Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 33991 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Burden Hours: 5,000. 

Number of Respondents: 5,000. 

Average Hours per Response: 5 

minutes. 

Needs and Uses: The Advance 

Monthly Retail Trade Survey (MARTS) 

was developed in response to requests 

by government, business, and other 

users to provide an early indication of 

current retail trade activity in the 

United States. The MARTS also 

provides an estimate of monthly sales at 

food service establishments and 

drinking places. 

Policymakers such as the Federal 

Reserve Board need to have the timeliest 

estimates in order to anticipate 

economic trends and act accordingly. 

Sales data from this survey provide the 

earliest possible look at consumer 

spending and are necessary for the 

calculation of the personal consumption 

expenditures component of Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP). Without the 

Advance Monthly Retail Trade Survey, 

the Census Bureau’s earliest measure of 

retail sales is the ‘‘preliminary’’ estimate 

from the full monthly sample released 

about 40 days after the reference month. 

Advance estimates are released 

approximately 12 days after the 

reference month. 

The Council of Economic Advisers, 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), 

Federal Reserve Board, and other 

government agencies, as well as 

businesses use sales estimates 

developed from the Advance Monthly 

Retail Trade Survey in formulating 

economic decisions. Data users 

especially value these estimates because 

of their timeliness. There would be 

approximately a one month delay in the 

availability of these data if this survey 

were not conducted. 

We intend to select a new MARTS 

sample to be introduced in Fall 2009. 

We expect the number of respondents to 

increase from 4,500 to 5,000 as a result 

of selecting the new sample. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. 

Frequency: Monthly. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., 

Section 182. 

OMB Desk Officer: Brian HarrisKojetin, (202) 395–7314. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Diana Hynek, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of 

Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

dhynek@doc.gov). 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB 

Desk Officer either by fax (202–395– 

7245) or e-mail (bharrisk@omb.eop.gov). 

Dated: July 8, 2009. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–16522 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–849] 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Circumvention of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s 

Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Circumvention of 

Antidumping Duty Order. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that imports from the People’s Republic 

of China (PRC) of cut–to-length carbon 

steel plate products with 0.0008 percent 

or more boron, by weight, produced by 

Tianjin, regardless of the exporter or the 

importer of the merchandise, and 

otherwise meeting the description of in– 

scope merchandise, are within the class 

or kind of merchandise subject to the 

order on certain cut–to-length carbon 

steel plate from the PRC. We also 

preliminarily determine that imports 

from the PRC of cut–to-length carbon 

steel plate products with 0.0008 percent 

or more boron, by weight, imported by 

Toyota Tsusho, regardless of the 

producer or exporter of the 

merchandise, and otherwise meeting the 

description of in–scope merchandise, 

are within the class or kind of 

merchandise subject to the order on 

certain cut–to-length carbon steel plate 

from the PRC. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 14, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Bezirganian, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1131. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In response to a request from Nucor 

Corporation, SSAB N.A.D., Evraz NA 

Claymont Steel, Evraz NA Oregon Steel 

Mills, and Arcelor Mittal USA Inc., 

domestic interested parties in the 

above–mentioned proceeding 

(collectively certain domestic 

producers), the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) initiated an 

antidumping circumvention inquiry 

pursuant to section 781(c) of the Tariff 

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

Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate from the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Antidumping 

Circumvention Inquiry, 73 FR 62250 

(October 20, 2008) (Initiation Notice). 

On November 17, 2008, the Department 

issued questionnaires to Tianjin (Tianjin 

Questionnaire) and Toyota Tsusho 

(Toyota Tsusho Questionnaire). 

On December 8, 2008, Toyota Tsusho 

informed the Department that it would 

not submit a response to the 

Department’s questionnaire. On 

December 23, 2008, Tianjin submitted a 

response to the Department’s 

questionnaire (Tianjin Questionnaire 

Response). On December 31, 2008, 

SSAB N.A.D., Evraz NA Claymont Steel, 

and Evraz NA Oregon Steel Mills 

submitted comments on the Tianjin 

Questionnaire Response, and on January 

13, 2009, Nucor Corporation submitted 

comments on the Tianjin Questionnaire 

Response. 

On January 23, 2009, the Department 

requested from U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) documentation 

pertaining to various entries of steel 

plate that had been classified under the 

HTSUS as ‘‘alloy’’ steel plate. Such 

documentation was provided by CBP to 

the Department on March 9, 2009 (see 

the March 12, 2009 memorandum from 

Steve Bezirganian to The File (CBP 

Entry Documents)). 

On February 10, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Tianjin (Tianjin Supplemental 

Questionnaire). On March 6, 2009, 

Tianjin submitted a response to the 

Tianjin Supplemental Questionnaire, 

but the Department noted in its letter of 

March 12, 2009, that Tianjin had failed 

to follow certain filing requirements and 

asked Tianjin to re–file its response 

appropriately. Tianjin re–filed its 

response on March 16, 2009 (Tianjin 

Supplemental Questionnaire Response). 

On March 19, 2009, SSAB N.A.D., Evraz 

NA Claymont Steel, and Evraz NA 

Oregon Steel Mills submitted comments 

on the Tianjin Supplemental 

Questionnaire Response. On March 27, 

2009, Nucor Corporation submitted 

comments on the Tianjin Supplemental 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

33992 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 

1On April 13, 2009, the Department indicated 

that in a memorandum to the file that the deadline 

for submission of new information in this 

proceeding would be April 20, 2009. 

2See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of 

Circumvention of Antidumping Order; Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Canada, 65 FR 

64926, 64929 (October 31, 2000) (unchanged in 

final results, 66 FR 7617, 7618 (January 24, 2001)) 

(Canadian Plate); see also Final Results of AntiCircumvention Review of Antidumping Order: 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From Japan, 68 FR 33676, 33679 (June 5, 2003). 

3Omnibus Trade Act of 1987, Report of the 

Senate Finance Committee, S. Rep. No. 71, 100th 

Cong., 1st Sess., at 100 (1987) (emphasis added). 

Questionnaire Response. Subsequent to 

this submission, no additional 

submissions were made.1

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

certain cut–to-length carbon steel plate 

from the People’s Republic of China. 

Included in this description is hot– 

rolled iron and non–alloy steel 

universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled 

products rolled on four faces or in a 

closed box pass, of a width exceeding 

150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm 

and of a thickness of not less than 4 

mm, not in coils and without patterns 

in relief), of rectangular shape, neither 

clad, plated nor coated with metal, 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances; and certain iron 

and non–alloy steel flat–rolled products 

not in coils, of rectangular shape, hot– 

rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated 

with metal, whether or not painted, 

varnished, or coated with plastics or 

other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm 

or more in thickness and of a width 

which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 

least twice the thickness. Included as 

subject merchandise in this order are 

flat–rolled products of nonrectangular 

cross-section where such cross-section 

is achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’) - for example, 

products which have been bevelled or 

rounded at the edges. This merchandise 

is currently classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) under item 

numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 

7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 

7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. Specifically 

excluded from subject merchandise 

within the scope of this order is grade 

X–70 steel plate. 

Merchandise Subject to the Minor 

Alterations Antidumping 

Circumvention Proceeding 

The merchandise subject to this 

antidumping circumvention inquiry 

(Inquiry Merchandise) consists of all 

merchandise produced by Tianjin and/ 

or imported by Toyota Tsusho 

containing 0.0008 percent or more 

boron, by weight, and otherwise 

meeting the requirements of the scope of 

the antidumping duty order as listed 

under the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section 

above, with the exception of 

merchandise meeting all of the 

following requirements: aluminum level 

of 0.02 percent or greater, by weight; a 

ratio of 3.4 to 1 or greater, by weight, of 

titanium to nitrogen; and a 

hardenability test (i.e., Jominy test) 

result indicating a boron factor of 1.8 or 

greater. This merchandise is currently 

classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

under item numbers 7225.40.3050, 

7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, and 

7226.99.0180. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of Inquiry 

Merchandise is dispositive. 

Legal Framework 

Section 781(c) of the Act, dealing with 

minor alterations of merchandise, states: 

(1) In general. The class or kind of 

merchandise subject to (A) an 

investigation under this title, (B) an 

antidumping duty order issued under 

section 736, (C) a finding issued under 

the Antidumping Act, 1921, or (D) a 

countervailing duty order issued under 

section 706 or section 303, shall include 

articles altered in form or appearance in 

minor respects (including raw 

agricultural products that have 

undergone minor processing), whether 

or not included in the same tariff 

classification. (2) Exception. Paragraph 

(1) shall not apply with respect to 

altered merchandise if the administering 

authority determines that it would be 

unnecessary to consider the altered 

merchandise within the scope of the 

investigation, order, or finding. 

Section 351.225(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that under section 

781(c) of the Act, the Secretary may 

include within the scope of an 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

order articles altered in form or 

appearance in minor respects. 

Criteria for Analysis 

While the statute is silent regarding 

what factors to consider in determining 

whether alterations are properly 

considered ‘‘minor,’’ the legislative 

history of this provision indicates there 

are certain factors that should be 

considered before reaching a 

circumvention determination. Previous 

circumvention cases 2 have relied on the 

factors listed in the Senate Finance 

Committee report on the Omnibus Trade 

and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (which 

amended the Tariff Act of 1930 to 

include the anti–circumvention 

provisions contained in section 781), 

which states: 

{i}n applying this provision, the 

Commerce Department should 

apply practical measurements 

regarding minor alterations, so that 

circumvention can be dealt with 

effectively, even where such 

alterations to an article technically 

transform it into a differently 

designated article. The Commerce 

Department should consider such 

criteria as the overall physical 

characteristics of the merchandise, 

the expectations of the ultimate 

users, the use of the merchandise, 

the channels of marketing and the 

cost of any modification relative to 

the total value of the imported 

products.3

In the case of an allegation of a 

‘‘minor alteration’’ claim under section 

781(c) of the Act, it is the Department’s 

practice to look at the five factors listed 

in the Senate Finance Committee report 

to determine if circumvention exists in 

a particular case. See, e.g., Canadian 

Plate, 65 FR at 64929. Each 

circumvention case is highly dependent 

on the facts on the record, and must be 

analyzed in light of those specific facts. 

Thus, in circumvention cases we 

sometimes analyze additional criteria to 

determine if circumvention of the order 

is taking place. Id. at 64930. These may 

be case–specific. For example, in 

Canadian Plate additional factors 

analyzed included the circumstances 

under which the products entered the 

United States, the timing of the entries 

during the circumvention review 

period, and the quantity of merchandise 

entered during the circumvention 

review period. Id. at 64930–31. In a 

more recent circumvention case, the 

additional factors analyzed included not 

only the timing of the entries during the 

period, but also other factors, such as 

the input of customers in the design 

phase. See Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Circumvention of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Folding 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 33993 

Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 63684 

(October 27, 2008), unchanged in 

Affirmative Final Determination of 

Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Folding Metal Tables and 

Chairs from the People’s Republic of 

China, 74 FR 20920 (May 6, 2009). 

Analysis (Tianjin) 

We examined the evidence and 

argument we received in the 

questionnaire responses, and in the 

comments on those questionnaire 

responses, in the context of the Senate 

Report Criteria; and an additional factor 

(the timing of the entries during the 

period). 

Based on our review of the record 

evidence and our analysis of the 

comments received, the Department 

preliminarily determines that imports 

from the PRC of Inquiry Merchandise 

produced by Tianjin are within the class 

or kind of merchandise subject to the 

order on certain cut–to-length carbon 

steel plate from the PRC. For a complete 

discussion of the Department’s analysis, 

see the Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum for the Minor Alterations 

Circumvention Inquiry of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

the People’s Republic of China 

(Preliminary Analysis Memorandum), 

dated concurrently with this notice. 

As explained in the Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum, we 

preliminarily determine that the Inquiry 

Merchandise has the same physical 

characteristics as products in the scope 

of the order on certain cut–to-length 

carbon steel plate from the PRC and the 

ITC Final Report except for the presence 

of boron in excess of 0.0008 percent, by 

weight.4 There is no evidence of 

significant differences in the 

expectations of the ultimate users, uses 

of the merchandise, and channels of 

marketing between products in the 

scope of the order and those containing 

boron in excess of 0.0008 percent, by 

weight. Tianjin’s main claim regarding 

what distinguishes its Inquiry 

Merchandise from merchandise covered 

by the scope is that the presence of 

boron in the former allows for more 

stable mechanical properties. However, 

the Department finds that the 

information submitted by Tianjin does 

not support this conclusion. We also 

determine the cost of modification in 

this case (i.e., adding trace amounts of 

boron) is insignificant. Finally, we find 

that Tianjin’s production and export of 

the Inquiry Merchandise not only 

followed the imposition of the 

antidumping duty order on certain cut– 

to-length carbon steel plate from the 

PRC, but also occurred as the PRC 

government was altering export tariff 

and VAT refund rates in ways that 

favored PRC exporters’ shift to exports 

of steels classifiable as ‘‘alloy’’ steel 

based solely on customs classification. 

See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 

for more details. 

As a result of our inquiry, we 

preliminarily determine that imports 

from the PRC of Inquiry Merchandise 

produced by Tianjin, regardless of the 

exporter or the importer of the 

merchandise, are within the class or 

kind of merchandise subject to the order 

on certain cut–to-length carbon steel 

plate from the PRC. See Section 781(c) 

of the Act. 

Facts Available (Toyota Tsusho) 

As noted above, Toyota Tsusho 

indicated it would not respond to the 

Department’s request for information. 

The questionnaire the Department 

issued to this party was designed to 

elicit information for purposes of 

conducting both qualitative and 

quantitative analyses in accordance 

with the criteria enumerated in section 

781(c) of the Act as outlined above. This 

approach is consistent with our analysis 

in previous circumvention inquiries. 

See, e.g., Petroleum Wax Candles From 

the People’s Republic of China: Partial 

Termination of Circumvention Inquiry 

and Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Circumvention of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 72 FR 14518 

(March 28, 2007), unchanged in 

Petroleum Wax Candles from the 

People’s Republic of China: Affirmative 

Final Determination of Circumvention 

of the Antidumping Duty Order, 72 FR 

31053 (June 5, 2007); Circumvention 

and Scope Inquiries on the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Partial Affirmative 

Final Determination of Circumvention 

of the Antidumping Duty Order, Partial 

Final Termination of Circumvention 

Inquiry and Final Rescission of Scope 

Inquiry, 71 FR 38608 (July 7, 2006); and 

Hot–Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon 

Steel Products from Germany and the 

United Kingdom; Negative Final 

Determinations of Circumvention of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 64 FR 40336 (July 26, 1999). 

Without this information the 

Department must use facts available in 

making its determination pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2) of the Act. Section 

776(a) of the Act requires the 

Department to resort to facts otherwise 

available if necessary information is not 

available on the record or when an 

interested party or any other person fails 

to provide (requested) information by 

the deadlines for submission of the 

information or in the form and manner 

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782. See sections 

776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. As 

provided in section 782(c)(1) of the Act, 

if an interested party, promptly after 

receiving a request from the Department 

for information, notifies the Department 

that such party is unable to submit the 

information requested in the requested 

form and manner, the Department may 

modify the requirements to avoid 

imposing an unreasonable burden on 

that party. However, Toyota Tsusho 

informed the Department it would not 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire. Consequently, because 

Toyota Tsusho failed to respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire and, in fact, 

stated categorically that it would not 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire, with respect to this party, 

we must base the preliminary 

determination in this inquiry on the 

facts otherwise available. 

Adverse inferences are appropriate 

‘‘to ensure that the party does not obtain 

a more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Notice of Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, Notice of Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in 

Part: Certain Individually Quick Frozen 

Red Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR 

44112, 44114 (August 7, 2007) 

(unchanged in Final--Raspberries from 

Chile, 72 FR at 70297). Further, 

‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the 

part of a respondent is not required 

before the Department may make an 

adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). See also 

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 

F.3d 1373, 1380–84 (CAFC 2003). 

Toyota Tsusho provided no indication 

that it was unable to comply with the 

Department’s request for information. 

Therefore, in selecting from among the 

facts available, the Department 

determined that an adverse inference is 

warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, because this party failed to 

comply with the Department’s requests 

for information to the best of its ability. 

As a result of our inquiry, we 

preliminarily determine that imports 

from the PRC of Inquiry Merchandise 

imported by Toyota Tsusho, regardless 

of the producer or the exporter of the 

merchandise, are within the class or 

kind of merchandise subject to the order 

on certain cut–to-length carbon steel 

plate from the PRC. See Section 781(c) 

of the Act. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

33994 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices 

1 Day 30 falls on a Saturday. Therefore, interested 

parties have until Monday, July 20, 2009, to request 

a hearing and submit case briefs to the Department. 

Conclusion 

As noted above, we preliminarily 

determine that imports from the PRC of 

Inquiry Merchandise produced by 

Tianjin, regardless of the exporter or the 

importer of the merchandise, and 

otherwise meeting the description of in– 

scope merchandise, are within the class 

or kind of merchandise subject to the 

order on certain cut–to-length carbon 

steel plate from the PRC. Also as noted 

above, we preliminarily determine that 

imports from the PRC of Inquiry 

Merchandise imported by Toyota 

Tsusho, regardless of the producer or 

exporter of the merchandise, and 

otherwise meeting the description of in– 

scope merchandise, are within the class 

or kind of merchandise subject to the 

order on certain cut–to-length carbon 

steel plate from the PRC. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

351.225(l)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations, we are directing U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

suspend liquidation of Inquiry 

Merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after October 20, 2008, the date of the 

initiation of this inquiry. We will also 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit of 

estimated duties at the applicable rates 

for each unliquidated entry of the 

product entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

October 10, 2008, the date of the 

initiation of this inquiry, in accordance 

with section 351.225(l)(2) of our 

regulations. 

Public Comment 

The parameters for submission of 

public comment for circumvention 

inquiry cases are governed by the 

regulation covering scope rulings. See 

19 CFR 351.225. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on the preliminary 

results and may submit case briefs and/ 

or written comments within 20 days of 

the publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.225(f)(3). Interested parties 

may file rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 

written comments, limited to issues 

raised in such briefs or comments, no 

later than 10 days after the date on 

which the case briefs are due. Id. 

Interested parties may request a hearing 

within 20 days of the publication of this 

notice. Interested parties will be notified 

by the Department of the location and 

time of any hearing, if one is requested. 

This preliminary determination of 

circumvention is in accordance with 

section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.225. 

Dated: July 7, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–16646 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–805] 

Certain Circular Welded Non–Alloy 

Steel Pipe and Tube from Mexico; 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) finds that it is not 

practicable to complete the final results 

of this changed circumstances review 

within the original time frame as it 

would be impossible to consider the 

parties comments and to complete the 

final results of this changed 

circumstances review within the 

original time frame. Accordingly, the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for completion of the final results of this 

changed circumstances review by 31 

days to August 17, 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 

On October 27, 2008, the Department 

published its notice of initiation of 

antidumping duty changed 

circumstances review. See Notice of 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Circular Welded 

Non–Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico, 73 FR 63682 (October 27, 2008) 

(Notice of Initiation). On June 18, 2009, 

the Department preliminarily 

determined that Ternium is the 

successor–in-interest to Hylsa and 

should be treated as such for 

antidumping duty cash deposit 

purposes. See Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Certain Circular 

Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube 

from Mexico, 74 FR 28883 (June 18, 

2009) (Preliminary Results). 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results 

The antidumping statute does not 

provide for a specific time limit for 

completing a changed circumstances 

review. However, under 19 CFR 

351.216(e), the Department will issue 

the final results of a changed 

circumstances review within 270 days 

after the date on which the Department 

initiates the changed circumstances 

review. Currently, the final results of the 

antidumping duty changed 

circumstances review, which cover 

Hylsa, a producer/exporter of certain 

circular welded non–alloy steel pipe 

and tube from Mexico, and its successor 

Ternium, are due by July 17, 2009. 

In the Preliminary Results, we stated 

that interested parties could request a 

hearing and submit case briefs to the 

Department no later than 30 days after 

the publication of the Preliminary 

Results, and submit rebuttal briefs, 

limited to the issues raised in those case 

briefs, five days subsequent to the case 

briefs’ due date. As comments are 

currently due no later than July 20, 

2009,1 and the final results are currently 

due July 17, 2009, it would be 

impossible to consider the parties 

comments and to complete the final 

results of this changed circumstances 

review within the original time frame. 

Accordingly, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.302(b), the Department is extending 

the time limit for completion of the final 

results of this changed circumstances 

review by 31 days to August 17, 2009. 

See, e.g., Certain Pasta from Italy: 

Notice of Extension of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 73 FR 46871 

(August 12, 2008) and Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip 

from the Republic of Korea: Extension of 

Time Limit for Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review, 73 FR 6931 

(February 6, 2008). 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(b) and 

777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended. 

Dated: July 8, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–16651 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES