U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4227 April 2011

Washington, DC 20436

Certain Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe 

from Mexico

Investigation No. 731-TA-920 (Review) (Remand) 
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Dana Lofgren, Investigator 

Karl von Schriltz, Attorney 

Steven Hudgens, Statistican 

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

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4227 April 2011

Certain Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe 

from Mexico

Investigation No. 731-TA-920 (Review) (Remand) 
 
CONTENTS

Page

Views of the Commission ............................................................. 1

Separate Views of Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-1

The industry in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-2

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-2

CWLDLP operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-4

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-6

Additional Mexican industry data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-7

Comments by Mexican producers regarding the effects of the orders and the likely effects

of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-8

Comments by Mexican producers regarding the significance of the orders in terms of

trade and related data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-8

Comments by Mexican producers regarding anticipated changes in trade and related data

if the orders were to be revoked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-9

Appendix

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Note.–The public version cites to which the opinions refer are to the public version that was

transmitted to the NAFTA Chapter 19 Binational Panel. Information that would reveal

confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published and therefore has been deleted

from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

i
 
VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

By decision and order dated January 18, 2011, a NAFTA Chapter 19 Binational Panel affirmed in

part and remanded in part the Commission’s negative determination in the five-year review of the

antidumping duty order on certain welded large diameter line pipe (“CWLDLP”) from Mexico.1

 Upon

consideration of the remand order and evidence in the record of this review, we determine again that

revocation of the antidumping duty order covering CWLDLP from Mexico would not be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.2 3

I. BACKGROUND

On October 2, 2007, the Commission determined, by a 5-1 vote, that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on CWLDLP from Mexico would not likely result in the continuation or

recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry producing CWLDLP within a reasonably

foreseeable time.4

On November 21, 2007, U.S. Steel requested a binational panel review of the Commission’s

negative five-year review determination with respect to the antidumping duty order on CWLDLP from

Mexico.5

On April 21, 2008, Mexican producer Tuberias Procarsa, S.A. de C.V. (“Procarsa”) attempted to

file a revised version of its foreign producers’ questionnaire response with the Commission. On April 24,

2008, the Commission rejected the submission, explaining that the submission was untimely because it

was submitted well after the deadline for making factual submissions in the underlying five-year review

and well after the Commission’s determination.6

 1 Certain Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe From Japan and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-919 and 920 (Review),

USITC Publication 3953, October 2007 (“Original Views”).

 2

 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order covering CWLDLP

from Mexico would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Commissioner Lane adopts her analysis from the Original Views in its

entirety. Commissioner Pinkert joins section I of these views except where noted. His analysis of the issues

presented in this remand proceeding are discussed in his Separate Views. 

 3

 The administrative record contains substantial evidence to support our conclusions. We are mindful that the

Panel will review our determination under the substantial evidence standard and that a basic tenet of that standard as

set forth by the Supreme Court is that “the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence

does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v.

Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966), quoted in Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States,

750 F.2d 927, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2984); accord Committee for Fairly Traded Venezuelan Cement v. United States, 279

F. Supp. 2d 1314,m 1323 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003), aff’d 372 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As the Federal Circuit has

held, the reviewing Court (in this case, the Panel) may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, nor may it

reweigh the evidence. Nippon Steel Corp. v. International Trade Comm’n, 345 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

The task of weighing the evidence is assigned solely to the Commission, and not the parties or a reviewing court or

panel. United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

 4

 Original Views at 1 & n.3 (Commissioner Lane dissenting with respect to Mexico). The Commission made an

affirmative five-year review determination with respect to Japan. Ibid.

 5 72 FR 68860, December 6, 2007.

 6

 See Letter from Secretary Marilyn R. Abbott to Jeffrey M. Winton, Esq., CWLDLP from Japan and Mexico,

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-919 and 920 (Review), April 24, 2008.

1
On January 18, 2011, the Panel issued its decision, affirming in part and remanding in part the

Commission’s determination. In its decision, the Panel affirmed the Commission’s reliance on the likely

differing conditions of competition between subject imports from Japan and Mexico in declining to

exercise its discretion to cumulate subject imports from Japan and Mexico.7

 It also rejected U.S. Steel’s

challenge to the Commission’s decision to discount reported Mexican capacity in the reviews on grounds

that U.S. Steel failed to exhaust its administrative remedies with respect to the “asserted discrepancy

between the questionnaire responses and the staff’s finding that the Mexican producers reported

theoretical capacity.”8

The Panel remanded the determination, however, so that the Commission could consider the new

information in Procarsa’s revised foreign producers’ questionnaire response.9

 Finding that Procarsa’s

revised data might be “potentially outcome determinative,”10 the Panel took judicial notice of Procarsa’s

revised questionnaire response and remanded the case “in order to provide the Commission the

opportunity to evaluate the potentially determinative new data.”11 Specifically, the Panel found “that the

new data are indeed potentially outcome determinative” with respect to three of “the Commission’s four

findings in support of its determination not to cumulate the reviews of Mexico and Japan based on the

differences in the conditions of competition between them . . . *** its likely injury analysis” for Mexico,12

including its findings on the Mexican industry’s “[e]xport versus home market orientation,” “[p]resence

in the U.S. market,” and “[c]apacity trends.”13 As to the Commission’s fourth finding, concerning the

Mexican industry’s “product range,” the Panel considered that “this finding . . . would not be affected by

Procarsa’s revised questionnaire.”14

On February 18, 2011, the Commission published notice of its remand proceeding in the Federal

Register.15 In the notice, the Commission stated that it was “reopening the record in the proceeding for

the sole purpose of accepting Procarsa’s revised foreign producers’ questionnaire response into the

record” and explained that it would “not otherwise accept the submission of new factual information for

 7 Panel Decision at 20.

 8

 Panel Decision at 25.

 9

 In the proceedings before the Panel, the Commission argued regarding consideration of the untimely filed

revisions to Procarsa’s foreign producers’ questionnaire that a Court or binational panel may take judicial notice only

of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute,” meaning that the fact is “generally known within the territorial

jurisdiction of the trial court,” or “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy

cannot reasonably be questioned.” Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 201(b); Coalition for the Preservation of Am.

Brake Drum & Rotor Aftermarket Mfrs. V. United States, 22 CIT at 530-31, 15 F. Supp. 2d at 927-28. The

Commission argued that Procarsa’s specific revisions to its foreign producers’ questionnaire response may not be

“generally known” because they are confidential, and are likely not capable of accurate and ready determination” in

the sense of being “readily verifiable by reliable sources.” See Graham, Handbook of Federal Evidence § 201.2 (6th

ed. 2006) (on facts “generally known”) and British Steel, PLC v. United States, 879 F. Supp. 1254, 1318 n.72 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1995) (on information “capable of accurate and ready determination”).

 10 Panel Decision at 31; see also ibid. at 34, 36, 45. 

 11 Panel Decision at 48.

 12 Panel Decision at 31-32.

 13 Panel Decision at 33, 35, 36. 

 14 Panel Decision at 33.

 15 76 FR 9608.

2
the record.”16 It invited parties “to file comments concerning the new factual information submitted on

the record during the remand proceeding . . . limited solely to the issue of whether and how the data

contained in Procarsa's revised foreign producer's questionnaire will affect the Commission's cumulation

and likely injury findings for Mexico, including its findings relating to the Mexican industry's home

market orientation, its capacity trends, and the presence of Mexican imports in the U.S. market.”17 The

Commission further instructed that “parties may not use this opportunity to comment on any other issue,

including any ‘asserted discrepancy between the questionnaire responses and the staff's finding that the

Mexican producers reported theoretical capacity,’” and made clear that parties were to limit their

comments to 20 double-spaced pages.18

On February 18, 2011, Procarsa filed a revised foreign producers’ questionnaire response,

accompanied by a complete copy of its original filing of April 21, 2008.19 In its revised questionnaire

response, ***20 ***.21 Procarsa also estimated that about ***.22 Consequently, Procarsa projected that

***.23 It also projected that *** and that ***.24 

In revising its questionnaire response to reflect the new production line, Procarsa did not change

***.25 Procarsa also reported that it ***.26 

On March 8, 2011, U.S. Steel and the Mexican interested parties, including Tubacero, S.A. de

C.V., Tuberia Laguna, S.A. de C.V., and Procarsa, each filed comments that were in compliance with the

Commission’s scheduling notice.27

 16 76 FR 9609.

 17 76 FR 9609.

 18 76 FR 9609.

 19 Commissioner Pinkert does not join the remainder of this paragraph or the following paragraph. For his

discussion of the information in Procarsa’s revised questionnaire response, see his Separate Views.

 20 Procarsa’s Revised Questionnaire Response, question II-4. Procarsa indicated, however, that it ***. Ibid.

Procarsa indicated that ***. Ibid. Procarsa also reported that its new production line will utilize the submerged arc

welding (“SAW”) process, whereas its existing capacity produced CWLDLP using the electric resistence welding

(“ERW”) method. See Letter from Procarsa, April 21, 2008, at 4; Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire

response at question II-6; see also Original Views at 3-4 (describing the ERW and SAW methods). 

 21 Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, question II-4. ***. Ibid.

 22 Letter from Procarsa, April 21, 2008, at 6; Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, question

II-4.

 23 Letter from Procarsa, April 21, 2008, at revised question II-16c.

 24 Compare Procarsa’s original foreign producer questionnaire response at question II-16c with Procarsa’s revised

foreign producer questionnaire response at question II-16c.

 25 Compare Procarsa’s original foreign producer questionnaire response at questions II-15, II-16c with Procarsa’s

revised foreign producer questionnaire response at questions II-15, II-16c.

 26 Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, question II-4.

 27 On March 8, 2011, U.S. Steel filed a second submission in which it sought to comment on “how the

Commission should consider the capacity data that has been reported by Mexican producers in these reviews.” See

Letter from Acting Secretary James Holbein to Robert E. Lighthizer, Esq., March 16, 2011. The Commission

rejected and returned this submission for two reasons. First, in direct conflict with the limited scope for comments

set forth in the Commission’s scheduling notice, the submission commented on an issue not remanded to the

Commission (i.e., “any ‘asserted discrepancy between the questionnaire responses and the staff's finding that the

Mexican producers reported theoretical capacity’”). Ibid. Second, the submission exceeded the page limitation

(continued...)

3
II. Domestic Like Product, Domestic Industry, Negligibility, Likely Discernible Adverse 

Impact, Likely Reasonable Overlap of Competition, and Mexican Industry Product Range

We have considered the record as a whole in light of the instructions in the Panel’s opinion. The

Commission notes, however, that it is not reconsidering those issues either affirmed by the Panel or not

subject to appeal, and therefore adopts its findings, analysis, and conclusions with respect to these issues

in their entirety, including domestic like product, domestic industry, negligibility, cumulation analysis

(including findings regarding likely discernible adverse impact and likely reasonable overlap of

competition), legal standards, and conditions of competition. We also adopt our Original Views with

respect to our cumulation analysis and findings regarding the Mexican industry’s product range, in

accordance with the Panel’s finding on the issue. Accordingly, consistent with the Panel’s instructions,

we address below the extent to which Procarsa’s revised questionnaire response affects our analysis of

likely conditions of competition under which subject imports from Mexico and Japan would likely

compete in the U.S. market and the likely volume, price effects, and impact of subject imports from

Mexico if the antidumping duty order on CWLDLP from Mexico were revoked.28

III. Cumulation – Likely Conditions of Competition

A. The Panel’s Instructions

In its decision, the Panel found that the “new data” contained in Procarsa’s revised questionnaire

response might be “potentially outcome determinative” with respect to several aspects of the

Commission’s analysis of likely conditions of competition for cumulation purposes.29 With respect to the

Mexican industry’s “[e]xport versus home market orientation,” the Panel found that Procarsa’s statement

“that it is in the process of *** . . . together with the fact that prior to the imposition of the antidumping

order the United States market was the principal export market for the Mexican industry, indicate to the

Panel that this corrected information might have influenced the Commission if it had been available prior

to its decision.”30 

With respect to the Mexican industry’s “[p]resence in the U.S. market,” the Panel “recognize[d]

that the Commission might have considered that Procarsa’s *** and ***, along with the geographical

proximity between the United States and Mexico could have had a considerable impact on the presence of

Mexican imports in the U.S. market within a reasonably foreseeable time, and thus, had the Commission

known the corrected data at the time of its determination, it might have changed its decision.”31 

 27(...continued)

provided in the scheduling notice because the nine pages of comments contained in the submission, when added to

the 14 pages of comments contained in U.S. Steel’s responsive submission of March 8, 2011, brought the total

number of pages of comments filed by U.S. Steel to 23. Ibid. 

 28 We generally credit as reliable the information contained in a questionnaire response that has been certified as

accurate unless there is substantial contrary evidence. In exercising our role to weigh the evidence here, we find that

Procarsa’s revised questionnaire, which as the Panel noted is an admission against interest, is reliable

notwithstanding the various allegations and theories raised by U.S. Steel that the facts must be otherwise. Thus, we

place substantial weight on the information contained in Procarsa’s certified questionnaire response, as revised.

 29 Panel Decision at 31.

 30 Panel Decision at 34.

 31 Panel Decision at 36.

4
Finally, the Panel held that Procarsa’s new information “bears directly and substantially on . . .

the capacity trend factor, considered by the Commission . . .when it decided not to cumulate the reviews

of Japan and Mexico.”32 According to the Panel,

The Commission was relying on the PMT closure essentially to eliminate *** 

short tons of Mexican CWLDLP capacity, and assumed that other Mexican 

producers, including Procarsa, would not increase their capacity . . . it is 

undeniable that the corrected information supplied by Procarsa has 

significance on its long term capacity and production which, if known at the 

time by the Commission would likely have been a considerable factor in reaching 

its determination.33

The Panel instructed the Commission “to evaluate the potentially determinative new data” on remand.34

B. Party Arguments

In its comments, U.S. Steel argues the new information in Procarsa’s revised questionnaire

response should compel the Commission to alter its analysis of likely conditions of competition and

cumulate imports from Mexico with imports from Japan.35 In U.S. Steel’s view, the Commission should

change its conclusion that Mexican and Japanese capacity trends are divergent because Procarsa’s added

capacity of *** short tons in 2010 will more than make up for the *** short ton reduction in capacity

from PMT’s closure.36 Relying on what it views as the Mexican industry’s significantly increased likely

capacity, U.S. Steel contends that the Commission should now find that Mexican producers are likely to

aggressively pursue export opportunities, consistent with their expressed interest in the U.S. market.37

With respect to product range, U.S. Steel claims that there is no evidence on the record to suggest that

Procarsa’s new production line cannot produce CWLDLP in grades X-70 and higher and requests that the

Commission seek additional information from Procarsa on the issue.38 Finally, it argues that the

Commission should change its finding concerning the low export-orientation of the Mexican industry

given Procarsa’s stated intention to export *** percent of the CWLDLP produced on its new production

line in 2008, as well as the stated intention of Procarsa and other Mexican producers to re-enter the U.S.

market after revocation.39 In this regard, U.S. Steel claims that by increasing Mexican production

capacity by *** short tons in 2010, or *** percent, Procarsa’s new production line will create supply

pressure in the Mexican market that will likely force other Mexican producers to become more export

oriented.40

In their comments, the Mexican interested parties argue that none of the factors considered by the

Commission in declining to cumulate subject imports from Mexico and Japan has been affected by the

corrected information submitted by Procarsa, as explained in the Commission’s response brief filed with

 32 Panel Decision at 44. 

 33 Panel Decision at 45.

 34 Panel Decision at 48.

 35 U.S. Steel’s Comments at 9.

 36 U.S. Steel’s Comments at 4-5, 9.

 37 U.S. Steel’s Comments at 9.

 38 U.S. Steel’s Comments at 9-10.

 39 U.S. Steel’s Comments at 4, 10. U.S. Steel urges the Commission to request detailed information on Procarsa’s

efforts to qualify its CWLDLP with U.S. customers. Ibid. at 10.

 40 U.S. Steel’s Comments at 4-5, 10.

5
the Panel.41 They also stress that differences in the likely conditions of competition found by the

Commission reflect the fact that Japanese producers are “world-wide leaders in the industry” with large

integrated mills, whereas Mexican producers have relatively insignificant CWLDLP operations.42

C. Likely Conditions of Competition

We have considered the record as a whole in light of the evidence on the record, the Panel’s

instructions, party comments, and Procarsa’s revised questionnaire response. We again determine to

decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Japan and Mexico in these reviews

because we find that subject producers in Japan and Mexico would not be likely to compete under similar

conditions of competition in the U.S. market, for the following reasons. 

First, although there is a moderate to high degree of fungibility between CWLDLP products with

the same specifications made by Mexican, Japanese, or domestic producers, we observe, as did the Panel,

that Mexican producers generally produce and sell a different range of CWLDLP products than U.S. and

Japanese producers. Since 2003, the Mexican industry has produced negligible quantities of CWLDLP of

grades X-70 or above, while the Japanese and domestic industries have produced substantial quantities of

these grades. While Mexican producers shipped *** of CWLDLP in grades X-70 or greater in 2006,43 or

less than *** percent of Mexican producer shipments, such grades accounted for *** percent of domestic

producer shipments and *** percent of Japanese producer shipments in that year.44 The Mexican

producers’ apparent lack of interest in supplying significant quantities of CWLDLP in grades X-70 and

above makes it unlikely that they would compete aggressively with domestic and Japanese producers in

the U.S. market, given the increasing importance of high-grade products in the U.S. market. CWLDLP

consisting of grades X-70 and above ordered by U.S. purchasers for delivery in 2007 and 2008 increased

from 48.4 percent for 2007 deliveries to 62.3 percent for 2008 deliveries.45 In short, while the Japanese

and domestic industries have produced the full range of products demanded in the U.S. market, the

Mexican industry has not done so, and shows no propensity to do so in the reasonably foreseeable

future.46

Second, the subject Japanese industry is highly export-oriented, with a relatively low level of

home market shipments, whereas the subject Mexican industry is focused on its home market, with a

relatively low level of export shipments. In 2006, Japanese producers exported 98.4 percent of their total

shipments and made only 1.5 percent of their total shipments within Japan.47 Conversely, in 2006,

 41 See Mexican Interested Parties’ Comments at 13-15.

 42 See Mexican Interested Parties’ Comments at 8-10.

 43 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”)/Public Staff Report (“PR”) at Table IV-26.

 44 CR/PR at Tables IV-7, 18. These figures are for all commercial shipments to all markets.

 45 CR/PR at Table II-2. As noted above, however, subject imports from Mexico in grades below X-70 are

generally fungible with subject imports from Japan and domestic shipments for the same specifications.

 46 The Panel has held that our findings as to product range are not affected by Procarsa’s revised questionnaire

response, but we reiterate them here because they support our decision not to exercise our discretion to cumulate

subject imports from Mexico and Japan. As the Panel held, “Because the revised questionnaire did not specify

whether *** or whether Procarsa is ***, . . . this finding of product range by the ITC would not be affected by

Procarsa’s revised questionnaire.” Panel Decision at 33. We therefore decline U.S. Steel’s request that we collect

additional information on Procarsa’s ability to produce CWLDLP in grades X-70 or higher. See U.S. Steel’s

Comments at 10. 

 47 CR/PR at Table IV-15.

6
Mexican producers made *** percent of their total shipments within Mexico and exported only ***

percent of their total shipments.48 

We find this significant difference in export orientation likely to continue in the reasonably

foreseeable future. Japanese producers projected that they would export 98.7 percent of their total

shipments in 2007 and 98.8 percent of their total shipments in 2008, while shipments to home market

customers were projected to account for only *** percent of total shipments in 2007 and *** percent of

total shipments in 2008.49 By contrast, Mexican producers projected that home market shipments would

account for *** percent of total shipments in 2007 and *** percent of total shipments in 2008, while

exports are projected to account for only *** percent of total shipments in 2007 and *** percent of total

shipments in 2008.50 Furthermore, Mexican producers are likely to remain focused on their home market

in the foreseeable future given that they enjoy preferential treatment from PEMEX, the state-owned

energy company that controls most Mexican purchases of CWLDLP, and relatively higher prices in

Mexico, due to barriers to imported CWLDLP.51 In addition, demand for CWLDLP in Mexico’s home

market steadily increased through the period examined and demand forecasts provided by the

Government of Mexico did not foresee any slackening in Mexican CWLDLP demand.52 Finally, Mexican

producer PMT, which was the most aggressive exporter of CWLDLP to the United States during the

original period examined53 and accounted for a substantial portion of subject imports from Mexico during

the period,54 was liquidated in 2002.55 Thus, even though Japanese and Mexican producers have

expressed interest in the U.S. market, Mexican producers are less likely to pursue export opportunities

aggressively given that they are much less export-oriented than Japanese producers. 

Procarsa’s statement that CWLDLP produced on its new production line is being qualified for

sale to U.S customers does not undermine our conclusion that Mexican producers are likely to remain

focused on their home market while Japanese producers remain highly export-oriented in the reasonably

foreseeable future.56 The revised questionnaire response that we are directed to consider in this remand

 48 CR/PR at Table IV-24.

 49 CR/PR at Table IV-20.

 50 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at Remand Table 7.

 51 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-24 with CR/PR at Table C-1. We recognize that AUV comparisons are of limited

probative value for a product like CWLDLP due to potential differences in product mix. Hearing transcript, p. 157

(Delie) (testifying that CWLDLP prices are “artificially higher” in Mexico because the Mexican market is “closed”

to foreign competition by the Mexican government).

 52 See Government of Mexico’s posthearing brief.

 53 See Hearing transcript, pp. 223-24 (Benitez) (PMT pursued an aggressive pricing strategy in both the U.S. and

Mexican markets, reportedly undercutting domestic producers to win a major Enron pipeline project in Florida); see

also Original Views at 18 n.108 (noting the major project awarded to a Mexican producer on the basis of a low bid).

 54 During the period examined in the original investigations, PMT accounted for *** short tons of reported

Mexican CWLDLP exports to the United States; the four other Mexican producers accounted for *** short tons. 

See Original Staff Report at Table C-1; Original Investigation foreign producers’ questionnaire response of PMT at

8. PMT’s share of Mexican CWLDLP exports to the United States was *** percent in 1998, *** percent in 1999,

*** percent in 2000, *** percent in the first half of 2000, and *** percent in the first half of 2001. Ibid. 

PMT’s share of Mexican CWLDLP production was *** percent in 1998, *** percent in 1999 and 2000,

*** percent in the first half of 2000, and *** percent in the first half of 2001. See Original Staff Report at Table

VII-7; Original Investigation foreign producers’ questionnaire response of PMT at 8. 

 55 CR at IV-39; PR at IV-25-26.

 56 See Letter from Procarsa, April 21, 2008, at 7.

7
indicates that Procarsa *** and that CWLDLP produced on its new production line was ***.57 Procarsa

also projected that *** percent of the total shipments of CWLDLP produced on the new production line

in 2008, or *** short tons, would be shipped to home market customers, with the balance, *** short tons,

exported to third country export markets.58 Additionally, in its revised questionnaire response, Procarsa

did not change its original projected exports to the United States of *** short tons in 2007 and *** short

tons in 2008,59 nor did it change its projection that ***.60 Given Procarsa’s projection that it will export

*** short tons of CWLDLP to the United States in 2008, and that *** in the event of revocation,61 we

find it unlikely that Procarsa would be able to increase its exports to *** short tons within a reasonably

foreseeable time after revocation.62 

 57 Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, question II-4; Letter from Procarsa, April 21, 2008,

at 7. We decline U.S. Steel’s suggestion that we collect “detailed information” on Procarsa’s efforts to qualify

CWLDLP produced on its new production line with U.S. customers. See U.S. Steel’s Comments at 10. Such

information could not alter our analysis in light of Procarsa’s indication that CWLDLP produced on its new

production line ***, and its projection that its exports of CWLDLP to the United States could reach *** short tons

within the first few years after revocation of the order. See Letter from Procarsa, April 21, 2008, at 7; Memorandum

INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 31.

 58 See Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, question II-16c, p. 16 (projections for SAW

CWLDLP); Letter from Procarsa, April 21, 2008, at 4 (reporting that Procarsa’s new production line uses the SAW

process). Procarsa also projected that *** short tons of CWLDLP produced on the new line in 2008 would remain in

inventory at the end of the period. See Ibid.

 59 Compare Procarsa’s original foreign producer questionnaire response at question II-16c with Procarsa’s revised

foreign producer questionnaire response at question II-16c.

 60 Compare Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response at question II-15 with CR/PR at D-22.

 61 Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, questions II-15, II-16c.

 62 In this remand proceeding, we focus on projected Mexican industry data for 2007 and 2008, consistent with our

practice of collecting and analyzing projected data for the two full years following the last full year of the period

examined, when such data is collected and analyzed. To assess projected Mexican industry trends, we need

projected data from all Mexican producers, and such data has only been collected for 2007 and 2008. See

Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at Remand Table 7. 

U.S. Steel urges the Commission to focus on what they view as Procarsa’s and the Mexican industry’s

likely capacity in 2009 and 2010, notwithstanding the absence of information on the Mexican industry’s projected

capacity in those years, based in part on their assertion that the Commission has relied on capacity projections three

or four years into the future in past five-year reviews. U.S. Steel’s Comments at 7-8 (citing Carbon and Certain

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, Inv.

Nos. 701-TA-417 and 731-TA-953, 954, 957-959, 961, and 962 (Review), USITC Publication 4014, June 2008, at 30;

Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-404-408 and 731-TA-898-902 and 904-908 (Review), USITC Publication

3956, October 2007, at 32. Contrary to U.S. Steel’s argument, however, the Commission expressly stated in its

determinations for the Hot-Rolled Steel Products reviews that “[i]n view of the nature of this industry and market,

for purposes of these reviews, and based on the facts on this record, we have given significantly greater weight to

developments likely to occur in the next two years than to those pertaining to later dates, although we cite other

information as appropriate.” USITC Publication 3956 at 25 n.128. Similarly, in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel

Wire Rod, the Commission focused on actual unused capacity and other trade data reported by subject foreign

producers, not projected additions to capacity three or four years beyond the period examined in the reviews. See

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod, USITC Publication 4014 at 29-30 & n.203. Our focus on projected

Mexican industry data for 2007 and 2008 here is consistent with our focus on projected data two years beyond the

period examined in past five-year reviews in which such data has been collected. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from

France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos 701-TA-413 and 731-TA-913-916 & 918

(continued...)

8
Based on all the evidence in the record, we find that the Mexican industry is likely to remain

focused on its home market when compared to the Japanese industry.63 When asked how revocation of

the order would affect their exports to the United States, *** reported that its exports to the United States

would “recover its normal sales export level that it had before the imposition of the orders,” which ranged

between *** to *** short tons during the period examined in the original investigation,64 and ***

projected that its exports to the United States would increase to *** short tons per year.65 *** responded

that its “only interest would be in supplying pipe to the USA, if a client requires pipe with certain urgency

that local suppliers cannot supply on time.”66 Even considering that Procarsa could increase its exports to

*** short tons in 2009 and assuming that the Mexican industry’s home market shipments in 2009 will be

the same as the Mexican industry’s projected home market shipments in 2008, at *** short tons, Mexican

producers would export at most *** percent of their total shipments in 2009,67 which is in stark contrast to

the Japanese’s industry’s projected exportation of 98.8 percent of total shipments in 2008.68 Thus, even

under the most conservative assumptions, the Mexican industry is likely to remain focused on serving its

home market beyond 2008, while the Japanese industry is likely to remain overwhelmingly focused on

exports. 

Third, the record continues to show that the subject Japanese and Mexican industries exhibited

divergent capacity trends over the period examined in the reviews. Japanese producers made no physical

changes to their CWLDLP production capacity over the period.69 By contrast, in 2002, Mexico’s ***

producer and exporter to the United States over the original investigation period, PMT, ceased production

and shipped its equipment to Saudi Arabia, eliminating *** short tons of Mexican CWLDLP capacity.70

The other Mexican producers did not expand capacity during the period examined in the review and no

Mexican producer, other than Procarsa, projected additions to capacity in 2007 or 2008.71 As for

Procarsa, the revised questionnaire response indicates that a new production line will likely commence

 62(...continued)

(Review), USITC Publication 3981, January 2008, at 21, 40 n.14, and 45. In the course of evaluating all record

evidence in this review, we have taken into account projections for 2009, while at the same time recognizing that

that data series is less than complete. 

 63 Commissioners Aranoff and Pearson observe that the record contains no 2009 data for most Mexican producers

and only limited 2009 data for Procarsa. They therefore find that trends in 2009 are not reasonably foreseeable and

place very little weight on Procarsa’s projected 2009 data.

 64 Preliminary phase foreign producers’ questionnaire response of Tuberia Laguna at 6. We note that Tuberia

Laguna did not complete a questionnaire response in the final phase of the original investigation.

 65 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 31. 

 66 CR/PR at D-21.

 67 This estimate is based on the Mexican producers’ maximum projected exports to the United States in the event

of revocation, including Procarsa’s projection of *** short tons in a few years, Tubacero’s projection of *** short

tons in 2008, and Tuberia Laguna’s projection of *** short tons in 2008. See Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February

28, 2011) at 31; Preliminary phase foreign producers’ questionnaire response of Tuberia Laguna at 6. We note that

Mexican producers were asked to provide projections of their home market and export shipments in 2007 and 2008,

but not in 2009. 

 68 CR/PR at Table IV-20.

 69 See CR at IV-26-27; PR at IV-17.

 70 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 3-4.

 71 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 9-10, Remand Tables 3, 7.

9
production in ***, resulting in a projected increase in CWLDLP capacity of *** short tons in 2008,72

given that ***.73 Thus, the Mexican industry’s capacity was *** short tons lower during the period

examined in the review than in the original investigation and is likely to remain at least *** short tons

lower within the reasonably foreseeable future. Because the Mexican industry’s capacity has declined

significantly since the original investigations, unlike the Japanese industry’s capacity, we find that the

Mexican and Japanese industries exhibited divergent capacity trends. We also find that the exit of the

most aggressive Mexican exporter from the industry, along with the decline in the Mexican industry’s

capacity, make the Mexican producers less likely than Japanese producers to pursue aggressively export

opportunities in the U.S. market.

Furthermore, our analysis does not change if we look beyond the reasonably foreseeable period to

the limited information available on Procarsa’s projected capacity for 2009.74 Procarsa projects that its

new production line will have the capacity to produce ***.75 Even assuming that Procarsa ***, Mexican

industry capacity would remain a significant *** short tons lower than during the original investigation

period, before PMT’s liquidation, in contrast to Japanese industry capacity trends projected through 2008. 

Given that Procarsa itself reported that its new capacity was intended to serve demand in the Mexican

market, we find that it is unlikely to cause a significant shift in the Mexican industry’s continued focus on

the Mexican market even beyond 2007 and 2008.76

Finally, the record continues to show that Japanese producers maintained a presence in the U.S.

market throughout the period examined in the reviews, while subject imports from Mexico declined to

*** over the period.77 Notwithstanding the proximity of the U.S. market, subject imports from Mexico

declined from 13,265 short tons in 2001 to 8,302 short tons in 2003, 159 short tons in 2004, 35 short tons

in 2005, 125 short tons in 2006, and zero short tons in the first half of 2007, indicating that Mexican

producers had no significant presence in the U.S. market after 2003.78 Procarsa reports in its revised

questionnaire response, as it did in its original questionnaire response, that ***.79 Having been largely

absent from the U.S. market since 2003, we find that the Mexican producers would need to seek out and

re-establish relationships with U.S. importers and purchasers in order to increase their exports to the

 72 Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, question II-4.

 73 Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, question II-4.

 74 We note that Procarsa ***. See Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response at question II-4;

Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 29, 2011) at 18 n.26. Given that no Mexican producer reported projected

capacity for 2010, we cannot accurately predict Mexican industry capacity in 2010. We therefore reject U.S. Steel’s

assertion that Procarsa’s new production line would increase the Mexican industry’s capacity by *** short tons in

2010. See U.S. Steel Comments at 4-5.

 75 Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, question II-4. 

 76 Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, question II-4.

 77 See CR/PR at Table C-1. Subject import volume from Japan declined from 29,795 short tons in 2001 to 3,376

short tons in 2003, increased to 25,232 short tons in 2005, then declined to 13,198 short tons in 2006, and was 7,356

short tons in the first half of 2007 compared with 10,483 short tons in the first half of 2006. Ibid. Subject import

volume from Mexico declined from 13,265 short tons in 2001 to 6,245 short tons in 2002, increased to 8,302 short

tons in 2003, declined to 35 short tons in 2005, increased to 125 short tons in 2006, and then was zero in the first

half of 2007 compared with 101 short tons in the first half of 2006. Ibid.

 78 CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 79 Compare Procarsa’s original foreign producer questionnaire response at question II-16a with Procarsa’s revised

foreign producer questionnaire response at question II-16a. 

10
United States after revocation, and this process would likely hinder their ability to increase exports to the

United States rapidly.80 

By contrast, Japanese producers, though distant from the United States, maintained a significant

presence in the U.S. market throughout the period examined in the reviews. Although subject imports

from Japan declined from 29,795 short tons in 2001 to 3,376 short tons in 2003, they increased to 25,232

short tons in 2005, were 13,198 short tons in 2006, and were 7,356 short tons in the first half of 2007.81

Given their continuous presence in the U.S. market, we find that Japanese producers could leverage their

on-going relationships with U.S. importers and purchasers to increase their exports to the U.S. market

rapidly in the event of revocation. Indeed, all three subject Japanese producers possess affiliated

importers in the United States through which they sell CWLDLP, enhancing their ability to serve the U.S.

market.82 That Japanese producers continued to supply customers in the U.S. market through the end of

the period examined in the reviews, and ship their products through related U.S. importers, indicates that

Japanese producers would likely be better positioned than Mexican producers to rapidly increase sales in

the U.S. market if the orders were revoked.83 

Accordingly, we find that Japanese and Mexican producers are likely to compete in the U.S.

market under different conditions of competition upon revocation, and we therefore decline to exercise

our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Japan and Mexico in these reviews.

III. REVOCATION OF THE ORDER ON CWLDLP FROM MEXICO WOULD NOT 

LIKELY LEAD TO THE CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL 

INJURY WITHIN A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE TIME

A. The Panel’s Instructions

In its decision, the Panel also found that the “new data” contained in Procarsa’s revised

questionnaire response might be “potentially outcome determinative” for the Commission’s analysis of

the likely continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time in the

following ways.84 With respect to the Mexican industry’s “[e]xport versus home market orientation,” the

Panel found that Procarsa’s statement “that it is in the process of *** . . . together with the fact that prior

to the imposition of the antidumping order the United States market was the principal export market for

 80 We recognize that the Mexican industry projects exports to the United States of *** short tons in 2007 and ***

short tons in 2008, assuming the order remains in effect. Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at Remand

Table 7. The Mexican industry’s projected exports to the United States in 2007 and 2008 do not detract from our

finding that Mexican producers are not as well positioned as Japanese producers to increase rapidly their exports to

the U.S. market in the event of revocation, however, given the Mexican industry’s near absence from the U.S.

market since 2003 and the Japanese industry’s continuous, significant presence in the market. Indeed, Japanese

producers expect to maintain a *** more significant presence in the U.S. market than Mexican producers in 2007

and 2008, with projected exports to the United States of 13,883 short tons in both years. CR/PR at Table IV-20. 

 81 CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 82 CR at I-42; PR at I-30.

 83 CR at I-42; PR at I-30; Hearing transcript, p. 315 (Miki) (JFE uses an affiliated trading company as “supply

chain manager” in United States, but the mill decides where to sell CWLDLP), 317 (Paul) (Japanese mills better

positioned to offer requisite quality CWLDLP, as no Mexican mills qualified at present time), 317 (Fisher) (Japanese

mills better positioned to supply needed CWLDLP over 24" in outside diameter, as only one Mexican mill can

produce such pipe).

 84 Panel Decision at 31.

11
the Mexican industry, indicate to the Panel that this corrected information might have influenced the

Commission if it had been available prior to its decision.”85 

With respect to the Mexican industry’s “[p]resence in the U.S. market,” the Panel “recognize[d]

that the Commission might have considered that Procarsa’s *** and ***, along with the geographical

proximity between the United States and Mexico could have had a considerable impact on the presence of

Mexican imports in the U.S. market within a reasonably foreseeable time, and thus, had the Commission

known the corrected data at the time of its determination, it might have changed its decision.”86 

Finally, the Panel held that Procarsa’s new information “bears directly and substantially on . . .

the capacity trend factor, considered by the Commission . . .in its likely injury analysis.”87 According to

the Panel,

The Commission was relying on the PMT closure essentially to eliminate 75,000 

short tons of Mexican CWLDLP capacity, and assumed that other Mexican 

producers, including Procarsa, would not increase their capacity . . . it is 

undeniable that the corrected information supplied by Procarsa has significance 

on its long term capacity and production which, if known at the time by the 

Commission would likely have been a considerable factor in reaching its

determination.88

“Given the fact that changes in capacity in the reasonably foreseeable future is a fundamental factor for a

determination of future harm and that it was precisely this factor that was corrected by Procarsa’s revised

questionnaire,” the Panel found, “the Commission should evaluate the significance of these corrected

data.”89 In conclusion, the Panel instructed the Commission “to evaluate the potentially determinative

new data” on remand.

B. Party Arguments

In its comments, U.S. Steel argues that the new information contained in Procarsa’s revised

questionnaire response should compel the Commission to determine that revocation of the order would

likely result in significant volume and price effects, likely resulting in a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry.90 In U.S. Steel’s view, the Commission should change its conclusion that there would

not likely be a significant volume of subject imports from Mexico if the order were revoked because

Procarsa’s added capacity of *** short tons in 2010 will more than make up for the *** short ton

reduction in capacity from PMT’s closure, and increase the Mexican industry’s capacity by *** percent.91

Given the Mexican industry’s significantly increased capacity, U.S. Steel contends that the Commission

should now find that Mexican producers are likely to be able to increase their production significantly to

compete effectively in the U.S. market.92 U.S. Steel also claims that the Commission has no basis to

 85 Panel Decision at 34.

 86 Panel Decision at 36.

 87 Panel Decision at 44. 

 88 Panel Decision at 45.

 89 Panel Decision at 41, 43-44.

 90 U.S. Steel’s Comments at 13.

 91 U.S. Steel’s Comments at 4-5, 11.

 92 U.S. Steel’s Comments at 11-12.

12
believe that Procarsa’s new production line can’t produce CWLDLP in grades X-70 and higher.93 It

argues that the Commission should change its finding that Mexican producers lack incentives to increase

exports to the United States because Procarsa’s new capacity would substantially increase the incentives

for doing so, in part by creating supply pressure in the Mexican market that will likely force other

Mexican producers to become more export oriented.94 Finally, U.S. Steel argues that the Commission

should find that Procarsa has a strong incentive to pursue aggressive pricing in the U.S. market given its

new capacity and current effort to qualify the capacity with U.S. customers.95 

In their comments, the Mexican interested parties argue that Procarsa’s new information should

have no material impact on the Commission’s negative determination because none of the factors

considered by the Commission in reaching its negative determination were affected by Procarsa’s

corrected information.96 In particular, they stress that Procarsa itself stressed in its revised questionnaire

response that its new production line did not alter its future plans with respect to the U.S. market in the

event of revocation.97 

C. Likely Subject Import Volume

We have considered the record as a whole in light of the Panel’s instructions, party comments,

and Procarsa’s revised questionnaire response. We again determine that the likely volume of subject

imports from Mexico would not be significant, either in absolute terms or relative to production or

consumption in the United States, were the antidumping duty order on CWLDLP from Mexico to be

revoked.

A summary of the findings the Commission made concerning subject import volume in the

original investigations, in which volume was analyzed on a cumulative basis, is provided in section VI.A

of our Original Views, and we adopt that summary in its entirety. Subject import volume from Mexico

accounted for a small percentage of cumulated subject import volume during the original period of

investigation. The maximum quantity of subject imports from Mexico during the original period of

investigation was 31,570 short tons in 1999, and the maximum share of apparent U.S. consumption was

*** percent in 2000.98 As explained further below, a substantial portion of the subject imports from

Mexico during the original investigations were produced by PMT, whose production operations were

shuttered in 2002.

In these reviews, we find that the likely subject import volume from Mexico would not be

significant, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, should

the antidumping duty order on CWLDLP from Mexico be revoked. Subject Mexican producers did not

maintain a significant presence in the U.S. market over the period examined in the reviews and have had

*** market share since 2004. Subject import volume from Mexico fell sharply after the original

investigations. Subject imports from Mexico declined from 13,265 short tons in 2001, or *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption, to 6,245 short tons in 2002, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption,

increased to 8,302 short tons in 2003, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and then dropped to

 93 U.S. Steel’s Comments at 12.

 94 U.S. Steel’s Comments at 4-5, 12.

 95 U.S. Steel’s Comments at 13.

 96 See Mexican Interested Parties’ Comments at 15-19.

 97 Mexican Interested Parties’ Comments at 19.

 98 CR/PR, Table I-1.

13
negligible levels, under 200 short tons, throughout the rest of the period examined.99 Subject imports

from Mexico held their highest market share in 2003, when U.S. CWLDLP demand collapsed, and were

zero in the first half of 2007, despite the strong recovery in CWLDLP demand that had occurred by that

time.100 Having been largely absent from the U.S. market since 2003, Mexican producers would need to

seek out and re-establish relationships with U.S. importers and purchasers in order to increase their

exports to the United States after revocation, and this process would likely hinder their ability to rapidly

increase exports to the United States.101 

The record indicated that subject Mexican producers are not export-oriented, and became less so

over the period examined in the reviews. Mexican producers’ ratio of exports to shipments declined from

*** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, increased to *** percent in 2003, declined to *** percent in

both 2004 and 2005, and increased slightly to *** percent in 2006.102 The Mexican CWLDLP industry’s

ratio of exports to shipments remained below the 2001 level when the interim periods are compared; this

ratio was *** percent in the first half of 2007, compared to *** percent in the first half of 2006.103

Despite strong global CWLDLP demand growth during the period examined in the reviews, subject

Mexican producers did not increase their export orientation, but have remained focused on serving their

home market.104 Mexican producers project that their exports as a share of total shipments will remain

low in 2007 and 2008, at *** percent and *** percent, respectively.105 

We acknowledge that the current producers of subject merchandise in Mexico have stated that

they intend to resume shipments to the United States upon revocation of the orders.106 Nevertheless, the

closure and liquidation of PMT in 2002 substantially reduces the likelihood that subject imports from

Mexico would increase significantly after revocation of the order.107 PMT was the *** exporter of

CWLDLP to the United States during the period examined in the original investigations, and accounted

for a large share of Mexican CWLDLP production.108 It also was reportedly the most price aggressive

 99 CR/PR at Tables I-10-11.

 100 CR/PR at Tables I-10-11. Procarsa reported that ***. See Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire

response at question II-16a. 

 101 We recognize that the Mexican industry projects exports to the United States of *** short tons in 2007 and ***

short tons in 2008, assuming the order remains in effect. Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at Remand

Table 7. The Mexican industry’s projected exports to the United States in 2007 and 2008 do not detract from our

finding that Mexican producers are not well positioned to increase rapidly their exports to the U.S. market in the

event of revocation, however, given the Mexican industry’s near absence from the U.S. market since 2003. 

 102 CR/PR at Table IV-24.

 103 CR/PR at Table IV-24.

 104 See Hearing transcript, p. 269 (Gutierrez) (exports largely directed at the South and Central American

markets).

 105 Memorandum Inv-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at Remand Table 7.

 106 Memorandum Inv-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 31; CR/PR at D-21.

 107 CR at IV-39; PR at IV-25-26. PMT’s equipment was shipped to Saudi Arabia, where it was reassembled. 

Ibid.

 108 During the period examined in the original investigations, PMT accounted for *** short tons of reported

Mexican CWLDLP exports to the United States; the four other Mexican producers accounted for *** short tons. 

See Original Staff Report at Table C-1; Original investigation foreign producer questionnaire response of PMT at 8. 

PMT’s share of Mexican CWLDLP exports to the United States was *** percent in 1998, *** percent in 1999, ***

percent in 2000, *** percent in the first half of 2000, and *** percent in the first half of 2001. Ibid. 

(continued...)

14
Mexican producer in the U.S. market.109 Moreover, the level of projected exports to the United States is

likely to remain small, given that the Mexican producers project that their exports to the United States

within the reasonably foreseeable period will likely return to the modest levels that prevailed before

imposition of the order.

PMT’s elimination would have reduced Mexican CWLDLP capacity during the period examined

in the reviews by a significant *** short tons, or *** percent.110 Other Mexican producers did not expand

capacity during the period examined in the review and Mexican producers other than Procarsa project no

capacity additions in 2007 or 2008.111 Although Procarsa’s new production line will eventually have a

maximum theoretical capacity of *** short tons, Procarsa projects an increase in its CWLDLP capacity of

*** short tons in 2008, given ***112 Thus, Mexican capacity in 2008 will likely remain *** short tons

lower than during the original investigation period, before PMT’s liquidation. Accordingly, we find that

the Mexican industry’s capacity will likely remain significantly lower than it was in the original

investigations in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

We again choose not to give authoritative weight to the capacity data reported by the Mexican

CWLDLP industry. The current producers of subject merchandise in Mexico produced more CWLDLP

in 2006 than in any other year since at least 1998.113 Notwithstanding this, reported 2006 capacity

utilization was only *** percent.114 Based on the historical data in the record, we again confirm that we

find it is unlikely the Mexican industry could ever achieve full utilization of the nameplate capacity it has

reported. The fact that Mexican CWLDLP production *** in 2006, coupled with the industry’s

significantly diminished capacity since the original period of investigation, indicates that it is unlikely

Mexican producers would be able to increase their CWLDLP production significantly from current levels,

so as to be able to compete effectively in the project market in the United States.115

 108(...continued)

PMT’s share of Mexican CWLDLP production was *** percent in 1998, *** percent in 1999 and 2000,

*** percent in the first half of 2000, and *** percent in the first half of 2001. See Original Staff Report at Table

VII-7; Original investigation foreign producer questionnaire response of PMT at 8. 

 109 See Hearing transcript, pp. 223-24 (Benitez) (PMT pursued an aggressive pricing strategy in both the U.S. and

Mexican markets, reportedly undercutting domestic producers to win a major Enron pipeline project in Florida); see

also Original Views at 18 n.108 (noting the major project awarded to a Mexican producer on the basis of a low bid).

 110 CR at IV-40; PR at IV-26. Mexican CWLDLP capacity was *** short tons in 2000. Original Investigation

Staff Report at Table VII-7. Although subject Mexican producers reported a cumulative capacity of *** short tons

in these reviews, their capacity only appears higher in the reviews than it was during the original investigations

because the producers utilized a different methodology to calculate capacity in the reviews. CR/PR at Table IV-24;

CR at IV-40, PR at IV-26.

 111 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 9-10, Remand Tables 3, 7.

 112 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 29, 2011) at 18 n.29; Procarsa’s revised questionnaire response, question

II-4; Letter from Procarsa, April 21, 2008, at 6.

 113 Mexican CWLDLP production, excluding PMT, was *** short tons in 1998, *** short tons in 1999, *** short

tons in 2000, *** short tons in 2001, *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, *** short tons in 2004, ***

short tons in 2005, and *** short tons in 2006. See Original Staff Report at Table VII-6; Original investigation

foreign producer questionnaire response of PMT at 8; CR/PR at Table IV-24.

 114 CR/PR at Table IV-24.

 115 Three of four Mexican CWLDLP producers reported that they lack the ability to product shift, while one

reported the ability to shift between the production of CWLDLP and pipe made to AWWA and ASTM specification,

though not on the basis of price changes. CR at IV-53. 

15
Our analysis does not change if we look beyond the reasonably foreseeable period to the limited

information available on Procarsa’s projected capacity for 2009.116 Procarsa projects that its new

production line will have the capacity to produce ***.117 Even assuming that Procarsa ***, Mexican

industry capacity would remain a significant *** short tons lower in 2009 than during the original

investigation period, before PMT’s liquidation. Moreover, Procarsa has reported that this new line was

intended to serve demand in the Mexican market, rather than export markets including the United

States.118

We also find that Mexican CWLDLP producers lack incentives for increasing their exports to the

United States by reducing their current focus on serving their home market. During the period examined

in the reviews, the AUVs of Mexican CWLDLP shipments in their home market were significantly higher

than the AUVs of domestic producer shipments in the U.S. market.119 One domestic producer witness at

the hearing testified that CWLDLP prices are “artificially higher” in Mexico because the Mexican market

is “closed” to foreign competition by the Mexican government, which controls most CWLDLP purchases

through PEMEX, the state-owned energy company.120 In light of this, Mexican CWLDLP producers that

enjoy preferential treatment and much higher prices in their home market would have little incentive to

seek out business in the U.S. market to replace business in Mexico.

Moreover, we find that Mexican CWLDLP producers would likely remain focused on serving

their home market after revocation of the order because CWLDLP demand in Mexico is projected to

remain high relative to recent levels. The Mexican CWLDLP industry’s order backlog increased

significantly towards the end of the period examined in the reviews, from a period low of *** short tons

in 2003 to *** short tons in 2006, and was *** short tons in the first half of 2007, compared to *** short

tons in the first half of 2006.121 According to Mexican CWLDLP producers, strong Mexican CWLDLP

demand will continue throughout 2007 and into 2008, with projected home market shipments of *** short

tons in 2007 and *** short tons in 2008.122 Demand forecasts provided by the Government of Mexico did

 116 We again note that Procarsa ***. See Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response at question

II-4. Given that no Mexican producer reported projected capacity for 2010, we cannot accurately project Mexican

industry capacity in 2010. We therefore do not agree with U.S. Steel’s assertion that Procarsa’s new production line

would increase Mexican industry capacity by *** short tons in 2010. See U.S. Steel’s Comments at 4-5. 

 117 Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, question II-4. 

 118 Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, question II-4.

 119 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-24 with ibid. at Table C-1. We recognize that AUV comparisons are of limited

probative value for a product like CWLDLP due to potential differences in product mix. Nevertheless, the

magnitude of the margin by which the AUV of Mexican industry home market shipments exceeded the AUV of

domestic industry U.S. shipments in every year of the period examined is too great to be explained by product mix

differences alone. See ibid. (the AUV of Mexican industry home market shipments exceeded the AUV of domestic

industry U.S. shipments by *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, ***

percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, and *** percent in the first half of 2007); compare also ibid. at Table G-5 with

ibid. at Table C-2 (the AUV of Mexican industry home market shipments of ERW CWLDLP exceeded the AUV of

domestic industry U.S. shipments of ERW CWLDLP by *** to *** percent during the period examined), and ibid. at

Table G-6 with ibid. at Table C-3 (the AUV of Mexican industry home market shipments of SAW CWLDLP

exceeded the AUV of domestic industry U.S. shipments of SAW CWLDLP by *** to *** percent during the period

examined).

 120 Hearing transcript, p. 157 (Delie).

 121 CR/PR at Table IV-27. These data are understated because only two of four Mexican CWLDLP producers

reported their order backlogs. CR at IV-49-50; PR at IV-28.

 122 CR/PR at Table IV-28.

16
not foresee any slackening in Mexican CWLDLP demand in 2009.123 Notwithstanding the domestic

interested parties’ assertion that PEMEX faces substantial financial challenges,124 these trends in Mexican

producer home market shipments indicate that PEMEX and other purchasers in the Mexican market

significantly increased their consumption of CWLDLP towards the end of the period examined in the

reviews.

Procarsa’s indication that CWLDLP produced on its new production line is being qualified for

sale to U.S customers does not detract from our conclusion that Mexican producers are likely to remain

focused on their home market, for the reasons addressed in Section II.B above. In particular, Procarsa

reports that it intended its new production line to serve the Mexican market at the time of its decision to

install the line, it projects that *** percent of its total shipments of CWLDLP produced on the new line in

2008 will be shipped to home market customers, with the balance exported to third county markets, and it

anticipates that CWLDLP produced on the new line is ***.125 Moreover, Procarsa projects that it will

export *** short tons of CWLDLP to the United States in 2008, and that *** in the event of revocation.126

For all these reasons, we find it unlikely that Procarsa would be able to increase its exports to *** short

tons within a reasonably foreseeable time after revocation. Even if Procarsa were able to increase its

exports to the United States to *** short tons in 2009, the Mexican industry would remain focused on its

home market, with home market shipments accounting for at least *** percent of total shipments, and its

exports to the United States would remain insignificant.127

The Mexican CWLDLP producers’ limited product range would likely be another impediment to

significant increases in exports to the U.S. market. Mexican CWLDLP producers reported few ERW

shipments over the period examined in the reviews, and few ERW or SAW shipments in grades higher

than X-60-69.128 Mexican producers would therefore not be likely to participate meaningfully in the

substantial proportion of the U.S. market that consists of ERW CWLDLP and the large and growing

proportion consisting of CWLDLP in grades X-70-79 and higher.129

Mexican producers’ end-of-period inventories increased over the period examined in absolute

terms, from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2006, and was *** short tons in interim 2007

compared with *** short tons in interim 2006.130 The ratio of inventories to shipments, however,

fluctuated between a low of *** percent in interim 2006 and a high of *** percent in 2001.131 Mexican

producers are subject to a 15 percent tariff imposed by Venezuela in November 2006, but are not subject

 123 See also Government of Mexico’s posthearing brief.

 124 See Hearing transcript, p. 132 (Schagrin).

 125 Procarsa’s revised foreign producer questionnaire response, question II-4; Letter from Procarsa, April 21,

2008, at 7.

 126 Letter from Procarsa, April 21, 2008, at 7.

 127 See Section II.B, supra. Based on the Mexican producers’ maximum projected exports to the United States in

the event of revocation, including *** short tons from Procarsa, *** short tons from Tubacero, and *** short tons

from Tuberia Laguna, Mexican industry exports to the United States would be *** short tons, equivalent to ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2006. See Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 31; CR/PR at

Table I-11. 

 128 See CR/PR at Tables G-7-8; see also section III.D., supra.

 129 CR/PR at Tables II-2, IV-7, C-2. As the Panel held, “Because the revised questionnaire did not specify

whether *** or whether Procarsa is ***, . . . this finding of product range by the ITC would not be affected by

Procarsa’s revised questionnaire.” Panel Decision at 33. 

 130 CR/PR at Table IV-24. 

 131 CR/PR at Table IV-24.

17
to any trade-related investigation in countries other than the United States.132 An examination of

inventories and barriers to importation supports our conclusion that significant volumes of subject imports

from Mexico are not likely upon revocation.

In sum, we find that the likely volume of subject imports from Mexico would not be significant,

either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, were the

antidumping duty order on CWLDLP from Mexico to be revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects and Likely Adverse Impact of Subject Imports

Because we have again found that subject import volume from Mexico would not likely be

significant in the event of revocation, we adopt our Original Views concerning the likely price effects and

likely adverse impact of subject imports from Mexico in their entirety. We find that subject imports from

Mexico would likely have no adverse effects on prices for the domestic like product after revocation of

the order, and that revocation of the order would likely have no significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry. 

Two key factors that influenced our analysis of likely price effects and likely impact are worth

highlighting. First, we again predicate our finding of no likely significant adverse price effects in part on

evidence that subject imports from Mexico did not undersell the domestic like product pervasively in the

original investigation, and that PMT, which pursued an aggressive pricing strategy and accounted for the

largest share of Mexican CWLDLP exports to the United States over the original investigation period,

was liquidated in 2002.133 Second, we again bolster our finding of no likely significant adverse impact

with reference to our finding that the domestic industry is not vulnerable to the recurrence of material

injury.134

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

CWLDLP from Mexico would not likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

 132 CR at IV-49; PR at IV-28.

 133 See Original Views, at 36; see also Hearing transcript, pp. 223-24 (Benitez); Original Investigation Staff

Report at Table VII-6; Original investigation foreign producers’ questionnaire response of PMT at 8; CR at IV-39;

PR at IV-25. 

 134 See Original Views, at 37.

18
 SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER DEAN A. PINKERT 

Based on the record in these reviews on remand from the NAFTA Binational Panel, I determine

under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on certain welded large diameter line pipe (“CWLDLP”) from Japan and Mexico would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time. My determination with respect to CWLDLP from Japan is unchanged from

my determination in the original five-year review. I have changed my determination with respect to

CWLDLP from Mexico from negative to affirmative, however, based upon the revised information the

Commission received from the Mexican producer Tuberias Procarsa, S.A. de C.V. (“Procarsa”) that the

NAFTA Panel has required the Commission to consider on remand.135 As set forth below, having

considered the new information from Procarsa together with all other information of record, I now

cumulate subject imports from Japan and Mexico in reaching my determinations.

In making these determinations, I join section I of the majority’s remand views (“Background”),

except where otherwise indicated. In addition, I continue to join and adopt as part of this opinion the

following sections of the Commission’s views in the original five-year reviews: section I (Background),

section II (Domestic Like Product and Industry), section III.A (Cumulation - Framework), section IV

(Legal Standards in a Five-Year Review), and section V (Conditions of Competition and the Business

Cycle). I also continue to join and adopt for purposes of the present opinion the Commission’s

conclusions in section VI of the original views with respect to the likely effects on the domestic industry

producing CWLDLP of revocation of the antidumping duty order on CWLDLP from Japan. Inasmuch as

I am now cumulating subject imports from Japan with subject imports from Mexico, however, I make an

affirmative determination in these reviews with respect to imports from both countries, as discussed

further below. 

I. CUMULATION

Contrary to the conclusion I reached based on the record in the original reviews, I find that, if the

antidumping duty order on CWLDLP from Mexico were revoked, imports of CWLDLP from Mexico are

not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.136 In making this finding, I

note that the “no discernible” standard set forth in section 752(a)(7) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7),

is relatively difficult to satisfy137 and that my contrary finding in the original reviews was a fairly close

one that was based on the information then available to me.

 135 I note that the NAFTA Panel’s opinion and remand do not address my views in the original five-year reviews,

nor were my views placed in issue on appeal by U.S. Steel. Nevertheless, the Panel’s finding that the Commission

“should evaluate the significance of *** revised questionnaire data” is directed to the entire Commission. Panel

Decision at 43. Moreover, the Panel found that Procarsa’s “changes in capacity in the reasonably foreseeable

future” constituted “a fundamental factor for a determination of future harm and that it was precisely this factor that

was corrected by Procarsa’s revised questionnaire.” Ibid. at 43-44. Consequently, it is within the ambit of the

Panel’s remand for me to reconsider my original views in light of the revised Procarsa data.

 136 As discussed in section III.B of the Commission’s views in the original reviews, which I joined insofar as it

addressed imports from Japan, I do not find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on imports from Japan

would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.

 137 Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 494 F.3d 1371, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

19
 As of 2006, the Mexican CWLDLP industry had a total capacity of *** short tons and total

production of *** short tons.138 The record information in this remand proceeding, including the new

information provided by Procarsa, indicates – contrary to the information in the original 

reviews – that a *** within the reasonably foreseeable future. 

Procarsa ***.139 Procarsa is ***.140 Procarsa projects that its *** short tons in 2009.141 It also

projects that its production on the ***.142

Procarsa estimates that in 2008 ***.143 Thus, Procarsa’s ***. It would also ***.144

As noted above, Procarsa ***. Procarsa has provided ***, which would ***. It would also

increase the Mexican industry’s CWLDLP capacity by ***.145 

In addition, there is good reason to believe that, despite the Mexican industry’s relatively modest

level of exports during the period of review, its increased capacity would be used, at least in significant

part, for exports to the United States in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order

were revoked. The United States was the primary export market for Mexican CWLDLP producers prior

to the order. With the discipline of the order in effect, Mexican exports of CWLDLP to the United States

***.146

In response to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire, however, ***.147 148 In addition,

the ***, which is frequently used in line pipe projects and accounts for the great majority of U.S.

demand.149 150

It is also notable that ***.151 This ***. Finally, increased Mexican exports to the United States in

the event of revocation would be facilitated by the presence of a major U.S. purchaser of CWLDLP in

Mexico City.152

 138 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011), at Remand Table 1. The Mexican industry’s capacity

contracted significantly after the original investigations when a significant Mexican producer, Productora Mexicana

de Tuberia S.A. de C.V., closed in 2002. Ibid. at 3, Remand Table 2.

 139 ***. Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 4.

 140 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 10.

 141 ***. Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 18 n.26.

 142 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 17-18.

 143 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 18 n.29.

 144 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at Remand Table 2; Procarsa’s revised foreign producer

questionnaire response, question II-16c (***). 

 145 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 15, Remand Table 2. 

 146 Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at Remand Table 3.

 147 ***. Memorandum INV-JJ-017 (February 28, 2011) at 10. Contrary to ***. Moreover, whatever *** in the

event the order is lifted.

 148 ***. Letter from Jeffrey M. Winton, counsel for Procarsa, to Marilyn R. Abbott, April 21, 2008, at 7. Thus,

***. 

 149 Larger diameter pipe (SAW pipe) accounted for *** percent of the U.S. market in 2006. Original Review CR

at Tables C-1, C-3. 

 150 ***. Thus, it is unclear whether ***.

 151 Letter from Jeffrey M. Winton, counsel for Procarsa, to Marilyn R. Abbott, April 21, 2008, at 4. 

 152 Hearing transcript, p. 308 (Fisher).

20
Based on the record information above, I find that subject imports from Mexico are not likely to

have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order on such

imports were revoked. Having made the same threshold finding with respect to subject imports from

Japan, I must further consider whether imports from Japan and Mexico would be likely to compete with

each other and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market, as provided in 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). 

Having considered the record evidence with respect to this issue, I join section III.C of the Commission’s

views in the original reviews and find that there would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition

between subject imports and the domestic like product, as well as between subject imports from Japan and

Mexico, if the orders were revoked.

I do not, however, join the discussion of other factors in section III.D of the Commission’s

original views or my colleagues’ decision not to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports from

Japan and Mexico in these reviews. Where, in a five-year review, I do not find that the subject imports

would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order were revoked

and find that such imports would be likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product

in the U.S. market, I cumulate such imports unless there is a condition or propensity – not merely a trend

– that is likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable time and that significantly limits competition such

that cumulation is not warranted.153 In this case, I find no evidence of such a propensity. Given that

subject imports from Japan and Mexico have a moderate to high level of substitutability and compete in

the United States in overlapping geographic markets and channels of distribution, I find it appropriate to

cumulate subject imports from the two countries.

II. REVOCATION OF THE ORDERS ON CWLDLP FROM JAPAN AND MEXICO

WOULD LIKELY LEAD TO THE CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF

MATERIAL INJURY WITHIN A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE TIME

Because I am now cumulating subject imports from Japan and Mexico, I must consider the

combined impact of such imports. In the original reviews, I joined section VI of the Commission’s views,

which discussed the reasons for the Commission’s determination that revocation of the order on

CWLDLP from Japan would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. As noted above, I continue to join that portion of

the original views and adopt it for purposes of the present opinion.

The findings I made in the original reviews with respect to likely material injury by reason of

imports from Japan apply with all the greater force now that I have cumulated subject imports from Japan

and Mexico. With the majority of my colleagues, I found “that Japanese producers possess the market

presence, the capacity, and the incentive to significantly increase their exports to the United States, such

that the likely volume of imports would be significant both in absolute terms and relative to production or

consumption in the United States were the antidumping duty order revoked.”154 The likely increase in the 

Mexican industry’s capacity, production, and exports to the United States, which is discussed in section I

above, would further contribute to this likely significant increase in subject import volume and market

share.

I further found in the original reviews, together with the majority of my colleagues, that – as had

happened in the original investigations – imports from Japan were likely to significantly undersell the

domestic product in the event of revocation and lead to the depression or suppression of domestic prices

 153 Original Views at 9 n.48.

 154 Original Views at 27.

21
to a significant degree.155 Although imports from Mexico were found in the original investigations to

undersell the domestic like product in only four of nine quarterly comparisons, the combined adverse

price effects of the likely increased imports from both Japan and Mexico plainly would be significant if

the pricing discipline of the orders were removed. 

Finally, as part of the majority in the original reviews, I concluded “that if the order on CWLDLP

from Japan were to be revoked, the likely significant increase in the volume of subject imports, coupled

with their likely adverse price effects, would likely have a significant negative impact on the domestic

industry in terms of output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, utilization of

capacity, cash flow, inventories, employment, wage growth, ability to raise capital, investment, and the

industry’s development and production efforts.”156 The same conclusion necessarily flows from the

cumulated volume and price effects of imports from Japan and Mexico. Consequently, I determine that,

if the antidumping duty orders were revoked, subject imports from Japan and Mexico would be likely to

lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic CWLDLP industry within a

reasonably foreseeable time. 

 155 Original Views at 28-29.

 156 Original Views at 30.

22
BACKGROUND

On November 1, 2006, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”)

gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that it had instituted reviews

to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain welded large diameter line

pipe (“CWLDLP”)1

 from Japan and Mexico would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of

material injury to a domestic industry. Effective February 5, 2007, the Commission determined that it

would conduct full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. On October 2, 2007, the

Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on CWLDLP from Japan would be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time and that revocation of the antidumping duty order on CWLDLP from Mexico

would not be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2

 On April 21, 2008, six months after completion of the

Commission’s review, the Mexican producer Tuberias Procarsa, S.A. de C.V. (“Procarsa”) attempted to

file with the Commission a revised foreign producers’ questionnaire response which sought to revise

certain aspects of its originally reported capacity, production, and shipment data. On April 24, 2008, the

Commission rejected the submission on the grounds that it was untimely filed. 

Domestic interested party U.S. Steel appealed the Commission’s determination with respect to

Mexico under Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”). On January 19,

2011, the NAFTA Panel issued its decision and remanded the case with instructions for the Commission

to reexamine its analysis of cumulation and likely injury in light of Procarsa’s revised foreign producers’

response. On February 15, 2011, the Commission re-opened the record for the limited purpose of

accepting Procarsa’s revised questionnaire response and associated correspondence, and invited parties to

comment on the new information.3

 Information relating to the background and schedule of the remand

proceeding is provided in the following tabulation.4

 The remainder of this report focuses on the

CWLDLP industry in Mexico, taking into account the new information on the record.

 1 The product covered by this proceeding is certain welded carbon and alloy steel line pipe, of circular cross

section and with an outside diameter (“O.D.”) greater than 16 inches (406.4 mm), but less than 64 inches (1,625.6

mm), whether or not stenciled. A complete description of the domestic like product and the imported subject

merchandise is presented in Certain Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe From Japan and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 731-TA919 and 920 (Review), USITC Publication 3953, October 2007. 

 2 Certain Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from Japan and Mexico, Determination, 72 FR 59551, October 22,

2007. 

 3 Certain Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from Japan and Mexico, Notice, 76 FR 9608, February 18, 2011. 

 4

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy may be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address www.usitc.gov). Commissioners’ votes on

whether to conduct expedited or full reviews may also be found at the web site. 

R-1
Effective date Action

December 6, 2001 Commerce’s antidumping duty order on Japan (66 FR 63368)

February 27, 2002 Commerce’s antidumping duty order on Mexico (67 FR 8937)

November 1, 2006 Commission’s institution of reviews (71 FR 64294)

February 5, 2007 Commission’s decision to conduct full reviews (72 FR 6746, February 13, 2007)

February 22, 2007 Commission’s scheduling of the reviews (72 FR 9357, March 1, 2007)

March 8, 2007 Commerce’s final results of expedited reviews (72 FR 10498)

July 25, 2007

Commission’s hearing (see Notice of Revised Schedule, 72 FR 30832, June 4,

2007) 

October 2, 2007 Commission’s vote

October 16, 2007

Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce (72 FR 59551, October

22, 2007) 

November 5, 2007

Continuation of antidumping duty order on CWLDLP from Japan (72 FR 62435,

November 5, 2007) 

February 27, 2007

Revocation of antidumping duty order on CWLDLP from Mexico (72 FR 62436,

November 5, 2007) 

April 21, 2008

U.S. Steel requested review of the Commission’s determination regarding

Mexico before a NAFTA panel 

January 19, 2011

NAFTA Panel decision issued, determination regarding CWLDLP from Mexico

remanded to the Commission

February 15, 2011 Commission re-opens the record (76 FR 9608, February 18, 2011)

April 12, 2011 Commission’s remand determination filed with the NAFTA Panel

THE INDUSTRY IN MEXICO

Overview

In their responses to the Commission’s notice of institution in the five-year reviews, counsel on

behalf of respondents in Mexico identified three known producers of CWLDLP in Mexico and counsel on

behalf of respondents in Japan identified a fourth potential Mexican producer.5

 The Commission issued

questionnaires to each of these companies. Counsel on behalf of three Mexican respondents provided

complete data and the fourth company provided data independently. Accordingly, the data presented in

this report are for Tubacero, S.A. de C.V. (“Tubacero”), Tuberia Laguna, S.A. de C.V. (“Tuberia

Laguna”), Procarsa, and Tubesa S.A. de C.V. (“Tubesa”).6

 Procarsa’s data have been updated to reflect

 5 The potential Mexican producers identified were: Tubacero, S.A. de C.V., Tuberia Laguna, S.A. de C.V., 

Tuberias Procarsa, S.A. de C.V., and Tubesa S.A. de C.V.

 6

 The Commission’s questionnaires directed foreign and domestic producers to provide business plans or internal

documents, reports, or studies, relating to future CWLDLP market conditions. Counsel on behalf of responding

producers in Mexico stated that they do not have business plans specific to the subject products because their

business documents do not separate large and small diameter line pipe. Because they deemed their documents

(continued...)

R-2
the information contained in its revised foreign producers’ questionnaire response, filed on February 18,

2011. 

In the preliminary phase of the original investigations, five producers from Mexico provided the 

Commission with data: Productora Mexicana de Tuberia S.A. de C.V. (“PMT”), Procarsa, Tubacero,

Tuberia Laguna, and Tubesa. During the original investigations U.S. imports of CWLDLP from Mexico

were largely produced by PMT. In June 2002, after the imposition of the antidumping duty order on

imports of CWLDLP from Mexico, Ispat, which was the majority shareholder of PMT, liquidated PMT

and sold off its manufacturing equipment to a firm located in Saudi Arabia.7

Remand table 1 presents comparative information available from the final phase of the original

investigations and the five-year reviews. The companies responding in the reviews calculated capacity

differently from the original investigations. Therefore, despite the fact that currently-installed capacity

has not increased since the early 1980s,8

 and a producer with a capacity of *** short tons closed, capacity

in 2006 is reportedly higher. This represents differences in reporting methodology, rather than in

equipment or machinery.9

 

One of these responding firms, ***, produces both ERW and SAW line pipe while

*** and *** currently produce exclusively ERW pipe. When ***.10 *** produces exclusively spiralwelded pipe.11 With an increase in capacity of *** percent, producers in Mexico were able to increase

production by *** percent from 2000 to 2006 because capacity utilization in 2000 was only *** percent. 

By 2006 capacity utilization had reached *** percent and exports as a share of total shipments had

declined from *** percent to *** percent.

 6 (...continued)

unresponsive to the Commission’s request, they have not been submitted. Staff telephone interview with ***, June

8, 2007. 

 7

 Tubacero’s response to the notice of institution, p. 7. During the period examined in the original investigations

PMT won a contract to supply a major Enron pipeline project in Florida that resulted in an increase in exports from

Mexico to supply the project. Mexican respondents’ posthearing brief, p. 4, hearing transcript, pp. 223-224

(Benitez), and Certain Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from Japan and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-919 and 920

(Final), Staff Report, INV-Y-214, October 17, 2001, pp. V-16-V-17.

 8

 Mexican respondents’ posthearing brief, p. 2. 

 9 According to Mexican respondent interested parties, they reported different capacities in the reviews because of

changes in their reading of the questionnaire instructions. They read the instructions in the original investigations to

require production capacity that could be reasonably expected under normal operating conditions and the instructions

in the reviews to require theoretical machine capacity. Staff telephone interview with *** and ***. 

 10 Procarsa’s remand foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-16c. This ***. Procarsa’s remand

foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-4. 

 11 The Commission asked foreign producers to describe the production technology and inputs used 

in their manufacture of CWLDLP. The producers in Mexico reported no significant changes in production

technology since 2001 but did describe their production processes. *** mills one and two produce SAW pipe by a

continuous rolling process (cage forming process), using ERW as a tack welding. Further down the line, the pipe is

longitudinally submerged-arc welded, expanded, beveled, and hydrostatically and ultrasonically tested. *** mill

number two also produces ERW pipe using a continuous rolling process and electric resistance welding by contacts

from 18" to 30" outside diameter. *** manufactures pipe with a Torrance mill using an ERW-high frequency

process. *** reported that it has been using the same mill since 1977 to process pipe with longitudinal, ERW

Torrance, and Thermatool welds. ***. The single HSAW producer, ***, reported that its production technology has

not changed since 2001 and that its main production inputs are steel coils, welding wire and welding flux. ***

foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-5 and Procarsa’s remand foreign producer questionnaire

response, section II-4. 

R-3
Remand Table 1

CWLDLP: Comparison of select Mexican producer data, 2000 and 2006

* * * * * * *

To better illustrate the differences in reported capacity between the original investigations and

the five-year reviews, a company-by-company comparison of capacity is presented in remand table 2. 

Data for 2000 are drawn from the preliminary phase of the original investigations. The data are

comparable in that both captured information from all producers of CWLDLP in Mexico (five in 2000

and four in 2006 because of the closure of PMT). However, as noted above, the companies responding in

the reviews calculated capacity differently than in the original investigations.12

Remand Table 2

CWLDLP: Comparison of select Mexican producer capacity and production data, 2000 and 2006

* * * * * * *

CWLDLP Operations

Data on Mexico’s total CWLDLP capacity, production, inventories, and shipments are 

presented in remand table 3. Because PMT closed in 2002 and did not provide data for 2001-02, the data

presented are understated for those years. 

During the period for which data were collected in the reviews, Mexican CWLDLP capacity

remained constant while production increased by *** percent between 2001 and 2006. Capacity

utilization increased over this period by *** percentage points. Home market shipments increased overall

by *** percent. In January-June 2007, however, home market shipments were *** of their January-June

2006 level. Exports to all other markets *** but *** after 2003. As a share of shipments, exports were

highest in *** at *** percent and were less than *** percent in every period thereafter. 

Remand Table 3

CWLDLP: Mexico’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2001-06, January-June 2006,

and January-June 2007 

* * * * * * *

In response to the Commission’s question on changes in capacity and plans to add, expand, or

curtail their production capacity in the future, three responding producers in Mexico replied in the 

 12 Remand tables 1 and 2 also reflect differences in reporting between the preliminary and final phases of the

original investigations. The primary differences include reporting by two Mexican producers in the preliminary

phase that did not report data in the final phase and greater estimates of capacity by one Mexican producer in the

final phase of the investigations than in the preliminary phase of the investigations. 

R-4
negative. They reported neither changes in their capacity nor plans to change their capacity.13 The

fourth producer, *** reported that ***. ***.14 Procarsa ***.15

In addition, all producers reported that they do not anticipate changes in their operations.16 The

Commission asked producers in Mexico whether they have imported or have plans to import CWLDLP

into the United States and all responded in the negative.17 In response to the Commission’s question on

limitations on CWLDLP that each firm is capable of producing, neither *** nor *** answered. ***

explained that there are no constraints, only those imposed by the product specifications.

The Commission requested information on the basis of production capacity calculations made by 

the producers in Mexico. Data on Mexican producers’ CWLDLP production capacity calculations are

presented in remand table 4. 

Remand Table 4

CWLDLP: Mexico’s basis of reported production capacity 

* * * * * * *

Sales of CWLDLP accounted for varying shares of total sales by responding producers in 

Mexico. In the most recent fiscal year, *** had the highest percentage of CWLDLP sales with ***

percent. *** had the second highest percentage of such sales with *** percent. In contrast, *** percent

of *** sales and only *** percent of *** total sales were sales of CWLDLP.18 During the period for

which data were collected, the Mexican industry’s internal consumption and home market shipments of

CWLDLP increased by *** and *** percent, respectively, though the former remained quite small. Also

during this period, total exports decreased by more than *** percent. At no time during the period did

producers in Mexico report exporting CWLDLP to the European Union, China, or other markets in Asia. 

Exports accounted for the highest portion of shipments in 2001 at *** percent, and the lowest in 2004 and

2005, at *** percent. The unit values of exports to all other markets were highest in 2006, at ***.

Data on shipments by producers in Mexico by grade, diameter, and wall thickness of

CWLDLP are presented in remand table 5. During the period for which data were collected shipments of

CWLDLP produced in Mexico were predominantly in the *** although there were ***. Shipments by

diameter were *** but were frequently highest in diameters between *** inches or between *** inches. 

In the *** CWLDLP shipments were predominantly of *** with wall thicknesses between ***. 

Remand Table 5 

CWLDLP: Mexico’s shipments by grade, diameter, and wall thickness, 2001-06

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested details on the export markets that producers in Mexico have 

developed or where they have increased their sales of CWLDLP since 2001. *** reported that it has not

developed export markets, or increased its sales of CWLDLP since 2001, and *** did not respond to the

 13 *** foreign producer questionnaire responses, sections II-4 and II-1. 

 14 Procarsa’s remand foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-4. Additional details regarding product

mix, available (as opposed to theoretical) capacity, and operating projections are presented later in this chapter. 

 15 Procarsa’s remand foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-4. 

 16 Procarsa’s foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-2. 

 17 *** foreign producer questionnaire responses, section I-6. 

 18 *** foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-9.

R-5
question.19 *** explained that since 2001 it has exported to central and south America, to countries that

either do not produce steel pipes or that demand more pipe than their domestic industries can supply.20

*** detailed its sales to specific export markets developed since 2001, presented in the tabulation below.21

* * * * * * *

Mexican exports of steel line pipe are currently subject to a 15 percent tariff imposed by 

Venezuela in November 2006.22 According to the responding producers, their exports of CWLDLP are

not subject to any current investigations in any countries other than the United States.23 No producers in

Mexico reported maintaining inventories of CWLDLP in the United States since 2001.24

The Commission requested producers in Mexico to report their existing backlog or order book 

volume at year-end. These data are presented in remand table 6. These figures represent only the data of

*** and *** because the other producers did not respond.25 

Remand Table 6

CWLDLP: *** and *** existing order backlog, December 2001-06, June 2006 and June 2007

* * * * * * *

Data on Mexico’s projected CWLDLP capacity, production, inventories, and shipments are

presented in remand table 7. Projections are based on the orders remaining in effect. Capacity to produce

CWLDLP is projected to increase by *** short tons in 2008. This is the result of *** planned addition of

*** short tons of SAW CWLDLP production capacity combined with *** reported reduction of *** short

tons of ERW CWLDLP production capacity. 

Remand Table 7

CWLDLP: Mexico’s projected capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2007-08

* * * * * * *

*** projects that its maximum capacity to produce ***.26 ***.27

Alternative Products

In addition to subject large diameter line pipe, Mexican firms produce a range of other steel 

products, including standard pipe, structural pipe, oil country tubular goods, and other line pipe. 

However, CWLDLP accounted for the second largest share of Mexican producers’ total production. Data

 19 *** as submitted in U.S. Steel’s supplemental domestic producer’s questionnaire response, June 8, 2007,

attachment C, pp. C-10-11. 

 20 *** foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-12. 

 21 *** foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-12. 

 22 *** foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-13.

 23 *** foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-13b.

 24 *** foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-11.

 25 *** foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-6c. 

 26 According to ***. Procarsa’s remand foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-4 and letter from

***, April 21, 2008. 

 27 Procarsa’s remand foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-4. 

R-6
regarding Mexican CWLDLP producers’ total steel capacity and production of all products are presented

in remand table 8. The data reported are for all four responding producers.28 As presented in table 8, the

production capacity for all steel products remained constant from 2001 through 2006. However, ***. 

The company reported that ***.29 The subject product and other line pipe constituted the bulk of

production in Mexico between 2001 and 2006. 

The Commission asked producers in Mexico if they are able to switch production between 

CWLDLP and other products in response to a change in the price of CWLDLP relative to the prices of

other products, using the same equipment and machinery. Three producers responded that *** while ***

reported that it switches production between CWLDLP and *** based on ***.30

Remand Table 8

CWLDLP: Mexico’s total steel capacity, and production by product types, 2001-06

* * * * * * *

Additional Mexican Industry Data

In addition to the data previously discussed, the Commission collected data disaggregated by

production method. Remand tables 9 through 12 present trade data for production of CWLDLP by the

ERW and SAW method separately. Remand tables 13 and 14 present data on ERW and SAW line pipe

shipments by size, grade, and wall thickness. 

Remand Table 9

CWLDLP: Data for producers of ERW line pipe in Mexico, 2001-06, January-June 2006, and

January-June 2007

* * * * * * *

Remand Table 10

CWLDLP: Mexico’s projected capacity, production, inventories, and shipments of ERW line pipe,

2007-08

* * * * * * *

Remand Table 11

CWLDLP: Data for producers of SAW line pipe in Mexico, 2001-06, January-June 2006, and

January-June 2007

* * * * * * *

 28 *** foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-7. 

 29 Procarsa’s remand foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-4. In addition, the company projected

that, in 2008, roughly *** percent of its production on the new production line will consist of WLDLP, while the

remaining *** percent will consist of other nonsubject products. Letter from ***, April 21, 2008. The company

reported that in its most recent fiscal year *** percent of the firm’s total sales was represented by sales of CWLDLP. 

In 2006, *** accounted for *** percent of total *** and *** accounted for *** percent of total *** by ***. 

 30 *** foreign producer questionnaire responses, section II-10.

R-7
Remand Table 12

CWLDLP: Mexico’s projected capacity, production, inventories, and shipments of SAW line pipe,

2007-08

* * * * * * *

Remand Table 13

CWLDLP: Mexico’s shipments of ERW line pipe by size, grade, and wall thickness, 2001-06,

January-June 2006, and January-June 2007

* * * * * * *

Remand Table 14

CWLDLP: Mexico’s shipments of SAW line pipe by size, grade, and wall thickness, 2001-06,

January-June 2006, and January-June 2007 

* * * * * * *

Comments by Mexican Producers Regarding the Effects of the Orders and 

the Likely Effects of Revocation

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in the

character of their operations or organization relating to the production of CWLDLP in the future if the

antidumping duty orders on CWLDLP from Japan and Mexico were to be revoked. Their responses are

as follows:

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

Comments by Mexican Producers Regarding the Significance of the Orders 

In Terms of Trade and Related Data

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe the significance of the existing 

antidumping duty orders on CWLDLP from Japan and Mexico, in terms of their effect on the firms’

production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets,

and inventories. Their responses are as follows:

***

“The antidumping duty was imposed in consequence of an antidumping claim against an export

sale made by ***. The antidumping orders have had a negative effect on *** exports to the United

States. Prior to the imposition of antidumping duties, *** was able to export a small volume of subject

merchandise to the United States (ranging from roughly *** tons per year in the mid-1990's to roughly

*** in 1999 and *** tons in 2000). However, since the antidumping duties were imposed, we have

ceased all exports to the United States.” 

R-8
***

“Because of the antidumping duty of *** percent applied to imports of welded large diameter line

pipe from ***, we have not been able to export large outside diameter products to the United States. We

have therefore focused on sales of smaller diameter products and other markets.” 

***

No response was given.

Comments by Mexican Producers Regarding the Anticipated Changes in Trade 

and Related Data If The Orders Were To Be Revoked 

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in their

production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets,

or inventories relating to the production of CWLDLP in the future if the antidumping duty orders on

CWLDLP from Japan and Mexico were to be revoked. Their responses are as follows:

***

“Yes. *** anticipates just to recover its normal sales export level that it had before the imposition

of the orders.” 

***

“Yes. If the antidumping duty is revoked, we would expect to be able to resume sales of large

outside diameter products to the United States. Given current market conditions, we do not expect to

compete for large projects or for most spot sales, but we believe there may be opportunities to make some

spot sales on a profitable basis when other suppliers do not have material available. We see this potential

market as around *** tons per year under current conditions.” 

***

“***.” 

R-9
 
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

64294 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Notices 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the countervailing 

duty and antidumping duty orders on 

the Domestic Industry in general and/or 

your firm/entity specifically. In your 

response, please discuss the various 

factors specified in section 752(a) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the 

likely volume of subject imports, likely 

price effects of subject imports, and 

likely impact of imports of Subject 

Merchandise on the Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2005 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Number of domestic honeyproducing colonies, production and/or 

packing (quantity) and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

production and/or packing of the 

Domestic Like Product accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production and/or 

packing; 

(b) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2005 (report 

quantity data in pounds and value data 

in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping or countervailing duties) 

of U.S. imports and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

imports of Subject Merchandise from 

each Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. 

commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country(ies); and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. internal 

consumption/company transfers of 

Subject Merchandise imported from the 

Subject Country(ies). 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2005 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

or countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in each Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 25, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–18309 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–919 and 920 

(Review)] 

Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe From 

Japan and Mexico 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on welded large diameter line pipe from 

Japan and Mexico. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on welded 

large diameter line pipe from Japan and 

Mexico would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Notices 64295 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 07–5–163, 

expiration date June 30, 2008. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 10 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is December 21, 2006. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

January 16, 2007. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: November 1, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On December 6, 2001, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

welded large diameter line pipe from 

Japan (66 FR 63368). On February 27, 

2002, the Department of Commerce 

issued an antidumping duty order on 

imports of welded large diameter line 

pipe from Mexico (67 FR 8937). The 

Commission is conducting reviews to 

determine whether revocation of the 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct full 

reviews or expedited reviews. The 

Commission’s determinations in any 

expedited reviews will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Japan and Mexico. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations, the Commission found 

a single Domestic Like Product 

consisting of certain welded large 

diameter line pipe, coextensive with 

Commerce’s scope. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations, 

the Commission found a single 

Domestic Industry consisting of all 

domestic producers of certain welded 

large diameter line pipe. 

(5) The Order Dates are the dates that 

the antidumping duty orders under 

review became effective. In these 

reviews, the Order Dates are December 

6, 2001 (Japan) and February 27, 2002 

(Mexico). 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are reminded that they 

are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, 

to seek Commission approval if the 

matter in which they are seeking to 

appear was pending in any manner or 

form during their Commission 

employment. The Commission’s 

designated agency ethics official has 

advised that a five-year review is the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 19 CFR 201.15 and 18 

U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute 

for Federal employees. Former 

employees may seek informal advice 

from Commission ethics officials with 

respect to this and the related issue of 

whether the employee’s participation 

was ‘‘personal and substantial.’’

However, any informal consultation will 

not relieve former employees of the 

obligation to seek approval to appear 

from the Commission under its rule 

201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol 

McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics 

Official, at 202–205–3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
64296 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Notices 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is December 21, 2006. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is January 16, 2007. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of sections 201.8 and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information to be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: If 

you are a domestic producer, union/ 

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. As used below, the 

term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Dates. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2005 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2005 (report 

quantity data in short tons and value 

data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2005 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

duties). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Notices 64297 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country since the Order 

Dates, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in each Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 25, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–18311 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

JOINT BOARD FOR THE 

ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES 

Advisory Committee on Actuarial 

Examinations; Invitation for 

Membership on Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment 

of Actuaries. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice inviting 

membership on advisory committee; 

notice inviting membership on advisory 

committee. 

SUMMARY: The Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries (Joint Board), 

established under the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

(ERISA), is responsible for the 

enrollment of individuals who wish to 

perform actuarial services under ERISA. 

The Joint Board has established an 

Advisory Committee on Actuarial 

Examinations (Advisory Committee) to 

assist in its examination duties 

mandated by ERISA. The Joint Board 

published a Federal Register notice at 

71 FR 30649, May 30, 2006, inviting 

membership on the Advisory 

Committee. That notice did not reflect 

the Joint Board’s decision to extend the 

appointment term of current Advisory 

Committee members. Therefore, this 

document withdraws the previous 

notice and gives new notice inviting 

membership. In accordance with the 

Joint Board’s decision, the appointment 

term of current Advisory Committee 

members will expire on February 28, 

2007. This notice describes the 

Advisory Committee and invites 

applications from those interested in 

serving on it. 

1. General 

To qualify for enrollment to perform 

actuarial services under ERISA, an 

applicant must have requisite pension 

actuarial experience and satisfy 

knowledge requirements as provided in 

the Joint Board’s regulations. The 

knowledge requirements may be 

satisfied by successful completion of 

Joint Board examinations in basic 

actuarial mathematics and methodology 

and in actuarial mathematics and 

methodology relating to pension plans 

qualifying under ERISA. 

The Joint Board, the Society of 

Actuaries, and the American Society of 

Pension Professionals & Actuaries 

jointly offer examinations acceptable to 

the Joint Board for enrollment purposes 

and acceptable to those actuarial 

organizations as part of their respective 

examination programs. 

2. Programs 

The Advisory Committee plays an 

integral role in the examination program 

by assisting the Joint Board in offering 

examinations that will enable 

examination candidates to demonstrate 

the knowledge necessary to qualify for 

enrollment. The purpose of the 

Advisory Committee, as renewed, will 

remain that of assisting the Joint Board 

in fulfilling this responsibility. The 

Advisory Committee will discuss the 

philosophy of such examinations, will 

review topics appropriately covered in 

them, and will make recommendations 

relative thereto. It also will recommend 

to the Joint Board proposed examination 

questions. The Joint Board will maintain 

liaison with the Advisory Committee in 

this process to ensure that its views on 

examination content are understood. 

3. Function 

The manner in which the Advisory 

Committee functions in preparing 

examination questions is intertwined 

with the jointly administered 

examination program. Under that 

program, the participating actuarial 

organizations draft questions and 

submit them to the Advisory Committee 

for its consideration. After review of the 

draft questions, the Advisory Committee 

selects appropriate questions, modifies 

them as it deems desirable, and then 

prepares one or more drafts of actuarial 

examinations to be recommended to the 

Joint Board. (In addition to revisions of 

the draft questions, it may be necessary 

for the Advisory Committee to originate 

questions and include them in what is 

recommended.) 

4. Membership 

The Joint Board will take steps to 

ensure maximum practicable 

representation on the Advisory 

Committee of points of view regarding 

the Joint Board’s actuarial examination 

extant in the community at large and 

from nominees provided by the 

actuarial organizations. Since the 

members of the actuarial organizations 

comprise a large segment of the 

actuarial profession, this appointive 

process ensures expression of a broad 

spectrum of viewpoints. All members of 

the Advisory Committee will be 

expected to act in the public interest, 

that is, to produce examinations that 

will help ensure a level of competence 

among those who will be accorded 

enrollment to perform actuarial services 

under ERISA. 

Membership normally will be limited 

to actuaries previously enrolled by the 

Joint Board. However, individuals 

having academic or other special 

qualifications of particular value for the 

Advisory Committee’s work also will be 

considered for membership. 

Membership terms are at the sole 

discretion of the inviting authority and 

are not necessarily concurrent with the 

duration of the Advisory Committee 

charter. The Advisory Committee will 

meet about four times a year. Advisory 

Committee members should be prepared 

to devote from 125 to 175 hours, 

including meeting time, to the work of 

the Advisory Committee over the course 

of a year. Members will be reimbursed 

for travel expenses incurred, in 

accordance with applicable government 

regulations. 

Actuaries interested in serving on the 

Advisory Committee should express 

their interest and fully state their 

qualifications in a letter addressed to: 

Joint Board for the Enrollment of 

Actuaries, c/o Internal Revenue Service, 

Attn: Executive Director SE: OPR, Room 

7238, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20224. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
6746 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by the American Honey Producers 

Association and the Sioux Honey Association to be 

individually adequate. Comments from other 

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 

207.62(d)(2)). 

response to its notice of institution (71 

FR 64292, November 1, 2006) of the 

subject five-year reviews was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group responses were inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on May 15, 2007, 

and made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for these reviews. A public version 

will be issued thereafter, pursuant to 

§ 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s 

rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

§ 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, 

interested parties that are parties to the 

reviews and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

reviews may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determinations 

the Commission should reach in the 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

May 22, 2007, and may not contain new 

factual information. Any person that is 

neither a party to the five-year reviews 

nor an interested party may submit a 

brief written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the reviews by May 22, 

2007. However, should the Department 

of Commerce extend the time limit for 

its completion of the final results of its 

reviews, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

§ 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as 

amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the rules, each document filed 

by a party to the reviews must be served 

on all other parties to the reviews (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determinations. The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to § 207.62 of the Commission’s 

rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 7, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–2455 Filed 2–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–919 and 920 

(Review)] 

Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe From 

Japan And Mexico 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determinations to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on welded large diameter 

line pipe from Japan and Mexico. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on welded large diameter line 

pipe from Japan and Mexico would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule 

for the reviews will be established and 

announced at a later date. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 5, 2007, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to 

full reviews in the subject five-year 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that 

both the domestic and respondent 

interested party group responses to its 

notice of institution (71 FR 64294, 

November 1, 2006) were adequate. A 

record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to § 207.62 of the Commission’s 

rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 7, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–2456 Filed 2–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission 

Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of 

Records 

AGENCY: Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission, Justice. 

ACTION: Revisions of Notice of Privacy 

Act Systems of Records. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of 

the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, 

notice is given that the Foreign Claims 

Settlement Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) is modifying all of its 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 40 / Thursday, March 1, 2007 / Notices 9357 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–565] 

In the Matter of Certain Ink Cartridges 

and Components Thereof; Notice of a 

Commission Determination Not to 

Review an Initial Determination 

Amending the Complaint and Notice of 

Investigation to Add a Respondent and 

Then Terminating the Respondent on 

the Basis of a Settlement Agreement, 

Consent Order Stipulation and 

Consent Order; Issuance of Consent 

Order 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) of 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) in the above-captioned 

investigation amending the complaint 

and notice of investigation to add a 

respondent and then terminating the 

investigation with respect to that 

respondent on the basis of a settlement 

agreement, consent order stipulation, 

and consent order. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael K. Haldenstein, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3041. Copies of the public version 

of the ALJ’s ID and all other 

nonconfidential documents filed in 

connection with this investigation are or 

will be available for inspection during 

official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 

p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 202–205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on 202–205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on March 23, 2006, based on a 

complaint filed by Epson Portland, Inc. 

of Oregon; Epson America, Inc. of 

California; and Seiko Epson Corporation 

of Japan. 71 FR 14720 (March 23, 2006). 

The complaint, as amended, alleged 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

1337, in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain ink cartridges and 

components thereof by reason of 

infringement of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 

No. 5,615,957; claims 18, 81, 93, 149, 

164, and 165 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,622,439; claims 83 and 84 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,158,377; claims 19 and 20 

of U.S. Patent No. 5,221,148; claims 29, 

31, 34, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,156,472; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,488,401; claims 1–3 and 9 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,502,917; claims 1, 31, and 

34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,550,902; claims 

1, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,955,422; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,008,053; and claims 21, 45, 53, and 54 

of U.S. Patent No. 7,011,397. The 

complaint further alleged that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. The complainants requested that 

the Commission issue a general 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders. The Commission named as 

respondents 24 companies located in 

China, Germany, Hong Kong, Korea, and 

the United States. The ALJ set June 25, 

2007, as the target date for completion 

of the investigation. 

On January 9, 2007, complainants and 

proposed respondent Rhinotek 

Computer Products, Inc. (‘‘RCPI’’) filed 

a joint motion seeking to amend the 

complaint and notice of investigation to 

add RCPI as a respondent in the 

investigation and then to terminate the 

investigation with respect to RCPI based 

upon a settlement agreement, consent 

order stipulation, and proposed consent 

order. RCPI is the successor-in-interest 

to respondent Gerald Chamales 

Corporation (d/b/a/ Rhinotek Computer 

Products). The Commission 

investigative attorney supported the 

motion in a response dated January 26, 

2007. No other parties responded to the 

motion. 

On January 30, 2007, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID (Order No. 30) amending 

the complaint and notice of 

investigation to add RCPI to the 

investigation and then terminating the 

investigation with respect to RCPI on 

the basis of a settlement agreement, 

consent order stipulation, and proposed 

consent order. No petitions for review of 

the ID were filed and the Commission 

has determined not to review the ID. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, 

and Commission rules 210.14, 210.21 

and 210.42, 19 CFR 210.14, 210.21, 

210.42. 

Issued: February 22, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–3537 Filed 2–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–919 and 920 

(Review)] 

Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe From 

Japan and Mexico 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on welded large diameter 

line pipe from Japan and Mexico. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on welded large diameter line 

pipe from Japan and Mexico would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: February 22, 

2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dana Lofgren (202–205–3185), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On February 5, 2007, 

the Commission determined that both 

the domestic interested party group 

response and the respondent group 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
9358 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 40 / Thursday, March 1, 2007 / Notices 

response to its notice of institution (71 

FR 64294, November 1, 2006) of the 

subject five-year reviews were adequate. 

Accordingly, the Commission 

determined that it would conduct full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act (72 FR 6746, February 13, 2007). 

A record of the Commissioners’ votes, 

the Commission’s statement on 

adequacy, and any individual 

Commissioner’s statements are available 

from the Office of the Secretary and at 

the Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in these reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

file an additional notice of appearance. 

The Secretary will maintain a public 

service list containing the names and 

addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

reviews. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in these reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on July 9, 2007, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the 

reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on July 

26, 2007, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before July 18, 2007. 

A nonparty who has testimony that may 

aid the Commission’s deliberations may 

request permission to present a short 

statement at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on July 23, 2007, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, 

and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party to 

the reviews may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is July 18, 

2007. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is August 21, 2007; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

reviews may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the reviews on or before August 21, 

2007. On September 24, 2007, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before September 26, 2007, but such 

final comments must not contain new 

factual information and must otherwise 

comply with section 207.68 of the 

Commission’s rules. All written 

submissions must conform with the 

provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: February 23, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–3542 Filed 2–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–493 (Remand)] 

In the Matter of Certain Zero-MercuryAdded Alkaline Batteries, Parts 

Thereof, and Products Containing 

Same; Notice of Commission Decision 

To Terminate Remanded Investigation 

With a Finding of No Violation 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to 

terminate the above-captioned 

remanded investigation with a finding 

of no violation of section 337. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christal Sheppard, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2301. Copies of the ALJ’s ID and all 

other nonconfidential documents filed 

in connection with this investigation are 

or will be available for inspection 

during official business hours (8:45 a.m. 

to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
10498 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 

2The PRC-wide entity for Axes/Adzes includes 

Jafsam. 

3The PRC-wide entity for Bars/Wedges includes 

SMC and Jafsam. 

4The PRC-wide entity for Hammers/Sledges 

includes SMC, Jafsam, and Huarong. 

5The PRC-wide entity for Picks/Mattocks 

includes Jafsam, TMC, and Huarong. 

Manufacturer/exporter 

(percent) 

Weighted-average 

margin 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Picks/Mattocks 

PRC-Wide Rate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 98.77 

Case briefs from interested parties 

may be submitted not later than 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, will be due five days later, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

with each argument (1) a statement of 

the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument not to exceed five pages. 

Parties are also encouraged to provide a 

table of statutes, regulations, and cases 

cited, and a diskette containing the 

electronic version. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. Interested parties who wish 

to request a hearing or to participate if 

one is requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the briefs. Any hearing will normally 

be held 37 days after the publication of 

this notice, or the first business day 

thereafter, unless the Department alters 

the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of these reviews, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any such written briefs or at the hearing, 

if held, not later than 120 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate 

appraisement instructions for the 

companies subject to these reviews 

directly to CBP within 15 days of 

publication of the final results of these 

reviews. However, the final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of these reviews and for 

future deposits of estimated duties, 

where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of these 

reviews for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date, as provided 

for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

For the exporters listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will be that established in 

the final results of this review (except, 

if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash 

deposit will be required); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recently completed review; (3) for 

all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the PRCwide rate for each class or kind of 

merchandise as follows: (a) Axes/Adzes, 

189.37 percent; (b) Hammers/Sledges, 

45.42 percent; (c) Picks/Mattocks, 98.77 

percent; and (d) Bars/Wedges, 139.31 

percent; and (4) 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 exporters that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These administrative reviews and 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214. 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4166 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–857, A–201–828] 

Certain Welded Large Diameter Line 

Pipe from Japan and Mexico; Notice of 

Final Results of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated the first sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on certain welded large diameter line 

pipe (‘‘welded large diameter pipe’’) 

from Japan and Mexico, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, (‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of 

notices of intent to participate and 

adequate substantive responses filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and no response from respondent 

interested parties, the Department has 

conducted expedited sunset reviews of 

these antidumping duty orders. As a 

result of these sunset reviews, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders would likely 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the level indicated in the 

‘‘Final Results of Reviews’’ section of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dena Crossland or Dana Mermelstein, 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3362 or (202) 482–

1391, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 10499 

Background 

On November 1, 2006, the Department 

initiated the first sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on welded 

large diameter pipe from Japan and 

Mexico, pursuant to section 751(c) of 

the Act. See Initiation of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 71 FR 64242 

(November 1, 2006). The Department 

received a Notice of Intent to Participate 

from American Steel Pipe Division of 

ACIPCO, Berg Steel Pipe Corporation, 

Dura–Bond Pipe LLC, Oregon Steel 

Mills, and Stupp Corp. (collectively 

‘‘domestic interested parties’’), within 

the deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. Domestic interested parties 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. 

producers of the subject merchandise. 

We received complete substantive 

responses to the notice of initiation from 

the domestic interested parties within 

the 30-day deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. We received no responses 

from the respondent interested parties 

to these proceedings. As a result, 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of 

the Department’s regulations, the 

Department conducted expedited sunset 

reviews of these orders. 

Scope of the Orders 

Japan 

The product covered by this 

antidumping order is certain welded 

carbon and alloy line pipe, of circular 

cross section and with an outside 

diameter greater than 16 inches, but less 

than 64 inches, in diameter, whether or 

not stencilled. This product is normally 

produced according to American 

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) 

specifications, including Grades A25, A, 

B, and X grades ranging from X42 to 

X80, but can also be produced to other 

specifications. Specifically not included 

within the scope of this investigation is 

American Water Works Association 

(‘‘AWWA’’) specification water and 

sewage pipe and the following size/ 

grade combinations; of line pipe: 

-Having an outside diameter greater 

than or equal to 18 inches and less than 

or equal to 22 inches, with a wall 

thickness measuring 0.750 inch or 

greater, regardless of grade. 

-Having an outside diameter greater 

than or equal to 24 inches and less than 

30 inches, with wall thickness 

measuring greater than 0.875 inches in 

grades A, B, and X42, with wall 

thickness measuring greater than 0.750 

inches in grades X52 through X56, and 

with wall thickness measuring greater 

than 0.688 inches in grades X60 or 

greater. 

-Having an outside diameter greater 

than or equal to 30 inches and less than 

36 inches, with wall thickness 

measuring greater than 1.250 inches in 

grades A, B, and X42, with wall 

thickness measuring greater than 1.000 

inches in grades X52 through X56, and 

with wall thickness measuring greater 

than 0.875 inches in grades X60 or 

greater. 

-Having an outside diameter greater 

than or equal to 36 inches and less than 

42 inches, with wall thickness 

measuring greater than 1.375 inches in 

grades A, B, and X42, with wall 

thickness measuring greater than 1.250 

inches in grades X52 through X56, and 

with wall thickness measuring greater 

than 1.125 inches in grades X60 or 

greater. 

-Having an outside diameter greater 

than or equal to 42 inches and less than 

64 inches, with a wall thickness 

measuring greater than 1.500 inches in 

grades A, B, and X42, with wall 

thickness measuring greater than 1.375 

inches in grades X52 through X56, and 

with wall thickness measuring greater 

than 1.250 inches in grades X60 or 

greater. 

-Having an outside diameter equal to 

48 inches, with a wall thickness 

measuring 1.0 inch or greater, in grades 

X–80 or greater. 

-Having an outside diameter of 48 

inches to and including 52 inches, and 

with a wall thickness of 0.90 inch or 

more in grade X–80. 

-Having an outsides diameter of 48 

inches to and including 52 inches, and 

with a wall thickness of 0.54 inch or 

more in grade X100. 

Scope Clarification: On October 26, 

2006, the Department determined that 

large diameter line pipe with an API 

grade X–80 having an outside diameter 

of 21 inches and wall thickness of 0.625 

inches was excluded from the scope of 

the antidumping duty order on welded 

large diameter pipe from Japan. See 

Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review: Certain Welded Large Diameter 

Line Pipe from Japan, 71 FR 62584 

(October 26, 2006). 

The product currently is classified 

under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 

7305.11.10.30, 7305.11.10.60, 

7305.11.50.00, 7305.12.10.30, 

7305.12.10.60, 7305.12.50.00, 

7305.19.10.30. 7305.19.10.60, and 

7305.19.50.00. Although the HTSUS 

item numbers are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

Mexico 

The product covered by this order is 

certain welded carbon and alloy line 

pipe, of circular cross section and with 

an outside diameter greater than 16 

inches, but less than 64 inches, in 

diameter, whether or not stenciled. This 

product is normally produced according 

to American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) 

specifications, including Grades A25, A, 

B, and X grades ranging from X42 to 

X80, but can also be produced to other 

specifications. Specifically not included 

within the scope of this investigation is 

American Water Works Association 

(‘‘AWWA’’) specification water and 

sewage pipe, and the following size/ 

grade combinations of line pipe: 

-Having an outside diameter greater 

than or equal to 18 inches and less than 

or equal to 22 inches, with a wall 

thickness measuring 0.750 inch or 

greater, regardless of grade. 

-Having an outside diameter greater 

than or equal to 24 inches and less than 

30 inches, with wall thickness 

measuring greater than 0.875 inches in 

grades A, B, and X42, with wall 

thickness measuring greater than 0.750 

inches in grades X52 through X56, and 

with wall thickness measuring greater 

than 0.688 inches in grades X60 or 

greater. 

-Having an outside diameter greater 

than or equal to 30 inches and less than 

36 inches, with wall thickness 

measuring greater than 1.250 inches in 

grades A, B, and X42, with wall 

thickness measuring greater than 1.000 

inches in grades X52 through X56, and 

with wall thickness measuring greater 

than 0.875 inches in grades X60 or 

greater. 

-Having an outside diameter greater 

than or equal to 36 inches and less than 

42 inches, with wall thickness 

measuring greater than 1.375 inches in 

grades A, B, and X42, with wall 

thickness measuring greater than 1.250 

inches in grades X52 through X56, and 

with wall thickness measuring greater 

than 1.125 inches in grades X60 or 

greater. 

-Having an outside diameter greater 

than or equal to 42 inches and less than 

64 inches, with a wall thickness 

measuring greater than 1.500 inches in 

grades A, B, and X42, with wall 

thickness measuring greater than 1.375 

inches in grades X52 through X56, and 

with wall thickness measuring greater 

than 1.250 inches in grades X60 or 

greater. 

-Having an outside diameter equal to 

48 inches, with a wall thickness 

measuring 1.0 inch or greater, in grades 

X–80 or greater. 

The product currently is classified 

under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10500 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 

7305.11.10.30, 7305.11.10.60, 

7305.11.50.00, 7305.12.10.30, 

7305.12.10.60, 7305.12.50.00, 

7305.19.10.30, 7305.19.10.60, and 

7305.19.50.00. Although the HTSUS 

item numbers are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these cases are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

Expedited Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain 

Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from 

Japan and Mexico, from Stephen Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated March 1, 2007 

(‘‘Decision Memo’’), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. The issues 

discussed in the Decision Memo include 

the likelihood of continuation or 

recurrence of dumping and the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail if the orders were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these sunset 

reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public memo, 

which is on file in room B–099 of the 

main Commerce Building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ 

index.html, under the heading ‘‘March 

2007.’’ The paper copy and electronic 

version of the Decision Memo are 

identical in content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on welded 

large diameter pipe from Japan and 

Mexico would likely lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted–average 

percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Japan.

Nippon Steel Corporation ............................ 30.80 

Kawasaki Steel Corporation ..................... 30.80 

All Others ...................... 30.80 

Mexico.

PMT–Tubacero ............. 49.86 

All Others ...................... 49.86 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility 

concerning the return or destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with section 351.305 

of the Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: March 1, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4164 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Export Trade Certificate of Review 

ACTION: Notice of Application to Amend 

an Export Trade Certificate of Review. 

SUMMARY: Export Trading Company 

Affairs (‘‘ETCA’’), International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, has received an application 

to amend an Export Trade Certificate of 

Review (‘‘Certificate’’). This notice 

summarizes the proposed amendment 

and requests comments relevant to 

whether the Certificate should be 

issued. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export 

Trading Company Affairs, International 

Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131 

(this is not a toll-free number) or E-mail 

at oetca@ita.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of 

the Export Trading Company Act of 

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the 

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export 

Trade Certificates of Review. An Export 

Trade Certificate of Review protects the 

holder and the members identified in 

the Certificate from state and federal 

government antitrust actions and from 

private treble damage antitrust actions 

for the export conduct specified in the 

Certificate and carried out in 

compliance with its terms and 

conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the 

Export Trading Company Act of 1982 

and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the 

Secretary to publish a notice in the 

Federal Register identifying the 

applicant and summarizing its proposed 

export conduct. 

Request for Public Comments 

Interested parties may submit written 

comments relevant to the determination 

whether an amended Certificate should 

be issued. If the comments include any 

privileged or confidential business 

information, it must be clearly marked 

and a nonconfidential version of the 

comments (identified as such) should be 

included. Any comments not marked 

privileged or confidential business 

information will be deemed to be 

nonconfidential. An original and five (5) 

copies, plus two (2) copies of the 

nonconfidential version, should be 

submitted no later than 20 days after the 

date of this notice to: Export Trading 

Company Affairs, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 7021–B H, 

Washington, DC 20230. Information 

submitted by any person is exempt from 

disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). 

However, nonconfidential versions of 

the comments will be made available to 

the applicant if necessary for 

determining whether or not to issue the 

Certificate. Comments should refer to 

this application as ‘‘Export Trade 

Certificate of Review, application 

number 06–A0002.’’

A summary of the application for an 

amendment follows. 

Summary of the Application 

Applicant: Necole Shannon Global, 

Inc. (‘‘NSG’’), 7126 E. King Place, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma 74115. 

Contact: Darah Thomas, President, 

Telephone: (918) 834–6277. 

Application No.: 06–A0002. 

Date Deemed Submitted: February 27, 

2007. 

The original NSG Certificate was 

issued on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 

76275, December 20, 2006). 

Proposed Amendment: NSG seeks to

amend its Certificate to change its name 

from ‘‘Darah Thomas, doing business as 

Necole Shannon Global Export 

Services’’ to the new listing ‘‘Necole 

Shannon Global, Inc.’’

Dated: March 2, 2007. 

Jeffrey C. Anspacher, 

Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. 

[FR Doc. E7–4148 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
9608 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Notices 

Trelease, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 

Constitution Ave., NW., Room 202— 

SIB, Washington, DC 20240, or 

electronically to jtrelease@osmre.gov. 

Please refer to OMB control number 

1029–0114 in your correspondence. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

receive a copy of the information 

collection request contact John Trelease 

at (202) 208–2783, or electronically at 

jtrelease@osmre.gov. You may also 

review this collection by going to 

http://www.reginfo.gov (Information 

Collection Review, Currently Under 

Review, Agency is Department of the 

Interior, DOI–OSMRE). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), 

require that interested members of the 

public and affected agencies have an 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection and recordkeeping activities 

[see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has 

submitted a request to OMB to renew its 

approval of the collection of information 

contained in a series of technical 

evaluation customer surveys. OSM is 

requesting a 3-year term of approval for 

the information collection activity. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

number for this collection of 

information is 1029–0114. 

As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a 

Federal Register notice soliciting 

comments on this collection of 

information was published on 

November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68376). No 

comments were received. This notice 

provides the public with an additional 

30 days in which to comment on the 

following information collection 

activity: 

Title: Technical Evaluation Surveys. 

OMB Control Number: 1029–0114. 

Summary: The series of surveys are 

needed to ensure that technical 

assistance activities, technology transfer 

activities and technical forums are 

useful for those who participate or 

receive the assistance. Specifically, 

representatives from State and Tribal 

regulatory and reclamation authorities 

are the primary respondents, although 

representatives of industry, 

environmental or citizen groups, or the 

public, may be recipients of the 

assistance or may participate in these 

forums. These surveys will be the 

primary means through which OSM 

evaluates its performance in meeting the 

performance goals outlined in its annual 

plans developed pursuant to the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act. 

Bureau Form Number: None. 

Frequency of Collection: Once. 

Description of Respondents: 

Individuals who request information or 

assistance, although generally States 

and Tribal employees. 

Total Annual Responses: 500. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 42. 

Send comments on the need for the 

collection of information for the 

performance of the functions of the 

agency; the accuracy of the agency’s 

burden estimates; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility and clarity of the 

information collection; and ways to 

minimize the information collection 

burdens on respondents, such as use of 

automated means of collections of the 

information, to the addresses listed 

under ADDRESSES. Please refer to the 

appropriate OMB control number in all 

correspondence. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: February 11, 2011. 

John A. Trelease, 

Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3595 Filed 2–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–920 (Review) 

(Remand)] 

Certain Welded Large Diameter Line 

Pipe From Mexico 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) hereby 

gives notice of its remand proceeding 

with respect to its negative 

determination in the five-year review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

welded large diameter line pipe from 

Mexico. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this 

proceeding and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subpart A (19 CFR 

part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: February 18, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl 

von Schriltz (202–205–3096), Office of 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record of 

Investigation No. 731–TA–920 (Review) 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—In October 2007, the 

Commission determined that revocation 

of the antidumping duty order covering 

certain welded large diameter line pipe 

from Mexico would not be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. On April 21, 2008, six months 

after completion of the Commission’s 

review, the Mexican producer Tuberias 

Procarsa, S.A. de C.V. (‘‘Procarsa’’) 

attempted to file with the Commission 

a revised foreign producers’ 

questionnaire response which sought to 

revise certain aspects of its originally 

reported capacity, production, and 

shipment data. On April 24, 2008, the 

Commission rejected the submission on 

the grounds that it was untimely filed. 

On November 21, 2007, the domestic 

producer United States Steel 

Corporation (‘‘U.S. Steel’’) filed a request 

for review of the Commission’s 

determination by a binational panel 

under Article 1904 of the North 

American Free Trade Agreement. The 

parties completed briefing in the 

proceeding in 2008 and 2009. The Panel 

held a hearing in the proceeding on July 

22, 2010. 

On January 18, 2011, the Panel issued 

an opinion in the matter. In its opinion, 

the Panel affirmed the Commission’s 

reliance on the existence of differing 

conditions of competition for Mexico 

and Japan when deciding not to exercise 

its discretion to cumulate the subject 

imports from those countries. The Panel 

also held that U.S. Steel was barred 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Notices 9609 

from raising in this proceeding 

‘‘arguments regarding the asserted 

discrepancy between the questionnaire 

responses and the staff’s finding that the 

Mexican producers reported theoretical 

capacity,’’ finding that U.S. Steel failed 

to exhaust its administrative remedies 

before the Commission. Panel Opinion 

at 25. 

Nonetheless, the Panel remanded the 

Commission’s determination so that the 

Commission could take into account 

Procarsa’s revised foreign producers’ 

questionnaire response and re-consider 

its cumulation and likely injury analysis 

for Mexico in light of the revised 

response. Specifically, the Panel 

indicated that the Commission should 

consider the revised data in light of its 

potential impact on the Commission’s 

analysis of the Mexican industry’s home 

market orientation, its capacity trends, 

and the presence of Mexican imports in 

the U.S. market. The Panel noted that 

the revised data did not affect the 

Commission’s finding concerning 

Procarsa’s product range during the 

period. 

Participation in the proceeding.— 

Only those persons who were interested 

parties that participated in the review 

(i.e., persons listed on the Commission 

Secretary’s service list) and also parties 

to the NAFTA panel proceeding may 

participate in the remand proceeding. 

Such persons need not make any 

additional filings with the Commission 

to participate in the remand proceeding, 

unless they are adding new individuals 

to the list of persons entitled to receive 

business proprietary information under 

administrative protective order. 

Business proprietary information (‘‘BPI’’) 

referred to during the remand 

proceeding will be governed, as 

appropriate, by the administrative 

protective order issued in the review. 

Written Submissions.—The 

Commission is reopening the record in 

this proceeding for the sole purpose of 

accepting Procarsa’s revised foreign 

producers’ questionnaire response into 

the record. It will not otherwise accept 

the submission of new factual 

information for the record. The 

Commission will permit the parties to 

file comments concerning the new 

factual information submitted on the 

record during the remand proceeding. 

Those comments should be limited 

solely to the issue of whether and how 

the data contained in Procarsa’s revised 

foreign producer’s questionnaire will 

affect the Commission’s cumulation and 

likely injury findings for Mexico, 

including its findings relating to the 

Mexican industry’s home market 

orientation, its capacity trends, and the 

presence of Mexican imports in the U.S. 

market. The parties may not use this 

opportunity to comment on any other 

issue, including any ‘‘asserted 

discrepancy between the questionnaire 

responses and the staff’s finding that the 

Mexican producers reported theoretical 

capacity.’’ Panel Opinion at 25. 

The comments must be based solely 

on the information in the Commission’s 

record. The Commission will reject 

submissions containing additional 

factual information or arguments 

pertaining to issues other than those on 

which the Panel has remanded this 

matter. The deadline for filing 

comments is March 8, 2011. Comments 

shall be limited to no more than twenty 

(20) double-spaced and single-sided 

pages of textual material. 

All written submissions must conform 

with the provisions of section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to this 

proceeding must be served on all other 

such parties, and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 15, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3766 Filed 2–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Proposed Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act 

Notice is hereby given that on 

February 14, 2011, a proposed Consent 

Decree in United States et al. v. Merced 

Power LLC, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv00241, was lodged with the United 

States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California. 

The Consent Decree in this Clean Air 

Act enforcement action resolves 

allegations by the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (‘‘District’’), asserted in a 

complaint filed together with the 

Consent Decree, under Section 113(b) of 

the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), for 

alleged environmental violations at 

defendant’s biomass electric generating 

facilities in Merced, California. The 

violations include, among others, a 

failure to: Comply with numerous 

conditions contained in Federally 

enforceable permits issued for the 

facility, including those related to 

emissions of pollutants; install and 

operate required pollution control 

technology; undertake periodic 

equipment testing; and to submit 

required reports. The proposed Consent 

Decree would require defendant to 

install additional emissions monitoring 

equipment at their facility, pay a total of 

$492,000 in civil penalties to the United 

States and the District, and comply with 

permit conditions or face stipulated 

penalties during approximately two 

years following court approval of the 

consent decree. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the proposed 

Consent Decree for a period of thirty 

(30) days from the date of this 

publication. Comments should be 

addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and either e-mailed 

to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to the 

matter as United States et al. v. Merced 

Power LLC, DOJ Ref. No. 90–5–2–1– 

09903. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the following Regional 

Office of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency: 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105. The 

Consent Decree may also be examined at 

the Office of the United States Attorney, 

501 I Street, Suite 10–100, Sacramento, 

California 95814. 

During the public comment period, 

the proposed agreement may also be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site: http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. Copies of the 

proposed agreement may also be 

obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 

request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation 

number (202) 514–1547. In requesting 

from the Consent Decree Library a copy 

of the consent decree, please enclose a 

check payable to the U.S. Treasury in 

the amount of $14.50 (25 cents per page 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES