52744 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2009 / Notices 

1See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 

Duties: Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated September 16, 2009 

(‘‘Petition’’). 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation that is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: October 7, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Comment in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum: 

Comment 1: The Department’s Use of 

Factoring Discounts 

[FR Doc. E9–24700 Filed 10–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–956] 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure 

Pipe From the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: October 14, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Drew Jackson at (202) 482–4406 or 

Melissa Blackledge at (202) 482–3518, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On September 16, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received an 

antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition 1

concerning imports of certain seamless 

pipe (‘‘seamless pipe’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

filed in proper form by United States 

Steel Corporation and V&M Star L.P. (on 

September 28, 2009, TMK IPSCO, and 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union also entered the 

proceeding as petitioners). On 

September 21, 2009, the Department 

issued a request to United States Steel 

Corporation, V&M Star L.P., TMK 

IPSCO, and the United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’) for 

additional information and for 

clarification of certain areas of the 

Petition. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioners filed two 

supplements to the Petition, one 

regarding general issues and one 

addressing AD-specific issues, on 

September 25, 2009 (‘‘Supplement 

Regarding General Issues to the AD/CVD 

Petition’’ and ‘‘Supplement to the AD 

Petition,’’ respectively). On September 

25, 2009, the Department requested 

further information from Petitioners, 

including suggested refinements to the 

scope. On September 29, 2009, 

Petitioners filed a second supplement to 

the Petition in response to the 

Department’s September 25, 2009 

request (‘‘Second Supplement Regarding 

General Issues to the AD/CVD 

Petition’’). Also, on September 29, 2009, 

the Department issued additional 

requests to Petitioners for further 

information and clarification of certain 

areas of the Petition. Based on the 

Department’s request, Petitioners again 

filed two supplements to the Petition, 

one regarding general issues and one 

addressing AD-specific issues, on 

October 1, 2009 (‘‘Third Supplement 

Regarding General Issues to the AD/CVD 

Petition’’ and ‘‘Second Supplement to 

the AD Petition’’). On September 30, 

2009, the Department requested 

comments from Petitioners on revisions 

made by the Department to the 

proposed scope language. In response to 

the Department’s request, Petitioners 

reiterated their scope comments filed in 

the Second Supplement Regarding 

General Issues to the AD/CVD Petition. 

See memorandum to the file from Drew 

Jackson regarding ‘‘Initiation of the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘Scope Memorandum’’). 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports 

of seamless pipe from the PRC are being, 

or are likely to be, sold in the United 

States at less than fair value, within the 

meaning of section 731 of the Act, and 

that such imports materially injure, and 

threaten further material injury to, an 

industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry and unions because 

Petitioners are interested parties, as 

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

the Act, and have demonstrated 

sufficient industry support with respect 

to the investigation that they request the 

Department to initiate (see 

‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition’’ below). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are seamless pipe from the 

PRC. For a full description of the scope 

of the investigation, please see the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. 

Comments on the Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope of the investigation 

with Petitioners and suggested a number 

of revisions to the scope language, 

including the removal from the scope of 

all language that relies on end-use to 

define covered merchandise. While 

Petitioners made a number of the 

suggested revisions to the scope, they 

did not remove end-use language from 

the scope. See Supplement Regarding 

General Issues to the AD/CVD Petition 

at 4; Second Supplement Regarding 

General Issues to the AD/CVD Petition, 

Item 3; and Scope Memorandum. The 

Department has inherent authority to 

define the scope of the investigation and 

may depart from the scope as proposed 

by a petition. NTN Bearing Corp. v. 

U.S., 747 F. Supp. 726, 731 (CIT 1990). 

In this case, consistent with the position 

taken in circular welded carbon quality 

steel pipe from the PRC, we have 

revised the scope by removing all enduse language from it. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 

2008) (‘‘Circular Welded Pipe’’) at 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2009 / Notices 52745 

2See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 

2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. 

v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), 

aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 

U.S. 919 (1989). 

3For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Seamless 

Pipe from the PRC (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’) at 

Attachment II (‘‘Industry Support’’), dated 

concurrently with this notice and on file in the 

Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

4See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

Comment 1 (‘‘* * * the Department 

prefers to define product coverage by 

the physical characteristics of the 

merchandise subject to investigation.’’). 

As noted in Circular Welded Pipe, 

excluding end-use language from the 

scope provides certainty with respect to 

product coverage and will enable any 

potential future orders to be effectively 

administered by the Department and 

enforced by U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. Further, clarity with respect 

to scope will ensure that respondents in 

the investigation will know precisely 

what is included in the definition of 

subject merchandise. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations (Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997)), we are setting aside a period for 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding the product coverage of the 

scope. The Department encourages all 

interested parties to submit such 

comments by October 26, 2009, which 

is twenty calendar days from the 

signature date of this notice. Comments 

should be addressed to Import 

Administration’s APO/Dockets Unit, 

Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

The period for scope consultations is 

intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and to consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination in this investigation. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for the Antidumping Duty 

Questionnaire 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

seamless pipe to be reported in response 

to the Department’s AD questionnaire. 

This information will be used to 

identify the key physical characteristics 

of the subject merchandise in order to 

more accurately report the relevant 

factors of production, as well as to 

develop appropriate product reporting 

criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they 

believe are relevant to the development 

of an accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as 

(1) general product characteristics and 

(2) the product reporting criteria and 

order of importance. We note that it is 

not always appropriate to use all 

product characteristics as product 

reporting criteria. We base product 

reporting criteria on meaningful 

commercial differences among products. 

In other words, while there may be 

some physical product characteristics 

utilized by manufacturers to describe 

seamless pipe, it may be that only a 

select few product characteristics reflect 

meaningful commercial differences. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing the 

product characteristics for the 

antidumping duty questionnaire, we 

must receive comments at the abovereferenced address by October 26, 2009. 

Additionally, rebuttal comments must 

be received by November 2, 2009. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

industry. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law.2

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ 

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

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation requested in the Petition. 

As noted, the Department has changed 

the definition of the class or kind of 

merchandise to be investigated from 

that which was initially requested by 

Petitioners. The reference point from 

which the domestic like product is 

defined is the class or kind of 

merchandise that is the basis for the 

Department’s initiation of this 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that 

seamless pipe constitutes a single 

domestic like product and we have 

analyzed industry support in terms of 

that domestic like product.3

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing under section 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petition with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. To establish 

industry support, Petitioners provided 

their own 2008 production of the 

domestic like product, and compared 

this to the estimated total production of 

the domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry.4 To estimate 2008 

production of the domestic like product, 

Petitioners used data from an industry 

publication, published by the American 

Iron and Steel Institute (‘‘AISI’’) which 

compiles data on domestic producers’ 

shipments of seamless standard, line 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52746 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2009 / Notices 

5See id. 

6See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

7See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

8See id. 

9See id. 

10See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, 

‘‘Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation,’’ for details. 11See id. 12See Supplement to the AD Petition, at Exhibit 

Supp. II–1. 13See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 8–9, and 

Exhibits II–6, II–11, II–12, II–13, and II–14, and 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 3–4. 

14See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 1 and 9. 

15See id.; see also Memorandum from the Office 

of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, regarding The People’s 

Republic of China Status as a Non-Market Economy, 

dated May 15, 2006. This document is available 

online at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nmestatus/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf. 

16See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 2–4. 

17See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 3, and 

Exhibit II–3(A). 

18See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 2, 3, Figure 

1, and Exhibit II–5. 

and pressure pipe. Petitioners 

approximated domestic production of 

seamless pipe by inflating the volume of 

domestic shipments reported by AISI by 

the ratio of the difference between 

Petitioners’ own production and 

shipments in the applicable calendar 

year.5

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department, including a search of 

the Internet, indicates that Petitioners 

have established industry support. First, 

the Petition established support from 

domestic producers (or workers) 

accounting for more than 50 percent of 

the total production of the domestic like 

product and, as such, the Department is 

not required to take further action in 

order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling).6 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.7 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

732(b)(1) of the Act.8

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties (e.g., domestic 

producer and unions) as defined in 

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

have demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

investigation that they are requesting 

that the Department initiate.9

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioners 

allege that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

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

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, increased import 

penetration, underselling and price 

depressing and suppressing effects, lost 

sales and revenue, reduced production, 

reduced shipments, increased inventory 

overhang, reduced employment and 

wages, and an overall decline in 

financial performance.10 We have 

assessed the allegations and supporting 

evidence regarding material injury, 

threat of material injury, and causation, 

and have determined that these 

allegations are properly supported by 

adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation.11

Period of Investigation 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1), because the Petition was 

filed on September 16, 2009, the 

anticipated period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 2009, through June 

30, 2009. 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegation of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department has based 

its decision to initiate an investigation 

of seamless pipe from the PRC. The 

sources of data for the deductions and 

adjustments relating to U.S. price and 

NV are discussed in the Initiation 

Checklist. 

U.S. Price 

Petitioners obtained an export price 

(‘‘EP’’) from a distributor’s offer to sell 

PRC-produced seamless pipe to a 

potential customer located in the United 

States. The offer is dated within the POI. 

Petitioners presented an affidavit 

attesting to the offer and its terms of 

sale.12

The U.S. price in the offer includes 

movement costs to ship the 

merchandise from the factory in the PRC 

to the U.S. port and a distributor markup. Therefore, to calculate the net U.S. 

price, Petitioners deducted movement 

expenses and a distributor’s mark-up 

that was based on their own experience 

and knowledge of the industry.13

For additional details regarding the 

U.S. price and the deducted movement 

expenses and distributor mark-up, see 

the Initiation Checklist at 7. 

Normal Value 

According to Petitioners, in every 

previous less-than-fair value 

investigation involving merchandise 

from the PRC, the Department has 

concluded that the PRC is a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country. Therefore, it 

has based NV on factors of production 

and surrogate values.14 In accordance 

with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 

presumption of NME status remains in 

effect until revoked by the Department. 

The presumption of NME status for the 

PRC has not been revoked by the 

Department and, therefore, remains in 

effect for purposes of the initiation of 

this investigation.15 Accordingly, the 

NV of the product is appropriately 

based on factors of production valued in 

a surrogate market economy country, in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act. In the course of this investigation, 

all parties will have the opportunity to 

provide relevant information related to 

the issues of the PRC’s NME status and 

the granting of separate rates to 

individual exporters. 

Petitioners used India as the surrogate 

country because they claim India is at 

a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC and is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise.16 In support of these 

claims, Petitioners referenced the 

Department’s previous findings that 

India is at a level of development 

comparable to the PRC, provided per 

capita income data for 2007 as reported 

in the World Development Report 

2009,17 and presented data from the 

World Steel Association as reported in 

the Steel Statistical Yearbook 2008, 

showing that India produced 1,218,000 

metric tons of tubular steel products in 

2007, the greatest quantity produced 

among countries commonly considered 

by the Department to be at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC.18

After examining the information 

provided by Petitioners, the Department 

has determined that the use of India as 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2009 / Notices 52747 

19See Volume II–A of the Petition, at 9–10, and 

Exhibit II–15. 

20See Volume II–A of the Petition, at Exhibit II– 

15, and Attachments A and B. 

21See Second Supplement to the AD Petition, at 

6–7. 

22See Volume II–B of the Petition, at Exhibit II– 

15(Q) and (R), and Supplement to the AD Petition, 

at Exhibit Supp. II–9. 

23See Volume II–A of the Petition, at Exhibit II– 

15(E). 

24See Volume II–A of the Petition, at Exhibit II– 

15, and Attachments C and D. 

25See Volume II–A of the Petition, at Exhibit II– 

15, and Attachment F. 

26See Volume II–A of the Petition, at Exhibit II– 

15(H), and Volume II–B of the Petition, at Exhibit 

II–15(Q). 

27See Volume II–A of the Petition, at Exhibit II– 

15, and Attachments DD and EE. 

28See Volume II–A of the Petition, at Exhibit II– 

15(I)(1). 

29See Volume II–A of the Petition, at Exhibit II– 

15, and Attachment FF and GG, and Second 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 3–4, and Exhibits 

Second Supp. II–21, II–22, and II–24. 

30See Supplement to the AD Petition, at 16–18. 

31See Second Supplement to the AD Petition, at 

3–4, and Exhibit Second Supp. II–1. 

32See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions 

Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008). 

33See id. at 74931. 

34See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); and Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist 

Canvas From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 

21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). 

a surrogate country is appropriate for 

purposes of initiation. However, after 

initiation of the investigation, interested 

parties will have the opportunity to 

submit comments regarding surrogate 

country selection and, pursuant to 19 

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

an opportunity to submit publicly 

available information to value factors of 

production within 40 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Petitioners calculated NVs and 

dumping margins using the 

Department’s NME methodology as 

required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) 

and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioners 

calculated NVs for four seamless pipe 

products of various sizes 19 using the 

consumption rates of a U.S. producer of 

seamless pipe during the period January 

2009, through June 2009.20 Petitioners 

stated the U.S. producer was selected 

because, like the PRC producer, it is a 

large integrated producer of seamless 

pipe.21

Petitioners valued the factors of 

production using reasonably available, 

public surrogate country data, including 

Indian import data from the Indian 

Ministry of Commerce, published in the 

Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of 

India as compiled by the Word Trade 

Atlas (‘‘WTA’’). Petitioners used WTA 

data for the period September 2008, 

through February 2009, the most recent 

six months of data available at the time 

of the filing of the Petition.22 In 

addition, Petitioners used exchange 

rates, as reported by the Federal 

Reserve, to convert Indian Rupees to 

U.S. Dollars.23

Petitioners valued royalties imposed 

in the PRC on mined ore using data 

from the Indian Mines and Minerals 

Development and Regulation Act.24

Petitioners valued labor using the 

wage rate data published on the 

Department’s Web site, at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages051608.html#table1.25

Petitioners valued electricity using 

Indian electricity rates from the Central 

Electricity Authority in India for 2006.26

Petitioners valued water using data 

from the Maharashtra Industrial 

Development Corporation.27

Where values were not 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

Petitioners adjusted these values for 

inflation using wholesale price index 

data published by the International 

Monetary Fund, which is available 

online at http://www.5-imfstatistics.org/ 

imf/.28

Petitioners based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and profit, on data 

from the fiscal year, ending March 31, 

2009, of two Indian producers of pipe 

and tube, the Steel Authority of India, 

Ltd. (‘‘SAIL’’), and Tata Steel Limited 

(‘‘Tata’’), with adjustments as requested 

by the Department.29 Petitioners based 

the financial ratios for seamless pipe on 

the simple average of SAIL’s and Tata’s 

overhead, SG&A, and profit ratios, 

asserting that SAIL and Tata are large 

integrated steel producers like the PRC 

producer on which Petitioners based 

their calculation, and are producers of 

merchandise comparable to seamless 

pipe.30

Fair-Value Comparisons 

The data submitted by Petitioners 

provide a reason to believe that 

seamless pipe from the PRC is being, or 

is likely to be, sold in the United States 

at less than fair value. Based on 

comparisons of the net U.S. price to 

NVs, Petitioners calculated an estimated 

dumping margin of 98.37 percent.31

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon our examination of the 

Petition concerning seamless pipe from 

the PRC and other information 

reasonably available to the Department, 

the Department finds that the Petition 

meets the requirements of section 732 of 

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an 

AD investigation to determine whether 

seamless pipe from the PRC is being, or 

is likely to be, sold in the United States 

at less than fair value. In accordance 

with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, 

unless postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determination no later than 

140 days after the date of this initiation. 

Targeted-Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeteddumping analysis in AD investigations, 

and the corresponding regulation 

governing the deadline for targeteddumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5).32 The Department stated 

that ‘‘[w]ithdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ 33

In order to accomplish this objective, 

interested parties that wish to make a 

targeted-dumping allegation in this 

investigation pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, should submit 

such an allegation to the Department no 

later than 45 days before the scheduled 

date of the preliminary determination. 

Respondent Selection 

The Department will request quantity 

and value information from the 

exporters and producers listed with 

complete contact information in the 

Petition. The quantity and value data 

received from NME exporters/producers 

will be used to select mandatory 

respondents. 

The Department requires respondents 

to submit a response to both the 

quantity and value questionnaire and 

the separate-rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status.34

Appendix II of this notice contains the 

quantity and value questionnaire that 

must be submitted by all NME 

exporters/producers no later than 

October 27, 2009. In addition, the 

Department will post the quantity and 

value questionnaire along with filing 

instructions on its Web site, at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in an NME investigation, exporters and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52748 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2009 / Notices 

35See Import Administration Policy Bulletin, 

Number: 05.1, ‘‘Separate-Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non-Market Economy 

Countries,’’ dated April 5, 2005, available on the 

Department’s Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

policy/bull05-1.pdf (‘‘Policy Bulletin, Number: 

05.1’’); see also Certain Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea 

and the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 23188, 

23193 (April 29, 2008) (‘‘Certain Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC’’). 

36See Policy Bulletin, Number: 05.1; see also 

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line 

Pipe from the PRC, 73 FR at 23193. 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

status application.35 The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate-rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, which will be 

available on the Department’s Web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlightsand-news.html on the date of 

publication of this initiation notice in 

the Federal Register. The separate-rate 

application will be due sixty (60) days 

from the date of publication of this 

initiation notice in the Federal Register. 

As noted in the ‘‘Respondent Selection’’ 

section above, the Department requires 

that respondents submit a response to 

both the quantity and value 

questionnaire and the separate rate 

application by the respective deadlines 

in order to receive consideration for 

separate rate status. For exporters and 

producers who submit a separate-rate 

status application and subsequently are 

selected as mandatory respondents, 

these exporters and producers will no 

longer be eligible for consideration of 

separate rate status unless they respond 

to all parts of the questionnaire as 

mandatory respondents. 

Use of Combination Rates in an NME 

Investigation 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

Separate Rates/Combination Rates 

Bulletin states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning 

separate rates only to exporters, all separate 

rates that the Department will now assign in 

its NME investigations will be specific to 

those producers that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation. Note, 

however, that one rate is calculated for the 

exporter and all of the producers which 

supplied subject merchandise to it during the 

period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of combination 

rates because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation.36

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

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

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the Petition has been provided to the 

representatives of the Government of the 

PRC. Because of the large number of 

producers/exporters identified in the 

Petition, the Department considers the 

service of the public version of the 

Petition to the foreign producers/ 

exporters satisfied by the delivery of the 

public version to the Government of the 

PRC, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than November 2, 2009, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of seamless pipe from the 

PRC materially injure, or threaten 

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

negative ITC determination covering all 

classes or kinds of merchandise covered 

by the Petition will result in the 

investigation being terminated. 

Otherwise, this investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: October 6, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is certain seamless carbon and 

alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipes 

and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 16 

inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, 

regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing 

process (e.g., hot-finished or cold-drawn), 

end finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end, upset 

end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 

surface finish (e.g., bare, lacquered or 

coated). Redraw hollows are any unfinished 

carbon or alloy steel (other than stainless 

steel) pipe or ‘‘hollow profiles’’ suitable for 

cold finishing operations, such as cold 

drawing, to meet the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) or American 

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) specifications 

referenced below, or comparable 

specifications. Specifically included within 

the scope are seamless carbon and alloy steel 

(other than stainless steel) standard, line, and 

pressure pipes produced to the ASTM A–53, 

ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, 

ASTM A–1024, and the API 5L 

specifications, or comparable specifications, 

and meeting the physical parameters 

described above, regardless of application, 

with the exception of the exclusion discussed 

below. 

Specifically excluded from the scope of the 

investigation are unattached couplings. 

The merchandise covered by the 

investigation is currently classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers: 

7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 

7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 

7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 

7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 

7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 

7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 

7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 7304.39.0072, 

7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 

7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020, 

7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 

7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 7304.59.8050, 

7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, 

and 7304.59.8070. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

merchandise subject to this scope is 

dispositive. 

Appendix II 

OFFICE OF AD/CVD OPERATIONS 

QUANTITY AND VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE 

Requester(s): 

{insert name of company} 

{company address} 

{contact name and title} 

{contact telephone number} 

{contact fax number} 

{contact e-mail address} 

Representation: {insert name of counsel 

and law firm and contact info} 

Case: Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China. 

Period of Investigation: January 1, 2009, 

through June 30, 2009. 

Publication Date of Initiation: October 14, 

2009. 

Officials in Charge: 

Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Telephone: (202) 

482–5193, Fax: (202) 482–5105, E-mail 

Address: Howard_Smith@ita.doc.gov. 

Drew Jackson, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Telephone: (202) 482–4406, Fax: 

(202) 482–5105, E-mail Address: 

Drew_Jackson@ita.doc.gov. 

Filing Address: 

Secretary of Commerce, Attention: Import 

Administration (Drew Jackson), APO/ 

Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

On October 6, 2009, the Department 

initiated an antidumping duty investigation 

to determine whether certain seamless 

carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and 

pressure pipe (‘‘subject merchandise’’) from 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2009 / Notices 52749 

37An electronic copy of the initiation notice may 

be found on the Internet at the following address: 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/2009/0910frn/. 38Please use the invoice date when determining 

which sales to include within the period noted 

above. Generally, the Department uses invoice date 

as the date of sale, as that is when the essential 

terms of sale are set. If you believe that another date 

besides the invoice date would provide a more 

accurate representation of your company’s sales 

during the designated period, please report sales 

based on that date and provide a full explanation. 

39 If any conversions were used, please provide 

the conversion formula and source. 

40To the extent possible, sales values should be 

reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB). 

41 Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. 

Indicate any exchange rates used and their 

respective dates and sources. 

42 Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export 

price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated 

person occurs before the goods are imported into 

the United States. 

43 Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a 

constructed export price sale when the first sale to 

an unaffiliated person occurs after importation. 

However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person 

is made by a person in the United States affiliated 

with the foreign exporter, constructed export price 

applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. 

Do not report the sale to the affiliated party in the 

United States, rather report the sale made by the 

affiliated party to the unaffiliated customer in the 

United States. If you have further manufactured 

sales, please report them under Item 3, rather than 

under Item 2. 

44 ‘‘Further manufactured’’ refers to merchandise 

that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in 

the United States before sale to the first unaffiliated 

customer. 

the PRC was sold in the United States at less 

than fair value during the period January 1, 

2009, through June 30, 2009 (the period of 

investigation or ‘‘POI’’).37

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), directs the 

Department to calculate individual dumping 

margins for each known exporter and 

producer of the subject merchandise. Where 

it is not practicable to examine all known 

producers/exporters of subject merchandise, 

as is the case in this investigation, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department 

to examine either (1) a sample of exporters, 

producers or types of products that is 

statistically valid based on the information 

available at the time of selection; or (2) 

exporters and producers accounting for the 

largest volume of the subject merchandise 

from the exporting country that can be 

reasonably examined. 

In advance of the issuance of the full 

antidumping duty questionnaire, we ask that 

you respond to the following Quantity and 

Value Questionnaire requesting information 

on the quantity and U.S. dollar value of all 

of your sales to the United States during the 

period January 1, 2009, through June 30, 

2009, of merchandise covered by the scope 

of this investigation (see Appendix I) and 

produced in the PRC. A full and accurate 

response to the Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire from all participating 

respondents is necessary to ensure that the 

Department has the requisite information to 

appropriately select mandatory respondents. 

The Department is also requiring all firms 

that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in 

this investigation to complete a separate-rate 

status application as described in the notice 

of initiation. In other words, the Department 

will not give consideration to any separaterate status application made by parties that 

fail to timely respond to the Quality and 

Value Questionnaire or fail to timely submit 

the requisite separate-rate status application. 

To complete this investigation within the 

statutory time frame, the Department will be 

limited in its ability to extend the deadline 

for the response to the Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire. 

A definition of the scope of the 

merchandise subject to this investigation is 

included in Appendix I. Your response to 

this questionnaire may be subject to on-site 

verification by Department officials. 

Format for Reporting Quantity and Value of 

Sales 

In providing the information in the chart 

below, please provide the total quantity, in 

metric tons, and total value (in U.S. dollars) 

of all your sales to the United States during 

the period January 1, 2009, through June 30, 

2009, of merchandise covered by the scope 

of this investigation (see Appendix I) and 

produced in the PRC.38

• Please include only sales exported by 

your company directly to the United States. 

• Please do not include any sales of subject 

merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in 

your figures. 

Additionally, if you believe that you 

should be treated as a single entity along 

with other named exporters, please complete 

the chart, below, both in the aggregate for all 

named parties in your group and, in separate 

charts, individually for each named entity. 

Please label each chart accordingly. 

Market: 

United States 

Total quantity 

in metric 

tons 39

Terms of 

sale 40

Total 

value 41

($U.S.) 

1. Export Price 42 ......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

2. Constructed Export Price 43 ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

3. Further Manufactured 44 .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

[FR Doc. E9–24703 Filed 10–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Sensors and Instrumentation 

Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 

of Partially Closed Meeting 

The Sensors and Instrumentation 

Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) 

will meet on October 27, 2009, 9:30 

a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 

Room 3884, 14th Street between 

Constitution and Pennsylvania 

Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The 

Committee advises the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration on technical questions 

that affect the level of export controls 

applicable to sensors and 

instrumentation equipment and 

technology. 

Agenda 

Public Session 

1. Welcome and Introductions. 

2. Remarks from the Bureau of 

Industry and Security Management. 

3. Industry Presentations. 

4. New Business. 

Closed Session 

5. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions relating 

to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 

app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). 

The open session will be accessible 

via teleconference to 20 participants on 

a first come, first serve basis. To join the 

conference, submit inquiries to Ms. 

Yvette Springer at 

Yspringer@bis.doc.gov no later than 

October 20, 2009. 

A limited number of seats will be 

available during the public session of 

the meeting. Reservations are not 

accepted. To the extent that time 

permits, members of the public may 

present oral statements to the 

Committee. The public may submit 

written statements at any time before or 

after the meeting. However, to facilitate 

distribution of public presentation 

materials to the Committee members, 

the Committee suggests that the 

materials be forwarded before the 

meeting to Ms. Springer. 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, with the concurrence of 

the General Counsel, formally 

determined on September 29, 2009 

pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES