Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Notices 50173 

1See Drill Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 11757 

(March 3, 2011); Drill Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 

FR 11758 (March 3, 2011) collectively the ‘‘Drill 

Pipe Orders.’’ 

2This includes Hilong’s U.S. affiliate, Hilong 

USA LLC. (‘‘Hilong USA’’) and its joint venture 

affiliate Almansoori/Hilong Petroleum Pipe 

Company (‘‘Almansoori/Hilong’’) located in the 

United Arab Emirates (the ‘‘UAE’’). 

3 ‘‘Pipe’’ is heat treated and upset green tube, 

minus the tool joint. See Circumvention Request at 

3. 

4See the Petitioners’ June 14, 2011 submission 

(‘‘Circumvention Request’’) at 1. 

5See the Petitioners’ July 13, 2011 submission 

(‘‘Circumvention Request Supplement’’). 

6See Letter to Petitioner, dated July 27, 2011. 7See Letter to Petitioner, dated August 3, 2011. 

hand-held power tools and garden 

products under FTZ procedures within 

FTZ 26–Site 20, in Buford, Georgia. 

The application was processed in 

accordance with T/IM procedures, as 

authorized by FTZ Board Orders 1347 

(69 FR 52857, 8/30/2004) and 1480 (71 

FR 55422, 9/22/2006), including notice 

in the Federal Register inviting public 

comment (76 FR 37781, 06/28/2011). 

The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the 

application and determined that it 

meets the criteria for approval under T/ 

IM procedures except for finished 

products under HTSUS 8465.91 (table, 

slide and compound miter saws). 

Pursuant to the authority delegated to 

the FTZ Board Executive Secretary in 

the above-referenced Board Orders, the 

application is approved, with the 

exception of products under HTSUS 

8465.91, effective this date, until August 

5, 2013, subject to the FTZ Act and the 

Board’s regulations, including Section 

400.28. 

Dated: August 5, 2011. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20569 Filed 8–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–965 and C–570–966] 

Drill Pipe From the People’s Republic 

of China: Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

VAM Drilling U.S.A., Texas Steel 

Conversion Inc. and Rotary Drilling 

Tools (collectively the ‘‘Petitioners’’), 

the Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) is initiating an anticircumvention inquiry to determine 

whether certain imports of drill pipe 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) are circumventing the Drill 

Pipe Orders.1

DATES: Effective Date: August 12, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0413. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 14, 2011, pursuant to section 

781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the ‘‘Act’’), and section 

351.225(h) of the Department’s 

regulations, the Petitioners submitted a 

request for the Department to initiate an 

anti-circumvention inquiry of the 

Hilong Group of Companies Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Hilong’’) 2 to determine whether pipe 3

and tool joints produced in the PRC, 

and friction welded together in the 

United Arab Emirates (‘‘UAE’’), which 

are allegedly products of the PRC 

exported from the UAE, are 

circumventing the Drill Pipe Orders.4 In 

their request, the Petitioners contend 

that Hilong’s PRC drill pipe facility 

exports PRC-produced pipe and tool 

joints to AlMansoori/Hilong in the UAE, 

which friction welds the pipe to the 

tools joints, and then exports them to 

Hilong USA, which enters and sells the 

drill pipe as UAE origin merchandise. 

The Petitioners argue that because 

Hilong’s PRC-produced pipe and tool 

joint are assembled in the UAE, and 

enter the United States as UAE-origin 

merchandise which is of the same class 

or kind as the merchandise covered by 

the Drill Pipe Orders, this constitutes 

circumvention. 

On June 16, 2011, the Petitioners 

certified that all parties on the scope 

service list were served with their 

request. On July 6, 2010, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

the Petitioners regarding the request to 

initiate the anti-circumvention inquiry. 

On July 13, 2011, the Petitioners 

provided a response to the Department’s 

supplemental questionnaire.5 Hilong 

did not submit comments regarding the 

Petitioners’ circumvention allegations. 

On July 27, 2011, the Department 

extended the deadline to initiate an 

anti-circumvention inquiry by 8 days, 

pursuant to section 351.302(b) of the 

Department’s regulations.6 On August 3, 

2011, the Department extended the 

deadline to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry by 14 days, 

pursuant to section 351.302(b) of the 

Department’s regulations.7

Scope of the Orders 

The products covered by the orders 

are steel drill pipe, and steel drill 

collars, whether or not conforming to 

American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) or 

non-API specifications. Included are 

finished drill pipe and drill collars 

without regard to the specific chemistry 

of the steel (i.e., carbon, stainless steel, 

or other alloy steel), and without regard 

to length or outer diameter. Also 

included are unfinished drill collars 

(including all drill collar green tubes) 

and unfinished drill pipe (including 

drill pipe green tubes, which are tubes 

meeting the following description: 

seamless tubes with an outer diameter 

of less than or equal to 6 5⁄8 inches 

(168.28 millimeters), containing 

between 0.16 and 0.75 percent 

molybdenum, and containing between 

0.75 and 1.45 percent chromium). The 

scope does not include tool joints not 

attached to the drill pipe, nor does it 

include unfinished tubes for casing or 

tubing covered by any other 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

order. 

The subject products are currently 

classified in the following Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) categories: 7304.22.0030, 

7304.22.0045, 7304.22.0060, 

7304.23.3000, 7304.23.6030, 

7304.23.6045, 7304.23.6060, 

8431.43.8040 and may also enter under 

8431.43.8060, 8431.43.4000, 

7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 

7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 

7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 

7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 

7304.49.0015, 7304.49.0060, 

7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 

7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 

7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 

7304.59.8050 and 7304.59.8055. 

While HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the investigation is dispositive. 

Initiation of Anti-Circumvention 

Proceeding 

Section 781(b)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department may find 

circumvention of an antidumping duty 

order when merchandise of the same 

class or kind subject to the order is 

completed or assembled in a foreign 

country other than the country to which 

the order applies. In conducting anticircumvention inquiries, under section 

781(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will 

also evaluate whether: (1) The process 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

50174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Notices 

8See Circumvention Request at Attachment 3; see 

also Circumvention Request Supplement at Exhibit 

5. 

9See Circumvention Request at 4. 

10See Circumvention Request at 5; see also 

Circumvention Request Supplement at 1–2. 

11Because this information is business 

proprietary, its specific content cannot be discussed 

here. See Circumvention Request at 5 and 

Attachment 4a; see also Circumvention Request 

Supplement at 2 and Exhibit 1. 

12Because this information is business 

proprietary, its specific content cannot be discussed 

here. See Circumvention Request Supplement at 2 

and Exhibit 1. 

13See Circumvention Request Supplement at 1– 

2 and Exhibit 1. 

14See Circumvention Request Supplement at 1 

and Exhibit 2. 

15See Circumvention Request Supplement at 1– 

2 and Exhibit 3. 

16See Circumvention Request at 6. 

17See Circumvention Request at 3. 

of assembly or completion in the other 

foreign country is minor or 

insignificant; (2) the value of the 

merchandise produced in the foreign 

country to which the antidumping duty 

order applies is a significant portion of 

the total value of the merchandise 

exported to the United States; and (3) 

action is appropriate to prevent evasion 

of such an order or finding. As 

discussed below, the Petitioners have 

provided evidence with respect to these 

criteria. 

A. Merchandise of the Same Class or 

Kind 

The Petitioners state that the Drill 

Pipe Orders cover the drill pipe 

assembled in the UAE because it is the 

same class or kind as the drill pipe 

produced in the PRC. The Petitioners 

assert that the drill pipe assembled in 

the UAE contains the same components 

as the drill pipe produced in the PRC, 

i.e., green tube which is subsequently 

heat treated and upset, and tool joints. 

According to the Petitioners, the only 

distinction is that the friction welding of 

the pipe to the tool joint occurs in the 

UAE instead of the PRC. The Petitioners 

provided affidavits, as well as an e-mail 

from one of the Petitioner’s customers, 

which indicate that Hilong USA has 

imported merchandise identical to that 

which is subject to the Drill Pipe 

Orders.8 Since the merchandise being 

imported into the United States from the 

UAE is physically identical to the 

subject merchandise from the PRC, 

pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 

Act, this drill pipe is of the same class 

or kind as the drill pipe subject to the 

Drill Pipe Orders. 

B. Completion of Merchandise in a 

Foreign Country 

The Petitioners state that the drill 

pipe subject to its anti-circumvention 

inquiry request is made from pipe and 

tool joints produced in the PRC, then 

exported to and assembled in the UAE 

for re-export to the United States. The 

Petitioners maintain that the pipe is 

subject merchandise before the 

assembly performed by Almansoori/ 

Hilong in the UAE, which consists of 

friction welding the PRC-produced pipe 

to the PRC-produced tool joints. The 

Petitioners posit that the completed 

merchandise is then exported to the 

United States as UAE-origin. Therefore, 

the Petitioners conclude that, pursuant 

to section 781(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, 

Hilong’s drill pipe is merchandise 

assembled in another foreign country 

(the UAE) from merchandise that is 

produced in a country (the PRC) already 

subject to the Drill Pipe Orders.9

C. Minor or Insignificant Process 

The Petitioners argue that for the 

purposes of section 781(b)(1)(C) of the 

Act, the process of friction welding the 

pipe to the tool joint in the UAE is 

‘‘minor or insignificant’’ as defined by 

the Act. According to the Petitioners, 

the most fundamental aspect of the 

production process—the forming of 

seamless green tube by rotary piercing 

billet in an integrated or electric 

furnace, and the forming of tool joints 

from alloy steel bars that undergo a 

number of processes that require various 

specialized and expensive equipment— 

occurs in the PRC.10 Citing to a normal 

value build up consisting of factors of 

production consumption ratios reported 

by VAM Drilling, and surrogate values 

used in the antidumping investigation, 

the Petitioners contend that pipe and 

tool joint production account for about 

75 percent of the cost of manufacture of 

the subject merchandise.11

The Petitioners maintain that only a 

small percentage of the cost of 

manufacture consists of friction welding 

the pipe to the tool joint. The Petitioners 

provided evidence of the costs VAM 

Drilling incurs to subcontractors for 

friction welding pipe to tool joints.12

The Petitioners reason that an 

analysis of the relevant statutory factors 

of section 781(b)(2) of the Act further 

supports its conclusion that the UAE 

processing is ‘‘minor or insignificant.’’ 

These factors include (1) the level of 

investment in the foreign country, (2) 

the level of research and development 

in the foreign country, (3) the nature of 

the production process in the foreign 

country, (4) the extent of production 

facilities in the foreign country and (5) 

whether the value of the processing in 

the foreign country represents a small 

proportion of the value of the 

merchandise imported into the United 

States. 

(1) Level of Investment 

The Petitioners provided an affidavit 

from VAM Drilling asserting that the 

cost of a friction welding line is 

approximately $20 million U.S. dollars 

(‘‘USD’’).13 The Petitioners provided an 

additional affidavit that asserts that one 

of VAM Drilling’s affiliates has invested 

$650 million in a rotary piercing mill to 

produce pipe, although this company 

already has its own steel mill for 

producing billet.14 Further, the 

Petitioners provided publically 

available information that Tianjin Pipe 

Company indicates that the costs for a 

pipe production facility with a mill to 

produce billet is $1 billion USD.15 Thus, 

the Petitioners conclude that the cost of 

investing in a friction welding line is 

approximately two percent of the cost of 

investing in a pipe production line. 

The Petitioners argue that, based on 

their own experience in the UAE 

market, with regard to drill pipe, 

Almansoori/Hilong is engaged in 

assembly operations, and is essentially 

an export platform for PRC-origin drill 

pipe and is not an integrated production 

facility. Consequently, the Petitioners 

assert that little investment has been 

made in the UAE by Hilong in the 

assembly of drill pipe. 

(2) Level of Research and Development 

The Petitioners state that, similar to 

the level of investment, because 

Almansoori/Hilong’s drill pipe 

operations only involve the friction 

welding of pipe to tool joints, little or 

no research and development are 

required to set up and operate the UAE 

company to assemble Chinese 

components.16

(3) Nature of the Production Process 

According to the Petitioners, the 

nature of the production process for 

friction welding pipe to tool joints 

requires little machinery or equipment. 

The Petitioners contend that once a tool 

joint is attached, the drill pipe is 

exported to the United States.17 The 

Petitioners argue that the drill pipe 

assembled in the UAE contains the same 

components as the drill pipe produced 

in the PRC, i.e., pipe friction welded to 

tool joints, and the only distinction is 

that the friction welding of the tool joint 

to the pipe occurs in the UAE instead 

of the PRC. As a consequence, the 

Petitioners maintain that before the pipe 

is friction welded to the tool joints, the 

pipe is of the same class or kind as the 

drill pipe produced in the PRC that is 

subject to the Drill Pipe Orders. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Notices 50175 

18See Circumvention Request Supplement at 2 

and Exhibit 1. 

19See Circumvention Request at Attachment 6; 

see also Circumvention Request Supplement at 

Exhibit 4c. 

20See Circumvention Request Supplement at 4. 

21 Id. 

22See Circumvention Request at Attachment 6. 

23 Id. 

24See Circumvention Request Supplement at 

Exhibit 5. 

25See Circumvention request at Attachment 3; see 

also Circumvention Request Supplement at Exhibits 

6 & 7. 

26See Circumvention Request at Attachment 3. 

27See Circumvention Request Supplement at 

Exhibit 4. 

28See Circumvention Request at 9. 

29See Circumvention Request at Attachments 5 & 

6; see also Circumvention Request Supplement at 

Exhibits 4 & 5. 

30 Id. 

(4) Extent of Production in the UAE 

As stated above, the Petitioners 

contend that the extent of production in 

the UAE is simply friction welding PRCproduced pipe to PRC-produced tool 

joints. As noted above, the Petitioners 

state that this process is completed by 

the single friction welding line by 

Almansoori/Hilong in the UAE. 

(5) Value of Processing in the UAE as 

Compared to Drill Pipe Imported Into 

the United States 

The Petitioners assert that assembly in 

the UAE of pipe and tool joints adds 

little value to the final product exported 

to the United States. The Petitioners 

posit that the value of the final product 

is, most significantly, the pipe and tool 

joints, which, as noted above, comprise 

approximately 75% of the cost of 

manufacture. Also as noted above, the 

Petitioners maintain that only a small 

percentage of the cost of manufacture 

consists of friction welding the pipe to 

the tool joint.18 Thus, the Petitioners 

maintain that the completion activities 

in the UAE add very little to the drill 

pipe that is exported to the United 

States because pipe and tool joints 

supplied by Hilong are sourced from the 

PRC. 

D. Value of Merchandise Produced in 

PRC 

The Petitioners argue that the 

evidence, as noted above, in its anticircumvention request clearly supports 

their position that the value of the pipe 

and tool joints produced in the PRC, 

and assembled by Almansoori/Hilong, 

represents a significant portion of the 

total value of the merchandise exported 

to the United States, as measured by a 

percentage of the cost of manufacture. 

E. Additional Factors To Consider in 

Determining Whether Action Is 

Necessary 

The Petitioners argue that the 

additional factors contained in section 

781(b)(3) of the Act must also be 

considered in the Department’s decision 

whether to issue a finding of 

circumvention regarding the 

importation of drill pipe from the UAE. 

(1) Pattern of Trade 

The Petitioners state that section 

781(b)(3) of the Act directs the 

Department to take into account 

patterns of trade when making a 

decision whether to include 

merchandise assembled or completed in 

the UAE within the scope of the Drill 

Pipe Orders. Based on an analysis of 

publically available information from 

the ITC’s Dataweb of U.S. import data, 

the Petitioners assert that after the 

initiation of the investigations in 

January 2010, imports of drill pipe from 

the PRC fell significantly.19 The 

Petitioners note that Almansoori/Hilong 

was founded in 2006, but did not begin 

production until 2009.20 The Petitioners 

state that they are unaware of when 

Almansoori/Hilong began affixing pipe 

to tool joints, and only recently became 

aware of Almansoori/Hilong’s 

commercial operations involving drill 

pipe in recent months, in conjunction 

with information concerning drill pipe 

exports to the United States from the 

UAE.21 The Petitioners provided data 

which shows that in 2011 imports of 

drill pipe from the UAE increased.22

Specifically, the Petitioners provided 

DataWeb data which shows that in the 

first five months of 2011 the imports of 

drill pipe nearly doubled compared to 

the first five months of 2010.23

Moreover, the Petitioners provided 

evidence that a very large shipment of 

drill pipe entered the United States in 

June 2011.24 One of the Petitioners, 

Rotary Drilling Tools, provided an 

affidavit which states that a U.S. 

distributor of drill pipe is marketing 

Almansoori/Hilong-produced drill pipe 

as having avoided dumping duties by 

assembling the pipe and tool joints in 

the UAE. The Petitioners contend that 

these patterns of trade are consistent 

with an assembly operation in the UAE 

established by a PRC producer who is 

no longer able to supply drill pipe 

directly to the United States due to the 

antidumping duty order in place. 

(2) Affiliation 

The Petitioners state that section 

781(b)(3) of the Act directs the 

Department to take into account 

whether the manufacturer or exporter of 

the merchandise is affiliated with the 

person who uses the merchandise to 

assemble or complete in the foreign 

country the merchandise that is 

subsequently imported into the United 

States when making decisions on anticircumvention rulings. The Petitioners 

have provided an affidavit, as well as 

website pages, indicating that Hilong 

operates a joint venture in the UAE, 

Almansoori/Hilong.25 Furthermore, the 

Petitioners have provided an affidavit 

which indicates that Almansoori/Hilong 

operates a friction welding line in the 

UAE.26 The Petitioners contend that, 

based on proprietary information, 

Hilong USA imports drill pipe as having 

been finished in the UAE and is, thus, 

able to avoid dumping duties.27 The 

Petitioners maintain that through minor 

assembly operations in the UAE, Hilong 

is actively circumventing the Drill Pipe 

Orders. According to the Petitioners, the 

acknowledgement of affiliation and the 

timing of the exports from the UAE to 

the United States support a conclusion 

that Hilong’s assembly of PRC-produced 

drill pipe components in the UAE is 

circumventing the Drill Pipe Orders. 

(3) Subsequent Import Volume 

The Petitioners state that section 

781(b)(3) of the Act directs the 

Department to take into account 

whether imports into the foreign 

country of the merchandise have 

increased after the initiation of the 

investigation which resulted in the 

issuance of an order or finding when 

making a decision on anticircumvention rulings. While the 

Petitioners were unable to provide 

evidence of trade flows of pipe and tool 

joints between the PRC and the UAE, 

the Petitioners note that they are 

unaware of any imports of pipe or tool 

joints into the United States by 

Almansoori/Hilong prior to the 

initiation of the investigations in 

January 2010.28 The Petitioners note 

that U.S. import data shows that, after 

the initiation of the investigations, the 

UAE became a source of drill pipe to the 

United States when Almansoori/Hilong 

began operations.29 The Petitioners 

argue that Almansoori/Hilong’s initial 

shipments, starting in February 2011, 

support the conclusion that the UAE 

had not, until recently, been a source of 

drill pipe shipments to the United 

States.30

Analysis of the Request 

Based on our analysis of the 

Petitioners’ anti-circumvention inquiry 

request, the Department determines that 

the Petitioners have satisfied the criteria 

under section 781(b) of the Act to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

50176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Notices 

warrant an initiation of a formal anticircumvention inquiry. In accordance 

with section 351.225(e) of the 

Department’s regulations, if the 

Department finds that the issue of 

whether a product is included within 

the scope of an order cannot be 

determined based solely upon the 

application and the descriptions of the 

merchandise, the Department will notify 

by mail all parties on the Department’s 

scope service list of the initiation of a 

scope inquiry, including an anticircumvention inquiry. In addition, in 

accordance with section 351.225(f)(1)(ii) 

of the Department’s regulations, a notice 

of the initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry issued under 

paragraph (e) of this section includes a 

description of the product that is the 

subject of the anti-circumvention 

inquiry—drill pipe that contain the 

characteristics as provided in the scope 

of the Drill Pipe Orders, and an 

explanation of the reasons for the 

Department’s decision to initiate an 

anti-circumvention inquiry, as provided 

below. 

With regard to whether the 

merchandise from the UAE is of the 

same class or kind as the merchandise 

produced in the PRC, the Petitioners 

have presented information to the 

Department indicating that, pursuant to 

section 781(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the 

merchandise being exported from the 

UAE by Almansoori/Hilong may be of 

the same class or kind as drill pipe 

produced in the PRC, which is subject 

to the Drill Pipe Orders. Consequently, 

the Department finds that the 

Petitioners have provided sufficient 

information in their request regarding 

the class of kind of merchandise to 

support the initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry. 

With regard to completion or 

assembly of merchandise in a foreign 

country, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(B) 

of the Act, the Petitioners have also 

presented information to the 

Department indicating that the drill 

pipe exported from the UAE to the 

United States is assembled by 

Almansoori/Hilong in the UAE from 

pipe and tool joints produced in the 

PRC. We find that the information 

presented by the Petitioners regarding 

this criterion supports their request to 

initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry. 

The Department believes that the 

Petitioners sufficiently addressed the 

factors described in section 781(b)(2) of 

the Act regarding whether the friction 

welding of pipe to tool joints in the UAE 

is minor or insignificant. Specifically, in 

support of their argument, the 

Petitioners relied on their own 

experience and surrogate values from 

the less-than-fair-value investigation. 

Thus, we find that the information 

presented by the Petitioners supports 

their request to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. In particular, we 

find that the Petitioners’ submissions 

suggest that (1) little investment has 

been made by Hilong in its drill pipe 

welding operations in the UAE, (2) 

Hilong has fully integrated production 

facilities in the PRC, and therefore, 

research and development presumably 

takes place in the PRC rather than the 

UAE, (3) the friction welding of pipe to 

tool joints in the UAE does not alter the 

fundamental characteristics of the drill 

pipe, nor does it remove it from the 

scope of the Drill Pipe Orders, (4) 

Almansoori/Hilong has a lower 

investment level than companies that 

manufacture pipe and tool joints and (5) 

friction welding pipe to tool joints adds 

little value to the merchandise imported 

to the United States. Our analysis will 

focus on Almansoori/Hilong’s assembly 

operations in the UAE and, in the 

context of this proceeding, we will 

closely examine the manner in which 

this company’s processing materials are 

obtained, whether those materials are 

considered subject to the scope of the 

Drill Pipe Orders, and the extent of 

processing in the UAE, as well as the 

manner in which production and sales 

relationships are conducted with the 

alleged PRC and U.S. affiliates. 

With respect to the value of the 

merchandise produced in the PRC, 

pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(D) of the 

Act, the Petitioners relied on one of its 

member’s information and arguments in 

the ‘‘minor or insignificant process’’ 

portion of its anti-circumvention request 

to indicate that the value of the pipe and 

tool joint may be significant relative to 

the total value of finished drill pipe 

exported to the United States. We find 

that the information adequately meets 

the requirements of this factor, as 

discussed above, for the purposes of 

initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry. 

Finally, the Petitioners argue that 

pursuant to section 781(b)(3) of the Act 

the Department considers the pattern of 

trade, affiliation, and subsequent import 

volumes as factors in determining 

whether to initiate the anticircumvention inquiry. Here, we find 

that imports of drill pipe from the PRC 

decreased after the initiation of the 

investigations, that the Almansoori/ 

Hilong joint venture in the UAE is 

affiliated to Hilong, and that the U.S. 

import data submitted by the Petitioners 

suggests that imports of drill pipe have 

risen since the investigations. 

Accordingly, based on the Petitioners’ 

submissions, we have determined that 

we have a sufficient basis to initiate a 

formal anti-circumvention inquiry 

concerning the Drill Pipe Orders, 

pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act. In 

accordance with section 351.225(l)(2) of 

the Department’s regulations, if the 

Department issues a preliminary 

affirmative determination, we will then 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to suspend liquidation and 

require a cash deposit of estimated 

duties on the merchandise. 

This anti-circumvention inquiry 

covers Hilong and its affiliated 

companies in the UAE and United 

States. If, within sufficient time, the 

Department receives a formal request 

from an interested party regarding 

potential circumvention of the Drill Pipe 

Orders by other UAE companies, we 

will consider conducting additional 

inquiries concurrently. 

The Department will establish a 

schedule for questionnaires and 

comments on the issues. In accordance 

with section 351.225(f)(5), the 

Department intends to issue its final 

determination within 300 days of the 

date of publication of this initiation. 

This notice is published in accordance 

with section 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 5, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20570 Filed 8–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–840] 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, Determination 

Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty 

Order in Part, and Final No Shipment 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 12, 2011. 

SUMMARY: On April 7, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published its preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

orange juice (OJ) from Brazil. This 

review covers four producers/exporters 

of the subject merchandise to the United 

States. The period of review (POR) is 

March 1, 2009, through February 28, 

2010. 

After analyzing the comments 

received, we have made certain changes 

in the margin calculations. Therefore, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES