Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Notices 52945 

1See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 

and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended: 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, 

Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic 

of China, dated September 16, 2009 (‘‘Petition’’). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–570–957) 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yasmin Nair and Joseph Shuler, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3813 and (202) 

482–1293, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On September 16, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) petition 

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. 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’).1 On 

September 25, 2009, the Petition was 

amended to add TMK IPSCO and The 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Worker 

International Union as additional 

Petitioners. On September 21 and 22, 

2009, the Department issued requests to 

Petitioners for additional information 

and for clarification of certain areas of 

the Petition. Based on the Department’s 

requests, Petitioners filed a supplement 

to the Petition, regarding general issues, 

on September 25, 2009 (‘‘Supplement to 

the AD/CVD Petitions’’). On September 

25, 2009, the Department requested 

further information from Petitioners, 

including suggested refinements to the 

scope. On September 28, 2009, 

Petitioners filed a supplement to the 

Petition, regarding the CVD allegations. 

On September 29, 2009, Petitioners filed 

an additional supplement to the Petition 

in response to the Department’s 

September 25, 2009 request (‘‘Second 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions’’). 

Also, on September 29, 2009, the 

Department issued a further request to 

Petitioners for information and 

clarification of certain aspects of the 

Petition. In response to the 

Department’s request, Petitioners filed a 

supplement to the Petition regarding 

general issues, on October 1, 2009. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), Petitioners allege that 

producers/exporters of seamless pipe 

from the PRC received countervailable 

subsidies within the meaning of 

sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, and 

that imports from these producers/ 

exporters 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 because Petitioners 

are interested parties, as defined in 

section 771(9)(C) 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). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is January 

1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. 

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 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’’. 

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 end– 

use 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 

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 (‘‘CBP’’). 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. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, on September 22, 2009, the 

Department invited representatives of 

the Government of the PRC for 

consultations with respect to the 

Petition. The Government of the PRC 

did not request such consultations. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52946 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Notices 

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 Countervailing 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 (≥CRU≥), Room 1117 of the 

main Department of Commerce building. 

4See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

5See id. 

6See Section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

7See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

8See id. 

9See id. 

petition account for: (i) at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

industry. 

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

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (see 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 did 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 

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

the industry support data contained in 

the Petition with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in 

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 

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 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.7 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

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

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties (e.g., domestic 

producers) as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigation that they are requesting 

that the Department initiate.9

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 

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

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege imports of seamless 

pipe from the PRC are benefitting from 

countervailable subsidies and that such 

imports are causing, or threaten to cause 

material injury to the domestic industry 

producing seamless pipe. In addition, 

Petitioners alleged that subject imports 

exceed the negligibility threshold 

provided for under section 771(24)(A) of 

the Act. 

Petitioners contended 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Notices 52947 

10See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III for 

details. 

11See id. 

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

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

the Department to initiate a CVD 

proceeding whenever an interested 

party files a petition on behalf of an 

industry that: (1) alleges the elements 

necessary for an imposition of a duty 

under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) 

is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to the petitioner(s) 

supporting the allegations. 

The Department has examined the 

Petition on seamless pipe from the PRC 

and finds that it complies with the 

requirements of section 702(b) of the 

Act. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 702(b) of the Act, we are 

initiating a CVD investigation to 

determine whether manufacturers, 

producers, or exporters of seamless pipe 

in the PRC receive countervailable 

subsidies. For a discussion of evidence 

supporting our initiation determination, 

see Initiation Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

Petition to have provided 

countervailable subsidies to producers 

and exporters of the subject 

merchandise in the PRC: 

A. Preferential Loans 

1. Policy Loans to the Seamless Pipe 

Industry 

2. Export Loans 

3. Treasury Bond Loans 

4. Preferential Loans for State–Owned 

Enterprises (‘‘SOEs’’) 

5. Preferential Loans for Key Projects 

and Technologies 

6. Preferential Lending to Seamless 

Pipe Producers and Exporters 

Classified as ‘‘Honorable 

Enterprises 

7. Loans and Interest Subsidies 

Provided Pursuant to the Northeast 

Revitalization Program 

B. Equity Programs 

1. Debt–to-Equity Swaps 

2. Equity Infusions 

3. Exemptions for SOEs From 

Distributing Dividends to the State 

4. Loan and Interest Forgiveness for 

SOEs 

C. Tax Benefit Programs 

1. Income Tax Credits for 

Domestically Owned Companies 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment 

2. Preferential Income Tax Policy for 

Enterprises in the Northeast Region 

3. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for 

Enterprises in the Old Industrial 

Bases of Northeast China 

4. Reduction in or Exemption from 

Fixed Assets Investment 

Orientation Regulatory Tax 

D. Subsidies for Foreign Invested 

Enterprises (‘‘FIEs’’) 

1. ‘‘Two Free, Three Half’’ Program 

2. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reduction Programs for 

‘‘Productive’’ FIEs 

3. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs 

Recognized as High or New 

Technology Enterprises 

4. Income Tax Reductions for Export– 

Oriented FIEs 

E. 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 Program 

3. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions 

for FIEs and Certain Domestic 

Enterprises Using Imported 

Equipment in Encouraged 

Industries 

4. Deed Tax Exemption For SOEs 

Undergoing Mergers or 

Restructuring 

5. Export Incentive Payments 

Characterized as ‘‘VAT rebates’’ 

F. Government Provision of Goods and 

Services for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration 

1. Provision of Land to SOEs for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration 

2. Provision of Land Use Rights for 

Less Than Adequate Remuneration 

3. Provision of Steel Rounds for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration 

4. Provision of Electricity for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration 

5. Provision of Electricity and Water 

for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration to Seamless Pipe 

Producers Located in Jiangsu 

Province 

6. Export Restrictions on Coke 

7. Provision of Coking Coal for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration 

G. Grant Programs 

1. The State Key Technology Project 

Fund 

2. Foreign Trade Development Fund 

(Northeast Revitalization Program) 

3. Export Assistance Grants 

4. Program to Rebate Antidumping 

Duties 

5. Subsidies for Development of 

Famous Export Brands and China 

World Top Brands 

6. Sub–central Government Programs 

to Promote Famous Export Brands 

and China World Top Brands 

7. Grants to Loss–Making SOEs 

8. Export Interest Subsidies 

H. Other Regional Programs 

1. Subsidies Provided in the Tianjin 

Binhai New Area and the Tianjin 

Economic and Technological 

Development Area 

2. High–Tech Industrial Development 

Zones 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is investigating 

these programs, see Initiation Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise in 

the PRC: 

A. Tax Benefit Programs 

Income Tax Benefits for 

Domestically–Owned Enterprises 

Engaging in Research and 

Development 

Petitioners allege that according to the 

PRC’s World Trade Organization 

subsidies notification, domestic 

industrial enterprises whose research 

and development expenses increased by 

10 percent from the previous year may 

offset 150 percent of the research 

expenditures from their income tax 

obligations. Petitioners have not 

sufficiently established that this tax 

reduction program is specific. 

Consequently, we do not plan to 

investigate this program. 

B. Provision of Inputs for Less than 

Adequate Remuneration 

Export Restrictions on Steel Rounds 

Petitioners allege that effective 

January 1, 2008, the Government of the 

PRC increased the export tax on steel 

billets, including steel rounds, from 15 

to 25 percent. The result, according to 

Petitioners, was a decline in exports of 

this product from the PRC. Specifically, 

Petitioners provide information 

indicating that exports of steel rounds 

fell by 92.6 percent on an annual basis 

for the first two months of the year, and 

were zero in the month of February 

2008. The further result of the export 

tax, according to Petitioners, was a 

sharp divergence in domestic PRC and 

world prices of steel rounds. While 

Petitioners have provided reasonably 

available information showing that 

domestic PRC prices are less than world 

prices, the information does not show a 

connection between the export 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52948 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 198 / Thursday, October 15, 2009 / Notices 

restraints and this price difference. 

Consequently, we do not plan to 

investigate this program. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

expects to select respondents based on 

CBP data for U.S. imports during the 

period of investigation. We intend to 

make our decision regarding respondent 

selection within 20 days of publication 

of this Federal Register notice. The 

Department invites comments regarding 

the CBP data and respondent selection 

within seven calendar days of 

publication of this Federal Register 

notice. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the Petition has been provided to the 

representatives of the Government of the 

PRC. Because of the particularly 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 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 45 days after the date on which 

the Petition is filed, whether there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of 

subsidized seamless pipe from the PRC 

are causing material injury, or 

threatening to cause material injury, to 

a U.S. industry. See section 703(a)(2) of 

the Act. A negative ITC determination 

will result in the investigation being 

terminated; otherwise, the 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 

Attachment I 

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. 

[FR Doc. E9–24834 Filed 10–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–601] 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China; 

Extension of Time Limit for the Final 

Results of the 2007–2008 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Veith or Brendan Quinn, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–4295 or (202) 482– 

5848, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 30, 2008, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) initiated the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on tapered 

roller bearings and parts thereof, 

finished or unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

for the period June 1, 2007 through May 

31, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008). On July 8, 

2009, the Department published its 

preliminary results on TRBs from the 

PRC. See Tapered Roller Bearings and 

Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of the 2007 2008 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 32539 

(July 8, 2009). The final results of this 

administrative review are currently due 

no later than November 5, 2009. 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to issue the 

final results in an administrative review 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary results are published. 

However, if it is not practicable to 

complete the review within this time 

period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 

allows the Department to extend the 

time period to a maximum of 180 days. 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the final results of this 

review within the original time limit 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES