Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 28883 

1Prior to the reorganization effective April 1, 

2008, Ternium was a holding company and did not 

have any production or sales operations. See 

Ternium’s Initial Submission at page 2. 

the final results of these reviews are 

above de minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results of new 

shipper reviews for all shipments of 

subject merchandise by Zhangzhou 

Gangchang and Zhejiang Iceman, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Tariff Act): (1) for subject 

merchandise produced and exported by 

Zhangzhou Gangchang or produced and 

exported by Zhejiang Iceman, the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for subject 

merchandise exported by Zhangzhou 

Gangchang or Zhejiang Iceman, but not 

manufactured by Zhangzhou Gangchang 

and Zhejiang Iceman, respectively, the 

cash deposit rate will continue to be the 

PRC–wide rate (i.e., 198.63 percent); 

and (3) for subject merchandise 

manufactured by Zhangzhou Gangchang 

and Zhejiang Iceman, but exported by 

any party other than Zhangzhou 

Gangchang and Zhejiang Iceman, 

respectively, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the exporter. 

These cash deposit requirements will 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this POR. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a 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 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. 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. 

These new shipper reviews and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff 

Act and 19 CFR 351.214(h). 

Dated: June 11, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–14362 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–201–805 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Certain Circular Welded Non–Alloy 

Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 27, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register a notice of initiation of a 

changed circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

circular welded non–alloy steel pipe 

and tube (standard pipe and tube) from 

Mexico in order to determine whether 

Ternium Mexico, S.A. de C.V. 

(Ternium) is the successor–in-interest to 

Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (Hylsa) for purposes 

of determining antidumping duty 

liability. See Notice of Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Circular Welded 

Non–Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube, 73 FR 

63682 (October 27, 2008) (Notice of 

Initiation). We have preliminarily 

determined that Ternium is the 

successor–in-interest to Hylsa for 

purposes of determining antidumping 

duty liability in this proceeding. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Drury or Brian Davis, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0195 or (202) 482– 

7924, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published an 

antidumping duty order on standard 

pipe and tube from Mexico on 

November 2, 1992. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain 

Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe 

from Brazil, the Republic of Korea 

(Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and 

Amendment to Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe 

from Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 

1992). 

On September 3, 2008, Ternium filed 

a request for a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on standard pipe and tube from Mexico 

(Initial Submission) claiming that Hylsa, 

a Mexican producer of standard pipe 

and tube, changed its name to Ternium. 

Ternium requested that the Department 

determine whether it is the successor– 

in-interest to Hylsa, in accordance with 

section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.216. In its request, Ternium 

indicated that effective April 1, 2008, 

the production and sales operations of 

Hylsa were transferred to Ternium (the 

transfer).1 In response to this request the 

Department initiated a changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on standard 

pipe and tube from Mexico. See Notice 

of Initiation. 

On September 17, 2008, Allied Tube 

and Conduit (petitioner) filed a response 

to Ternium’s Initial Submission and on 

September 29, 2008, Ternium 

responded to petitioner’s September 17, 

2008, filing (September 29, 2008, 

submission). On November 13, 2008, the 

Department issued a questionnaire to 

Ternium requesting additional 

information regarding Ternium’s 

successor–in-interest changed 

circumstances review request. On 

December 9, 2008, Ternium submitted 

its response to the Department’s 

questionnaire (SQR). On January 16, 

2009, the Department issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire and on 

February 9, 2009, Ternium submitted its 

response (SSQR). On April 8, 2009, the 

Department issued a third supplemental 

questionnaire, and on April 22, 2009, 

Ternium submitted its response 

(SSSQR). In our Notice of Initiation, we 

invited interested parties to comment. 

We did not receive any comments other 

than those made by petitioner on 

September 17, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are circular welded non–alloy steel 

pipes and tubes, of circular cross– 

section, not more than 406.4 millimeters 

(16 inches) in outside diameter, 

regardless of wall thickness, surface 

finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or 

28884 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 

2 In our Notice of Initiation, we referred to 

Ternium’s request as a ‘‘name change.’’ However, as 

explained above it is related to the transfer of 

production and sales functions from Hylsa to 

Ternium (i.e., an acquisition). Effective April 1, 

2008, Hylsa exists solely as a service company 

which employs workers at the former Hylsa 

facilities and provides its services to Ternium on a 

contract basis. See Ternium’s Initial Submission at 

page 2. 3Hylsamex is the former parent company of 

Hylsa. On August 22, 2005, Ternium Luxemburg 

(the corporate parent of Ternium (see Ternium’s 

SQR at page 10)), acquired Hylsamex. See 

Ternium’s Initial Submission at page 2. 

4According to Ternium, production of standard 

pipe and tube at the former IMSA facility ceased in 

August of 2008. See page 3 at footnote 1of 

Ternium’s SSQR. 

end finish (plain end, beveled end, 

threaded, or threaded and coupled). 

These pipes and tubes are generally 

known as standard pipes and tubes and 

are intended for the low–pressure 

conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, 

and other liquids and gases in plumbing 

and heating systems, air conditioning 

units, automatic sprinkler systems, and 

other related uses, and generally meet 

ASTM A–53 specifications. 

Standard pipes and tubes may also be 

used for light load–bearing applications, 

such as for fence tubing, and as 

structural pipe tubing used for framing 

and support members for reconstruction 

or load–bearing purposes in the 

construction, shipbuilding, trucking, 

farm equipment, and related industries. 

Unfinished conduit pipe is also 

included in this order. All carbon steel 

pipes and tubes within the physical 

description outlined above are included 

within the scope of this order, except 

line pipe, oil country tubular goods, 

boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe 

and tube hollows for redraws, finished 

scaffolding, and finished conduit. 

Standard pipe and tube that is dual or 

triple certified/stenciled that enters the 

United States as line pipe of a kind used 

for oil or gas pipelines is also not 

included in this order. 

Imports of the products covered by 

this order are currently classifiable 

under the following Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 

7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 

7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 

7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 

7306.30.50.90. Although the HTS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

Successor–in-Interest Determination 

In making a successor–in-interest 

determination, the Department typically 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in: (1) 

management, (2) production facilities, 

(3) supplier relationships, and (4) 

customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polychloroprene Rubber from 

Japan, 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002); Brass 

Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 

20462 (May 13, 1992). While no single 

factor or combination of factors will 

necessarily provide a dispositive 

indication of a successor–in-interest 

relationship, the Department will 

generally consider the new company to 

be the successor to the previous 

company if the new company’s resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

that of its predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh 

and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from 

Norway; Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 

(March 1, 1999); Industrial Phosphoric 

Acid from Israel; Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 

6944 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the 

evidence demonstrates that, with 

respect to the production and sale of the 

subject merchandise, the new company 

operates as the same business entity as 

the former company, the Department 

will accord the new company the same 

antidumping treatment as its 

predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled 

Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 9979–980 (March 1, 

1999). 

Preliminary Results 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(3)(i), we preliminarily 

determine that Ternium is the 

successor–in-interest to Hylsa. In its 

September 3, 2008, September 29, 2008, 

December 9, 2008, February 9, 2009, 

and April 22, 2009, submissions, 

Ternium provided evidence supporting 

its claim to be the successor–in-interest 

to Hylsa.2 Documentation attached to 

Ternium’s September 3, 2008, 

September 29, 2008, December 9, 2008, 

February 9, 2009, and April 22, 2009, 

submissions shows that the transfer of 

production and sales operations from 

Hylsa to Ternium resulted in little or no 

change in management, production 

facilities, supplier relationships, or 

customer base. This documentation is 

identified and discussed further below. 

In its Initial Submission, at page 2, 

Ternium stated that Ternium S.A., a 

Luxemburg corporation (Ternium 

Luxemburg), acquired ownership of 99.3 

percent of Hylsamex S.A. de C.V.’s 

(Hylsamex) 3 (and as a result, 

Hylsamex’s subsidiary Hylsa) 

outstanding shares on August 22, 2005. 

Ternium also stated that following this 

acquisition, Hylsa’s operating and 

corporate structure were reorganized in 

several stages, the most recent of which 

took effect April 1, 2008, when the 

production and sales operations of 

Hylsa were transferred to Ternium. Id. 

at page 2. Ternium also explained in its 

Initial Submission that the corporation 

now known as Ternium was a holding 

company that was acquired by Ternium 

Luxemburg in July 2007, when it 

acquired Grupo IMSA, SAB de C.V. 

(Grupo IMSA). Id. at page 2, footnote 1. 

According to Ternium, the name of that 

holding company was changed from 

Grupo IMSA to Ternium, effective 

December 13, 2007. Id. at page 2, 

footnote 1. 

Ternium noted in its September 29, 

2008 submission, at page 2, that through 

Ternium Luxemburg’s acquisition of 

Grupo IMSA/Ternium, Ternium 

Luxemburg also acquired ownership of 

Grupo IMSA’s subsidiary IMSA, S.A. de 

C.V. (IMSA). In Ternium’s September 

29, 2008 submission, at page 2, Ternium 

explained that following Ternium 

Luxemburg’s acquisition of Grupo 

IMSA, Ternium Luxemburg owned two 

separate holding companies (i.e., 

Hylsamex and Grupo IMSA) which each 

separately continued to hold the 

ownership of their subsidiaries (Hylsa 

and IMSA, respectively). Also in its 

September 29, 2008, submission, at page 

3, Ternium stated that IMSA (1) 

produces little, if any, subject 

merchandise and (2) does not produce 

or market standard pipe and tube that is 

certified to meet ASTM specifications 

set for standard pipe and tube. 

The Department requested 

information relating to Ternium 

Luxemburg’s acquisition of Grupo IMSA 

(and its subsidiary IMSA) including: (1) 

2006, 2007, and 2008 annual capacity 

and annual production data for the 

former IMSA facility (as well as the 

former Hylsa facilities) that produces 

subject merchandise (see pages 2–3 and 

appendix S–1 of Ternium’s SSQR),4 (2) 

the former IMSA facility’s product 

brochure used by IMSA prior to the 

April 2008 reorganization (see appendix 

S–2 of Ternium’s SQR), and (3) 

documentation of the change in 

corporate name from Grupo IMSA to 

Ternium (see Ternium’s SQR at 

appendix S–4). 

The Department also requested that 

Ternium provide (1) its current (as of 

March 2009) management chart, listing 

the former employers of each director/ 

senior management personnel and (2) a 

pre–transfer (June 2007) Hylsa 

management chart. See Ternium’s 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 28885 

SSSQR at appendices S–2 and S–1, 

respectively. In reviewing the March 

2009 and June 2007 management charts, 

we found that Ternium Luxemburg’s 

acquisition of IMSA resulted in minimal 

changes to the composition of Hylsa’s/ 

Ternium’s directors/senior management 

personnel. Specifically, with regard to 

the March 2009 chart, out of Ternium’s 

51 directors/senior management 

personnel, 7 are former IMSA 

employees, 31 are former Hylsa 

employees, and the remaining 13 are 

former employees of other Ternium 

Luxemburg affiliates. Thus, we 

preliminarily find that former Hylsa 

employees occupy the majority of 

director/senior management positions at 

Ternium. 

Ternium presented the following 

documentation in support of its 

assertion that it is the successor–ininterest to Hylsa: (1) a copy of 

documentation of the acquisition of 

Hylsamex by Ternium Luxemburg (see 

Ternium’s SQR at appendix S–5), (2) 

diagrams depicting Ternium 

Luxemburg’s corporate structure 

throughout the different stages of its 

acquisition of Hylsa (see Ternium’s 

Initial Submission at attachment 3–A for 

corporate structure as of September 30, 

2006 (i.e., Ternium Luxemburg’s 

corporate structure prior to the transfer); 

see also Ternium’s Initial Submission at 

attachment 3–D for corporate structure 

as of April 30, 2008 (i.e., Ternium 

Luxemburg’s corporate structure post– 

transfer)), (3) tables depicting the 

management structure of Hylsa as of 

June, 2007, i.e., prior to the transfer (see 

Ternium’s SSSQR at appendix S–1) and 

the current management structure of 

Ternium Luxemburg as of March 2009, 

i.e., after the transfer (see Ternium’s 

SSSQR at appendix S–2), (4) listings of 

Hylsa’s suppliers of major inputs for 

production of subject merchandise in 

2007 (i.e., before the final transfer took 

place) and of Ternium’s suppliers of 

inputs for production of subject 

merchandise in the second quarter of 

2008, i.e., after the transfer took effect 

(see Ternium’s Initial Submission at 

attachment 6), (5) a list of Hylsa and 

Ternium facilities at which subject 

merchandise is or can be produced (see 

Ternium’s SQR at appendix 3), (6) data 

on annual capacity and actual 

production of standard pipe and tube 

for 2006, 2007, and 2008 (see Ternium’s 

SSQR at appendix S–1) at said facilities, 

and (7) listings of Hylsa’s standard pipe 

and tube customers in the home market 

and United States in 2007 (prior to the 

transfer) and of Ternium’s standard pipe 

and tube customers in the home market 

and the United States during the second 

quarter of 2008 (after the transfer took 

effect). See Ternium’s Initial 

Submission at attachment 5. 

We examined the diagrams depicting 

Ternium Luxemburg’s corporate 

structure throughout the different stages 

of its acquisition of Hylsa. See 

Ternium’s Initial Submission at 

attachment 3 for diagrams of Ternium 

Luxemburg’s corporate structure as of 

(1) September 2006 (attachment 3–A), 

(2) September 30, 2007 (attachment 3– 

B), (3) December 31, 2007 (attachment 

3–C), and (4) April 30, 2008 (attachment 

3–D). 

We reviewed tables depicting the 

management structure of Hylsa as of 

June, 2007, i.e., prior to the transfer of 

production and sales operations from 

Hylsa to Ternium (see Ternium’s SSSQR 

at appendix S–1), and the current 

management structure of Ternium as of 

March 2009, i.e., after the transfer of 

Hylsa’s production and sales operations 

(see Ternium’s SSSQR at appendix S–2). 

As noted in Ternium’s Initial 

Submission on page 2 at footnote 1, the 

only significant changes involve: (1) 

transfers of personnel from other 

Ternium Luxemburg affiliates, (2) the 

promotion of former Hylsa employees to 

higher positions, and (3) changes to the 

structure of the organization chart (i.e., 

the creation of new positions). Based on 

our examination of the diagrams and 

tables described above, we preliminarily 

find that Ternium’s management 

structure, for the most part, resembles 

Hylsa’s prior to its acquisition by 

Ternium Luxemburg. See Ternium’s 

SSSQR at appendices S–1 and S–2. 

We also reviewed the list of major 

input suppliers that Ternium provided 

at attachment 6 of its Initial Submission. 

We compared Hylsa’s 2007 (i.e., prior to 

the transfer) suppliers for each input to 

Ternium’s second quarter 2008 (i.e., 

after the transfer) suppliers for each 

input. We noted no changes in suppliers 

between the two lists. 

We examined the customer lists that 

Ternium provided in its Initial 

Submission at attachment 5. 

Specifically, we compared Hylsa’s 2007 

(i.e., prior to the transfer) list of home 

and export market customers (including 

U.S. customers) for standard pipe and 

tube (see attachment 5–A) to Ternium’s 

second quarter 2008 (i.e., after the 

transfer) list of home and export market 

customers (including U.S. customers) 

(see attachment 5–B). Ternium affirmed 

in their SQR at page 14 and in their 

SSSQR at page 7, that none of the 

former Hylsa customers discontinued 

their relationship with Ternium due to 

the acquisition of Hylsamex by Ternium 

Luxemburg. The Department requested 

clarification as to why certain 

customer’s appeared on Hylsa’s 2007 

customer list but did not appear on 

Ternium’s second quarter 2008 

customer list and vice versa. Ternium 

explained in its SSSQR at pages 6 and 

7 that the customer lists in its Initial 

Submission at attachment 5 identified: 

(a) the home market and U.S. customers 

that actually purchased subject 

merchandise from Hylsa during 2007, 

and (b) the home market and U.S. 

customers that actually purchased 

subject merchandise from Ternium 

during the second quarter of 2008. In 

other words, the lists did not purport to 

reflect all of the customers that 

maintained relationships with Hylsa 

and Ternium during each period which 

is why several of the names on each list 

did not match. Ternium also explained 

that all former Hylsa customers were 

maintained as customers in Ternium’s 

sales computer following the merger 

and were eligible to make purchases at 

any time. See Ternium’s SSSQR at page 

6. Therefore, based on record 

information, we preliminarily find that 

Ternium’s customer base resembles 

Hylsa’s prior to its acquisition by 

Ternium Luxemburg. 

We also examined Ternium’s list of 

production facilities that are capable of 

producing standard pipe and tube 

(including merchandise that falls within 

the scope of the antidumping duty order 

on the subject pipe and tube products) 

provided at appendix S–3 of their SQR. 

Ternium stated in its SQR at page 3 that 

none of the standard pipe and tube 

produced at the facility formerly 

operated by IMSA is certified to meet 

any ASTM standards or any other 

industry specifications, and as a result, 

are not exported to the United States. 

Because the former IMSA facility is 

limited in its abilities to produce subject 

merchandise that is appealing to 

customers in the United States, i.e., not 

certified to meet ASTM, and its capacity 

to produce subject merchandise is 

relatively small when compared to both 

former Hylsa facilities, we preliminarily 

determine that although production 

facilities for standard pipe and tube 

have changed between pre–transfer 

Hylsa and post–transfer Ternium (which 

includes both the former Hylsa facilities 

and the facility formerly operated by 

IMSA), the post–transfer Ternium’s 

production facilities are not so 

significantly different from the former 

Hylsa production facilities that Ternium 

would be precluded from being a 

successor to Hylsa. 

The documentation and analysis 

thereof described above, both with 

regard to the transfer of production and 

sales operations from Hylsa to Ternium 

as well as Ternium Luxemburg’s 

28886 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 

1 In past segments of this proceeding, the 

Department has included the transaction fees 

relating to the factoring of certain comparison 

market and U.S. sales by CP Kelco Oy through an 

affiliated finance company in its dumping margin 

calculations. However, the Department intends to 

re-examine the appropriateness of including these 

affiliated transactions in its calculations in 

subsequent reviews of this proceeding. 

acquisition of Grupo IMSA (and its 

subsidiary IMSA), demonstrates that 

there was little to no change in 

management structure, supplier 

relationships, or customer base between 

pre–acquisition Hylsa and post– 

acquisition (after the acquisitions of 

Hylsamex and Grupo IMSA) Ternium. 

For these reasons, we preliminarily find 

that Ternium is the successor–ininterest to Hylsa and, thus, should be 

accorded the same antidumping duty 

treatment with respect to standard pipe 

and tube from Mexico as Hylsa. If the 

above preliminary results are affirmed 

in the Department’s final results, the 

cash deposit rate from this changed 

circumstances review will apply to all 

entries of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

changed circumstances review. See 

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 

68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). 

Public Comment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.310(c), any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of this notice. Any hearing, 

if requested, will be held no later than 

37 days after the date of publication of 

this notice, or the first workday 

thereafter. Case briefs from interested 

parties may be submitted not later than 

30 days after the date of publication of 

this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to 

the issues raised in those comments, 

may be filed not later than 5 days after 

the time limit for filing the case brief, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). All 

written comments shall be submitted in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. 

Persons interested in attending the 

hearing, if one is requested, should 

contact the Department for the date and 

time of the hearing. In accordance with 

19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department will 

issue the final results of its antidumping 

duty changed circumstances review not 

later than 270 days after the date on 

which the review is initiated. 

During the course of this antidumping 

duty changed circumstances review, 

deposit requirements for the subject 

merchandise exported and 

manufactured by Ternium will continue 

to be the all–others rate established in 

the investigation. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain 

Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe 

from Brazil, the Republic of Korea 

(Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and 

Amendment to Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe 

from Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 

1992). The cash deposit rate will be 

altered, if warranted, pursuant only to 

the final results of this review. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 

777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.216. 

Dated: June 11, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–14366 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–405–803] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland; Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On April 9, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on purified 

carboxymethylcellulose from Finland. 

See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose 

from Finland; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 16180 (April 9, 2009) 

(Preliminary Results). We gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results, 

and received no comments. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tyler Weinhold, or Robert James, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–1121 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 9, 2009, the Department 

published the preliminary results of 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order covering 

purified CMC from Finland. See 

Preliminary Results. The parties subject 

to this review are CP Kelco Oy and CP 

Kelco U.S., Inc. (collectively, CP Kelco). 

The petitioner in this proceeding is the 

Aqualon Company, a division of 

Hercules Incorporated (Petitioner). 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department stated that interested parties 

were to submit case briefs within 30 

days of publication of the Preliminary 

Results and rebuttal briefs within five 

days after the due date for filing case 

briefs. See Preliminary Results at 16185. 

No interested party submitted a case or 

rebuttal brief. On April 8, 2009, we 

issued a supplementary questionnaire to 

CP Kelco to address certain 

inconsistencies in CP Kelco’s U.S. sales 

response. CP Kelco responded on April 

14, 2009, and submitted a corrected U.S. 

sales database. We modified the margin 

calculation program used in the 

Preliminary Results in order to use CP 

Kelco’s April 14, 2009, U.S. sales 

database for the final results. We made 

no other changes for the final results.1

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is July 1, 

2007, through June 30, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is all purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), 

sometimes also referred to as purified 

sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or 

cellulose gum, which is a white to off– 

white, non–toxic, odorless, 

biodegradable powder, comprising 

sodium CMC that has been refined and 

purified to a minimum assay of 90 

percent. Purified CMC does not include 

unpurified or crude CMC, CMC 

Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and 

CMC that is cross–linked through heat 

treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that 

has undergone one or more purification 

operations which, at a minimum, reduce 

the remaining salt and other by–product 

portion of the product to less than ten 

percent. The merchandise subject to this 

order is classified in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States at 

subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff 

classification is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following margins exist for the 

period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 

2008: