Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57449 

Exporter/Manufacturer Net subsidy 

rate 

Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corp., 

Tianjin Pipe Iron Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan 

Yuantong Pipe Product 

Co., Ltd., Tianjin Pipe 

International Economic 

and Trading Co., Ltd., and 

TPCO Charging Development Co., Ltd. ................... 13.66 

Hengyang Steel Tube Group 

Int’l Trading, Inc., 

Hengyang Valin Steel 

Tube Co., Ltd., Hengyang 

Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd., 

Xigang Seamless Steel 

Tube Co., Ltd., Wuxi 

Seamless Special Pipe 

Co., Ltd., Wuxi Resources 

Steel Making Co., Ltd., 

Jiangsu Xigang Group Co., 

Ltd., Hunan Valin Xiangtan 

Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., 

Wuxi Sifang Steel Tube 

Co., Ltd., Hunan Valin 

Steel Co., Ltd., Hunan 

Valin Iron & Steel Group 

Co., Ltd. ............................ 53.65 

All Others .............................. 33.66 

Also, in accordance with section 

703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for countervailing duty 

purposes for subject merchandise 

entered on or after June 29, 2010, but to 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of entries made from March 1, 2010, 

through June 28, 2010. 

We will issue a countervailing duty 

order if the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, and will instruct 

CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of 

seamless pipe from the PRC and to 

require a cash deposit of estimated 

countervailing duties for such entries of 

merchandise in the amounts indicated 

above. If the ITC determines that 

material injury, or threat of material 

injury, does not exist, this proceeding 

will be terminated and all estimated 

deposits or securities posted as a result 

of the suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an APO, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of the return/ 

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. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 10, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix—List of Comments and 

Issues in the Decision Memorandum 

General Issues 

Comment 1 Application of CVD Law 

to the PRC 

Comment 2 Whether Application of 

the CVD Law to NMEs Violates the 

Administrative Protection Act 

Comment 3 Double Counting/ 

Overlapping Remedies 

Comment 4 Cutoff Date for Identifying 

Subsidies 

Comment 5 Scope of the Investigation 

Provision of Steel Rounds for LTAR 

Comment 6 Application of AFA in 

Determining the Benchmark for Steel 

Rounds 

Comment 7 Government Ownership 

Should Not be the Dispositive Factor 

in Determining Whether a Financial 

Contribution Has Occurred 

Comment 8 Trading Company 

Suppliers 

Comment 9 Benchmark Issues 

Government Policy Lending 

Comment 10 Whether Chinese 

Commercial Banks Are ‘‘Authorities’’ 

Comment 11 Whether the Policy Loan 

Program Is De Jure Specific 

Comment 12 Whether the Department 

Should Use an In-country Benchmark 

Comment 13 External Benchmark 

Methodology 

Whether There is a Provision of Land for 

LTAR 

Comment 14 Financial Contribution 

Comment 15 Whether to Use an Incountry Benchmark 

Comment 16 Whether There Are Flaws 

in the Thai Benchmark 

Comment 17 Whether Land Is Specific 

Comment 18 Provision of Land-use 

Rights to Hengyang 

Provision of Coking Coal for LTAR 

Comment 19 Countervailability of 

Program 

Comment 20 Freight Benchmark for 

Coking Coal Purchases 

Hengyang-specific Issues 

Comment 21 Cross-ownership 

Between Hengyang Companies 

Comment 22 Application of AFA to 

CRC China 

Comment 23 Finding that the GOC Did 

Not Cooperate With Respect to CRC 

China 

Comment 24 Hengyang Attribution 

Comment 25 Hengyang Electricity 

Purchases 

Comment 26 Currency Denomination 

for Hengyang Loans 

Comment 27 Clerical Error Allegations 

for Debt Restructuring 

Comment 28 Uncreditworthiness 

Allegation 

TPCO-specific Issues 

Comment 29 TPCO Attribution of 

Subsidies 

Comment 30 TPCO Group Accelerated 

Depreciation 

Other Issues 

Comment 31 Export Restraints on 

Steel Rounds 

Comment 32 Export Restraints on 

Coke 

[FR Doc. 2010–23547 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–956] 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Critical 

Circumstances, in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 21, 

2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) has determined that 

certain seamless carbon and alloy steel 

standard, line, and pressure pipe from 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57450 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

1See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, in Part, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 75 FR 22372 (April 28, 2010) 

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

2See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 

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

Republic of China: Amended Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 75 

FR 29972 (May 28, 2010) (‘‘Amended Preliminary 

Determination’’). 

3Petitioners are United States Steel Corporation, 

V&M Star L.P, TMK IPSCO, and the United Steel, 

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, 

Allied Industrial and Service Workers International 

Union (hereinafter, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

4See Memorandum to The File, through Howard 

Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, concerning, ‘‘Data on Labor Wage,’’ dated 

July 16, 2010. 

5See Memorandum to The File, through Howard 

Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, concerning, ‘‘Honduras Data on Labor 

Wage Rate,’’ dated August 10, 2010. 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’) as provided in section 735 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). The final dumping margins for 

this investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

The period covered by the investigation 

is January 1, 2009, through June 30, 

2009 (the ‘‘POI’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Magd Zalok or Howard Smith, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4162 and 482– 

5193, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published in the 

Federal Register its preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV on April 

28, 2010.1 The Department published in 

the Federal Register its amended 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on May 28, 2010, after identifying 

and correcting certain ministerial 

errors.2 Between May 10, 2010, and May 

14, 2010, the Department conducted a 

verification of Hengyang Steel Tube 

Group Int’l Trading Inc., and its 

affiliates Hengyang Valin Steel Tube 

Co., Ltd., and Hengyang Valin MPM 

Tube Co., Ltd., (collectively, Hengyang) 

at its facilities in Hengyang City, China. 

Between May 17, 2010, and May 26, 

2010, the Department conducted a 

verification of Tianjin Pipe (Group) 

Corporation and Tianjin Pipe 

International Economic Trading 

Corporation (collectively, TPCO) at its 

facilities in Tianjin City, China. 

Between June 7, 2010, and June 9, 2010, 

the Department conducted a verification 

of TPCO Enterprise Inc. (‘‘TEI’’), an 

affiliate of TPCO, at its facilities in 

Houston, Texas. See the ‘‘Verification’’ 

section of this notice below for 

additional information. 

On May 24, 2010, Salem Steel North 

America LLC (Salem Steel), a U.S. 

importer of cold drawn seamless 

mechanical tubing, submitted a request 

to the Department that it reconsider its 

preliminary decision to include cold 

drawn mechanical tubing within the 

scope of the antidumping duty 

investigation. On May 27, 2010, 

Petitioners,3 Salem Steel and a number 

of other importers and end-users of 

mechanical tubing met with Department 

officials to discuss the May 24, 2010, 

submission filed by Salem Steel. 

Subsequently, a number of interested 

parties filed comments regarding 

excluding mechanical tubing from the 

scope of the investigation. Additionally, 

on July 2, 2010, Petitioners submitted a 

request to the Department that it 

exclude from the scope seamless pipe 

made to the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) A–335 

specification. The Department has 

issued proposed modifications to the 

scope language addressing mechanical 

tubing and pipe meeting the ASTM A– 

335 specification and interested parties 

have commented on the proposed 

modifications. See the ‘‘Scope 

Comments’’ section of this notice below 

for additional information. 

On July 9, 2010, Mr. Daniel Porter of 

Winston Strawn LLP, counsel to TPCO, 

submitted an affidavit in response to the 

Department’s verification report. The 

Department subsequently rejected the 

affidavit because it contained untimely 

new factual information and Mr. Porter 

resubmitted the affidavit on July 22, 

2010. The Department responded to the 

affidavit on August 16, 2010. United 

States Steel Corporation and TPCO filed 

comments regarding the Department’s 

response to the affidavit on August 18, 

2010. United States Steel Corporation 

filed rebuttal comments on August 20, 

2010. See the ‘‘Verification’’ section of 

this notice below for additional 

information. 

On June 7, 2010, Petitioners, 

Hengyang, and TPCO filed surrogate 

value information. On June 17, 2010, 

Petitioners filed rebuttal surrogate value 

information. 

In response to the Department’s 

invitation to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination and 

Amended Preliminary Determination, 

on July 14, 2010, Petitioners, Hengyang, 

TPCO, Salem Steel North America LLC 

(‘‘Salem Steel’’), Toyota Tsusho America, 

Inc. (‘‘TAI’’) and MC Tubular Products, 

Inc. (‘‘MC Tubular’’) filed case briefs. 

Petitioners, Hengyang, TPCO and the 

Government of China filed rebuttal 

briefs on July 21, 2010, and TPCO’s 

rebuttal brief was resubmitted on July 

26, 2010. 

On July 16, 2010, the Department 

placed additional data on the record of 

the investigation and notified interested 

parties that it would be reconsidering its 

valuation of the labor wage rate in this 

investigation as a result of the recent 

decision in Dorbest Limited et al. v. 

United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (Dorbest) issued by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) on May 14, 2010.4 The 

Department invited interested parties to 

comment on the narrow issue of the 

labor wage rate in light of the CAFC’s 

decision. On July 21, 2010, TPCO and 

United States Steel Corporation 

submitted comments on the export data. 

On August 10, 2010, the Department 

released additional information relating 

to the wage rate to interested parties.5

United States Steel Corporation 

submitted comments on the additional 

information on August 12, 2010. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All of the issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs submitted in this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Determination’’ dated 

September 10, 2010, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’). Appendix I to 

this notice contains a list of the issues 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, which is a public 

document, is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) at the Main 

Commerce Building, Room 7046, and is 

accessible on the Web at http:// 

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

electronic version of the memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made the 

following changes to our preliminary 

determination. The following changes 

have been made to surrogate values: (1) 

We calculated financial ratios based on 

data contained within the financial 

statements of Jindal Steel & Power, Ltd., 

Oil Country Tubular Ltd., and Lloyds 

Line Pipe, Ltd. (see Comment 6 in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum); (2) 

we valued steel billets using Indonesian 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57451 

6See Letter to Interested Parties, Regarding the 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, 

and Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated June 23, 2010. 

7 Id. 

World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) import data 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(‘‘HTS’’) number 7201.20.100 (see 

Comment 7 in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum); (3) we valued iron ore 

using the simple average of iron ore 

lump prices from the financial 

statements of Kirloskar Ferrous 

Industries, Limited and KIOCL, Limited 

(see Comment 9 in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum); (4) we valued 

compressed air based on the value of 

electricity used to generate the air (see 

Comment 14 in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum); (5) we revised our 

calculation of the value of labor (see 

Comment 5 in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum); and (6) we valued 

calcium silicide (Si Ca cable and 

SICAWIRE) using HTS number 

2850.00.41 (see Comment 12 in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum). 

The following TPCO-specific changes 

have been made: (1) We have not 

granted TPCO a by-product offset for 

electricity (see Comment 26 in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum); (2) 

as partial adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’), we assigned each model 

(control number (CONNUM)) of 

seamless pipe sold by TPCO to the 

United States during the POI the highest 

purchased-billet consumption quantity 

reported by TPCO (see Comment 16 in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum); 

(3) we updated the AFA rate applied to 

TPCO’s downstream sales to reflect the 

highest CONNUM-specific dumping 

margin calculated for TPCO (see 

Comment 17 in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum); (4) we calculated a 

value for compressed air in TPCO’s 

margin program (see Comment 14 in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum); (5) 

as partial AFA, we based the 

consumption quantity for steel strap on 

the average of the three highest usage 

rates for steel strap reflected in 

Hengyang’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOP’’) database (see Comment 27 in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum); 

(6) we deducted inland freight 

insurance from TPCO’s reported U.S. 

prices (see Comment 23 in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum); (7) we 

valued steel scrap based on both market 

economy prices and a surrogate value 

based on WTA Indian import data (see 

Comment 19 in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum); (8) we reduced TPCO’s 

reported by-product offset for steel scrap 

by the quantity of further processed 

steel scrap for which TPCO never 

reported the inputs used for further 

processing (see Comment 20 in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum); (9) 

we corrected the conversion factor for 

argon gas (see Comment 24 in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum); and (10) 

we added truck freight to TPCO’s cost 

of manufacturing to account for TPCO’s 

costs associated with transporting semifinished pipes for further processing 

(see Comment 21 in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum). 

The following Hengyang-specific 

changes have been made: (1) We 

adjusted the market-economy and nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’) percentages of 

pig iron purchased (see Comment 33 in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum); 

(2) we did not value dolomite and 

dolomite powder (see Comment 13 in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum); 

and (3) we made several corrections to 

the Preliminary Determination margin 

calculation program (see Hengyang 

Analysis Memorandum). 

Scope Comments 

As noted above, on May 24, 2010, 

Salem Steel, submitted comments on 

the scope of this investigation. Salem 

requested that the Department amend 

the scope of this investigation to 

exclude cold drawn seamless 

mechanical tubing (‘‘mechanical 

tubing’’). On May 27, 2010, Petitioners, 

Salem Steel and a number of other 

importers and end-users of mechanical 

tubing met with Department officials to 

discuss the May 24, 2010, submission 

filed by Salem Steel. On June 4, 2010, 

Salem Steel submitted proposed scope 

language to exclude mechanical tubing 

from the scope of the investigation. On 

June 8, 2010, MC Tubular Products, Inc. 

(‘‘MC Tubular’’) and Toyota Tsusho 

America, Inc. (‘‘TAI’’) submitted 

comments supporting Salem’s proposed 

scope exclusion language. On June 23, 

2010, the Department issued a proposed 

scope modification to interested parties 

and requested comments.6 Specifically, 

the Department’s proposed scope 

modification language excluded ‘‘all 

mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat 

exchange tubing, except when such 

products conform to the dimensional 

requirements, i.e., outside diameter and 

wall thickness of ASTM A–53, ASTM 

A–106 or APL 5L specifications.’’ 7 On 

June 30, 2010, TAI, MC Tubular and 

Salem Steel submitted comments 

supporting the exclusion of mechanical 

tubing from the scope of the 

investigation and providing suggestions 

for additional modifications to the scope 

of the investigation. Primarily parties’ 

comments involved modifying the 

language so that all forms of mechanical 

tubing, regardless of whether they 

conform to the dimensional 

requirements of certain seamless pipe 

specifications, are excluded from the 

scope. On July 2, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted a request that the Department 

exclude from the scope seamless pipe 

produced to the ASTM A–335 

specification. On August 19, 2010, the 

Department issued an additional 

proposed scope modification which 

excludes all pipes meeting the chemical 

requirements of ASTM A–335 whether 

finished or unfinished. On August 23, 

2010, TAI submitted comments 

supporting the Department’s proposed 

exclusion of ASTM A–335. After 

considering parties’ comments, the 

Department has determined to remove 

ASTM A–335 from the list of covered 

specifications included within the scope 

of this investigation, and include the 

following exclusion language in the 

scope: 

Specifically excluded from the scope of 

these investigations are: (1) All pipes meeting 

aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing 

specifications; (2) all pipes meeting the 

chemical requirements of ASTM A–335, 

whether finished or unfinished; and (3) 

unattached couplings. Also excluded from 

the scope of these investigations are all 

mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat 

exchange tubing, except when such products 

conform to the dimensional requirements, 

i.e., outside diameter and wall thickness of 

ASTM A–53, ASTM A–106 or API 5L 

specifications. 

See Comment 1 of the accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

additional information. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is certain seamless carbon 

and alloy steel (other than stainless 

steel) pipes and redraw hollows, less 

than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) 

in outside diameter, regardless of wallthickness, manufacturing process (e.g., 

hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish 

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

threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 

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

coated). Redraw hollows are any 

unfinished carbon or alloy steel (other 

than stainless steel) pipe or ‘‘hollow 

profiles’’ suitable for cold finishing 

operations, such as cold drawing, to 

meet the American Society for Testing 

and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) or American 

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) 

specifications referenced below, or 

comparable specifications. Specifically 

included within the scope are seamless 

carbon and alloy steel (other than 

stainless steel) standard, line, and 

pressure pipes produced to the ASTM 

A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57452 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

8See the Department’s verification reports for 

Hengyang and TPCO, both on file in the CRU. 

9See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 22376– 

22377. 

10See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as 

amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 

1994); see also 19 CFR 351.107(d). 

11See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 

22377–22378. 

ASTM A–334, ASTM A–589, ASTM A– 

795, ASTM A–1024, and the API 5L 

specifications, or comparable 

specifications, and meeting the physical 

parameters described above, regardless 

of application, with the exception of the 

exclusion discussed below. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of the investigation are: (1) All pipes 

meeting aerospace, hydraulic, and 

bearing tubing specifications; (2) all 

pipes meeting the chemical 

requirements of ASTM A–335, whether 

finished or unfinished; and (3) 

unattached couplings. Also excluded 

from the scope of the investigation are 

all mechanical, boiler, condenser and 

heat exchange tubing, except when such 

products conform to the dimensional 

requirements, i.e., outside diameter and 

wall thickness of ASTM A–53, ASTM 

A–106 or API 5L specifications. 

The merchandise covered by the 

investigation is currently classified in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item 

numbers: 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 

7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 

7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 

7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 

7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 

7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 

7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 

7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 

7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 

7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 

7304.39.0072, 7304.51.5005, 

7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 

7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015, 

7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 

7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 

7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 

7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 

7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, and 

7304.59.8070. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

merchandise subject to this scope is 

dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we conducted verifications of 

Hengyang, TPCO, and TEI.8 In 

conducting the verifications, we used 

standard verification procedures, 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, as 

well as original source documents 

provided by Hengyang, TPCO, and TEI. 

As noted above, on July 9, 2010, Mr. 

Daniel Porter of Winston Strawn LLP, 

counsel to TPCO, submitted an affidavit 

in response to the Department’s 

verification report concerning TPCO, 

addressing the ratio TPCO calculated to 

distinguish between self-produced and 

purchased billets, as well as the 

Department’s verification findings 

regarding certain market economy 

purchases of steel scrap. Specifically, 

Mr. Porter alleged that, at verification, 

the Department refused to accept a 

corrected chart and support 

documentation that revised its ratio of 

self-produced and purchased billets and 

erred in finding that TPCO’s market 

economy purchases of steel scrap were 

less than the Department’s 33 percent 

threshold for using a market economy 

price to value all of the input. The 

Department requested that Mr. Porter 

resubmit this affidavit to omit certain 

untimely new factual information; Mr. 

Porter complied and resubmitted the 

affidavit on July 22, 2010. On August 

16, 2010, the Department issued a 

memorandum in response to Mr. 

