U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4075 May 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line 

Pipe from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1149 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Mary Messer, Investigator 

Norman VanToai, Industry Analyst 

Joshua Levy, Economist 

Charles Yost, Accountant 

Michael Haldenstein, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4075 May 2009

Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line 

Pipe from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1149 (Final)

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Nature and extent of sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Appendix

A. Federal Register notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
 
 1

 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

 2

 Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane, Irving A. Williamson, and Dean A. Pinkert based their affirmative

determinations on findings of present material injury. Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman Daniel R.

Pearson, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun based their affirmative determinations on findings of threat of

material injury, and further determined that they would not have found material injury but for the suspension of

liquidation.

 3

 On April 4, 2008, Wheatland Tube Co. (Sharon, PA) separately filed an entry of appearance in support of the

petition. Counsel for petitioning firm Tex-Tube Co. amended its entry of appearance on October 31, 2008, to

include domestic producers Northwest Pipe Co. (Vancouver, WA); Stupp Corp. (Baton Rouge, LA); and TMK

IPSCO Tubulars (Lisle, IL); the same counsel amended its entry of appearance again on November 3, 2008, to add

domestic producer American Steel Pipe Division of ACIPCO (Birmingham, AL).

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1149 (Final)

CIRCULAR WELDED CARBON QUALITY STEEL LINE PIPE FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports from China of circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe from

China, provided for in subheadings 7306.19.10 and 7306.19.51 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United

States at less than fair value (LTFV).2

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this investigation effective April 3, 2008, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Maverick Tube Corp. (Houston, TX), Tex-Tube

Co. (Houston, TX), U.S. Steel Corp. (Pittsburgh, PA), and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC

(Pittsburgh, PA).3

 The final phase of the investigation was scheduled by the Commission following

notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of circular welded carbon quality

line pipe from China were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

§ 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigation and of a

public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office

of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in

the Federal Register of September 22, 2008 (73 FR 54618) and December 12, 2008 (73 FR 75770). The

hearing was held in Washington, DC, on November 24, 2008, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
 
 1

 Effective November 6, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce extended the deadline for its final antidumping

duty determination for Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from China by 135 days, or to

March 23, 2009. Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 Fed. Reg.

66012 (Nov. 6, 2008). The Commission’s determination regarding the final phase of its antidumping investigation

was due within 45 days thereafter.

 2 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, Commissioner Irving A. Williamson, and Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert

determine that a domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports of certain circular welded

carbon quality steel line pipe from China.

 3 Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun

determine that a domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of certain circular

welded carbon quality steel line pipe from China. 

 4 On November 17, 2008, petitioners notified Commerce that they were withdrawing the petition with respect to

less than fair value imports of line pipe from Korea. On November 25, 2008, Commerce notified the Commission

that it had terminated the antidumping duty investigation with respect to line pipe from Korea. The Commission

subsequently terminated its antidumping duty investigation with respect to Korea. 73 Fed. Reg. 75770 (Dec. 12,

2008).

 5 Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe From China, Inv. No. 701-TA-455 (Final), USITC

Pub. 4055 (Jan. 2009) (“USITC Pub. 4055”).

 6 Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 Fed. Reg. 70961 (Nov. 24, 2008).

 7 Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 Fed. Reg. 14514 (Mar. 31, 2009).

 8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(iii). Petitioners Maverick Tube Corporation, U.S. Steel Corporation, Tex-Tube

Company, Northwest Pipe Company, Stupp Corporation, IPSCO Tubulars, and American Steel Pipe Division of

ACIPCO filed comments on March 31, 2009.

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the final phase of this investigation,1 we find that an industry in the United

States is materially injured,2

 or threatened with material injury,3 by reason of imports of certain circular

welded carbon quality steel line pipe (“line pipe”) from China that have been found by the U.S.

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value.

ADOPTION OF VIEWS IN EARLIER COUNTERVAILING DUTY INVESTIGATION

This investigation arose out of a group of simultaneously filed petitions seeking the imposition of

antidumping duties and countervailing duties on imports of line pipe from China, and antidumping duties

on imports of line pipe from Korea.4

 The Commission was required to issue its determination in the

countervailing duty investigation of line pipe from China in January 2009,5

 because Commerce issued its

final determination in the countervailing duty investigation6

 earlier than in the antidumping investigation.7

Under section 771(7)(G)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, we make our injury

determination in this investigation on the same record as that of our determination in the earlier

countervailing duty investigation, except that the record in this investigation also includes Commerce’s

final determination in the antidumping investigation of subject imports from China and the parties’ final

comments concerning the significance of that determination.8

 Therefore, in this investigation, we adopt

the findings and analyses in our earlier countervailing duty investigation concerning line pipe from China
 9

 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, Commissioner Irving A. Williamson, and Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert

determine that a domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports of line pipe from China. See

USITC Pub. 4055. They again join all sections, except III.D, of the Commission’s Views.

 10 Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun

determine that a domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of line pipe from

China. See USITC Pub. 4055. Section III.D of the Commission Views contains their views concerning threat of

material injury. They again join all sections of the Views of the Commission, except where noted.

 11 We note that Commerce found that all of the subject imports from China were sold at less than fair value in the

United States. 74 Fed. Reg. 14514, 14517 (Mar. 31, 2009). For producers/exporters Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial

Co., Ltd., Huludao City Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd., Pangang Group Beihai Steel Pipe Corporation, Jiangsu

Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Tianjin Xingyuda Import and Export Co., Ltd., Tianjin Lifengyuanda Steel Pipe Group

Co., Ltd., Commerce found a dumping margin of 73.87 percent. For all other producers and exporters of line pipe in

China, Commerce calculated a dumping margin of 101.1 percent. 74 Fed. Reg. at 14517.

 12 Cross cumulation is the cumulation of subsidized imports with dumped imports and includes, as in this case,

the situation in which the dumped and subsidized imports are one and the same. See Bingham & Taylor v. United

States, 815 F. 2d 1482 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 (Final) and

731-TA-928 (Final), USITC Pub. 3509 (May 2002) at 29. We note that the cumulated imports found to be

subsidized and sold at less than fair value were the subject of investigations that resulted from petitions filed the

same day, none of the exceptions to cumulation noted at 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(g)(ii) apply, and there is no dispute

that the dumped and subsidized imports compete with each other and the domestic like product, as they are, indeed,

the same imports.

 13 Given that the subject imports found to be dumped and subsidized are the same, Chairman Shara L. Aranoff,

Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun also exercise their discretion to

cumulate subject imports for their analysis of threat of material injury.

4

with respect to the domestic like product, the domestic industry, material injury,9

 and threat of material

injury.10 11 For purposes of determining material injury and threat of material injury, we have crosscumulated dumped and subsidized imports from China, but note that the volume of dumped and

subsidized imports is the same.12 13

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the domestic industry producing line pipe is

materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of line pipe from China

that are sold in the United States at less than fair value.
 1

 On April 4, 2008, Wheatland Tube Co. (Sharon, PA) separately filed an entry of appearance in support of the

petition. Counsel for petitioning firm Tex-Tube Co. amended its entry of appearance on October 31, 2008, to

include domestic producers Northwest Pipe Co. (Vancouver, WA); Stupp Corp. (Baton Rouge, LA); and TMK

IPSCO Tubulars (Lisle, IL); the same counsel once again amended its entry of appearance on November 3, 2008, to

add domestic producer American Steel Pipe Division of ACIPCO (Birmingham, AL).

 2

 The petition also alleged that an industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with

material injury by reason of LTFV imports of line pipe from Korea. However, the Commission terminated its

antidumping duty investigation concerning line pipe from Korea subsequent to petitioners’ withdrawal of the petition

(73 FR 75770, December 12, 2008).

 3

 The Commission transmitted its affirmative determination and views with respect to the countervailing duty

investigation concerning line pipe from China on January 7, 2009. Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe

from China, Inv. No. 701-TA-455 (Final), USITC Publication 4055, January 2009, p. I-2. The Commission’s

affirmative determination was published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2009 (74 FR 1706).

 4

 Commerce’s Federal Register notice of its final determination of sales at LTFV (cited in the tabulation) is

presented in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

This investigation results from a petition filed on April 3, 2008, with the U.S. Department of

Commerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) by Maverick

Tube Corp. (Houston, TX), Tex-Tube Co. (Houston, TX), U.S. Steel Corp. (Pittsburgh, PA), and the

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers

International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (Pittsburgh, PA)1

 alleging that an industry in the United States is

materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value

(“LTFV”) imports of circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe (“line pipe”) from China.2

 The 

tabulation on the following page provides information relating to the background of the now-completed

countervailing duty investigation,3

 as well as the antidumping duty investigation.4
 5

 The only party comments received were from counsel on behalf of domestic producers U.S. Steel Corp.,

Maverick Tube Corp., Tex-Tube Co., IPSCO Tubulars, Northwest Pipe Co., Stupp Corp., and American Steel Pipe

Division of ACIPCO.

I-2

Effective date Action

April 3, 2008

Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations

April 29, 2008 Commerce’s notice of initiation

May 19, 2008 Commission’s preliminary affirmative determinations

June 6, 2008 Commerce’s postponement of preliminary countervailing duty determination

August 29, 2008 Commerce’s postponement of preliminary antidumping duty determinations

September 9, 2008

Commerce’s preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination; scheduling

of final phase of Commission's investigations

November 6, 2008 Commerce’s preliminary antidumping duty determinations

November 24, 2008 Commerce’s final countervailing duty determination

November 24, 2008 Commission’s hearing

November 25, 2008 Commission’s termination of antidumping duty investigation with respect to Korea

December 22, 2008 Commission’s vote on countervailing duty investigation

January 7, 2009 Commission’s countervailing duty determination transmitted to Commerce

March 31, 2009 Commerce’s final antidumping duty determination (74 FR 14514)

April 23, 2009 Commission’s vote on antidumping duty investigation

May 6, 2009 Commission’s antidumping duty determination transmitted to Commerce

The information contained in this report is intended to be used in conjunction with data presented

in the Commission’s report entitled Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from China, Inv. No.

701-TA-455 (Final), USITC Publication 4055, January 2009 (“USITC Publication 4055”) and its

corresponding confidential version contained in memorandum No. INV-FF-151, Circular Welded Carbon

Quality Steel Line Pipe from China (“INV-FF-151”). No new information except for Commerce’s final

affirmative determination of sales at LTFV of line pipe from China and party comments5

 thereon is

included in the record for this proceeding.
 6

 Table I-1 of this report corresponds to table I-4 of USITC Publication 4055 and INV-FF-151.

I-3

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SALES AT LTFV

On March 31, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final

determination of sales at LTFV with respect to imports of line pipe from China. Table I-1 presents

Commerce’s final dumping margins with respect to imports of line pipe from China.6

 

Table I-1

Line pipe: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from China

Exporter Producer

Final weighted-average

dumping margin

(percent)

Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co.,

Ltd./Huludao City Steel Pipe

Industrial Co., Ltd.

Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co.,

Ltd./Huludao City Steel Pipe

Industrial Co., Ltd. 73.87

Pangang Group Beihai Steel Pipe

Corp.

Pangang Group Beihai Steel Pipe

Corp. 73.87

Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 73.87

Tianjin Xingyuda Import and Export

Co., Ltd.

Tianjin Lifengyuanda Steel Pipe

Group Co., Ltd. 73.87

China-wide rate 101.10

Source: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 14514, March 31, 2009.
 
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE

14514 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 31, 2009 / Notices 

these kinds of data on a continuing basis 

since 1983 permitting levels of 

economic well-being and changes in 

these levels to be measured over time. 

The 2008 panel is currently scheduled 

for 4 years and will include 13 waves 

of interviewing beginning September 

2008. Approximately 65,300 households 

were selected for the 2008 panel, of 

which 45,000 households are expected 

to be interviewed. We estimate that each 

household contains 2.1 people, yielding 

94,500 person-level interviews in Wave 

1 and subsequent waves. Interviews take 

30 minutes on average. Three waves 

will occur in the 2008 SIPP Panel 

during FY 2009. The total annual 

burden for 2008 Panel SIPP interviews 

would be 141,750 hours in FY 2009. 

The topical modules for the 2008 

Panel Wave 4 collect information about: 

• Assets, Liabilities, and Eligibility. 

• Child Well-Being. 

• Medical Expenses and Utilization of 

Health Care (Adults and Children). 

• Work Related Expenses and Child 

Support Paid. 

Wave 4 interviews will be conducted 

from September 1, 2009 through 

December 31, 2009. 

A 10-minute reinterview of 3,100 

people is conducted at each wave to 

ensure accuracy of responses. 

Reinterviews would require an 

additional 1,553 burden hours in FY 

2009. 

II. Method of Collection 

The SIPP is designed as a continuing 

series of national panels of interviewed 

households that are introduced every 

few years with each panel having 

durations of one to four years. All 

household members 15 years old or over 

are interviewed using regular proxyrespondent rules. During the 2008 

panel, respondents are interviewed a 

total of 13 times (13 waves) at 4-month 

intervals making the SIPP a longitudinal 

survey. Sample people (all household 

members present at the time of the first 

interview) who move within the country 

and reasonably close to a SIPP primary 

sampling unit will be followed and 

interviewed at their new address. 

Individuals 15 years old or over who 

enter the household after Wave 1 will be 

interviewed; however, if these 

individuals move, they are not followed 

unless they happen to move along with 

a Wave 1 sample individual. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0607–0944. 

Form Number: SIPP/CAPI Automated 

Instrument. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

94,500 people per wave. 

Estimated Time per Response: 30 

minutes per person. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 143,303. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Legal Authority: Title 13, United 

States Code, Section 182. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: March 26, 2009. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–7117 Filed 3–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–935 

Certain Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Line Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 2009. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) has determined that 

circular welded carbon quality steel line 

pipe (welded line pipe) from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC) is 

being, or is likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(LTFV) as provided in section 735 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

The final dumping margins for this 

investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

The period covered by the investigation 

is October 1, 2007, through March 31, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Pedersen or Rebecca Pandolph, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2769 and 482– 

3627, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on November 6, 2008. See Certain 

Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel 

Line Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

73 FR 66012 (November 6, 2008) 

(Preliminary Determination). On 

November 5, 2008, Shanghai Metals & 

Minerals Import & Export Corp. d/b/a 

Shanghai Minmetals Materials & 

Products Corp. (Shanghai Metals) 

informed the Department that it would 

not participate in the verification of its 

information and withdrew from the 

investigation. See Letter to Secretary of 

Commerce, Shanghai Metals’ Notice of 

Withdrawal from Investigation and 

Certification of APO Compliance and 

Destruction of APO Materials at 1 

(November 5, 2008). On November 6, 

2008, Benxi Northern Steel Pipes Co., 

Ltd. (Benxi) also informed the 

Department that it would not participate 

in the verification of its information and 

withdrew from the investigation. See 

Letter to Secretary of Commerce, Benxi’s 

Notice of Withdrawal from Investigation 

(November 6, 2008). From November 13, 

2008, through November 21, 2008, the 

Department conducted a verification of 

information submitted by Huludao Steel 

Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. (Huludao Pipe). 

See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. On December 

16, 2008, Huludao Pipe and United 

States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), 

one of the petitioning companies, 

submitted comments on, and 

calculations of, various surrogate values. 

In response to the Department’s 

invitation to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination, on January 

5, 2009, U.S. Steel, Maverick Tube 

Corporation (Maverick), a petitioner, 

Huludao Pipe, and the Bureau of Fair 

Trade, Imports and Exports, Ministry of 

Commerce of the PRC filed case briefs. 


tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 31, 2009 / Notices 14515 

Maverick, U.S. Steel and Huludao Pipe 

filed rebuttal briefs on January 12, 2009. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All of the issues that were raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs that were 

submitted in this investigation, and to 

which we have responded, are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

March 23, 2009, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice (Issues and 

Decision Memorandum). Appendix I to 

this notice contains a list of the issues 

that are addressed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. The Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, which is a 

public document, is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, at the main 

Commerce Building, Room 1117, and is 

accessible on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

We have made the following changes 

to our calculations in the Preliminary 

Determination: 

1. We based our determination with 

respect to Shanghai Metals and 

Benxi on total adverse facts 

available (AFA) because these 

companies refused to allow the 

Department to verify the 

information submitted in the 

investigation and failed to 

cooperate to the best of their 

abilities. As total AFA, we found 

Shanghai Metals and Benxi to be 

part of the PRC–wide entity. 

2. We have reduced the grace 

period used in calculating 

warehouse expenses to seven days. 

3. We have applied new surrogate 

values for ocean freight based on 

corrections to the departure and 

destination ports made at 

verification. 

4. We have recalculated the 

reported per–unit volume of subject 

merchandise warehoused based on 

verification findings. 

5. We have recalculated the cost of 

paint and thinner based on 

corrections to consumption 

reported by Huludao Pipe at 

verification. 

6. We have recalculated labor costs 

based on corrections to 

consumption reported by Huludao 

Pipe at verification. 

7. We have recalculated 

transportation costs for material 

inputs based on corrections to the 

distance from the supplier to the 

factory reported by Huludao Pipe at 

verification. 

8. We have used new surrogate 

financial statements to calculate 

financial ratios. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is circular welded carbon 

quality steel pipe of a kind used for oil 

and gas pipelines (welded line pipe), 

not more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) in 

outside diameter, regardless of wall 

thickness, length, surface finish, end 

finish or stenciling. 

The term ‘‘carbon quality steel’’ 

includes both carbon steel and carbon 

steel mixed with small amounts of 

alloying elements that may exceed the 

individual weight limits for nonalloy 

steels imposed in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Specifically, the term ‘‘carbon quality’’ 

includes products in which (1) iron 

predominates by weight over each of the 

other contained elements, (2) the carbon 

content is 2 percent or less by weight 

and (3) none of the elements listed 

below exceeds the quantity by weight 

respectively indicated: 

(i) 2.00 percent of manganese, 

(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon, 

(iii) 1.00 percent of copper, 

(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum, 

(v) 1.25 percent of chromium, 

(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt, 

(vii) 0.40 percent of lead, 

(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel, 

(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten, 

(x) 0.012 percent of boron, 

(xi) 0.50 percent of molybdenum, 

(xii) 0.15 percent of niobium, 

(xiii) 0.41 percent of titanium, 

(xiv) 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 

(xv) 0.15 percent of zirconium. 

Welded line pipe is normally 

produced to specifications published by 

the American Petroleum Institute (API) 

(or comparable foreign specifications) 

including API A–25, 5LA, 5LB, and X 

grades from 42 and above, and/or any 

other proprietary grades or non–graded 

material. Nevertheless, all pipe meeting 

the physical description set forth above 

that is of a kind used in oil and gas 

pipelines, including all multiple– 

stenciled pipe with an API welded line 

pipe stencil is covered by the scope of 

this investigation. 

Excluded from this scope are pipes of 

a kind used for oil and gas pipelines 

that are multiple–stenciled to a standard 

and/or structural specification and have 

one or more of the following 

characteristics: is 32 feet in length or 

less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in 

outside diameter; has a galvanized and/ 

or painted surface finish; or has a 

threaded and/or coupled end finish. 

(The term ‘‘painted’’ does not include 

coatings to inhibit rust in transit, such 

as varnish, but includes coatings such as 

polyester.) 

The welded line pipe products that 

are the subject of this investigation are 

currently classifiable in the HTSUS 

under subheadings 7306.19.10.10, 

7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and 

7306.19.51.50. While HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

Since the Preliminary Determination 

no one has submitted comments on the 

scope of this investigation. 

Adverse Facts Available 

As noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

above, Shanghai Metals and Benxi 

withdrew from the investigation and 

refused to allow the Department to 

verify the information they had 

submitted in this proceeding. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding, or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified, the Department shall use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. 

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes 

the Department to use an adverse 

inference with respect to an interested 

party if the Department finds that the 

party failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability to comply with 

a request for information. 

Therefore, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(C) and (D) and 776(b) of the 

Act, we have, decided to base Shanghai 

Metals and Benxi’s dumping margins on 

AFA. As AFA, we have treated 

Shanghai Metals and Benxi as part of 

the PRC–wide entity and assigned 

Shanghai Metals and Benxi the PRC– 

wide rate of 101.10 percent. See Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

12. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we conducted verification in the 

PRC of the information submitted by 

Huludao Pipe for use in our final 

determination. See the Memorandum 

from Jeff Pedersen and Rebecca 

Pandolph, through Howard Smith, to 

the file regarding Verification of the 

Questionnaire Responses of Huludao 

Pipe Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(December 11, 2008). In conducting the 


tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
14516 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 31, 2009 / Notices 

verification, we used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting, 

sales, and production records, as well as 

original source documents provided by 

Huludao Pipe. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

selected India as the appropriate 

surrogate country noting that India was 

on the Department’s list of countries 

that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to the PRC 

and that: (1) India is a significant 

producer of merchandise comparable to 

the subject merchandise; and, (2) 

reliable Indian data for valuing factors 

of production are readily available. See 

Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

66014. No party has commented on our 

selection of India as the appropriate 

surrogate country. For the final 

determination, we continue to find 

India to be the appropriate surrogate 

country in this investigation. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non–marketeconomy (NME) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

From the People’s Republic of China, 56 

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

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

From the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994); see also 19 CFR 

351.107(d). 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department granted separate–rate status 

to Benxi; Huludao Pipe; Pangang Group 

Beihai Pipe Corporation (Pangang 

Beihai); Shanghai Metals; Tianjin 

Xingyuda Import and Export Company 

(Tianjin); and Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe 

Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Yulong). As discussed 

above, the Department has decided, as 

AFA, to treat Shanghai Metals and 

Benxi as part of the PRC–wide entity. 

Moreover, we note that the information 

that Shanghai Metals and Benxi 

provided to the Department to 

demonstrate the absence of de facto and 

de jure control could not be verified due 

to their failure to cooperate. 

Consequently we have not granted 

Shanghai Metals and Benxi separate 

rates. 

While U.S. Steel argued in its case 

brief that Pangang Beihai should not be 

granted a separate rate, we continue to 

find that Pangang Beihai qualifies for a 

separate rate. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 11. No other 

parties commented on the separate–rate 

status granted to companies in the 

Preliminary Determination. For this 

final determination we have continued 

to grant the following companies 

separate–rate status: Huludao Pipe, 

Pangang Beihai, Tianjin, and Jiangsu 

Yulong. We have assigned the separate– 

rate companies the dumping margin that 

we calculated for Huludao Pipe. 

The PRC–Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that certain 

companies did not respond to our 

requests for information. See 

Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

66016. We treated these PRC producers/ 

exporters as part of the PRC–wide entity 

because they did not demonstrate that 

they operate free of government control 

over their export activities. Id. No 

additional information was placed on 

the record with respect to any of these 

companies after the Preliminary 

Determination. Moreover, for the 

reasons noted above, we also consider 

Shanghai Metals and Benxi to be part of 

the PRC–wide entity. 

As noted above, section 776(a)(2) of 

the Act provides that, if an interested 

party or any other person withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the administering authority, 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under this title, or provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i) 

of the Act, the administering authority 

shall, subject to section 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Because the PRC–wide entity did not 

respond to our requests for information 

and because companies within the PRC– 

wide entity withheld information 

requested by the Department, and 

Shanghai Metals and Benxi, which are 

part of the PRC–wide entity, did not 

allow their information to be verified, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), 

and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in 

the Preliminary Determination, that the 

use of facts otherwise available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC–wide 

rate. 

As stated above, section 776(b) of the 

Act provides that, in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, the 

Department may employ an adverse 

inference if an interested party fails to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with requests for 

information. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Flat– 

Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products 

From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 

5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also 

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, 

Vol. 1 (1994), at 870. We determine that, 

because the PRC–wide entity did not 

respond to our requests for information, 

and Shanghai Metals and Benxi 

prevented the Department from 

verifying its information, the PRC–wide 

entity has failed to cooperate to the best 

of its ability. Therefore, the Department 

finds that, in selecting a dumping 

margin from among the facts otherwise 

available, an adverse inference is 

appropriate for the PRC–wide entity. 

In this final determination, we have 

assigned the PRC–wide entity the 

highest CONNUM–specific dumping 

margin, i.e., 101.10 percent, calculated 

for Shanghai Metals. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. 

No corroboration of this rate is 

necessary because we are relying on 

information obtained in the course of 

this investigation, rather than secondary 

information. 

Since we begin with the presumption 

that all companies within an NME 

country are subject to government 

control, and only the exporters listed 

under the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below have overcome 

that presumption, we are applying a 

single antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC– 

wide rate) to all exporters of subject 

merchandise from the PRC, other than 

the exporters listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ sections. See, 

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

Republic of China; Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

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 (April 29, 

2008) (Initiation Notice). This change in 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1: 

§w§hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its 


tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 31, 2009 / Notices 14517 

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.’’ 

See Policy Bulletin 05.1, ‘‘Separate 

Rates Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations Involving Non–Market 

Economy Countries’’ available on the 

Import Administration’s website at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

weighted–average dumping margins 

exist for the period October 1, 2007, 

through March 31, 2008: 

Exporter & Producer Weighted–Average Margin 

Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd..

Huludao City Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. .............................................................................................................. 73.87% 

Produced by: Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd..

Huludao City Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd..

Pangang Group Beihai Steel Pipe Corporation ........................................................................................................ 73.87% 

Produced by: Pangang Group Beihai Steel Pipe Corporation.

Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. ......................................................................................................................... 73.87% 

Produced by: Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd..

Tianjin Xingyuda Import and Export Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................... 73.87% 

Produced by: Tianjin Lifengyuanda Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd..

PRC–Wide Rate ........................................................................................................................................................ 101.10% 

Disclosure 

We will disclose to parties the 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of public announcement of 

this determination in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.224(b). The Department has 

determined in Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Line Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Amended Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Notice of Countervailing Duty Order, 74 

FR 4136 (January 23, 2009) (Line Pipe 

CVD Final) that the product under 

investigation, exported and produced by 

Huludao Pipe, benefitted from export 

subsidies. Normally, where the product 

under investigation is also subject to a 

concurrent countervailing duty 

investigation, we instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to require 

an antidumping cash deposit or posting 

of a bond equal to the weighted–average 

amount by which the normal value (NV) 

exceeds the export price, as indicated 

above, minus the amount determined to 

constitute an export subsidy. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 

67306, 67307 (November 17, 2004). 

Therefore, for merchandise under 

consideration, exported and produced 

by Huludao Pipe, and entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of this final determination, we will 

instruct CBP to require an antidumping 

cash deposit or the posting of a bond for 

each entry equal to the weighted– 

average margin indicated above, 

reduced by the export subsidy rate 

determined in the Line Pipe CVD Final 

for Huludao Pipe. For merchandise 

under consideration from the other 

exporter producer combinations, listed 

in the table above, that have been 

granted separate rates, we have assigned 

the rate calculated for Huludao Pipe in 

this antidumping investigation. 

Additionally, this merchandise is 

subject to countervailing duties to offset 

export subsidies equal to or greater than 

the export subsidy rate determined for 

Huludao Pipe. Therefore, for 

merchandise under consideration from 

these exporter producer combinations, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of this final 

determination, we will instruct CBP to 

require an antidumping cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond for each entry 

equal to the weighted–average margin 

indicated above, reduced by the export 

subsidy rate determined for Huludao 

Pipe in the Line Pipe CVD Final. The 

adjusted cash deposit rate for Huludao 

Pipe and the other exporter–producer 

combinations listed above is 73.44 

percent. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

CBP to continue to suspend liquidation 

of all imports of subject merchandise as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation’’ section, that are entered 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after November 6, 

2008, which is the date of publication 

of the Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to require a cash deposit or the posting 

of a bond equal to the weighted–average 

dumping margin amount by which the 

NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) 

the rate for the exporter/producer 

combination listed in the chart above 

will be the rate we have determined in 

this final determination; (2) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash–deposit rate will be the PRC–wide 

entity rate; and (3) for all non–PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash–deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporter/producer 

combination that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These suspension–ofliquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our final determination of sales at LTFV. 

As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will 

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 


tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
14518 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 31, 2009 / Notices 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise 

within 45 days of this final 

determination. If the ITC determines 

that material injury or threat of material 

injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess upon further instruction by the 

Department antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. This 

determination and notice are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 23, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Parties’ Comments 

Comment 1: Whether Huludao Pipe 

Could Have Reported Steel 

Consumption on a More Product– 

Specific Basis 

Comment 2: Whether Huludao Pipe 

Could Have Reported the Consumption 

of Paint, Thinner, and Packing Labor on 

a More Product–Specific Basis 

Comment 3: The Department’s 

Valuation of Huludao Pipe’s Water 

Consumption 

Comment 4: Huludao Pipe’s Reported 

Steel By–Product Quantity 

Comment 5: Whether Huludao Pipe’s 

Reported Scrap Steel Offset Should be 

Reduced by Transportation Costs 

Comment 6: Application of 

Warehousing Grace Period 

Comment 7: Reported Days in 

Warehouse 

Comment 8: Calculation of Warehousing 

Volume 

Comment 9: Whether the Date of the 

Commercial Invoice Is the Proper Date 

of Sale 

Comment 10: Scrap Surrogate Value 

Comment 11: Eligibility of Pangang 

Group Beihai Steel Pipe Corporation for 

a Separate Rate 

Comment 12: Applying Adverse Facts 

Available to Non–Responsive 

Companies 

Comment 13: Selection of Surrogate 

Financial Statements 

Comment 14: Whether the Imposition of 

Both Countervailing and Antidumping 

Duties Constitutes the Double Counting 

of Duties 

[FR Doc. E9–7093 Filed 3–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Childrens Hospital, et al.; Notice of 

Consolidated Decision on Applications 

for Duty-Free Entry of Electron 

Microscopes 

This is a decision consolidated 

pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– 

36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). 

Related records can be viewed between 

8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 3705, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue., NW., 

Washington, DC. 

Docket Number: 09–001. Applicant: 

Childrens Hospital, Los Angeles, CA 

90027. Instrument: Transmission 

Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, Czech Republic. Intended 

Use: See notice at 74 FR 8503, February 

25, 2009. 

Docket Number: 09–002. Applicant: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Denver, CO 80202. Instrument: 

Transmission Electron Microscope. 

Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan. 

Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 8503, 

February 25, 2009. 

Docket Number: 09–003. Applicant: 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 

Laurel, MD 20708. Instrument: 

Transmission Electron Microscope. 

Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. 

Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 8503, 

February 25, 2009. 

Comments: None received. Decision: 

Approved. No instrument of equivalent 

scientific value to the foreign 

instrument, for such purposes as these 

instruments are intended to be used, 

was being manufactured in the United 

States at the time the instruments were 

ordered. Reasons: Each foreign 

instrument is an electron microscope 

and is intended for research or scientific 

educational uses requiring an electron 

microscope. We know of no electron 

microscope, or any other instrument 

suited to these purposes, which was 

being manufactured in the United States 

at the time of order of each instrument. 

Dated: March 23, 2009. 

Christopher Cassel, 

Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement 

Office, Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–7222 Filed 3–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–931] 

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Correction to 

Countervailing Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 31, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room 4014, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2209. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

On March 19, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published a notice of countervailing 

duty order on circular welded austenitic 

stainless pressure pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See 

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Countervailing Duty 

Order, 74 FR 11712 (March 19, 2009) 

(‘‘CVD Order’’). Subsequent to the 

publication of the CVD Order in the 

Federal Register, we identified an 

inadvertent error. 

The notice states that on March 11, 

2009, the United States International 

Trade Commission (ITC) notified the 

Department of its final affirmative 

determination of material injury. This is 

a typographical error. The Department 

received the ITC’s notification of its 

final affirmative determination of 

material injury on March 12, 2009. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 777(i) and 

706(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended. 


tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES