trade case;'' \5\ the Department's November 2007 CVD 
determinations covering carbon quality steel pipe and light-walled 
rectangular pipe and tube; Canada's March 2008 imposition of AD and CVD 
on ``seamless carbon or alloy steel oil and gas well casings;'' \6\ a 
March 2008 statement from a PRC distributor of OCTG that ``only the 
issuing of anti-dumping duties will be able to cut imports from 
China;'' the Department's initiation of AD and CVD proceedings on 
certain circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe from the 
Republic of Korea and the PRC; the May and June affirmative findings by 
the ITC and the Department regarding the above-mentioned pipe cases; a 
June 2008 Associated Press article which states that the other pipe 
rulings ``could be the first of a wave of victories by U.S. companies 
battling Chinese imports;'' and, in July 2008, the European Union 
(``EU'') initiated AD investigations of seamless tubular products from 
the PRC. See Volume IV of the Petition (``Critical Circumstances 
Allegation'') at 3-7 and Exhibits IV-1 through IV-7. The petitioners 
allege that these events culminated in the July 21, 2008, warning by 
Hou Yin of China Iron & Steel Association that ``the U.S. may start an 
anti-dumping investigation on Chinese seamless pipes soon.'' See 
Critical Circumstances Allegation at 6-7 and Exhibit IV-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Volume IV of the petition at 4 and page 15 of Exhibit V, 
which states, in relevant part: ``Those who believe that OCTG prices 
could spike also argue that a trade case could soon be filed against 
Chinese OCTG producers. But that case may be hard to argue with 
imports in general declining and mills reporting strong profits.''
    \6\ We note that although the petitioners characterize this 
Canadian proceeding as one covering OCTG, Canada did not initiate 
proceedings against OCTG until August 24, 2009. See http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/i-e/ad1385/ad1385-i09-ni-eng.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Department has found producers and exporters had 
reason to believe that a proceeding was likely prior to a petition 
being filed in prior cases,\7\ the evidence put forth by the 
petitioners in this case does not indicate that producers and exporters 
here had reason to believe that a proceeding was likely as of July 
2008. The petitioners point to a litany of events dating back to 
October 2007 to indicate that the industry was on notice of a potential 
case. However, the bulk of those events occurred in what the 
petitioners would have the Department use as the ``base period''--the 
period where we are to assume the industry did not have reason to 
believe a proceeding was likely. The petitioners point primarily to a 
reported statement by a representative of the China Iron & Steel 
Association that ``the U.S. may start an anti-dumping investigation on 
Chinese seamless pipes soon, following the EU.'' This statement, taken 
in the context of the other events cited by the petitioners, is not 
enough to demonstrate that producers, exporters, and importers of OCTG 
from the PRC had, or should have had, reason to believe the filing of a 
petition was likely as of July 2008. The events cited by the 
petitioners, unlike the events the Department has relied on in similar 
cases, are very speculative. Therefore, we find that the petitioners 
have not demonstrated that importers, exporters, or producers, had 
reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the 
proceeding that a proceeding covering OCTG from the PRC was likely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 (finding reason to 
believe a case was likely based upon widely disseminated newspaper 
articles stating: ``America's catfish industry, stung by dropping 
prices triggered by a flood of cheaper fish from Vietnam, is gearing 
up for a possible antidumping campaign'' and ``Vietnamese seafood 
exporters are entering a new war on the U.S. market, as American 
rivals are lobbying on an anti-dumping taxation''); and Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, 67 FR 55802 (August 30, 
2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 
(finding reason to believe a case was likely based upon trade 
publication which ``alerted steel wire rod importers, exporters, and 
producers the proceedings concerning the subject merchandise were 
likely in a number of countries'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(i), we are using 
the three months preceding the filing of the petition as the base 
period (i.e., January to March 2009) and the three months following the 
filing of the petition as the comparison period (i.e., April to June 
2009). The data provided by the respondents and the data for shipments 
by other exporters from the ITC's Dataweb (adjusted to remove shipments 
made by the four respondents participating in this investigation) show 
there were no massive increases in shipments, as required by 19 CFR 
351.206(h). For further discussion, see the Memorandum to the File Re 
``Critical Circumstances Analysis'' (September 8, 2009), on file in the 
Department's CRU. Notwithstanding whether any respondents received any 
subsidies inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures, because we find that there was no massive 
increase in shipments from the base period to the comparison period, we 
preliminarily find that critical circumstances do not exist with regard 
to OCTG from the PRC.

Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports From the PRC

    On October 25, 2007, the Department published Coated Free Sheet 
Paper from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 FR 60645 (October 25, 2007) 
(``CFS from the PRC''), and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (``CFS Decision Memorandum''). In CFS from the PRC, the 
Department found that:

given the substantial differences between the Soviet-style economies 
and China's economy in recent years, the Department's previous 
decision not to apply the CVD law to these Soviet-style economies 
does not act as a bar to proceeding with a CVD investigation 
involving products from China.

See CFS Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6. The Department has affirmed 
its decision to apply the CVD law to the PRC in subsequent final 
determinations. See, e.g., Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 2008), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum (``CWP Decision Memorandum''), at Comment 1.

    Additionally, for the reasons stated in the CWP Decision 
Memorandum, we are using the date of December 11, 2001, the date on 
which the PRC became a member of the World Trade Organization, as the 
date from which the Department will identify and measure subsidies in 
the PRC. See CWP Decision Memorandum, at Comment 2.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person: (A) withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to 
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form 
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as 
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to

[[Page 47213]]

the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.

GOC

    The Department is investigating the alleged provision of steel 
rounds for less than adequate remuneration by the GOC and we requested 
information from the GOC about the PRC's steel rounds industry in 
general, and about the specific companies that produced the steel 
rounds purchased by the mandatory respondents. In both respects, the 
GOC has failed to provide the requested information within the 
established deadlines.
    Regarding the PRC's steel rounds industry in general, the GOC 
responded in its July 20, 2009, initial questionnaire response that the 
term ``steel rounds'' was not clearly defined, but that it understood 
the term to refer to steel billets in a round shape that can be used to 
produce OCTG. Based on that definition, the GOC went on to state that 
there are no official statistics readily available regarding the 
production and consumption of this product in the PRC and that the GOC 
was working to gather the requested information. In its August 26, 
2009, supplemental questionnaire response, the GOC reported that it had 
not identified any additional information regarding the steel rounds 
industry in large part because steel rounds are an input product and 
the National Statistics Bureau does not maintain data on inputs. On 
August 28, 2009, the Department sent a second supplemental 
questionnaire on this issue, asking the GOC to provide the production 
and consumption generally of the broader category of products, ``steel 
billets.'' The GOC responded on September 1, 2009, that the data 
requested by the Department are not available because the National 
Statistics Bureau also does not keep data on this product.
    Regarding the second aspect of our investigation of this alleged 
subsidy, the specific companies that produced the steel rounds 
purchased by the mandatory respondents, the Department asked the GOC to 
provide particular ownership information for these producers so that we 
could determine whether the producers are ``authorities'' within the 
meaning of section 771(5)(B) of the Act. Specifically, we stated in our 
questionnaire that the Department normally treats producers that are 
majority owned by the government or a government entity as 
``authorities.'' Thus, for any steel rounds producers that were 
majority government-owned, the GOC only needed to provide the 
additional ownership information described below if it wished to argue 
that those producers were not ``authorities.'' For each of the steel 
rounds producers that were not majority-owned by the government, the 
Department requested the following information: translations of the 
2007 and 2008 annual reports (if the 2008 report was not yet available, 
the 2006 and 2007 annual reports); translation of the most recent 
capital verification report; translation of the most recent articles of 
association; the names of the ten largest shareholders and the total 
number of shareholders, indicating any affiliations between these 
shareholders and the government; the total level (percentage) of 
government ownership of the company's shares, the names of all 
government entities that own shares in the company, and the amount of 
shares held by each; a statement of whether any of the shares held by 
government entities have any special rights, priorities, or privileges, 
e.g., with regard to voting rights or other management or decision-
making for the company, or whether there are any restrictions on 
conducting, or acting through, extraordinary meetings of shareholders, 
or whether there any restrictions on the shares held by private 
shareholders; a description of the nature of the private shareholders' 
interest in the company, e.g., operational, strategic, or investment-
related, etc.; whether any members of the board of directors, or other 
senior company officials, were appointed by the government or by the 
government entities that hold shares in the company; whether any 
directors on the company's board of directors are government officials 
or otherwise affiliated with a government agency or other government-
owned companies; the extent to which the company has pursued government 
industrial policies or interests; the extent to which operational or 
strategic decisions that are made by the management or board of 
directors subject to government review or approval; whether the company 
was created pursuant to specific Chinese statutes; other means through 
which the government exercises influence over this company; and, if the 
company has a foreign strategic investor(s), the role of this 
shareholder and the rights of this shareholder with respect to the 
number of board members it may nominate and select, and whether the 
foreign investor nominated the president or CEO of the company.
    In its initial questionnaire response, the GOC provided a partial 
response addressing the creation of steel rounds producers by statute 
and stating that it does not exercise influence over the steel rounds 
producers in which it has an ownership interest. In its supplemental 
questionnaire responses, the GOC provided a list of the companies that 
produced the steel rounds purchased by the mandatory respondents and 
classified each according to one of three ownership types: SOE (have 50 
percent or more government ownership); privately held, or FIE (foreign 
invested enterprise). None of the requested documentation was provided 
for any of these producers. Instead, the GOC stated that ``the data 
gathered and supplied by the GOC and the respondents already in this 
investigation should accomplish the Department's purpose.''
    On August 28, 2009, the petitioners submitted comments that 
included information indicating that numerous steel rounds producers 
designated by the GOC as being privately held or as foreign invested 
enterprises (``FIEs'') are, in fact, majority-government owned. Thus, 
the GOC not only failed to provide the requested documentation 
regarding the ownership of the steel rounds producers, but record 
information indicates that the GOC's designation of certain producers 
was incorrect. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that the GOC 
has not acted to the best of its ability to provide the information 
needed for this investigation and, hence, has failed to cooperate. 
Consequently, an adverse inference is warranted in the application of 
facts available. As adverse facts available (``AFA''), we are treating 
all but one of the producers of steel rounds supplied to the mandatory 
respondents as authorities. The one exception is Tuoketuo County 
Mengfeng Special Steel Company, Ltd. (``Mengfeng''), which was owned by 
respondent, Wuxi, at the time Mengfeng began producing billets in 2008. 
As explained below under ``Subsidies Valuation Information--Attribution 
of Subsidies'' subsidies to this supplier are being attributed to OCTG 
produced and sold by Wuxi. Record evidence makes clear that Mengfeng 
was majority owned and controlled by Wuxi, a privately owned company.
    As noted above, the GOC also failed to provide requested 
information about the production and consumption of steel rounds or 
billets generally. In light of this, we preliminarily determine that 
the GOC has not acted to the best of its ability to provide the 
information needed for this investigation and, hence, has failed to 
cooperate. Consequently, an adverse inference is warranted in the 
application of facts available. As AFA, we are assuming that the GOC's 
dominance of the market in the PRC for

[[Page 47214]]

this input results in significant distortion of the prices and, hence, 
that use of an external benchmark is warranted.
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the result is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the 
adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 
8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures ``that 
the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to 
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of 
Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session (1994), at 870.
    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 or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is ``information 
derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or 
review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or 
any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject 
merchandise.'' See e.g., SAA, at 870. The Department considers 
information to be corroborated if it has probative value. See id. To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not 
prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative 
information. See SAA, at 869.
    To corroborate the Department's treatment of the companies that 
produced the steel rounds and billets purchased by the mandatory 
respondents as authorities and our finding that the GOC dominates the 
domestic market for this input, we are relying on Circular Welded 
Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 70961 
(November 24, 2008) (``Line Pipe from the PRC''). In that case, the 
Department determined that the GOC owned or controlled the entire hot-
rolled steel industry in the PRC. See Line Pipe from the PRC and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Evidence on 
the record of this investigation shows that many steel producers in the 
PRC are integrated, producing both long products (rounds and billets) 
and flat products (hot-rolled steel). (See Memorandum to the File, 
``Additional Information on Steel Rounds,'' dated September 8, 2009). 
Consequently, government ownership in the hot-rolled steel industry is 
a reasonable proxy for government ownership in the steel rounds and 
billets industry.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

    The average useful life (``AUL'') period in this proceeding, as 
described in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), is 15 years according to the U.S. 
Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range 
System. See U.S. Internal Revenue Service Publication 946 (2008), How 
to Depreciate Property, at Table B-2: Table of Class Lives and Recovery 
Periods. No party in this proceeding has disputed this allocation 
period.

Attribution of Subsidies

    The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that 
the Department will normally attribute a subsidy to the products 
produced by the corporation that received the subsidy. However, 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(ii)-(v) directs that the Department will attribute 
subsidies received by certain other companies to the combined sales of 
those companies if (1) cross-ownership exists between the companies, 
and (2) the cross-owned companies produce the subject merchandise, are 
a holding or parent company of the subject company, produce an input 
that is primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream 
product, or transfer a subsidy to a cross-owned company.
    According to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists 
between two or more corporations where one corporation can use or 
direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially 
the same ways it can use its own assets. This regulation states that 
this standard will normally be met where there is a majority voting 
interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two 
(or more) corporations. The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') has 
upheld the Department's authority to attribute subsidies based on 
whether a company could use or direct the subsidy benefits of another 
company in essentially the same way it could use its own subsidy 
benefits. See Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi v. United States, 166 F. 
Supp. 2d 593, 600-604 (CIT 2001).

Changbao

    Changbao responded on behalf of itself and one affiliate, Jiangsu 
Changbao Precision Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (``Precision''), a producer of 
subject merchandise. The nature of the affiliation is proprietary, but 
based on 19 CFR 351.525(b)(vi), we preliminarily determine that these 
companies are ``cross-owned.'' See CQR at 3. Therefore, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii), we are attributing the subsidies received by 
either Changbao and/or Precision to the combined sales of both 
companies.
    Changbao identified several other affiliated companies, but 
reported that these affiliates do not produce the subject merchandise 
or provide inputs. Id. Therefore, because these companies do not 
produce subject merchandise or otherwise fall within the situations 
described in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii)-(v), we do not reach the issue 
of whether these companies and Changbao are cross-owned within the 
meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) and we are not including these 
companies in our subsidy calculations.

Jianli

    Jianli responded on behalf of itself and three affiliates: Zhejiang 
Jianli Steel Tube Co., Ltd, (``Jianli Steel Tube''), Zhuji Jiansheng 
Machinery Co., Ltd. (formerly Zhejiang Jianli OCTG Seamless Pipe Co., 
Ltd.) (``Jiansheng''), and Zhejiang Jianli Industry Group Co., Ltd. 
(``Jianli Industry'') (collectively, the ``Jianli Group''). These 
companies are cross-owned within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(vi) by virtue of high levels of common ownership. Jianli 
reported that Jianli Steel Tube produced OCTG for sale to Jianli and 
Jiansheng for further processing. See JQR at 6. Jianli also reported 
that Jiansheng purchased OCTG from Jianli and Jianli Steel Tube for 
further processing and to sell both domestically and in the export 
market. Id. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii), we are 
attributing the subsidies received by Jianli, Jianli Steel Tube, or 
Jiansheng to the combined sales of these companies, excluding the sales 
between them.
    Regarding Jianli Industry, Jianli reported that this company is the 
holding company for the Jianli Group. See JQR at 4. Therefore, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii), we are attributing the subsidies received 
by Jianli Industry to the combined sales of the Jianli

[[Page 47215]]

Group, excluding sales between the group companies.
    In its questionnaire response, Jianli also acknowledged that it has 
several other affiliated parties in addition to the three companies 
named above. See JQR at 5. However, Jianli reported that these 
affiliates do not produce the subject merchandise and do not provide 
inputs to Jianli. Therefore, because these companies do not produce 
subject merchandise or otherwise fall within the situations outlined in 
19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii)-(v), we do not reach the issue of whether 
these companies and Jianli are cross-owned within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(vi) and we are not including these companies in our 
subsidy calculations.

TPCO

    As of this preliminary determination, TPCO has responded to the 
Department's original and supplemental questionnaires on behalf of 
itself; Tianjin Pipe Iron Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (``TPCO Iron''); 
Tianguan Yuantong Pipe Product Co., Ltd. (``Yuantong''); Tianjin Pipe 
International Economic and Trading Co., Ltd. (``IETC''); and TPCO 
Charging Development Co., Ltd. (``Charging''). These companies are 
cross-owned within the meaning 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) because of 
TPCO's substantial ownership position in each of them.
    TPCO stated that TPCO Iron provides ``molten and direct reduced 
iron'' to TPCO and that Yuantong provides ``threading and other 
finishing processes to TPCO Group's OCTG production.'' \8\ Because TPCO 
Iron produced an input to TPCO's production of subject merchandise 
during the POI, we are preliminarily attributing subsidies received by 
TPCO Iron to TPCO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv). 
Yuantong had direct involvement in the production of subject 
merchandise during the POI. Thus, we are preliminarily attributing 
subsidies received by Yuantong to TPCO, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See TQR at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding IETC, TPCO stated, ``{IETC{time}  is the trading company 
through which TPCO Group exports all subject merchandise.'' Because 
IETC exported subject merchandise during the POI, we are preliminarily 
cumulating the benefit from subsidies received by IETC with subsidies 
provided to TPCO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(c).
    With regard to Charging, TPCO stated that Charging acts as a 
trading company and does not produce any merchandise.\9\ Instead, 
Charging purchased and provided steel rounds to TPCO during the POI. 
Because Charging is not an input producer, we are not treating Charging 
as an input supplier as described in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv) (which 
refers to subsidies received by the input producer). Instead, for the 
preliminary determination, we are treating any subsidies conferred by 
the government's provision of steel rounds for less than adequate 
remuneration as having been transferred to TPCO through Charging's 
transfer of the steel rounds to TPCO, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See TCQR at 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the period December 11, 2003, through September 8, 2004, 
TPCO Holding held a majority interest in TPCO. Under 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(iii), we would normally attribute subsidies received by 
TPCO Holding during the period December 11, 2003, through September 8, 
2004, to TPCO. TPCO Holding's questionnaire response dated September 1, 
2009, however, indicated that TPCO Holding received no non-recurring 
subsidies during the period December 11, 2003, through September 8, 
2004.
    TPCO reported that it intended to provide a response on behalf of 
Tianjin TEDA Investment Holding Co., Ltd. (``TEDA''). TPCO explained 
that TEDA maintains a majority equity stake in TPCO. As of this 
preliminary determination, TPCO has not provided a questionnaire 
response.
    In a supplemental questionnaire dated August 7, 2009, we asked TPCO 
questions about certain affiliates that may have met the cross-
ownership standard under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) and one or more of 
the attribution standards under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii-v). TPCO 
provided responses to these questions in its August 21, 2009, response 
at 1-15. Based on TPCO's responses, we preliminarily determine that 
none of these affiliates met both the cross-ownership standard of 19 
CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) and one or more of the attribution standards 
under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii-v). Thus, we have not included any 
subsidies to these companies in the subsidy calculation.
    For other affiliated companies that TPCO identified in Exhibits 1 
and 2 of the TQR, TPCO either held a small ownership share during the 
POI or identified the companies as having no involvement with subject 
merchandise. Thus, we have not included any subsidies to these 
companies in the subsidy calculation.
    In their August 28, 2009 submission, the petitioners requested that 
the Department use the unconsolidated sales value of TPCO and its 
cross-owned affiliates (net of intercompany sales) to calculate the 
subsidy rate for each program. Under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii), the 
Department will attribute subsidies bestowed on a parent or holding 
company to the consolidated sales of the parent or holding company and 
its subsidiaries. TPCO was a parent company to other companies during 
the POI. On page 13 of the TQR, TPCO stated, ``TPCO Group consolidates 
those entities it holds more than 50% equity shares and also those 
indirectly owned subsidiaries it owns more than 50% equity shares.'' In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii), we are preliminarily 
attributing subsidies to TPCO to the consolidated sales of TPCO and its 
subsidiaries.
    Therefore, based on information currently on the record, we 
preliminarily determine that cross-ownership within the meaning of 19 
CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) exists between TPCO, TPCO Iron, Yuantong, IETC, 
and Charging. We are preliminarily attributing subsidies received by 
TPCO to the consolidated sales of TPCO and its subsidiaries. See 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(iii). TPCO Iron, Yuantong, and Charging are consolidated 
into TPCO's sales; thus, we are preliminarily attributing subsidies 
received by TPCO Iron, Yuantong, and Charging to TPCO's consolidated 
sales (excluding sales between TPCO and these three affiliates). For 
IETC, we preliminarily have cumulated IETC's subsidy benefits with 
TPCO's subsidy benefits. See 19 CFR 351.525(c).

Wuxi

    Wuxi identified numerous companies with which it is affiliated and 
responded on behalf of itself, a ``productive'' FIE and a producer of 
subject merchandise, as well as affiliates Jiangsu Fanli Steel Pipe 
Co., Ltd. (``Fanli''), a producer of subject merchandise, and Tuoketuo 
County Mengfeng Special Steel Co., Ltd. (``Mengfeng''), an affiliated 
input supplier. Based on Wuxi's high level of ownership in Fanli and 
Mengfeng, we preliminarily determine that Wuxi is cross-owned with 
Fanli and Mengfeng within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi). 
Fanli is a producer of subject merchandise and provided ``green pipe'' 
to Wuxi during the POI. See WQR, at 2. Thus, we are preliminarily 
attributing subsidies received by Wuxi and Fanli to their combined 
sales, excluding the sales between them, in accordance with 19

[[Page 47216]]

CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii). Wuxi's affiliate Mengfeng produces steel billets 
and provided a small amount to Wuxi during the POI. See WQR, at 2 and 
3. Record evidence supports that billets are dedicated to Wuxi's 
production of the downstream product, OCTG. Therefore, for purposes of 
this preliminary determination, subsidies received by Mengfeng would be 
attributed to Wuxi in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv). 
However, for this preliminary determination, we are finding no 
subsidies to Mengfeng.
    In a supplemental questionnaire dated August 7, 2009, we asked Wuxi 
about certain other affiliates. Wuxi provided responses to these 
questions in its supplemental questionnaire response. See W1SR, at 1-7. 
With respect to Wuxi's affiliate, Wuxi Longhua Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 
(``Wuxi Longhua''), which had been involved in the sales and processing 
of oil pipes prior to the POI, Wuxi did not provide a questionnaire 
response. Rather, Wuxi claims the conditions of 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(ii) through (v) do not apply to Wuxi Longhua because it 
did not produce subject merchandise, is not a holding company or a 
parent company of Wuxi and has not received a subsidy and transferred 
it to Wuxi. Wuxi also reported that while Wuxi Longhua had previously 
resold inputs to Wuxi, it did not produce or resell inputs to Wuxi 
during the POI. See W1SR, at 2 and 3. We received Wuxi's supplemental 
response shortly before the deadline for this preliminary determination 
and have not been able to fully analyze Wuxi Longhua's relationship 
with Wuxi and its involvement in the production of subject merchandise 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6). Consequently, for this 
preliminary determination, we are excluding Wuxi Longhua from the 
subsidy calculation, but will continue to examine this issue for the 
final determination.
    Wuxi also corrected certain information in its W1SR with respect to 
affiliate Wuxi Huayi Investment Company (``Wuxi Huayi''). See Wuxi's 
correction letter, dated August 24, 2009. Details of Wuxi Huayi's 
relationship are proprietary and, therefore, are addressed separately. 
See Preliminary Determination Calculation Memorandum for Wuxi, dated 
September 8, 2009. We received Wuxi's correction letter shortly before 
the deadline for this preliminary determination and have not been able 
to fully analyze Wuxi Huayi's relationship with Wuxi and its 
involvement in the production of subject merchandise in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.525(b)(6). Consequently, for this preliminary determination, 
we are excluding Wuxi Huayi from the subsidy calculation, but will 
continue to examine this issue for the final determination.
    After examining additional information from Wuxi's responses, we 
find the remaining affiliates do not produce subject merchandise, or 
otherwise fall within the situations described in 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(iii) to (v). As such, we have preliminarily excluded 
these companies from the subsidy calculations.

Benchmarks and Discount Rates

Benchmarks for Short-Term RMB Denominated Loans

    Section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act explains that the benefit for 
loans is the ``difference between the amount the recipient of the loan 
pays on the loan and the amount the recipient would pay on a comparable 
commercial loan that the recipient could actually obtain on the 
market.'' Normally, the Department uses comparable commercial loans 
reported by the company for benchmarking purposes.\10\ If the firm did 
not have any comparable commercial loans during the period, the 
Department's regulations provide that we ``may use a national interest 
rate for comparable commercial loans.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(i).
    \11\ See 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act indicates that the 
benchmark should be a market-based rate. For the reasons explained in 
CFS from the PRC,\12\ loans provided by Chinese banks reflect 
significant government intervention in the banking sector and do not 
reflect rates that would be found in a functioning market. Because of 
this, any loans received by respondents from private Chinese or 
foreign-owned banks would be unsuitable for use as benchmarks under 19 
CFR 351.505(a)(2)(i). Similarly, we cannot use a national interest rate 
for commercial loans as envisaged by 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii). 
Therefore, because of the special difficulties inherent in using a 
Chinese benchmark for loans, the Department is selecting an external 
market-based benchmark interest rate. The use of an external benchmark 
is consistent with the Department's practice. For example, in Softwood 
Lumber from Canada, the Department used U.S. timber prices to measure 
the benefit for government-provided timber in Canada.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See CFS from the PRC at Comment 10.
    \13\ See Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances 
Determination: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada, 67 FR 
15545 (April 2, 2002) (``Softwood Lumber from Canada'') and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Analysis of 
Programs, Provincial Stumpage Programs Determined to Confer 
Subsidies, Benefit.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are calculating the external benchmark using the regression-
based methodology first developed in CFS from the PRC \14\ and more 
recently updated in LWTP from the PRC.\15\ This benchmark interest rate 
is based on the inflation-adjusted interest rates of countries with per 
capita GNIs similar to the PRC, and takes into account a key factor 
involved in interest rate formation, that of the quality of a country's 
institutions, that is not directly tied to the state-imposed 
distortions in the banking sector discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See CFS from the PRC at Comment 10.
    \15\ See Lightweight Thermal Paper From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 
57323 (October 2, 2008) (``LWTP from the PRC'') and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum (``LWTP Decision Memo'') at 20-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the methodology developed in CFS from the PRC, we first 
determined which countries are similar to the PRC in terms of gross 
national income (``GNI''), based on the World Bank's classification of 
countries as: low income; lower-middle income; upper-middle income; and 
high income. The PRC falls in the lower-middle income category, a group 
that includes 55 countries as of July 2007. As explained in CFS from 
the PRC, this pool of countries captures the broad inverse relationship 
between income and interest rates.
    Many of these countries reported lending and inflation rates to the 
International Monetary Fund and they are included in that agency's 
international financial statistics (``IFS''). With the exceptions noted 
below, we have used the interest and inflation rates reported in the 
IFS for the countries identified as ``low middle income'' by the World 
Bank. First, we did not include those economies that the Department 
considered to be non-market economies for AD purposes for any part of 
the years in question, for example: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, 
Georgia, Moldova, Turkmenistan. Second, the pool necessarily excludes 
any country that did not report both lending and inflation rates to IFS 
for those years. Third, we removed any country that reported a rate 
that was not a lending rate or that based its lending rate on foreign-
currency denominated instruments. For example, Jordan reported a 
deposit rate, not a lending rate, and the rates reported by Ecuador and 
Timor L'Este are dollar-denominated rates; therefore, the rates for 
these three countries have been

[[Page 47217]]

excluded. Finally, for each year the Department calculated an 
inflation-adjusted short-term benchmark rate, we have also excluded any 
countries with aberrational or negative real interest rates for the 
year in question.
    The resulting inflation-adjusted benchmark lending rates are 
provided in the respondents' preliminary calculation memoranda. See 
e.g., Preliminary Determination Calculation Memoranda for, Jiangsu 
Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd., Tianjin Pipe (Group) Co., Wuxi Seamless 
Oil Pipe Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Jianli Enterprise Co., Ltd. (September 
8, 2009). Because these are inflation-adjusted benchmarks, it is 
necessary to adjust the respondents' interest payments for inflation. 
This was done using the PRC inflation figure as reported in the IFS. 
Id.

Benchmarks for Long-Term Loans

    The lending rates reported in the IFS represent short- and medium-
term lending, and there are not sufficient publicly available long-term 
interest rate data upon which to base a robust benchmark for long-term 
loans. To address this problem, the Department has developed an 
adjustment to the short- and medium-term rates to convert them to long-
term rates using Bloomberg U.S. corporate BB-rated bond rates. See 
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Investigation 
Determination, 73 FR 35642 (June 24, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum (``LWRP Decision Memo'') at 8. In Citric Acid from 
the PRC, this methodology was revised by switching from a long-term 
mark-up based on the ratio of the rates of BB-rated bonds to applying a 
spread which is calculated as the difference between the two-year BB 
bond rate and the n-year BB bond rate, where n equals or approximates 
the number of years of the term of the loan in question. See Citric 
Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 16836 (April 
13, 2009) (``Citric Acid from the PRC'') and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum (``Citric Acid Decision Memo'') at Comment 14. 
Finally, because these long-term rates are net of inflation as noted 
above, we adjusted the PRC respondents' payments to remove inflation.

Benchmarks for Foreign Currency-Denominated Loans

    For foreign currency-denominated short-term loans, the Department 
used as a benchmark the one-year dollar interest rates for the London 
Interbank Offering Rate (``LIBOR''), plus the average spread between 
LIBOR and the one-year corporate bond rates for companies with a BB 
rating. See LWTP Decision Memo at 10. For long-term foreign currency-
denominated loans, the Department added the applicable short-term LIBOR 
rate to a spread which is calculated as the difference between the one-
year BB bond rate and the n-year BB bond rate, where n equals or 
approximates the number of years of the term of the loan in question.

Discount Rates

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)(A), we have used, as our 
discount rate, the long-term interest rate calculated according to the 
methodology described above for the year in which the government agreed 
to provide the subsidy.

Analysis of Programs

    Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our 
questionnaires, we preliminarily determine the following:

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable

A. Policy Loans

    The Department is examining whether OCTG producers receive 
preferential lending through state-owned commercial or policy banks. 
According to the allegation, preferential lending to the OCTG industry 
is supported by the GOC through the issuance of national and provincial 
five-year plans; industrial plans for the steel sector; catalogues of 
encouraged industries, and other government laws and regulations. The 
GOC has responded that policy guidance documents do not require banks 
to provide preferential, discounted, or policy loans to specific 
enterprises. Moreover, banking laws in the PRC require commercial banks 
to operate independently of the government and in accordance with 
commercial norms. Thus, the GOC claims that there is no policy lending 
in regard to the OCTG industry as alleged by the petitioners.
    Based on our review of the information and responses of the GOC and 
mandatory respondents, we preliminarily determine that loans received 
by the OCTG industry from state-owned commercial banks (``SOCBs'') were 
made pursuant to government directives.
    Record evidence demonstrates that the GOC, through its directives, 
has highlighted and advocated the development of the OCTG industry. At 
the national level, the GOC has placed an emphasis on the development 
of high-end, value-added steel products through foreign investment as 
well as through technological research, development, and innovation. In 
laying out this strategy, the GOC has identified the specific products 
it has in mind. For example, an ``objective'' of The 10th Five-Year 
Plan for the Metallurgical Industry was to develop key steel types that 
were mainly imported; high strength, anticrushing and corrosion 
resistant petroleum pipe was among the listed products. Moreover, among 
the ``Policy Measures'' set out in the plan for achieving its 
objectives was the encouragement of enterprises to cooperate with 
foreign enterprises, particularly in the production and development of 
high value-added products and high-tech products. See GQR at Exhibit 
GOC-A-1.
    Similarly, in the Development Policies for the Iron and Steel 
Industry (July 2005) at Article 16, the GOC states that it will `` * * 
* enhance the R&D, design, and manufacture level in relation to the key 
technology, equipment and facilities for the Chinese steel industry.'' 
To accomplish this, the GOC states it will provide support to key steel 
projects relying on domestically produced and newly developed equipment 
and facilities, through tax and interest assistance, and scientific 
research expenditures. See GQR at Exhibit GOC-A-21. Later in 2005, the 
GOC implemented the Decision of the State Council on Promulgating the 
``Interim Provisions on Promoting Industrial Structure Adjustment'' for 
Implementation (No. 40 (2005)) (``Decision 40'') in order to achieve 
the objectives of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan. See Memorandum to File 
from David Neubacher, Analyst regarding ``Additional Documents Placed 
on the Record'' (September 8, 2009). Decision 40 references the 
Directory Catalogue on Readjustment of Industrial Structure 
(``Industrial Catalogue''), which outlines the projects which the GOC 
deems ``encouraged,'' ``restricted,'' and ``eliminated,'' and describes 
how these projects will be considered under government policies. OCTG 
was named in the Industrial Catalogue as an ``encouraged project.'' See 
Petition at Exhibit III-14. For the ``encouraged'' projects, Decision 
40 outlines several support options available to the government, 
including financing.
    Turning to the provincial and municipal plans, the Department has 
described the inter-relatedness of national level plans and directives 
with those at the sub-national level. See LWTP Decision Memo at Comment 
6.

[[Page 47218]]

Based on our review of the sub-national plans submitted by the GOC in 
this investigation, we find that they mirror the national government's 
objective of supporting and promoting the production of innovative and 
high-value added products, including OCTG. Examples from the five-year 
plans of the provinces and/or municipalities where each of the 
respondents is located follow:

    Outline of the 10th Five-Year Plan for the National Economic and 
Social Development of Tianjin City: ``For metallurgical industry, we 
attach importance to the development of high quality and efficiency 
steel products and high grade metal products, such as seamless steel 
tube and cold rolled sheet, and carry out the oil steel pipe 
extension and east-movement project of steel.'' See GQR at Exhibit 
GOC-A-15.
    Outline of the 11th Five-Year Program for the Development of the 
Industrial Economy of Tianjin: ``We shall also focus on those steel 
tube industries mainly engaged in oil country tubular goods and high 
grade furnace tubular goods through careful thorough efforts and 
build a new specialized oil country tubular goods production base 
placing oil casing first and high added value products such as oil 
pipes and drill pipes second.'' See GQR at Exhibit GOC-A-16.
    Notice of Tianjin Municipal People's Government Concerning the 
Printing and Distribution of the Outline for the 11th Five-Year 
Program for the National Economic and Social Development in Tianjin 
Binhai New Area: ``4. Constructing deep processing base of petroleum 
steel pipe and high quality steel material--We shall quicken 
technology innovation and structural adjustment, extend industrial 
link, enhance the concentration effort, strive the commanding point 
of the industry, consolidate and develop the leading position of 
deep processing of petroleum steel pipe and high quality steel 
material.'' See G1SR at Exhibit GOC-SUPP-18.
    An Outline of Adjustment and Development Plan for Industrial 
Structure of Jiangsu Province During the 11th Five-Year Plan: 
``Emphasize on the development of high-quality steel products with 
high added value and high technological content such as motor 
plates, shipbuilding steel plates, * * * pinion steel, oil well 
billet, special pipes and sticks, and highly qualified high-carbon 
hard wires.'' See G1SR at Exhibit GOC-SUPP-15.
    The Outline of the 11th Five-Year Program for the National 
Economic and Social Development in Xuyi County: ``Cultivating large-
scale enterprises--Adopting the way of developing large-scale 
enterprises and expanding existing enterprises and conglomerates. We 
should encourage and assist the enterprises, such as * * * Fanli 
Steel Pipes.'' See G1SR at Exhibit GOC-SUPP-9.
    Outline of the 11th Five-Year Program for the National Economic 
and Social Development of Wuxi: ``New Material Industry. We will 
take such industries as metallurgy, chemical industry and so on as 
the foundation, prioritize products of several domains such as new 
composition material and high polymer * * * special steel and 
product, * * * and so on,'' See GQR at Exhibit GOC-A-12.
    The Outline of the Tenth Five-Year Plan for the National Economy 
and Social Development of Zhejiang Province: ``make great efforts to 
improve the industrial level, product grade and the international 
competitiveness'' (with regard to the province's goal of adjusting 
and optimizing the industrial structure). See GQR at Exhibit GOC-A-
5.
    The Outline of the 11th Five-Year Program for the National 
Economy and Social Development in Zhejiang Province: ``We will 
change the economic growth pattern. We will speed up the pace of 
independent innovation, strengthen the supporting role of talented 
persons and science and technology in economic growth, insist on 
taking an industrialized path, and push forward the strategic 
readjustment of economic structure.'' See GQR at Exhibit GOC-A-6.
    The 11th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social 
Development of Zhuji: ``Improving input mechanism and constructing 
`modern industrial highland.' We will help enterprises to put 
projects into places in accordance with industry guiding directory 
of the state, forcefully renovate and upgrade traditional 
industries, and specially foster and develop high-tech industries 
and more potent new industries.'' See GQR at Exhibit GOC-A-8.

    Finally, we examined the loan documentation provided by the GOC and 
noted language for certain loans which also reflects the GOC's 
directives to support the OCTG industry. As this information is 
business proprietary, it is discussed in a separate memorandum. See 
Memorandum to the File from David Neubacher regarding ``BPI Loan Memo'' 
(September 8, 2009).
    In addition to its claim that policy guidance documents do not 
provide for preferential, discounted, or policy loans to specific 
enterprises, the GOC has cited to the Circular on Improving the 
Administration of Special Loans (YINFA {1999{time}  No. 228) 
(``Circular'') and Articles 4 and 7 of the Law of the People's Republic 
of China on Commercial Banks (``Banking Law'') to argue that policy 
loans are prohibited and that commercial banks in the PRC operate 
independently from the government and base their decisions on market 
norms. See G1SR at 7. First, we note that the Circular was written 
expressly to four specific banks (Agricultural Bank of China, 
Industrial Bank of China, Bank of China, and China Construction Bank), 
and not to commercial banks in general. Moreover, we note that the 
Banking Law, at Article 34, also states that banks shall ``carry out 
their loan business upon the needs of the national economy and the 
social development and under the guidance of the State industrial 
policies.'' See G1SR at GOC-SUPP-19. Thus, the Banking Law, in some 
measure, stipulates that lending procedures be based on the guidance of 
government industrial policy.
    As noted in Citric Acid from the PRC: \16\

    \16\ See Citric Acid from the PRC, 74 FR 16836 and Citric Acid 
Decision Memo, at Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the Department looks to whether government plans or 
other policy directives lay out objectives or goals for developing 
the industry and call for lending to support those objectives or 
goals. Where such plans or policy directives exist, then we will 
find a policy lending program that is specific to the named industry 
(or producers that fall under that industry).\17\ Once that finding 
is made, the Department relies upon the analysis undertaken in CFS 
from the PRC \18\ to further conclude that national and local 
government control over the SOCBs results in the loans being a 
financial contribution by the GOC. \19\

    \17\ See CFS Decision Memorandum, at 49; and LWTP Decision Memo, 
at 98.
    \18\ See CFS Decision Memorandum, at Comment 8.
    \19\ See OTR Tires from the PRC IDM, at 15; and LWTP Decision 
Memo, at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, on the basis of the record information described above, 
we preliminarily determine that the GOC has a policy in place to 
encourage the development of production of OCTG through policy lending. 
Therefore, the loans to OCTG producers from Policy Banks and SOCBs in 
the PRC constitute a direct financial contribution from the government, 
pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, and they provide a benefit 
equal to the difference between what the recipients paid on their loans 
and the amount they would have paid on comparable commercial loans (see 
section 771(5)(e)(2)). Finally, we determine that the loans are de jure 
specific because of the GOC's policy, as illustrated in the government 
plans and directives, to encourage and support the growth and 
development of the OCTG industry.
    To calculate the benefit under the policy lending program, we used 
the benchmarks described under ``Subsidies Valuation--Benchmarks and 
Discount Rates'' above. See also 19 CFR 351.505(c). On this basis, we 
determine that Changbao received a countervailable subsidy of 0.30 
percent ad valorem, Jianli received a countervailable subsidy of 0.02 
percent ad valorem, TPCO received a countervailable subsidy of 1.59 
percent ad valorem, and Wuxi received a countervailable subsidy of 1.35 
percent ad valorem under this program.

[[Page 47219]]

B. Export Loans From the Export-Import Bank of China

    On page 17 of the GQR, the GOC reported that the Export-Import Bank 
of China (``EIBC'') provided TPCO with three loans that were 
outstanding during the POI. The GOC claimed that two of the loans 
related to non-export business, and that the third loan did not relate 
to TPCO's production of OCTG.
    Based on the proprietary description of these loans at page 17 of 
the GOC's response, however, we preliminarily find that one of the 
loans is a countervailable export loan from the EIBC. As a loan from a 
government policy bank, this loan constitutes a direct financial 
contribution from the government, pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of 
the Act. We further determine that the export loan is specific under 
section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because receipt of the financing is 
contingent upon export. Also, we determine that the export loan confers 
a benefit within the meaning of section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act.
    To calculate the benefit under this program, we compared the amount 
of interest paid against the export loan to the amount of interest that 
would have been paid on a comparable commercial loan. As our benchmark, 
we used the short-term interest rates discussed above in the 
``Benchmarks and Discount Rates'' section. To calculate the net 
countervailable subsidy rate, we divided the benefit by TPCO's export 
sales value for the POI. On this basis, we determine the net 
countervailable subsidy rate to be 0.08 percent ad valorem.

C. Provision of Steel Rounds for Less Than Adequate Remuneration

    As discussed under ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse 
Inferences,'' above, we are preliminarily relying on ``adverse facts 
available'' for our analysis regarding the GOC's provision of steel 
rounds and billets to OCTG producers. First, as a result of the GOC's 
failure to provide requested ownership information for the companies 
that produced the steel rounds and billets purchased by the mandatory 
respondents in this investigation, we are treating all of the steel 
rounds and billets, except those supplied by one cross-owned supplier 
to Wuxi, as having been provided by an ``authority,'' within the 
meaning of section 771(5)(B). Therefore, we preliminarily determine 
that the OCTG producers have received a financial contribution in the 
form of the provision of a good. See section 771(5)(D)(iii).
    To determine whether this financial contribution results in a 
subsidy to the OCTG producers, we followed 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2) for 
identifying an appropriate market-based benchmark for measuring the 
adequacy of the remuneration for the steel rounds and billets. The 
potential benchmarks listed in this regulation, in order of preference 
are: (1) Market prices from actual transactions within the country 
under investigation for the government-provided good (e.g., actual 
sales, actual imports, or competitively run government auctions) 
(``tier one'' benchmarks); (2) world market prices that would be 
available to purchasers in the country under investigation (``tier 
two'' benchmarks); or (3) prices consistent with market principles 
based on an assessment by the Department of the government-set price 
(``tier three'' benchmarks). As we explained in Softwood Lumber from 
Canada, the preferred benchmark in the hierarchy is an observed market 
price from actual transactions within the country under investigation 
because such prices generally would be expected to reflect most closely 
the prevailing market conditions of the purchaser under investigation. 
See Softwood Lumber from Canada and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at ``Analysis of Programs, Provincial Stumpage Programs 
Determined to Confer Subsidies, Benefit.''
    Beginning with tier one, we must determine whether the prices from 
actual sales transactions involving Chinese buyers and sellers are 
significantly distorted. As explained in the CVD Preamble: ``Where it 
is reasonable to conclude that actual transaction prices are 
significantly distorted as a result of the government's involvement in 
the market, we will resort to the next alternative {tier two{time}  in 
the hierarchy.'' See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 
65377 (November 25, 1998) (``CVD Preamble''). The CVD Preamble further 
recognizes that distortion can occur when the government provider 
constitutes a majority, or in certain circumstances, a substantial 
portion of the market.
    As explained under ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse 
Inferences,'' above, we are preliminarily relying on ``adverse facts 
available'' to determine that GOC authorities play a significant role 
in the PRC market for steel rounds and billets. Because of the dominant 
role played by GOC authorities in the production of steel rounds and 
billets, we preliminarily determine that the prices actually paid in 
the PRC for steel rounds and billets during the POI are not appropriate 
tier one benchmarks under our regulations.
    Turning to tier two benchmarks, i.e., world market prices available 
to purchasers in the PRC, the petitioners have put on the record data 
from the Steel Business Briefing (``SBB'') regarding monthly export 
prices for billet from Latin America, Turkey, and the Black Sea/Baltic. 
See the petitioners' April 20, 2009, submission, ``Response to the 
Department Questionnaire Concerning the Imposition of Countervailing 
Duties,'' at Exhibit 22, Attachments A-C.
    We preliminarily determine that the SBB data should be used to 
derive a world market price for steel rounds and billets that would be 
available to purchasers in the PRC. We note that the Department has 
relied on pricing data from industry publications such as SBB in recent 
CVD proceedings involving the PRC. See CWP Decision Memorandum at 11 
and LWRP Decision Memo at 9. Also, 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(ii), states 
that where there is more than one commercially available world market 
price, the Department will average the prices to the extent 
practicable. Therefore, we first derived a world market SBB price by 
averaging the monthly prices for Latin America, Turkey and the Black 
Sea/Baltic.
    Under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(iv), when measuring the adequacy of 
remuneration under tier one or tier two, the Department will adjust the 
benchmark price to reflect the price that a firm actually paid or would 
pay if it imported the product, including delivery charges and import 
duties. Regarding delivery charges, we have included the freight costs 
that would be incurred in shipping wire rod from Latin America, Turkey 
and the Black Sea/Baltic to the PRC. We have also added import duties, 
as reported by the GOC, and the VAT applicable to imports of steel 
rounds and billet into the PRC.
    Comparing the adjusted benchmark prices to the prices paid by the 
respondents for their steel rounds and billet, we preliminarily 
determine that steel rounds and billet were provided for less than 
adequate remuneration and that a subsidy exists in the amount of the 
difference between the benchmark and what the respondents paid. See 19 
CFR 351.511(a).
    Finally, with respect to specificity, the GOC has stated that steel 
rounds are used by the OCTG industry. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that this subsidy is specific because the recipients are 
limited in number. See section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the GOC conferred a 
countervailable subsidy on Changbao, Jianli, TPCO, and Wuxi through the

[[Page 47220]]

provision of steel rounds for less than adequate remuneration. To 
calculate the subsidy, we took the difference between the delivered 
world market price and what each respondent paid for steel rounds 
during the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily calculated a net 
countervailable ad valorem subsidy rate of 24.03 percent for Changbao, 
30.45 percent for Jianli, 5.89 percent for TPCO, and 21.45 percent for 
Wuxi.

D. The State Key Technology Project Fund

    TPCO reported that it received funds from the State Key Technology 
Renovation Fund in 2003. In Exhibit V-1 of the GQR, the GOC provided 
the notice for implementation of the fund. The notice states that the 
purpose of the program is to ``support the technological renovation of 
key industries, key enterprises and key products. * * * The notice also 
states, ``The enterprises shall be mainly selected from large-sized 
state-owned enterprises and large-sized state holding enterprises among 
the 512 key enterprises, 120 pilot enterprise groups and the leading 
enterprises of the industries.''
    The Department has previously found this program to be 
countervailable. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Final Negative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, 73 FR 40480 (July 15, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum.
    We preliminarily determine that TPCO received a countervailable 
subsidy under the State Key Technology Renovation Fund. We find that 
this grant is a direct transfer of funds within the meaning of section 
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, providing a benefit in the amount of the 
grant. See 19 CFR 351.504(a). Further, we preliminarily determine that 
the grant provided under this program is limited as a matter of law to 
certain enterprises; i.e., large-sized state-owned enterprises and 
large-sized state holding enterprises among the 512 key enterprises. 
Hence, we preliminarily find that the subsidy is specific under section 
771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    To calculate the countervailable subsidy, we used our standard 
methodology for non-recurring grants. See 19 CFR 351.524(b). Because 
the grant exceeded 0.5 percent of TPCO's sales in the year the grant 
was approved (i.e., 2003), we have allocated the benefit over the 15-
year AUL using the discount rate described under the ``Benchmarks and 
Discount Rates'' section above. We attributed the subsidy amount for 
the POI to TPCO's consolidated sales. On this basis, we preliminarily 
determine the countervailable subsidy to be 0.01 percent ad valorem for 
TPCO.

E. ``Two Free, Three Half'' Program

    Under Article 8 of the FIE Tax Law, an FIE that is ``productive'' 
and is scheduled to operate for more than ten years may be exempted 
from income tax in the first two years of profitability and pay income 
taxes at half the standard rate for the next three years. See GQR at 
Exhibit GOC-FF-3. The Department has previously found this program 
countervailable. See, e.g., CFS Decision Memorandum at 11-12 (Analysis 
of Programs, I. Programs Determined to be Countervailable for GE, B. 
The ``Two-Free/Three Half'' Program) and Citric Acid Decision Memo at 
15-16 (Analysis of Programs. I. Programs Determined to be 
Countervailable, D. The ``Two-Free, Three Half'' Program).
    Jianli Steel Tube and Jiansheng reported using this program during 
the POI. See JQR at 30.
    We preliminarily determine that the exemption or reduction of the 
income tax paid by productive FIEs under this program confers a 
countervailable subsidy. The exemption/reduction is a financial 
contribution in the form of revenue forgone by the GOC and it provides 
a benefit to the recipient in the amount of the tax savings. See 
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.509(a)(1). We also 
preliminarily determine that the exemption/reduction afforded by this 
program is limited as a matter of law to certain enterprises, i.e., 
``productive'' FIEs and, hence, is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) 
of the Act. See CFS Decision Memorandum, at Comment 14.
    To calculate the benefit, we treated the income tax savings enjoyed 
by Jianli Steel Tube, and Jiansheng as a recurring benefit, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1). To compute the amount of the tax savings, we 
compared the income tax rate the above companies would have paid in the 
absence of the program (30 percent) with the income tax rate the 
company actually paid (15 or 0 percent). We divided Jianli Steel Tube's 
and Jiansheng's tax savings received during the POI by the combined 
sales of Jianli, Jinali Steel Tube, and Jiansheng, minus inter-company 
sales during the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that 
Jianli received a countervailable subsidy of 0.20 percent ad valorem 
under this program.

F. Preferential Tax Program for Foreign-Invested Enterprises Recognized 
as High or New Technology Enterprises

    According to the Circular of the State Council Concerning the 
Approval of the National Development Zones for New and High Technology 
Industries and the Relevant Policies and Provisions at Article 2 and 4 
of Appendix III (``Regulations on the Tax Policy for the National New 
and High Technology Industries Parks''), new and high technology 
enterprises located in new and high technology parks shall pay a 
reduced income tax rate of 15 percent. See GQR at Exhibit GOC-FF-1. The 
GOC noted that a similar rule is provided at Article 7.3 of the FIE 
Income Tax Law and Article 73(5) of the Implementing Rules of the 
Foreign Investment Enterprise and Foreign Enterprise Income Tax Law. 
See GQR at 96.
    Wuxi reported that it used the program during the POI. See WQR at 
26.
    We preliminarily determine that the reduction in the income tax 
paid by high or new technology FIEs under this program confers a 
countervailable subsidy. The exemption/reduction is a financial 
contribution in the form of revenue forgone by the government and it 
provides a benefit to the recipient in the amount of the tax savings. 
See section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.509(a)(1). We also 
preliminarily determine that the reduction afforded by this program is 
limited as a matter of law to certain enterprises, i.e., new and high 
technology FIEs, and, hence, is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of 
the Act. The program is also specific pursuant to 771(5A)(D)(iv) as 
only ratified new and high technology enterprises located in new and 
high technology parks approved by the State Council can pay the reduced 
tax rate.
    To calculate the benefit for Wuxi, we treated the income tax 
savings enjoyed by the company as a recurring benefit, consistent with 
19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), and divided the company's tax savings received 
during the POI by the combined sales of Wuxi and Fanli. To compute the 
amount of the tax savings, we compared the rate Wuxi would have paid in 
the absence of the program (30 percent) with the rate the company paid 
(15 percent). On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy attributable to Wuxi to be 1.63 percent ad 
valorem under this program.

[[Page 47221]]

G. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for ``Productive'' 
Foreign-Invested Enterprises

    Under Article 9 of the FIE Tax Law, the provincial governments have 
the authority to exempt FIEs from the local income tax of three 
percent. See GQR at Exhibit GOC-FF-3. According to the Regulations on 
Exemption and Reduction of Local Income Tax of FIEs in Jiangsu 
Province, a ``productive'' FIE in Jiangsu Province may be exempted from 
the three percent local income tax during the ``Two Free, Three Half'' 
period. Additionally, according to Article 6, FIEs eligible for the 
reduced income tax rate of 15 percent can also be exempted from paying 
local income tax. See GQR at Exhibit GOC-HH-3. According to the 
Provisional Rules on Exemption of Local Income Tax for FIEs and Foreign 
Enterprises (Decree 14 of Zhejiang Government, 1991) at Article 4, 
productive FIES in Zhejiang Province are exempted from paying the local 
income tax for the first two years after their first profitable year, 
and pay at a reduced (half) rate for the next three consecutive years. 
See G1SR at Exhibit GOC-SUPP-35. The Department has previously found 
this program to be countervailable. See, e.g., CFS Decision Memorandum 
at 12-13 (Analysis of Programs, I. Programs Determined to be 
Countervailable for GE, D. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction 
Program for ``Productive'' FIEs) and Citric Acid Decision Memo at 21 
(Analysis of Programs, I. Programs Determined to be Countervailable, I. 
Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Program for ``Productive'' 
FIEs).
    Jianli Steel Tube, Jiansheng, and Wuxi reported using this program 
during the POI. See JQR at 33 and WQR at 26.
    We preliminarily determine that the exemption from or reduction in 
the local income tax received by ``productive'' FIEs under this program 
confers a countervailable subsidy. The exemption or reduction is a 
financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone by the government 
and it provides a benefit to the recipient in the amount of the tax 
savings. See section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.509(a)(1). 
We also preliminarily determine that the exemption or reduction 
afforded by this program is limited as a matter of law to certain 
enterprises, i.e., ``productive'' FIEs, and, hence, is specific under 
section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    To calculate the benefit for Jianli Steel Tube, Jiansheng, and 
Wuxi, we treated the income tax savings enjoyed by the companies as a 
recurring benefit, consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1). To compute the 
amount of the tax savings, we compared the local income tax rate that 
the companies would have paid in the absence of the program (i.e., 
three percent) with the income tax rate the companies actually paid.
    For Jianli Steel Tube and Jiansheng, we divided the companies' tax 
savings received during the POI by the combined sales of Jianli, Jinali 
Steel Tube, and Jiansheng minus inter-company sales during the POI.
    For Wuxi, we divided the company's tax savings received during the 
POI by the combined sales of Wuxi and Fanli.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Jianli received a 
countervailable subsidy of 0.02 percent ad valorem and Wuxi received a 
countervailable subsidy of 0.33 percent ad valorem under this program.

H. Income Tax Credits for Domestically Owned Companies Purchasing 
Domestically Produced Equipment

    According to the Provisional Measures on Enterprise Income Tax 
Credit for Investment in Domestically Produced Equipment for Technology 
Renovation Projects (CAI SHU ZI {290{time}  No. 290), a domestically 
invested company may claim tax credits on the purchase of domestic 
equipment if the project is compatible with the industrial policies of 
the GOC. Specifically, a tax credit up to 40 percent of the purchase 
price of the domestic equipment may apply to the incremental increase 
in tax liability from the previous year. See G2SR at 12. The Department 
has previously found this program countervailable. See, e.g., Circular 
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 
70961, (November 24, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at 25-26 (V. Analysis of Programs, A. Programs Determined to 
be Countervailable, 8. Income Tax Credits on Purchases of Domestically-
Produced Equipment by Domestically Owned Companies).
    Fanli reported using this program during the POI. See WQR at 15.
    We preliminarily determine that income tax credits for the purchase 
of domestically produced equipment are countervailable subsidies. The 
tax credits are a financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone 
by the government and provide a benefit to the recipients in the amount 
of the tax savings. See section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.509(a)(1). We further preliminarily determine that these tax 
credits are contingent upon use of domestic over imported goods and, 
hence, are specific under section 771(5A)(C) of the Act.
    To calculate the benefit, we treated the income tax savings enjoyed 
by Fanli as a recurring benefit, consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), 
and divided the company's tax savings by the combined total sales of 
Wuxi and Fanli, minus inter-company sales, during the POI. On this 
basis, we preliminarily determine that a countervailable subsidy of 
0.16 percent ad valorem exists for Wuxi under this program.

I. Subsidies Provided in the Tianjin Binhai New Area and the Tianjin 
Economic and Technological Development Area

    TPCO reported that it used two programs for companies in the 
Tianjin Binhai New Area (TBNA): the Science and Technology Fund Program 
and the Accelerated Depreciation Program. TPCO received a grant under 
the Science and Technology Fund Program and paid reduced income taxes 
under the Accelerated Depreciation Program. TPCO also reported that it 
purchased land-use rights and rented land-use rights for different 
plots of land within the TBNA during the POI and prior to the POI.
Science and Technology Fund
    The GOC's measures for the Science and Technology Fund, which the 
GOC provided at Exhibit GOC-DD-4 of the GQR, describe the fund's 
purpose as follows: (1) Promote the construction of the science-
technology infrastructure in TBNA; (2) enhance science-technology 
renovation and service abilities; (3) improve the business environment 
of renovation entrepreneurship; and (4) construct a new science-
technology renovation system. On page 84 of the GQR, the GOC stated 
that eligibility for the program is limited to enterprises within the 
TBNA Administrative Committee's jurisdiction.
    We preliminarily determine that TPCO received a countervailable 
subsidy during the POI under the TBNA Science and Technology Fund 
Program. We find that this grant is a direct transfer of funds within 
the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, providing a benefit in 
the amount of the grant. See 19 CFR 351.504(a). We further determine 
preliminarily that grants under this program are limited to enterprises 
located in a designated geographic region (i.e., the TBNA). Hence, the 
grants are specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act.
    To calculate the countervailable subsidy, we used our standard 
methodology for non-recurring grants. See 19 CFR 351.524(b). Because 
the

[[Page 47222]]

benefit was less than 0.5 percent of TPCO's consolidated sales during 
the POI, we have preliminarily expensed the entire amount to the POI. 
See 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2). On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy to be 0.03 percent ad valorem for TPCO.
Accelerated Depreciation Program
    Regarding the Accelerated Depreciation program, the GOC circular 
for the program (submitted at Exhibit DD-9 of the GOC's July 21, 2009, 
response) stipulates that enterprises in the TBNA may shorten the 
depreciation period of certain fixed assets by a maximum of 40 percent 
of the present depreciation period. On page 91 of the response, the GOC 
stated that eligibility for the program is limited to enterprises 
within the TBNA.
    We preliminarily determine that TPCO received a countervailable 
subsidy during the POI under the Accelerated Depreciation program. The 
Accelerated Depreciation program constitutes a financial contribution 
in the form of revenue forgone within the meaning of section 
771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, with the benefit equaling the income tax 
savings (see 19 CFR 351.510(a)). The program affected TPCO's income 
taxes for the 2007 tax year. Thus, under the normal standard in 19 CFR 
351.509(b), TPCO received a benefit from this program in 2008, when it 
filed its 2007 annual tax return. Further, we further determine 
preliminarily that the reduction afforded by this program is limited to 
enterprises located in designated geographic regions and, hence, is 
specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act.
    To calculate the benefit, we divided the reduction in TPCO's income 
taxes resulting from the program by TPCO's consolidated sales, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1) and 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii). On 
this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy to 
be 0.51 percent ad valorem for TPCO.
Land
    Regarding land, TPCO and its reporting cross-owned affiliates are 
all located in the TBNA, and TPCO, TPCO Iron, and Yuantong have 
purchased ``granted'' land-use rights within the TBNA. At page 41 of 
the GQR, the GOC reported that TPCO obtained its land-use rights in 
accordance with Article 11 of Decree 21 of the Ministry of Land and 
Resources. Article 11, at Exhibit P-2 of the GQR, establishes 
provisions for the ``agreement-based assignment of the right to use 
State-owned land.'' Article 11 States that the ``agreement-based 
assignment of the right to use State-owned land'' refers to the land 
user's right to use State-owned land for a certain period, and to the 
land user's payment of a fee to the state for the land-use right. TPCO 
and TPCO Iron purchased their land-use rights from the Dongli District 
Land and Resource Administration Bureau, and Yuantong purchased its 
land-use rights from the Tianjin Port Bonded Zone Land and Resource 
Administration Bureau.
    The Department determined in LWS that the provision of land-use 
rights constitutes the provision of a good within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act.\20\ The Department also found that 
when the land is in an industrial park located within the seller's 
(e.g., county's or municipality's) jurisdiction, the provision of the 
land-use rights is regionally specific (see section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of 
the Act).\21\ In the instant investigation, the TBNA is a designated 
area that includes the jurisdictions that provided land-use rights to 
TPCO and its cross-owned affiliates during the POI. Therefore, 
consistent with LWS, we preliminarily find that TPCO's purchases of 
granted land-use rights give rise to countervailable subsidies to the 
extent that the purchases conferred a benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final 
Affirmative Determination, in Part, of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 
35639 (June 24, 2008) (``LWS''), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 8.
    \21\ Id. at Comment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether TPCO received a benefit, we have analyzed 
potential benchmarks in accordance with 19 CFR 351.511(a). First, we 
look to whether there are market-determined prices within the country. 
See 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(i). In LWS, the Department determined that 
``Chinese land prices are distorted by the significant government role 
in the market'' and, hence, that tier one benchmarks do not exist.\22\ 
The Department also found that tier two benchmarks (world market prices 
that would be available to purchasers in China) are not 
appropriate.\23\ See 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(ii). Therefore, the 
Department determined the adequacy of remuneration by reference to tier 
3 and found that the sale of land-use rights in China was not 
consistent with market principles because of the overwhelming presence 
of the government in the land-use rights market and the widespread and 
documented deviation from the authorized methods of pricing and 
allocating land.\24\ See 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(iii). There is 
insufficient new information on the record of this investigation to 
warrant a change from the findings in LWS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. at Comment 10.
    \23\ Id. at section IV.A.1, ``Analysis of Programs--Government 
Provision of Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration.''
    \24\ Id. at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we are not able to use Chinese or world market 
prices as a benchmark. Therefore, we are preliminarily comparing the 
price that TPCO paid for its granted land-use rights with comparable 
market-based prices for land purchases in a country at a comparable 
level of economic development that is reasonably proximate to, but 
outside of, China. Specifically, we are preliminarily comparing the 
price TPCO paid to sales of certain industrial land in industrial 
estates, parks, and zones in Thailand, consistent with LWS.
    To calculate the benefit, we computed the amount that TPCO would 
have paid for its granted land-use rights and subtracted the amount 
TPCO actually paid for each purchase. For purchases in which the 
subsidy amount exceeded 0.5 percent of TPCO's sales in the year of 
purchase, we have used the discount rate described under the Benchmarks 
and Discount Rates section above to allocate the benefit over the life 
of the land-use rights contract. For these purchases, we divided the 
amount allocated to the POI by TPCO's consolidated sales during the 
POI. For purchases in which the benefit was less than 0.5 percent of 
TPCO's consolidated sales in the year of the purchase, we have 
preliminarily expensed the entire amount to the year in which TPCO 
purchased the land-use rights. See 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2). On this basis, 
we preliminarily determine the total countervailable subsidy for all of 
TPCO's land-use rights purchases to be 0.11 percent ad valorem during 
the POI.
    TPCO also reported that it rented certain land parcels within the 
TBNA from TPCO Holding during the POI. Specifically, TPCO reported that 
it operates on the largest of these three parcels under a lease 
agreement that it signed with TPCO Holding in 2005. TPCO also stated 
that it will compensate TPCO Holding for the lease of two other parcels 
under terms that TPCO and TPCO Holding will memorialize in 2009.
    On page 4 of the TPCO Holding QR, TPCO stated that TPCO Holding 
``has been continuously wholly-owned by the Tianjin State-owned Assets 
Supervision and Administration Commission.'' Thus, we preliminarily 
determine that

[[Page 47223]]

TPCO Holding was an authority within the meaning of section 771(5)(B) 
of the Act at the time of the lease agreement and throughout the POI. 
Moreover, because the leased properties are all within the TBNA, the 
subsidy is specific (section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act). Therefore, 
consistent with OTR Tires, we preliminarily find that TPCO's lease of 
land under the 2005 lease gives rise to a countervailable subsidy to 
the extent that the lease conferred a benefit.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008) (``OTR Tires''), 
and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment F.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether TPCO received a benefit, we are following the 
same steps outlined above for the purchase of land-use rights. 
Specifically, we are preliminarily comparing the rent TPCO paid to 
industrial rental rates for factory space in Thailand during the POI. 
We are preliminarily attributing the subsidy to TPCO's consolidated 
sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii).
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable 
subsidy to be 2.55 percent ad valorem for TPCO.
    TPCO also reported that IETC purchased office space from a real 
estate company. We do not have sufficient information to determine 
whether IETC's purchase gave rise to a countervailable subsidy. We 
intend to seek additional information on this issue after the 
preliminary determination.

J. Loan and Interest Forgiveness for SOEs

    On pages 8-9 of TPCO's September 1, 2009, correction submission, 
TPCO reported that in 2006 and 2008 it settled claims related to loans 
that were part of a debt-to-equity transaction occurring in 2001. Two 
asset management companies held the claims against TPCO.
    We preliminarily determine that through this settlement the GOC 
forgave debt owed by TPCO and, thus, provided a financial contribution 
to TPCO in the form of a direct transfer of funds (section 771(5)(D)(i) 
of the Act). The benefit to TPCO is the amount of the debt forgiven 
(section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.508(a)). Additionally, 
we preliminarily determine that this subsidy is de facto specific 
because it is limited to TPCO (section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act).
    Approval for forgiveness of part of the debt occurred in 2006, and 
approval for forgiveness of the remainder of the debt occurred in 2008. 
To calculate the countervailable subsidy for the debt forgiveness 
approved in each year, we used our standard methodology for non-
recurring benefits. See 19 CFR 351.524(b). Because the amount of the 
2006 portion of the debt forgiveness exceeded 0.5 percent of TPCO's 
sales in 2006, we have allocated the benefit over the 15-year AUL using 
the discount rate described under the Benchmarks and Discount Rates 
section above. We attributed the subsidy amount for the POI to TPCO's 
consolidated sales. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy to be 0.07 percent ad valorem for TPCO.
    For the debt forgiveness approved in 2008, the benefit was less 
than 0.5 percent of TPCO's consolidated sales during the POI. Thus, we 
have preliminarily expensed the entire amount to the POI. See 19 CFR 
351.524(b)(2). On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy to be 0.07 percent ad valorem for TPCO.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used by Respondents or 
To Not Provide Benefits During the POI

A. Other Loans to Jianli

    We requested and received loan documentation from the GOC 
concerning certain loans provided to Jianli. Based upon our examination 
of these loans, we preliminary determine that these loans are 
countervailable for reasons other than those described above under 
``Policy Lending.'' As all of the information relating to these loans 
is business proprietary, we have discussed our analysis in a separate 
memorandum. See BPI Loan Memo.
    However, based on our analysis, the benefit to Jianli under this 
program is less than 0.005 percent ad valorem. As such, consistent with 
our past practice, we would not include this program in our preliminary 
net countervailing duty rate. See, e.g., CFS from the PRC at ``Analysis 
of Programs, Programs Determined Not To Have Been Used or Not To Have 
Provided Benefits During the POI for GE,'' and Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from 
France, 70 FR 39998 (July 12, 2005), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at ``Purchases at Prices that Constitute `More than 
Adequate Remuneration,''' (``Uranium from France'') (citing Notice of 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and 
Rescission of Certain Company-Specific Reviews: Certain Softwood Lumber 
Products From Canada, 69 FR 75917 (December 20, 2004), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Other Programs Determined to Confer 
Subsidies'').

B. Sub-Central Government Programs To Promote Famous Export Brands and 
China World Top Brands

    TPCO reported that it received a grant under this program in 2007. 
On page 50 of the TQR, TPCO stated that the program relates to TPCO's 
trademark and does not relate to any specific merchandise.
    We preliminarily determine that the total amount of the grant was 
less than 0.5 percent of TPCO's consolidated and unconsolidated sales 
in 2007. Thus, without prejudice to whether this is a countervailable 
subsidy, we preliminarily have allocated the benefit exclusively to 
2007 pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2). As a result, we preliminarily 
determine that TPCO received no benefit from this program during the 
POI.

C. Jiangsu Province Famous Brands

    Wuxi reported that it received a grant under this program. See WQR 
at 26 and W1SR at 24-25. The GOC also provided information on the 
program. See G1SR at 39-45.
    Based on our analysis, any potential benefit to Wuxi under this 
program is less than 0.005 percent ad valorem. As such, consistent with 
our past practice, we would not include this program in our preliminary 
net countervailing duty rate. See, e.g., CFS from the PRC at ``Analysis 
of Programs, Programs Determined Not To Have Been Used or Not To Have 
Provided Benefits During the POI for GE,'' and Uranium from France. 
Therefore, without prejudice to whether this is a countervailable 
subsidy, we preliminarily determine that Wuxi received no benefit from 
this program during the POI.

D. Export Incentive Payments Characterized as ``VAT Rebates''

    The Department's regulations state that in the case of an exemption 
upon export of indirect taxes, a benefit exists only to the extent that 
the Department determines that the amount exempted ``exceeds the amount 
levied with respect to the production and distribution of like products 
when sold for domestic consumption.'' See 19 CFR 351.517(a); see also 
19 CFR 351.102 (for a definition of ``indirect tax'').
    To determine whether the GOC provided a benefit under this program, 
we compared the VAT exemption upon export to the VAT levied with 
respect to the production and distribution of like products when sold 
for domestic

[[Page 47224]]

consumption. On page 39 of the GQR, the GOC reported that the VAT 
levied on OCTG sales in the domestic market (17 percent) exceeded the 
amount of VAT exempted upon the export of OCTG (13 percent). Thus, we 
preliminarily determine that the VAT exempted upon the export of OCTG 
does not confer a countervailable benefit.
    Based upon responses by the GOC, Changbao, TPCO, Wuxi, and Jianli, 
we preliminarily determine that the above companies did not apply for 
or receive benefits during the POI under the programs listed below.

A. Preferential Loan Programs
    1. Treasury Bond Loans to Northeast
    2. Preferential Loans for State-Owned Enterprises
    3. Preferential Loans for Key Projects and Technologies
    4. Loans and Interest Subsidies Provided Pursuant to the Northeast 
Revitalization Program
B. Equity Programs
    1. Debt-to-Equity Swap for Pangang
    2. Equity Infusions
C. Tax Benefit Programs
    1. Preferential Income Tax Policy for Enterprises in the Northeast 
Region
    2. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears For Enterprises in the Old Industrial 
Bases of Northeast China
D. Tariff and Indirect Tax Programs
    1. Stamp Exemption on Share Transfers Under Non-Tradable Share 
Reform
    2. Value Added Tax (``VAT'') and Tariff Exemptions for Purchases of 
Fixed Assets Under the Foreign Trade Development Fund
E. Land Grants and Discounts
    1. Provision of Land Use Rights for Less Than Adequate Remuneration 
to Huludao
    2. Provision of Land to SOEs for Less Than Adequate Remuneration
F. Provision of Inputs for Less than Adequate Remuneration
    1. Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel (flat products) for Less than 
Adequate Remuneration
    2. Provision of Coking Coal for Less than Adequate Remuneration
G. Grant Programs
    1. Foreign Trade Development Fund (Northeast Revitalization 
Program)
    2. Export Assistance Grants
    3. Program to Rebate Antidumping Fees
    4. Subsidies for Development of Famous Export Brands and China 
World Top Brands
    5. Grants to Loss-Making SOEs
    6. Export Interest Subsidies
H. Other Regional Programs
    1. Five Points, One Line Program
    2. High-Tech Industrial Development Zones
I. Subsidies for Foreign-Invested Enterprises
    1. Reduced Income Tax Rates for Export-Oriented FIEs

III. Program Preliminarily Determined Not Countervailable

Provision of Low-cost Coke Through the Imposition of Export Restraints

    Petitioners alleged that the GOC imposed export restrictions on 
coke in the form of export quotas, related export licensing and export 
duties. Petitioners maintain that such export restraints had a direct 
and discernable effect on the Chinese domestic prices of coke, thereby, 
artificially lowering them compared to world market prices. 
Accordingly, petitioners asserted that the GOC's export restraints on 
coke provided a countervailable subsidy to Chinese OCTG producers 
during the POI.
    The Department has countervailed export restraint allegations in 
only a limited number of cases. In Leather from Argentina, we found an 
embargo on hide exports to provide a countervailable subsidy to 
Argentine leather producers based on a long-term historical price 
comparison that demonstrated a clear link between the imposition of the 
embargo and the divergence of prices.\26\ In Coated Free Sheet Paper 
from Indonesia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 
FR 60642 (October 25, 2007) (``CFS from Indonesia''), we found that a 
log embargo provided a countervailable benefit to paper producers, in 
part, based upon independent studies that stated that the log embargo 
provided a subsidy to downstream producers.\27\ The information on the 
record with respect to coke does not support such a finding. Therefore, 
we preliminary determine that this program is not countervailable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Countervailing Duty Order; Leather from Argentina; Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 55 
FR 40212 (October 2, 1990) (``Leather from Argentina'').
    \27\ See Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 FR 60642 (October 
25, 2007) (``CFS from Indonesia'') and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Programs for Which More Information Is Required

A. Exemptions for SOEs From Distributing Dividends to the State

    In TSR1a at Exhibit S1-10, TPCO provided the amount of dividends 
that it distributed to its owners during the POI. Based on proprietary 
information in this exhibit, we intend to seek additional information 
on this program after the preliminary determination.

B. Government Provision of Electricity for Less than Adequate 
Remuneration

    Recently, the Department found that ``that the provision of 
electricity in the PRC confers a countervailable subsidy.'' See Certain 
Kitchen Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 37012 (July 27, 
2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Kitchen Racks 
Issues and Decision Memorandum'') at Comment 11. That finding was based 
on facts available. See Kitchen Racks Decision Memorandum at pages 5-6 
and Comment 11. Id.
    In the instant investigation, the GOC has provided certain 
requested information regarding the provision of electricity. However, 
the Department has requested additional information on this program 
which is still outstanding and we intend to seek further information 
regarding the GOC's electricity rate-setting policy after the 
preliminary determination.
Verification
    In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the 
information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final 
determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
calculated an individual rate for each producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise individually investigated. We preliminarily determine the 
total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be:

[[Page 47225]]



 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Net subsidy
                   Exporter/Manufacturer                        rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co. and Jiangsu Changbao               24.33
 Precision Steel Tube Co., Ltd............................
Tianjin Pipe (Group) Co., Tianjin Pipe Iron Manufacturing          10.90
 Co., Ltd., Tianguan Yuantong Pipe Product Co., Ltd.,
 Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading Co.,
 Ltd., and TPCO Charging Development Co., Ltd.............
Wuxi Seamless Pipe Co, Ltd., Jiangsu Fanli Steel Pipe Co,          24.92
 Ltd, Tuoketuo County Mengfeng Special Steel Co., Ltd.....
Zhejiang Jianli Enterprise Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jianli              30.69
 Steel Steel Tube Co., Ltd., Zhuji Jiansheng Machinery
 Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Jianli Industry Group Co., Ltd...
All Others................................................         21.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for 
companies not investigated, we determined an ``all others'' rate by 
weighting the individual company subsidy rate of each of the companies 
investigated by the company's exports of the subject merchandise to the 
United States. The ``all others'' rate does not include zero and de 
minimis rates or any rates based solely on the facts available. In 
accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are 
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend 
liquidation of all entries of OCTG from the PRC that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a 
cash deposit or bond for such entries of merchandise in the amounts 
indicated above.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent 
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination 
within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
Disclosure and Public Comment
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), we will disclose to the 
parties the calculations for this preliminary determination within five 
days of its announcement. Due to the anticipated timing of verification 
and issuance of verification reports, case briefs for this 
investigation must be submitted no later than one week after the 
issuance of the last verification report. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) (for 
a further discussion of case briefs). Rebuttal briefs must be filed 
within five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities relied upon, a 
table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be 
limited to five pages total, including footnotes. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing 
is made in this investigation, the hearing will be held two days after 
the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.310(d), at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm 
by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before 
the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Acting 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, within 30 days of the publication of this notice, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain: (1) The party's 
name, address, and telephone; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a 
list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited 
to issues raised in the briefs. See id.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: September 8, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-22187 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P