Porter’s affidavit. Specifically, the 

Department stated that it would not 

have accepted such information at 

verification because it would have been 

considered new information. On August 

18, 2010, Petitioners submitted 

comments supporting the Department’s 

response. On August 18, 2010, TPCO 

submitted comments contesting the 

facts in the Department’s memorandum 

and arguing that the Department should 

have accepted its revisions and that 

information on the record prior to 

verification would have supported its 

ratio revisions. On August 20, 2010, 

Petitioners submitted comments arguing 

that TPCO’s data for its consumption of 

steel billets could not be verified. See 

Comment 16 of the accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

additional information. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, 

pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, we 

selected India as the appropriate 

surrogate country because it is at a level 

of economic development comparable to 

the PRC, and because it is a significant 

producer of merchandise comparable to 

subject merchandise. Additionally, we 

determined that reliable Indian data for 

valuing FOPs are readily available.9 No 

party has commented on our selection 

of India as the appropriate surrogate 

country. We continue to find India to be 

the appropriate surrogate country in this 

investigation. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate.10

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that TPCO, Hengyang, Xigang 

Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Xigang’’), Jiangyin City Changjiang 

Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Pangang Group 

Chengdu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., 

Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd., 

and Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube Co., 

Ltd., demonstrated their eligibility for, 

and were hence assigned, separate rate 

status. No party has commented on the 

eligibility of these companies for 

separate rate status. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by these companies 

demonstrates both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control with 

respect to their exports of the 

merchandise under investigation and 

that these companies are thus eligible 

for separate rate status.11

Critical Circumstances 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department determined that, in 

accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the 

Act, critical circumstances exist with 

respect to Hengyang and the PRC-wide 

entity but not for TPCO or the separate 

rate companies, including Xigang. After 

the Preliminary Determination, TPCO 

and Hengyang placed additional 

shipment data on the record for use in 

the Department’s critical circumstances 

analysis. Furthermore, Hengyang 

contended that the Department must 

revisit its critical circumstances analysis 

using Hengyang’s final antidumping 

duty margin. We have examined the 

additional shipment information placed 

on the record, as adjusted for 

verification findings, and reviewed 

Hengyang’s final antidumping margin 

and, for the final determination, we 

continue to find that critical 

circumstances exist with respect to 

Hengyang and the PRC-wide entity but 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57453 

12See id., 75 FR at 22379–22380. 

13See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the 

Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 

2000) (where the Department applied an adverse 

inference in determining the Russia-wide rate); 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Certain Artists Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 16116, 16118–19 (March 

30, 2006) (where the Department applied an adverse 

inference in determining the PRC-wide rate). 

14See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon 

Quality Steel Products From the People’s Republic 

of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum 

at ‘‘Facts Available.’’ 

15See Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 

3, 2000) (applying the PRC-wide rate to all 

exporters of subject merchandise in the PRC based 

on the presumption that the export activities of the 

companies that failed to respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire were controlled by the 

PRC government). 

16See SAA, accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1 at 870. 

17See id. 

18See id. 

19See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

not for TPCO or the separate rate 

companies, including Xigang. 

The PRC-Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department considered certain nonresponsive PRC producers/exporters to 

be part of the PRC-wide entity because 

they did not respond to our requests for 

information and did not demonstrate 

that they operated free of government 

control over their export activities.12 No 

additional information regarding these 

entities has been placed on the record 

since the publication of the Preliminary 

Determination. Since the PRC-wide 

entity did not provide the Department 

with requested information, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we 

continue to find it appropriate to base 

the PRC-wide rate on facts otherwise 

available. Moreover, given that the PRCwide entity did not respond to our 

request for information, we continue to 

find that it failed to cooperate to the best 

of its ability to comply with a request 

for information. Thus, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, and consistent 

with the Department’s practice, we have 

continued to use an adverse inference in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.13

Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 

the Department may select, as AFA, 

information derived from: (1) The 

petition; (2) the final determination 

from the LTFV investigation; (3) a 

previous administrative review; or (4) 

any other information placed on the 

record. To induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner, the Department’s practice is to 

select, as AFA, the higher of: (a) The 

highest margin alleged in the petition; 

or (b) the highest calculated rate for any 

respondent in the investigation.14

Since we begin with the presumption 

that all companies within an NME 

country are subject to government 

control and only the exporters listed 

under the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below have overcome 

that presumption, consistent with the 

Department’s practice, we are applying 

a single antidumping rate (i.e., the PRCwide rate) to all exporters of subject 

merchandise from the PRC, other than 

the exporters listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section of this 

notice.15

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information, rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available (‘‘FA’’), it 

must, to the extent practicable, 

corroborate that information from 

independent sources reasonably at its 

disposal. Secondary information is 

described in the Statement of 

Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning subject merchandise, or any 

previous review under section 751 of 

the Act concerning the subject 

merchandise.’’16 The SAA provides that 

to ‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value.17 The SAA also states 

that independent sources used to 

corroborate may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation.18 To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used.19

As total AFA, the Department 

preliminarily selected the rate of 98.37 

percent from the ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties: 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

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

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

preliminarily found the rate of 98.37 

percent to be the highest Petition margin 

that could be corroborated within the 

meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. For 

the final determination, we find that 

this rate, as adjusted to reflect the 

CAFC’s decision in Dorbest (98.74), is 

within the range of CONNUM-specific 

margins calculated for the mandatory 

respondents in this proceeding. 

Therefore, we consider the rate to have 

probative value. See Hengyang and 

TPCO Analysis Memoranda. Therefore, 

we continue to find that the margin 

based on the petition has probative 

value. Accordingly, we find that the rate 

of 98.74 percent is corroborated within 

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Partial AFA for TPCO 

As in the Preliminary Determination, 

the Department has continued to apply 

partial AFA with respect to the 

unreported downstream sales of TPCO’s 

U.S. affiliate which TPCO failed to 

timely submit to the Department. 

Because this information is not on the 

record and TPCO significantly impeded 

this proceeding by its failure to timely 

submit the information, we have 

continued to rely upon the FA with 

respect to the unreported sales pursuant 

to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(C) of the 

Act. Further, because the Department 

finds that TPCO failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, the 

Department has determined to use an 

adverse inference when applying FA in 

this investigation. As partial AFA, the 

Department is applying to the 

unreported sales the highest control 

number-specific dumping margin 

calculated for TPCO. For further details, 

see Comment 17 of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

Also, the Department finds that the 

correct ratios of purchased and selfproduced billets which TPCO used to 

produce subject merchandise are not on 

the record because the information 

regarding these ratios that was provided 

by TPCO could not be verified, pursuant 

to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(D) of the 

Act. Accordingly, the Department is 

using FA. Moreover, because the 

Department finds that TPCO failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, the Department has determined to 

use an adverse inference when applying 

partial facts available. As partial AFA, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57454 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

20See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 52744, 

52748 (October 14, 2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

21See Policy Bulletin 05.1 can be found on the 

Import Administration Web site at the following 

address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–1.pdf. 

the Department is using the highest 

purchased billet usage rate of any 

CONNUM sold to the United States 

during the POI, reported in TPCO’s FOP 

database, as the usage rate for purchased 

steel billets for all other CONNUMs. For 

further details, see Comment 16 of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

In addition, the Department finds that 

necessary information is not on the 

record to determine TPCO’s steel strap 

usage because TPCO did not report its 

steel strap usage by the deadline 

established by the Department, pursuant 

to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(B) of the 

Act. Thus, the Department has 

determined to use FA. Moreover, 

because the Department finds that TPCO 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability to report steel strap 

usage, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, the Department has determined to 

use an adverse inference when applying 

partial facts available. As partial AFA, 

we have assigned the average of the two 

highest consumption rates for steel strap 

provided on the record of this 

investigation by Hengyang, the other 

mandatory respondent in this 

investigation, to all CONNUMs reported 

in TPCO’s FOP database. For further 

details, see Comment 27 of the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.20 This 

practice is described in Department 

Policy Bulletin 05.1, ‘‘Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries,’’ which states: 

{W}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its {non-market economy} 

investigations will be specific to those 

producers that supplied the exporter during 

the period of investigation. Note, however, 

that one rate is calculated for the exporter 

and all of the producers which supplied 

subject merchandise to it during the period 

of investigation. This practice applies both to 

mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination 

rates’’ because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation.21

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the period January 1, 2009, 

through June 30, 2009: 

Exporter & producer 

Weighted-average margin 

(percent) 

Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading Corporation ........................................................................................................... 48.99 

Produced by: Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation.

Hengyang Steel Tube Group Int’l Trading Inc. ................................................................................................................................... 82.03 

Produced by: Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd., and Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd..

Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................... 65.51 

Produced by: Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd., and Wuxi Seamless Special Pipe Co., Ltd..

Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................................... 65.51 

Produced by: Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd..

Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................ 65.51 

Produced by: Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd..

Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................... 65.51 

Produced by: Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd..

Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................... 65.51 

Produced by: Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube Co., Ltd..

PRC-Wide Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................... 98.74 

Disclosure 

We will disclose to parties the 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of public announcement of 

this determination in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, and consistent 

with our finding of critical 

circumstances with respect to Hengyang 

and the PRC-wide entity, pursuant to 

section 733(e)(2) of the Act, the 

Department will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

continue to suspend liquidation of all 

entries of certain seamless carbon and 

alloy steel standard, line, and pressure 

pipe from the PRC, as described in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after January 28, 

2010, which is 90 days prior to the date 

of publication of the Preliminary 

Determination in the Federal Register. 

However, because we have determined 

that critical circumstances does not 

exist for TPCO or the separate rate 

companies (including Xigang), we will 

instruct CBP to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of the 

merchandise under consideration from 

the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for the consumption on or 

after April 28, 2010, the date of 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57455 

22See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 

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

Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, dated concurrently with this 

notice. 

23See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 

from India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November 17, 

2004). 

Additionally, the Department 

determined in its final determination for 

the companion countervailing duty 

(‘‘CVD’’) investigation that TPCO’s and 

Hengyang’s merchandise benefited from 

export subsidies.22 Therefore, we will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which normal value 

exceeds U.S. price for TPCO and 

Hengyang, as indicated above, minus 

the amount determined to constitute an 

export subsidy.23

With respect to the companies other 

than TPCO and Hengyang that are 

receiving a separate rate, we have 

applied to these companies the average 

of the rates calculated for TPCO and 

Hengyang. In the companion CVD 

investigation, the Department found that 

TPCO’s and Hengyang’s merchandise 

benefited from export subsidies during 

the POI, and, consequently all other 

exporters (besides TPCO and Hengyang) 

were found to have benefited from 

export subsidies based upon TPCO’s 

and Hengyang’s results. Therefore, we 

will instruct CBP to require a cash 

deposit or posting of a bond equal to the 

weighted-average amount by which 

normal value exceeds U.S. price for 

TPCO and Hengyang, as indicated 

above, minus the amount determined to 

constitute an export subsidy. 

With respect to the PRC-wide entity, 

as AFA, we applied the highest rate 

from the Petition, as adjusted to reflect 

the CAFC’s decision in Dorbest, that we 

were able to corroborate. See the 

Corroboration section above. 

Cash Deposit 

The Department will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

dumping margin amount by which the 

normal value exceeds U.S. price, as 

follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/ 

producer combinations listed in the 

chart above will be the rate the 

Department has determined in this final 

determination; (2) for all PRC exporters 

of subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash-deposit 

rate will be the PRC-wide entity rate; 

and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash-deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporter/producer combination 

that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 

These suspension-of-liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

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

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise 

within 45 days of this final 

determination. If the ITC determines 

that material injury or threat of material 

injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess, upon further instruction by 

the Department, antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 10, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Comment 1: Scope Issues 

Comment 2: Double Remedy 

Comment 3: Zeroing 

Comment 4: Whether to Deduct Chinese 

VAT from U.S. Price 

Comment 5: The Appropriate Surrogate 

Value for Labor 

Comment 6: The Appropriate Financial 

Statements 

Comment 7: The Appropriate Surrogate 

Value for Steel Billets 

Comment 8: The Appropriate Surrogate 

Value for Pig Iron 

Comment 9: The Appropriate Surrogate 

Value for Iron Ore and Iron Powder 

Comment 10: The Appropriate 

Surrogate Value for Oxygen and 

Nitrogen 

Comment 11: The Appropriate 

Surrogate Value for Medium 

Chromium 

Comment 12: The Appropriate 

Surrogate Value for SiCa Cable 

Comment 13: The Appropriate 

Surrogate Value for Dolomite and 

Dolomite Powder 

Comment 14: The Appropriate 

Surrogate Value for Compressed Air 

Comment 15: The Appropriate 

Surrogate Value for Steam Coal 

Comment 16: Whether to Apply AFA 

Because of Errors in the FOP Database 

Comment 17: Whether TPCO is 

Affiliated with One of its U.S. 

Customers and Whether AFA or 

Partial AFA Should be Applied 

Because of Unreported Downstream 

Sales 

Comment 18: Whether Targeted 

Dumping Exists 

Comment 19: Whether Market Economy 

Purchase Prices Should be Used to 

Value Steel Scrap 

Comment 20: Whether to Disallow a ByProduct Offset for Steel Scrap 

Comment 21: Calculating Freight 

Expenses for Transporting Pipe for 

Further Processing 

Comment 22: Whether Certain Materials 

are Inputs or Overhead 

Comment 23: Whether to Deduct 

Domestic Inland Insurance from the 

U.S. Price 

Comment 24: Whether to Correct the 

Conversion Factor for Argon 

Comment 25: Whether to Calculate a 

Factor for Pipeline Transmission 

Comment 26: Whether to Disallow a ByProduct Offset for Electricity 

Comment 27: Whether to Apply Partial 

AFA to Unreported Steel Strap 

Comment 28: Whether to Deduct 

Warranty Expenses from the U.S. 

Price 

Comment 29: Whether to Deduct 

Unreported Stevedoring Expenses 

from the U.S. Price 

Comment 30: Whether the 33 Percent 

Threshold Test is Appropriate When 

Deciding to Use Market Economy 

Purchase Prices 

Comment 31: Whether the Ratio for Pig 

Iron was Calculated Correctly 

Comment 32: Whether Freight Cost 

Should be Added to TPCO’s 

Consumption of Water 

Comment 33: Pig Iron Market Economy 

Purchases 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57456 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

1Petitioners are Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube 

Company and Searing Industries, Inc. 

Comment 34: Export Price Sales 

Classification to a U.S. Customer 

Comment 35: Steel Scrap Offset 

Comment 36: By-product Offset for the 

Recovery of Blast Furnace Gas 

Comment 37: Whether Hengyang Failed 

to Report Certain Alloying Materials 

Comment 38: Treating Certain Ancillary 

Materials as Inputs 

Comment 39: Application of Certain 

Adjustment to the Factors for Sintered 

Iron Ore 

Comment 40: Critical Circumstances 

[FR Doc. 2010–23549 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–914] 

Light–Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of the 2008–2009 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 14, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on light–walled rectangular pipe and 

tube from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the period 

January 20, 2008, through July 31, 2009. 

See Light–Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of the 2008– 

2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 27308 (May 14, 2010) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. 

After reviewing the interested parties’ 

comments, we made changes to our 

calculations for the final results of the 

review. The final dumping margin for 

this review is listed in the ‘‘Final Results 

of Review’’ section below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 21, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3518 or (202) 482– 

5193, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Following the Preliminary Results, the 

Department issued additional 

supplemental questionnaires to Sun 

Group Inc.’s (‘‘respondent’’) U.S. 

affiliated importer FitMAX Inc. 

(‘‘FitMAX’’) on June 2, 2010 and June 16, 

2010. FitMAX responded on June 7, 

2010, and June 21, 2010, respectively. 

Respondent submitted post–preliminary 

surrogate value comments on June 1, 

2010, and on June 11, 2010, petitioners1

submitted rebuttal comments. On June 

28, 2010, respondent submitted a case 

brief, and on July 6, 2010, petitioners 

submitted a rebuttal brief. None of the 

interested parties requested a hearing. 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

exercised its discretion to toll deadlines 

for the duration of the closure of the 

Federal Government from February 5, 

through February 12, 2010. Thus, all 

deadlines in this segment of the 

proceeding were extended by seven 

days. The revised deadline for the final 

results of this administrative review was 

thus extended to September 11, 2010. 

See Memorandum to the Record from 

Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorms,’’ dated February 12, 

2010. 

On June 9, 2010, the Department 

notified parties that as a result of the 

recent decision in Dorbest Limited et al. 

v. United States, No. 2009–1257, -1266 

(Fed. Cir. May 14, 2010), issued by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’), the 

Department would be reconsidering its 

valuation of labor in this review. On 

July 22, 2010, the Department placed 

export data on the record of the review 

and gave parties until July 27, 2010, to 

comment on the narrow issue of the 

labor wage value in light of the CAFC’s 

decision. On July 27, 2010, respondent 

submitted comments on the labor wage 

issue. No other party commented. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is certain welded carbon–quality light– 

walled steel pipe and tube, of 

rectangular (including square) cross 

section, having a wall thickness of less 

than 4 mm. 

The term carbon–quality steel 

includes both carbon steel and alloy 

steel which contains only small 

amounts of alloying elements. 

Specifically, the term carbon–quality 

includes products in which none of the 

elements listed below exceeds the 

quantity by weight respectively 

indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 

2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent 

of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, 

or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 

percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of 

lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 

percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of 

molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of 

niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 

0.15 percent of zirconium. The 

description of carbon–quality is 

intended to identify carbon–quality 

products within the scope. The welded 

carbon–quality rectangular pipe and 

tube subject to the order is currently 

classified under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 

and 7306.61.70.60. 

While HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and Customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Results in the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Light– 

Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

the People’s Republic of China’’ (‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum’’), which is 

dated concurrently with and hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues that parties raised and to which 

we responded in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is attached to 

this notice as an Appendix. The Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is a public 

document that is on file in the Central 

Records Unit in room 7046 in the main 

Department building, and is accessible 

on the web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

frn. The paper copy and electronic 

version of the memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we made the 

following changes in calculating the 

respondent’s dumping margin: (1) we 

made changes to the surrogate value for 

labor; and (2) we excluded delivery and 

website expenses from U.S. indirect 

selling expenses (‘‘ISE’’) used to 

calculate the ISE ratio. For further 

details, see the accompanying ‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum,’’ and the 

memoranda entitled ‘‘Analysis for the 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Light–Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China: Sun Group 

Inc.,’’ and ‘‘2008–2009 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Light– 

Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

the People’s Republic of China: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES