[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59117-59131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27574]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-943]


Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances 
and Postponement of Final Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: November 17, 2009.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') preliminarily 
determines that certain oil country tubular goods (``OCTG'') from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as 
provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the 
``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice. Pursuant to 
requests from interested parties, we are postponing the final 
determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month 
period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final 
determination not later than 135 days after publication of the 
preliminary determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4474 or 482-0414, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Initiation

    On April 8, 2009, Maverick Tube Corporation, United States Steel 
Corporation, TMK IPSCO, V&M Star L.P., V&M Tubular Corporation of 
America, Wheatland Tube Corp., Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, and United 
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC 
(collectively, ``Petitioners''), filed a petition in proper form on 
behalf of the domestic industry and workers

[[Page 59118]]

producing OCTG, concerning imports of OCTG from the PRC 
(``Petition'').\1\ The Department initiated this investigation on April 
28, 2009.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as Amended, filed on April 8, 2009.
    \2\ See Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 20671 
(May 5, 2009) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 10, 2009, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there 
is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of imports from the PRC of OCTG. The ITC's 
determination was published in the Federal Register on June 10, 
2009.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From China, 74 FR 
27559 (June 10, 2009); see also Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 
From China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-463 and 731-TA1159 
(Preliminary) USITC Publication 4081 (June 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, we set aside a 
period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage 
and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days 
of publication of the Initiation Notice. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296 27323 (May 19, 1997); 
see also Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 20672. We received no comments 
from interested parties on issues related to the scope.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2008 through 
March 31, 2009. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (April 
2009).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment From Government of China

    On October 29, 2009, the Government of the PRC filed a submission 
to the Department alleging that the Department cannot lawfully apply 
its non-market economy (``NME'') antidumping methodology to the PRC in 
the less than fair value investigation of OCTG, while simultaneously 
applying the countervailing duty (``CVD'') law to the PRC in the 
parallel CVD OCTG investigation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's 
Republic of China: Simultaneous Application of the Department's 
Current Non-Market Economy Antidumping Methodology and 
Countervailing Duty Law to China (October 29, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department disagrees with this claim that application of the 
NME provisions of the Act concurrently with application of the 
countervailing duty provisions of the Act is precluded by any provision 
of law. Accordingly, the Department preliminarily determines to 
continue to follow its practice in several recent less than fair value 
investigations of merchandise from China by applying the NME provisions 
of the Act in accordance with the terms of those provisions, while 
concurrently conducting the countervailing duty investigation of the 
same merchandise in accordance with the relevant terms of the Act. 
Additionally, we note that the GOC assertion relies on GPX 
International Tire Corp. v United States, Slip Op. 2009-103 (CIT 2009), 
which is not a final judgment of the Court.

Respondent Selection

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it intended to 
select respondents based on quantity and value (``Q&V'') 
questionnaires.\6\ On April 30, 2009 and May 7, 2009, the Department 
requested Q&V information from the 212 companies that Petitioners 
identified as potential exporters or producers of OCTG from the PRC.\7\ 
Additionally, the Department posted the Q&V questionnaire for this 
investigation on its Web site at http://www.trade.gov/ia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 20676.
    \7\ See Petition at Vol 1., Exhibit I-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department received timely Q&V responses from 43 exporters that 
shipped merchandise under investigation to the United States during the 
POI, and from four companies who stated that they had no shipments of 
merchandise under investigation to the United States during the POI. On 
July 1, 2009, the Department selected Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co., 
Ltd. (``Changbao'') and Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading 
Corporation (``TPCO'') as mandatory respondents in this 
investigation.\8\ The Department sent its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Changbao and TPCO on July 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See July 1, 2009, Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, 
Office 8, from Eugene Degnan, Acting Program Manager, Office 8, 
regarding Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation 
of Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of 
China (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on November 3, 2009, and 
November 4, 2009, respectively, Changbao and TPCO requested that in the 
event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone the final determination by 60 
days. Changbao and TPCO also each requested that the Department extend 
the application of the provisional measures prescribed under 19 CFR 
351.210(e)(2) from a four-month period to a six-month period. In 
accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b), 
because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the 
requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of 
the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial 
exist, we are granting the requests and are postponing the final 
determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be 
extended accordingly.

Targeted Dumping Allegation

    On September 21, 2009, Petitioners requested that the Department 
extend the deadline for the submission of targeted dumping allegations 
to October 16, 2009, stating that they required additional time to 
analyze data because TPCO had just recently submitted an almost 
entirely new U.S. sales database, and Petitioners believed significant 
questions remained regarding whether Changbao had reported the full 
universe of its U.S. sales. The Department granted Petitioners' 
request, and on October 16, 2009, Petitioners filed allegations of 
targeted dumping which were based on the p/2 targeted dumping 
methodology used in the less than fair value investigation of coated 
free sheet paper from the Republic of Korea. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper 
From the Republic of Korea, 72 FR 60630 (October 25, 2007). However, 
the current targeted dumping methodology used by the Department is the 
methodology employed in Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab 
Emirates: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair 
Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008) (``Nails'').
    Given the timing of the allegations, the Department was unable to 
address the targeted dumping allegations for this preliminary 
determination. The Department will request that the Petitioner file 
additional information, in conformance with the methodology used in 
Nails, after the preliminary determination. We intend to then issue a 
preliminary finding regarding these allegations, after the preliminary 
determination but with sufficient time to allow all parties time to 
comment before the final determination.

[[Page 59119]]

Critical Circumstances

    On April 8, 2009, Petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect 
to the antidumping investigation of OCTG from the PRC. On October 2, 
2009, TPCO and Changbao submitted information on their exports of OCTG 
from November 2008 through August 2009, as requested by the 
Department.\9\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), because 
Petitioners submitted critical circumstances allegations more than 20 
days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the 
Department must issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations 
not later than the date of the preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Letter from TPCO, ``TPCO's Submission of Monthly 
Shipment Information: Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from 
China,'' dated October 2, 2009, (TPCO's Monthly Shipment Data) at 
Attachment I. See also Letter from Changbao, ``Antidumping Duty 
Investigation: Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's 
Republic of China (A-570-943)--Critical Circumstances Questionnaire 
Response,'' dated October 2, 2009, (Changbao's Monthly Shipment 
Data) at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history 
of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the 
United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (ii) the 
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew 
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject 
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be 
material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides 
that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have 
been ``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) The volume 
and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 
351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase 
in imports of 15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' of time 
may be considered ``massive.'' Section 351.206(i) of the Department's 
regulations defines ``relatively short period'' as normally being the 
period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the 
petition is filed) and ending at least three months later (i.e., the 
comparison period). The comparison period is normally compared to a 
corresponding period prior to the filing of the petition (i.e., the 
base period). The regulations also provide, however, that if the 
Department finds that importers, exporters, or producers had reason to 
believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a 
proceeding was likely, the Department may establish the base and 
comparison periods based on the earlier date.\10\ In their critical 
circumstances allegation, the petitioners allege that exporters and 
producers had reason to believe a proceeding covering OCTG from the PRC 
would likely be instituted as of July 2008.\11\ Consequently, the 
petitioners request that the Department use January through June 2008 
as the base period and July through December 2008 as the comparison 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
    \11\ See Volume IV of the petition at 3-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this allegation, the petitioners assert that producers and 
exporters had reason to believe a proceeding was likely well in advance 
to the ultimate filing of the petition based on the following events: 
An October 2007 conference presentation alluding to a possible ``trade 
case;'' \12\ the Department's November 2007 CVD determinations covering 
carbon quality steel pipe and light-walled rectangular pipe and tube; 
Canada's March 2008 imposition of antidumping (``AD'') and CVD on 
``seamless carbon or alloy steel oil and gas well casings;'' \13\ a 
March 2008 statement from a PRC distributor of OCTG that ``only the 
issuing of anti-dumping duties will be able to cut imports from 
China;'' the Department's initiation of AD and CVD proceedings on 
certain circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe from the 
Republic of Korea and the PRC; the May and June affirmative findings by 
the ITC and the Department regarding the above-mentioned pipe cases; a 
June 2008 Associated Press article which states that the other pipe 
rulings ``could be the first of a wave of victories by U.S. companies 
battling Chinese imports;'' and, in July 2008, the European Union 
(``EU'') initiated AD investigations of seamless tubular products from 
the PRC.\14\ The petitioners allege that these events culminated in the 
July 21, 2008, warning by Hou Yin of China Iron & Steel Association 
that ``the U.S. may start an anti-dumping investigation on Chinese 
seamless pipes soon.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Volume IV of the petition at 4 and page 15 of Exhibit 
V, which states, in relevant part: ``Those who believe that OCTG 
prices could spike also argue that a trade case could soon be filed 
against Chinese OCTG producers. But that case may be hard to argue 
with imports in general declining and mills reporting strong 
profits.''
    \13\ http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/mif-mev-eng.html#SeamlessCasing
    \14\ See Volume IV of the Petition (``Critical Circumstances 
Allegation'') at 3-7 and Exhibits IV-1 through IV-7.
    \15\ See Critical Circumstances Allegation at 6-7 and Exhibit 
IV-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Department has found producers and exporters had 
reason to believe that a proceeding was likely prior to a petition 
being filed in prior cases,\16\ the evidence put forth by the 
petitioners in this case does not indicate that producers and exporters 
here had reason to believe that a proceeding was likely as of July 
2008. The petitioners point to a litany of events dating back to 
October 2007 to indicate that the industry was on notice of a potential 
case. The petitioners point primarily to a reported statement by a 
representative of the China Iron & Steel Association that ``the U.S. 
may start an anti-dumping investigation on Chinese seamless pipes soon, 
following the EU.'' \17\ This statement, taken in the context of the 
other events cited by the petitioners, is not enough to demonstrate 
that producers, exporters, and importers of OCTG from the PRC had, or 
should have had, reason to believe the filing of a petition was likely 
as of July 2008. The events cited by the petitioners, unlike the events 
the Department has relied on in similar cases,\18\ are speculative and 
do not refer

[[Page 59120]]

specifically to subject merchandise. Therefore, we find that the 
petitioners have not demonstrated that importers, exporters, or 
producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning 
of the proceeding that a proceeding covering OCTG from the PRC was 
likely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 (finding reason to 
believe a case was likely based upon widely disseminated newspaper 
articles stating: ``America's catfish industry, stung by dropping 
prices triggered by a flood of cheaper fish from Vietnam, is gearing 
up for a possible antidumping campaign'' and ``Vietnamese seafood 
exporters are entering a new war on the U.S. market, as American 
rivals are lobbying on an anti-dumping taxation''); and Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, 67 FR 55802 (August 30, 
2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 
(finding reason to believe a case was likely based upon trade 
publication which ``alerted steel wire rod importers, exporters, and 
producers the proceedings concerning the subject merchandise were 
likely in a number of countries'').
    \17\ See Volume IV of the petition at Exhibit IV-8.
    \18\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 2004) at 
Comment &A. See also Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 
68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in the final determination, 
Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 
(June 23, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In further determining whether the above statutory criteria have 
been satisfied, we examined: (1) The evidence presented in Petitioners' 
April 8, 2009, petition and (2) additional information obtained from 
TPCO and Changbao.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See TPCO's Monthly Shipment Data and Changbao's Monthly 
Shipment Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, to determine 
whether there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of 
dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject 
merchandise, the Department generally considers current or previous 
antidumping duty orders on subject merchandise from the country in 
question in the United States and current orders in any other country 
with regard to imports of subject merchandise. Petitioners noted that 
Canada placed an antidumping duty order on seamless carbon or alloy 
steel oil and gas well casings effective March 10, 2008.\20\ We have 
reviewed this order and found that the product coverage overlaps the 
product coverage of the Department's AD investigation of OCTG from the 
PRC. We are not aware of the existence of any additional antidumping 
orders on OCTG from the PRC, whether in the United States or other 
countries. However, as a result of the Canadian order cited above, the 
Department finds there is a history of injurious dumping of OCTG from 
the PRC pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Volume IV of the April 8, 2008 Petition at 9 and 
Exhibit IV-3 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with Section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, to 
determine whether importers of OCTG from the PRC knew or should have 
known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less 
than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by 
reason of such sales, the Department must rely on the facts before it 
at the time the determination is made. The Department generally bases 
its decision with respect to knowledge on the margins calculated in the 
preliminary antidumping duty determination and the ITC preliminary 
injury determination.
    The Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for 
export price (``EP'') sales and 15 percent or more for constructed 
export price (``CEP'') sales sufficient to impute importer knowledge of 
sales at LTFV.\21\ In this preliminary determination, TPCO has a margin 
of 34.86 percent for CEP sales and 58.01 percent for EP sales. Changbao 
has a margin of zero percent for its sales, all of which were EP 
transactions.\22\ Consistent with Department practice, we base the 
margin for the separate-rate respondents on the average of the margins 
calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are 
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA.\23\ Accordingly, because 
Changbao's preliminary margin was zero, we have preliminarily applied 
to the separate-rate companies a margin of 36.53 percent, based on 
TPCO's margin. The PRC Entity has a margin of 99.14 percent.\24\ We 
find that the preliminary antidumping duty margin for Changbao is not 
sufficient to impute knowledge to its importers of sales at LTFV of 
OCTG from the PRC. However, we find that the preliminary margins for 
TPCO, the separate-rate companies and the PRC-entity are sufficient to 
impute such knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, 
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 
6225 (February 11, 2002).
    \22\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Antidumping Investigation of 
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of 
China, Critical Circumstances Data and Calculations for the 
Preliminary Determination,'' dated January 24, 2008 (``Critical 
Circumstances Calculation Memorandum''), at Attachments II and III.
    \23\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006) (``PSF''), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 
72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007), see also the ``Separate Rates'' 
section.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, consistent 
with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department normally will 
look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC.\25\ On June 
10, 2009, the ITC issued its preliminary affirmative determination for 
OCTG from the PRC.\26\ Accordingly, based on the above analysis, the 
Department finds that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that the importers knew or should have known that there was likely to 
be material injury by reason of sales at LTFV of OCTG from the PRC from 
TPCO, the separate-rate companies, and the PRC entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., Lemon Juice from Argentina: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, 72 FR 20820, 
20828 (April 26, 2007).
    \26\ See Investigation Nos. 701-TA-463 and 731-TA-1159 
(Preliminary), Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from China; 
Determinations, 74 FR 27559, June 10, 2009 (``ITC Preliminary 
Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 
must determine whether there have been massive imports of the subject 
merchandise over a relatively short period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.206(h), we will not consider imports to be massive unless imports 
in the comparison period have increased by at least 15 percent over 
imports in the base period. As discussed above, the Department normally 
determines the comparison period for massive imports based on the 
filing date of the petition. Based on the April 8, 2009 filing date, we 
have determined that April 2009 is the month in which importers, 
exporters or producers knew or should have known an antidumping duty 
investigation was likely. Additionally, we have used a period of five 
months as the period for comparison in preliminarily determining 
whether imports of the subject merchandise have been massive. We 
believe that a five-month period is most appropriate as the basis for 
analysis because using five months captures all data available at this 
time, based on April 2007 as the beginning of the comparison period. 
Additionally, a five-month period properly reflects the ``relatively 
short period'' set forth in the statute for determining whether imports 
have been massive.\27\ It is our practice to base the critical 
circumstances analysis on all available data, using base and comparison 
periods of no less than three months.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act.
    \28\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and 
Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India, 69 FR 47111 
(August 4, 2004) unchanged in the final determination, (Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative 
Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From India, 69 FR 76916 (December 23, 
2004)); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of 
China, 69 FR 20594 (Apr. 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59121]]

    Therefore, we have used all available data in our critical-
circumstances analysis for the preliminary determination. In applying 
the five-month period, we used a base period of November 2008 through 
March 2009, and a comparison period of April 2009 through August 2009.

Mandatory Respondents

    The Department used the shipment data of TPCO and Changbao to 
examine the relevant base and comparison periods as identified above. 
When we compared these companies' import data during the comparison 
period with the base period, we found that imports fell during the 
comparison period over the base period.\29\ Therefore, because imports 
in the comparison period have not increased by at least 15 percent over 
imports in the base period, we do not consider them to be massive 
pursuant to section 351.206(h) of the Department's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Critical Circumstances Calculation Memorandum at 
Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate-Rate Applicants

    For the separate-rate applicants, we did not request the monthly 
shipment information necessary to determine if there were massive 
imports. As the basis to measure whether massive imports existed for 
purposes of critical circumstances, we relied on the experience of the 
mandatory respondents receiving a separate rate. When we compared the 
weighted-average import data during the comparison period with the 
weighted average import data during the base period for the mandatory 
respondents, we found that the weighted-average volume of imports of 
OCTG in the comparison period did not have an increased volume of 
exports over the base period of greater than 15 percent.\30\ In 
applying this result to the separate rate applicants, we do not find 
the imports of the separate-rate applicants to be massive pursuant to 
section 351.206(h) of the Department's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Critical Circumstances Calculation Memorandum at 
Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRC Entity

    Because the PRC entity did not respond to our Q&V questionnaire, we 
were unable to obtain shipment data from the PRC entity for purposes of 
our critical-circumstances analysis and there is, therefore, no 
verifiable information on the record with respect to its export 
volumes. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that:
    If an interested party or any other person (A) withholds 
information that has been requested by the administering authority or 
the Commission under this title, (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and 
manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(I) and (e) of section 782, 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority and the 
Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.
    The statute requires that certain conditions be met before the 
Department may resort to the facts otherwise available. When the 
Department determines that a response to a request for information does 
not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that 
the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and 
will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to 
remedy or explain the deficiency. Because the PRC entity did not 
respond to the Department's request for information, we find that the 
PRC entity withheld requested information and, thus, significantly 
impeded this proceeding. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined to 
use facts available, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of 
the Act in determining whether there were massive imports of 
merchandise produced by the PRC entity.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that if the Department finds 
that the respondent ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with a request for information {the 
Department{time}  may use an inference that is adverse to the interests 
of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.'' 
We have determined that, in not responding to the Department's 
questionnaires, the PRC entity has not acted to the best of its ability 
and an adverse inference is warranted.'' Thus, we have made an adverse 
inference that there were massive imports from the PRC entity over a 
relatively short period.
    In this case, the HTS numbers listed in the scope of the 
investigation include both subject merchandise and non-subject 
merchandise, and thus, we were not able to distinguish the amounts of 
shipments accounted for by the mandatory and separate rate respondents 
from the amount of shipments accounted for by the PRC Entity with 
respect to subject merchandise.'' \31\ Accordingly, we were not able to 
use the U.S. Census Bureau data to corroborate our adverse inference. 
However, as the SAA states, ``The fact that corroboration may not be 
practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the agencies from 
applying an adverse inference under subsection (b).'' \32\ We will make 
a final determination concerning critical circumstances for all 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC when we make 
our final dumping determination in this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in coils from Japan, 
Part II, 64 FR 30574, 30585 (June 8, 1999).
    \32\ See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d 
Cong., 2d Session, Vol. 1 (1994) at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Circumstances Findings

    Based on the above analysis, we preliminarily determine that 
critical circumstances do not exist for Changbao, TPCO or the separate-
rate respondents. Further, we preliminarily determine that critical 
circumstances do exist with respect to imports of the PRC entity.

Separate Rate Applications

    Between May 15, 2009, and July 7, 2009, we received timely-filed 
separate-rate applications (``SRA'') from 38 companies.

Product Characteristics & Questionnaires

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department asked all parties in this 
investigation for comments on the appropriate product characteristics 
of OCTG to be reported in response to the Department's antidumping 
questionnaires. On May 18, 2009, we received comments from Petitioners 
and TPCO regarding product characteristics. On May 26, 2009, 
Petitioners provided rebuttal comments concerning the appropriate 
product characteristics.
    On July 1, 2009, the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to TPCO and Changbao. TPCO submitted its Section A 
response to the Department's questionnaire on July 30, 2009, and 
Sections C and D responses on August 20 and 24, 2009, respectively. 
Changbao submitted its Section A response to the Department's 
questionnaire on July 29, 2009, and Sections C and D responses on 
August 19, 2009. The Department issued several supplemental 
questionnaires to both Changbao and TPCO between August and October 
2009. Both parties

[[Page 59122]]

responded timely to those supplemental questionnaires.

Surrogate Country Comments

    On July 31, 2009, the Department determined that India, the 
Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand and Peru are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development, and requested 
comments on surrogate country selection from the interested parties in 
this investigation.\33\ On September 1, 2009, Petitioners submitted 
surrogate country comments stating that the Department should select 
India as a surrogate country and TPCO indicated that it did not object 
to the use of India as a surrogate country. No other interested parties 
commented on the selection of a surrogate country. For a detailed 
discussion of the selection of the surrogate country, see ``Surrogate 
Country'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Letter to All Interested Parties, ``Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's 
Republic of China: Request for Comments on the Selection of a 
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values,'' dated August 14, 2009, 
attaching the Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, ``Request for a List 
of Surrogate Countries for an Investigation of Oil Country Tubular 
Goods (``OCTG'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''),'' 
dated July 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Value Comments

    On September 11, 2009, TPCO and Changbao submitted surrogate value 
comments. On September 14, 2009, Petitioners submitted surrogate value 
comments. On September 18, 2009, Changbao submitted rebuttal comments 
to Petitioner's September 14, 2009 submission. On September 18, 2009, 
Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to TPCO's September 11, 2009, 
surrogate value submission and rebuttal comments to TPCO and Changbao's 
September 11, 2009, surrogate value submissions.

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by the investigation consists of certain 
oil country tubular goods (``OCTG''), which are hollow steel products 
of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of 
iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether 
seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (e.g., whether or not 
plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or not conforming 
to American Petroleum Institute (``API'') or non-API specifications, 
whether finished (including limited service OCTG products) or 
unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products), 
whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of the 
investigation also covers OCTG coupling stock. Excluded from the scope 
of the investigation are casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or 
more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and 
unattached thread protectors.
    The merchandise covered by the investigation is currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 
7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 
7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 
7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 
7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 
7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 
7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 
7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 
7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 
7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 
7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 
7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 
7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 
7306.29.81.50.
    The OCTG coupling stock covered by the investigation may also enter 
under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 
7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 
7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 
7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 
7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 
7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 
7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 
7304.59.80.70, and 7304.59.80.80.
    The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes only, the written description of the scope of the 
investigation is dispositive.

Non-Market Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for 
the PRC as an NME. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 20674. The 
Department considers the PRC to be a NME country. See Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic 
of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper 
from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007). In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority. The Department has not revoked 
its determination that the PRC is an NME country, and no party has 
challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this 
investigation. Therefore, we continue to treat the PRC as an NME 
country for purposes of this preliminary determination.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOPs'') 
valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to 
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) 
of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the 
extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-
economy countries that are at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of 
comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have 
used in this investigation are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' 
section below.
    The Department determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 
Colombia, Thailand and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in 
terms of economic development.\34\ Once the countries that are 
economically comparable to the PRC have been identified, we select an 
appropriate surrogate country by determining whether an economically 
comparable country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise 
and whether the data for valuing FOPs is both available and 
reliable.\35\ In their September 1, 2009, submission, Petitioners 
argued that the Department should select India as a surrogate country 
because it satisfies the statutory requirements for the selection of a 
surrogate country since it is at a level of economic development that 
is

[[Page 59123]]

comparable to the PRC, and is a significant producer of merchandise 
comparable to the merchandise under investigation. Petitioners also 
noted that the Department can readily value the major factors of 
production for subject merchandise using reliable, publicly available 
data from Indian sources.\36\ TPCO stated that it did not object to 
Petitioners' request that the Department select India as the primary 
surrogate country for this investigation.\37\ No other party provided 
comments on the record concerning the surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, ``Request for a List of 
Surrogate Countries for an Investigation of Oil Country Tubular 
Goods (``OCTG'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') 
(``Office of Policy Surrogate Countries Memorandum''), dated July 
31, 2009.
    \35\ See id.
    \36\ See letter from Petitioners, ``Oil Country Tubular Goods 
from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country Selection,'' 
dated September 1, 2009.
    \37\ See letter from TPCO, ``TPCO's Surrogate Country Comments: 
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from China,'' dated 
September 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have determined that it is appropriate to use India as a 
surrogate country pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the 
following: (1) It is at a similar level of economic development 
pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) we have reliable data from 
India that we can use to value the FOPs.\38\ Thus, we have calculated 
normal value (``NV'') using Indian prices when available and 
appropriate to the FOPs of the OCTG producers. We have obtained and 
relied upon publicly available information wherever possible.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See letter from TPCO, ``TPCO's Surrogate Country Comments: 
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from China,'' dated 
September 1, 2009, see also letter from Petitioners, ``Certain Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate 
Values,'' dated September 11, 2009; letter from TPCO, ``TPCO's 
Surrogate Country Comments: Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) 
from China,'' dated September 11, 2009; letter from Changbao, 
``Antidumping Investigation: Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from 
the People's Republic of China (C-570-944)--Comments on Surrogate 
Values,'' dated September 11, 2009. In addition, see also letter 
from Maverick, ``Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's 
Republic of China: Reply to Respondents' Surrogate Value 
Submissions,'' dated September 18, 2009; letter from Petitioners, 
``Selection of Surrogate Values in Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated September 18, 2009; 
and, letter from Changbao, ``Antidumping Investigation: Certain Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China (A-570-
944)--Response to Petitioners' Comments Regarding Surrogate 
Values,'' dated September 18, 2009.
    \39\ See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, ``Oil Country Tubular 
Goods from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value 
Memorandum'' (November 4, 2004) (``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 
determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value the FOPs within 40 days 
after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days 
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such 
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 
The Department generally will not accept the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affiliations

TPCO

    Based on the evidence on the record in this investigation, 
including information presented in TPCO's questionnaire responses, we 
preliminarily find that TPCO is affiliated with Companies A and B 
pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act. The identity of these 
companies is business proprietary information (``BPI''); for further 
discussion on these companies, see Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 
from the People's Republic of China: Tianjin Pipe International 
Economic and Trading Corporation Analysis Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Determination (November 4, 2009) (``TPCO Analysis Memo'')

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to 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. 
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both 
de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities. The 
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under 
a test arising from Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide 
'').\41\ However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly 
foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate 
analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from 
government control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See also Policy Bulletin 05.1, 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 NME investigations will be specific to those producers that 
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the 
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period 
of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory 
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as 
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is 
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such 
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more 
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply 
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and 
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between May 15, 2009, and July 7, 2009, we received timely-filed 
SRAs from 38 companies (hereinafter referred to as ``SR 
Applicants'').\42\ However, one

[[Page 59124]]

SR Applicant, Shengli Oil Field Freet Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd., 
did not have any shipments of the merchandise under investigation 
during the POI, and so is not eligible for consideration for a separate 
rate. The remaining SR Applicants have all stated that they are either 
joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies, or are wholly 
Chinese-owned companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether 
these respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de 
facto governmental control over export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The 38 separate-rate applicants are: (1) Angang Group Hong 
Kong Co., Ltd.; (2) Angang Steel Co., Ltd.; and Angang Group 
International Trade Corporation; (3) Anhui Tianda Oil Pipe Co., 
Ltd.; (4) Anshan Zhongyou Tipo Pipe & Tubing Co., Ltd.; (5) Baotou 
Steel International Economic and Trading Co., Ltd.; (6) Benxi 
Northern Steel Pipes Co., Ltd.; (7) Chengdu Wanghui Petroleum Pipe 
Co. Ltd.; (8) Dalipal Pipe Company; (9) Faray Petroleum Steel Pipe 
Co. Ltd.; (10) Freet Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd. of Shengli Oil 
Field, The Thermal Recovery Equipment, Zibo Branch; (11) Hengyang 
Steel Tube Group International Trading, Inc.; (12) Huludao Steel 
Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd.; (13) Jiangsu Chengde Steel Tube Share 
Co., Ltd.; (14) Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; (15) 
Pangang Group Beihai Steel Pipe Corporation; (16) Pangang Group 
Chengdu Iron & Steel; (17) Qingdao Bonded Logistics Park Products 
International Trading Co., Ltd.; (18) Qiqihaer Bonded Logistics Park 
Products International Trading Co., Ltd.; (19) Shandong Dongbao 
Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; (20) ShanDong HuaBao Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; 
(21) Shandong Molong Petroleum Machinery Co., Ltd.; (22) Shanghai 
Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.; (23) Shanghai Zhongyou Tipo 
Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; (24) Shengli Oil Field Freet Petroleum 
Equipment Co., Ltd.; (25) Shengli Oil Field Freet Petroleum Steel 
Pipe Co., Ltd.; (26) Shengli Oilfield Highland Petroleum Equipment 
Co., Ltd.; (27) Shengli Oilfield Shengji Petroleum Equipment Co., 
Ltd.; (28) Tianjin Lifengyuanda Steel Group Co., Ltd.; (29) Tianjin 
Seamless Steel Pipe Plant; (30) Tianjin Tiangang Special Petroleum 
Pipe Manufacturer Co., Ltd.; (31) Wuxi Baoda Petroleum Special Pipe 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (32) Wuxi Seamless Oil Pipe Co., Ltd.; (33) 
Wuxi Sp. Steel Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (34) Wuxi Zhenda 
Special Steel Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (35) Xigang Seamless 
Steel Tube Co., Ltd.; (36) Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd.; 
(37) Zhejiang JianLi Enterprise Co., Ltd.; and (38) Shengli Oil 
Field Freet Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. (which submitted a 
separate-rate application but subsequently discovered that shipments 
of subject merchandise were not made during the POI. Therefore, 
because this company had no shipments of subject merchandise during 
the POI, they are not eligible for a separate-rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. The 
mandatory respondents and SR Applicants provided evidence 
demonstrating: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) 
legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) 
other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of 
companies.\43\ See their respective separate rate applications, on file 
in the central records unit at the Department of Commerce, see also 
Changbao's July 29, 2009, Section A questionnaire response and TPCO's 
July 30, 2009, Section A questionnaire response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR at 20589 (May 
6, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.\44\ The Department has determined that an analysis 
of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, 
in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would 
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of 
China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The mandatory respondents and the SR Applicants provided evidence 
demonstrating: (1) That the export prices are not set by, and are not 
subject to, the approval of a governmental agency; (2) they have 
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) 
they have autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding 
the selection of management; and (4) they retain the proceeds of their 
export sales and make independent decisions regarding disposition of 
profits or financing of losses. See their respective separate rate 
applications, on file in the central records unit at the Department of 
Commerce, see also Changbao's July 29, 2009, Section A questionnaire 
response and TPCO's July 30, 2009, Section A questionnaire response.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the 
mandatory respondents and 37 of the SR Applicants demonstrates an 
absence of de jure and de facto government control with respect to each 
of the exporter's exports of the merchandise under investigation, in 
accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide. As a result, we have preliminarily granted Changbao and TPCO 
and each of these 37 SR Applicants (hereinafter referred to as the 
``Separate Rate Companies''), separate-rate status.

The PRC-Wide Entity

    The Department has data that indicate there were more exporters of 
OCTG from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our request 
for Q&V information during the POI. See Respondent Selection 
Memorandum. We issued our request for Q&V information to 212 potential 
Chinese exporters of the merchandise under investigation, in addition 
to posting the Q&V questionnaire on the Department's website. While 
information on the record of this investigation indicates that there 
are other producers/exporters of OCTG in the PRC, we received only 43 
timely filed Q&V responses. Although all exporters were given an 
opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters provided a 
response to the Department's Q&V letter. Therefore, the Department has 
preliminarily determined that there were exporters/producers of the 
merchandise under investigation during the POI from the PRC that did 
not respond to the Department's request for information. We have 
treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity 
because they did not qualify for a separate rate. See, e.g., 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary Partial 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 
Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77128 
(December 29, 2005), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).

Application of Adverse Facts Available and the PRC-Wide Rate

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the 
PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond 
to our questionnaire requesting Q&V information. As a result, pursuant 
to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts 
available (``FA'') is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. See 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).

[[Page 59125]]

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse 
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See 
SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 (1994); see also Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-
Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 
(February 4, 2000). We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not 
respond to our requests for information, it has failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds 
that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference 
is appropriate.
    When employing an adverse inference, section 776 of the Act 
indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from 
the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a 
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the 
record. In selecting a rate for adverse facts available (``AFA''), the 
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that 
the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated. It is the 
Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest 
margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of 
any respondent in the investigation. See Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 
Products from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 
2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1. As 
AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity a rate of 
99.14 percent, the highest calculated rate from the petition. The 
Department preliminarily determines that this information is the most 
appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the purposes of 
AFA. The Department's reliance on the petition rates to determine an 
AFA rate is subject to the requirement to corroborate secondary 
information.

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 FA, it must, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Secondary information is described in the 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 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' \45\ The SAA provides that to ``corroborate'' 
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value.\46\ 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.\47\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See SAA at 870.
    \46\ See id.
    \47\ See id.
    \48\ See 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 Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part: 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, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As AFA the Department has preliminarily selected the rate of 99.14 
from the Petition.\49\ Petitioners' methodology for calculating the EP 
and NV in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice.\50\ To 
corroborate the AFA margin we have selected, we compared that margin to 
the margins we found for the respondents. We found that the margin of 
99.14 percent has probative value because it is in the range of margins 
we found for the mandatory respondents. Accordingly, we find that the 
rate of 99.14 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 
776(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Notice of Initiation, 74 FR at 20676.
    \50\ See Notice of Initiation, 72 FR at 43593.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin for the Separate-Rate Companies

    Consistent with the Department's practice, we have established an 
average margin for the Separate-Rate Companies based on the rates we 
calculated for Changbao and TPCO (the mandatory respondents), excluding 
any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA.\51\ The 
Separate-Rate Companies are listed in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' 
section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006) (``PSF''), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 
72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007), see also the ``Separate Rates'' 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, ``[i]n identifying the date of sale 
of the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary 
normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or 
producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business.'' In Allied 
Tube, the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') noted that a ``party 
seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice date bears the 
burden of producing sufficient evidence to `satisf{y{time} ' the 
Department that `a different date better reflects the date on which the 
exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.''' Allied 
Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (CIT 
2001) (``Allied Tube''). Additionally, the Secretary may use a date 
other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a 
different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or 
producer establishes the material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); 
see also Allied Tube, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090-1092. The date of sale is 
generally the date on which the parties agree upon all substantive 
terms of the sale. This normally includes the price, quantity, delivery 
terms and payment terms. See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 62824 (November 7, 2007), and accompanying Issue and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon 
Quality Steel Products from Turkey, 65 FR 15123 (March 21, 2000), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    On May 22, 2009, Petitioners submitted a letter to the Department 
alleging that U.S. distributors of Chinese OCTG testified before the 
ITC that there was a six-month lag between the order date and entry-
date of the subject merchandise into the United States.\52\ Further, 
Petitioners contended that the U.S. customers of Chinese OCTG were 
required to place a significant down payment on their orders. Moreover,

[[Page 59126]]

Petitioners claimed that the U.S. prices for OCTG dropped during the 
POI, and that raw material input costs for OCTG declined significantly 
as well. Petitioners argued that, as a result of the above, if 
respondents reported U.S. sales of subject merchandise on the basis of 
invoice date, the Department's standard NME methodology would compare 
U.S. sales whose prices were set six months prior to the POI with costs 
that were established during the POI. Thus, Petitioners requested that 
the Department direct respondents to report the following information 
in the questionnaire response and U.S. sales database: Sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States that had a contract or sale order date 
within the POI, and the dates of the contract and sale orders for these 
sales, and the contract and sale order dates for the U.S. sales that 
were shipped or invoiced during the POI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Petitioners' Letter to the Department: Certain Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Request 
that the Department Collect Additional Data from the Respondents 
(May 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on Petitioners' allegation, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire on July 1, 2009, requesting the above 
information (``Date of Sale Questionnaire'').\53\ The Department did 
not, however, require that the respondents submit the data associated 
with the above information in their U.S. sales database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Letter from the Department: Less-Than-Fair-Value 
Investigation of Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (``OCTG'') from 
the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): Date of Sale Questionnaire 
(July 1, 2009) to TPCO, Changbao and Lifengyuanda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their July 22, 2009, responses to the Date of Sale 
Questionnaire, both TPCO and Changbao argued that the invoice date is 
the earliest date at which terms of sale are finalized.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See TPCO Analysis Memo and Changbao Analysis Memo for a 
more thorough discussion of this issue involving BPI information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 23, 2009, Petitioners submitted another letter to the 
Department which argued that respondents did not sufficiently describe 
how changes in quantity and price were established, and again requested 
that the Department require respondents to report: Each sale that has a 
contract or purchase order (``PO'') date within the POI; each sale that 
has an invoice during the POI; and, for CEP sales, each sale with an 
agreement made during the POI and also each sale with an invoice during 
the POI. The Department did not, however, issue another date of sale 
questionnaire.
    TPCO reported the date of the commercial invoice to the first 
unaffiliated party as the date of sale for both CEP and EP sales. 
Changbao also reported the date of the commercial invoice to the first 
unaffiliated party as the date of sale for its EP sales. Upon 
examination of the information in the Date of Sale Questionnaires, and 
the respondents' Section C and supplemental Section C responses, the 
Department found no evidence contrary to TPCO's or Changbao's 
assertions that invoice date was the appropriate date of sale. Thus, 
the Department used invoice date as the date of sale for this 
preliminary determination.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparison

    To determine whether sales of certain OCTG to the United States by 
TPCO and Changbao were made at less than fair value, we compared EP or 
CEP, as applicable, to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for certain of TPCO's sales on CEP because these sales were made 
by TPCO's U.S. affiliates,\56\ Company A, and Company B. In accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting, 
where applicable, the following expenses from the gross unit price 
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States, 
foreign movement expenses, and U.S. movement expenses, including U.S. 
duties, U.S. warehousing, and inventory carrying cost. Further, in 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), 
where appropriate, we deducted from the starting price the following 
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the 
United States: Credit expenses and other direct selling expenses. In 
addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an 
adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit. We based movement 
expenses on either surrogate values or actual expenses (where paid for 
in a market economy currency and performed by a market economy 
provider). For details regarding our CEP calculations, and for a 
complete discussion of the calculation of the U.S. price for TPCO, see 
TPCO Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The identity of these companies is business proprietary; 
for further discussion of these companies, see TPCO Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for certain of TPCO's sales, and all of Changbao's sales, on EP 
because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the unaffiliated 
customers in the United States prior to importation. In accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of 
importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise 
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United 
States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act.
    We calculated EP based on the packed cost and freight or delivered 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United 
States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for the following movement 
expenses: Domestic inland freight, domestic brokerage and handling, 
international freight, and marine insurance. For details regarding our 
EP calculations, and for a complete discussion of the calculation of 
the U.S. price for TPCO and Changbao, see TPCO Analysis Memo and 
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: 
Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd. Analysis Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Determination (November 4, 2000) (``Changbao Analysis 
Memo'').
    In its October 19, 2009, Supplemental Section C response, Changbao 
reported certain sales to unaffiliated resellers in the PRC. This 
information was unsolicited by the Department. Changbao stated that it 
is not a party to the contracts between its Chinese customers and their 
U.S. customers, is not involved in negotiating the U.S. price or other 
terms of sale, and the unaffiliated reseller takes title to the 
merchandise before exporting to the United States and receives payment 
from the U.S. customer. Changbao further provided a purchase contract 
between itself and one of these unaffiliated PRC resellers.\57\ Based 
upon the record evidence, we have determined that these are not 
Changbao's U.S. sales. Further, Changbao has not claimed that these are 
its U.S. sales. Accordingly, for the preliminary determination, we have 
excluded these sales from the margin calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Changbao's October 19, 2009, Supplemental Section C 
response at 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TPCO describes the customer for its EP sales, Company C, as an 
unaffiliated customer. However, record evidence indicates that Company 
C may be affiliated with TPCO. Because the record is not clear, we have 
determined to preliminarily treat these U.S. sales as EP sales and to 
include them in our margin calculation. However, we intend to further 
examine this issue after the preliminary determination to determine 
their appropriate treatment for purposes

[[Page 59127]]

of the final determination in this investigation.

Normal Value

    We compared NV to weighted-average EPs and CEPs in accordance with 
section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. Further, section 773(c)(1) of the Act 
provides that the Department shall determine the NV using an FOP 
methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME country and the 
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market 
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOPs because the presence of 
government controls on various aspects of an NME renders price 
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its 
normal methodologies.
    The Department's questionnaire requires that the respondent provide 
information regarding the weighted-average FOPs across all of the 
company's plants that produce the subject merchandise, not just the 
FOPs from a single plant. This methodology ensures that the 
Department's calculations are as accurate as possible.\58\ The 
Department calculated the FOPs using the weighted-average factor values 
for all of the facilities involved in producing the subject merchandise 
for each exporter. The Department calculated NV for each matching 
control number (``CONNUM'') based on the factors of production reported 
from each of the exporters' suppliers and then averaged the supplier-
specific NVs together, weighted by production quantity, to derive a 
single, weighted-average NV for each CONNUM exported by each exporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe 
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 
28, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by TPCO and Changbao. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly 
available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In selecting 
the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the data. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review, 67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of First New 
Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 
31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 5. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including 
freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to 
Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the 
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the 
factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where 
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 
F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all 
surrogate values used for TPCO and Changbao can be found in Certain Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate 
Value Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination (November 4, 2000) 
(``Surrogate Value Memorandum'') (November 4, 2009).
    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics 
and other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate 
surrogate values for TPCO and Changbao's FOPs (direct materials, 
energy, and packing materials) and certain movement expenses. In 
selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance 
with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to 
select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-
export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that data 
in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as those from the other Indian 
sources, are contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. In those instances where we 
could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the 
POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values 
using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as 
published in the International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund.
    Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate 
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to 
believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or 
suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand 
may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television 
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 
2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. 
Further, guided by the legislative history, it is the Department's 
practice not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such 
prices are not subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
1988, Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988) 
reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24; see also Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper 
from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
60632 (October 25, 2007). Rather, the Department bases its decision on 
information that is available to it at the time it makes its 
determination. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged in 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008). Therefore, we have not used 
prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based 
surrogate values. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME 
countries. Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an 
``unspecified'' country were excluded

[[Page 59128]]

from the average value, because the Department could not be certain 
that they were not from either an NME country or a country with general 
export subsidies. See id.
    Additionally, TPCO reported that during the POI, it purchased 
certain inputs from a market economy supplier and paid for the inputs 
in a market economy currency. The Department has a rebuttable 
presumption that market economy input prices are the best available 
information for valuing an input when the total volume of the input 
purchased from all market economy sources during the period of 
investigation or review exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the 
input purchased from all sources during the period. In these cases, 
unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the 
Department's presumption, the Department will use the weighted-average 
market economy purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, when 
the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from market economy 
suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of 
purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are 
otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the 
Department will weight-average the market economy purchase price with 
an appropriate surrogate value (``SV'') according to their respective 
shares of the total volume of purchases, unless case-specific facts 
provide adequate grounds to rebut the presumption. When a firm has made 
market economy input purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, 
are not bona fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping 
calculation, the Department will exclude them from the numerator of the 
ratio to ensure a fair determination of whether valid market economy 
purchases meet the 33-percent threshold. See Antidumping Methodologies: 
Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty 
Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 
2006). See TPCO Analysis Memo.
    For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported 
on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in May 2008, see Corrected 2007 
Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 73 FR 27795 (May 14, 
2008), and http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these 
wage-rate data on the Import Administration's Web site is the Yearbook 
of Labour Statistics 2005, ILO (Geneva: 2007), Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not 
separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, 
we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of 
labor reported by the respondents.
    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate 
calculated from data on the Infobanc Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this Web site contains 
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities.
    We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large 
industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the 
Government of India (``CEA'') in its publication titled Electricity 
Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated 
July 2006. These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, 
publicly available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates 
charged to industries in India. Petitioners suggested that the 
Department rely on March 2009 CEA data.\59\ However, we preliminarily 
find that we cannot rely on the suggested data as we are unable to 
separate duty rates from the March 2009 CEA data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Available at http://www.cea.nic.in/e&c/Estimated%20Average 
%20Rates%20of%20Electricity.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because water is essential to the production process of the 
merchandise under consideration, the Department considers water to be a 
direct material input, not overhead, and thus valued water with a 
surrogate value according to our practice. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 
61395 (October 23, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 11. The Department valued water using data from 
the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (http://midcindia.org) as it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. 
This source provides 378 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra 
province through June 2009: 189 of the water rates were for the 
``inside industrial areas'' usage category and 189 of the water rates 
were for the ``outside industrial areas'' usage category.
    We continued our recent practice to value brokerage and handling 
using a simple average of the brokerage and handling costs that were 
reported in public submissions that were filed in three antidumping 
duty cases. Specifically, the Department averaged the public brokerage 
and handling expenses reported by Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. in 
the 2007-2008 administrative review of certain lined paper products 
from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 2006-2007 antidumping duty 
administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from 
India, and Himalaya International Ltd. in the 2005-2006 administrative 
review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. The Department 
inflated the brokerage and handling rate using the appropriate WPI 
inflator. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    To value marine insurance, the Department used data from RGJ 
Consultants (http://www.rjgconsultants.com/). This source provides 
information regarding the per-value rates of marine insurance of 
imports and exports to/from various countries.
    We calculated factory overhead, selling general and administrative 
expenses (``SG&A''), and profit percentages for TPCO using the 
financial statements of Tata Steel Limited (``Tata'') as of March 31, 
2009, because Tata is a producer of comparable merchandise, and is at a 
level of integration much more similar to TPCO's than the other 
surrogate company for whom we have usable financial statements: Oil 
Country Tubular Ltd. (``OCTL''). We used the financial statements of 
OCTL as of March 31, 2009, to value factory overhead, SG&A and profit 
for Changbao because OCTL, like Changbao, is a non-integrated producer 
of identical and comparable merchandise. Both financial statements are 
contemporaneous with the POI. The Department may consider other 
publicly available financial statements for the final determination, as 
appropriate.
    Regarding surrogate values for steel billets, Petitioners argue 
that the Department should use HTS 7207.20.30 to value TPCO's and 
Changbao's reported steel billets. The HTS category subheading 
7207.20.30 encompasses ``seamless tube'', semi-finished steel products, 
with a carbon content greater than or equal to 20 percent. According to 
the Petitioners, these steel billets, what Petitioners refer to as 
``commodity grade'' steel billets, have more exacting physical and 
chemical requirements than standard steel billets. Petitioners argue 
that OCTG production requires the use of this premium steel billet 
(e.g., with a carbon content greater than or equal to 20 percent) and 
that therefore, the appropriate HTS for TPCO and

[[Page 59129]]

Changbao's steel billets is 7207.20.30.\60\ Petitioners also argue that 
7207.20.30 is the appropriate HTS subheading as TPCO's and Changbao's 
subject merchandise is ``seamless OCTG'' which requires ``seamless 
tube'' steel billets.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Petitioner's September 14, 2009, Surrogate Value 
Submission.
    \61\ See Petitioner's September 21, 2009, Surrogate Value 
Rebuttal Submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changbao argues that the steel billets it uses to produce the 
subject merchandise are non-alloy and contain less than 25 percent 
carbon content. Changbao has provided technical specifications 
purporting to demonstrate this. Accordingly, Changbao argues that the 
proper HTS is 7224.90.91, as its steel billets are excluded from the 
HTS 7207.20.30 subheading and are, rather, comprised of the 
characteristics more appropriately encompassed by HTS subheading 
7224.90.91.
    TPCO, in its surrogate value submission, suggested 7207.20.90 as 
the appropriate HTS subheading for the steel billets purchased and used 
for producing its subject merchandise. Petitioners argue that, although 
TPCO's suggested HTS subheading encompasses the ``carbon content 
greater than or equal to 20 percent'' characteristic, it nonetheless 
falls into the ``other'' group and is thus less specific than 
7207.20.30. Finally, Petitioners point out that both HTS subheadings 
suggested by TPCO and Changbao are basket category subheadings.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine to value both Changbao's and TPCO's 
billets with the HTS number proffered by each respondent, respectively 
(i.e., HTS is 7224.90.91 for Changbao and HTS 7207.20.90 for TPCO). 
Changbao and TPCO are the parties with access to their respective 
technical specifications and mill test certifications, and so have 
access to the most specific information possible to correctly determine 
the surrogate value most specific to their own billets. Accordingly, we 
preliminarily determine to use TPCO and Changbao's respective HTS 
subheading suggestions, but intend to pursue this issue at 
verification.

Shorter Cost Averaging Periods

    On May 22, 2009, Petitioners, using data from business proprietary 
sources, alleged that OCTG prices, and the cost of raw material inputs 
used to produce subject merchandise, decreased dramatically during the 
POI.\63\ Petitioners claimed that in similar instances in other cases, 
the Department has used shorter cost-averaging periods when calculating 
normal value (i.e., the Department calculated cost of production or 
constructed values on a quarterly basis for comparison to sales prices, 
rather than using a POI or period of review (POR) average).\64\ 
Accordingly, Petitioners requested that the Department require 
respondents to report their material input usage rates on a monthly 
basis for both the POI and the six months preceding the POI. They also 
requested that the Department calculate normal value using monthly 
consumption periods and monthly surrogate values rather than a POI-
average of inputs and surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Petitioners' Letter to the Department: Certain Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Request 
that the Department Collect Additional Data from the Respondents 
(May 22, 2009).
    \64\ See 19 CFR 351.414(d)(3): Time period over which weighted 
average is calculated. When applying the average-to-average method, 
the Secretary normally will calculate weighted averages for the 
entire period of investigation or review, as the case may be. 
However, when normal values, export prices, or constructed export 
prices differ significantly over the course of the period of 
investigation or review, the Secretary may calculate weighted 
averages for such shorter period as the Secretary deems appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, the Department has not considered using shorter cost 
periods in an NME case. The Department has used shorter cost periods in 
market-economy (``ME'') cases where we determined that actual 
production costs changed significantly during the POI/POR, and where 
there was evidence of a linkage between the actual cost changes and the 
sales prices in a given POI/POR.\65\ In an NME context, except in 
limited circumstances when inputs are purchased from market-economy 
suppliers, the Department calculates normal value using surrogate 
values in lieu of actual input costs. Thus, because the use of the 
shorter cost periods would not more accurately reflect experience of 
the respondent operating in the NME during the period under 
examination, we continue to base costs on POI-average surrogate values 
rather than the shorter cost periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398 
(December 11, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because it is not clear how the shorter cost averaging period 
methodology employed in ME cases can fit methodologically or 
analytically in an NME context, we preliminarily continue to base 
normal value on the POI average surrogate values and input consumption 
rates, rather than shorter cost periods, for this investigation. We 
invite parties to comment on these issues and on what facts warrant the 
use of shorter cost averaging periods in this case, for the final 
determination.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR 
20676. This practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
            Exporter                     Producer             average
                                                              margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube      Jiangsu Changbao Steel             0.00
 Co., Ltd.                        Tube Co., Ltd. and
                                  Jiangsu Changbao
                                  Precision Steel Tube
                                  Co., Ltd.
Tianjin Pipe International       Tianjin Pipe (Group)              36.53
 Economic and Trading             Corporation.
 Corporation.
Angang Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd  Angang Steel Co. Ltd...           36.53
Angang Steel Co., Ltd., and      Angang Steel Co. Ltd...           36.53
 Angang Group International
 Trade Corporation.
Anhui Tianda Oil Pipe Co., Ltd.  Anhui Tianda Oil Pipe             36.53
                                  Co., Ltd.
Anshan Zhongyou Tipo Pipe &      Anshan Zhongyou Tipo              36.53
 Tubing Co., Ltd.                 Pipe & Tubing Co., Ltd.
Baotou Steel International       Baotou Steel                      36.53
 Economic and Trading Co., Ltd.   International Economic
                                  and Trading Co., Ltd.

[[Page 59130]]

 
Benxi Northern Steel Pipes Co.,  Benxi Northern Steel              36.53
 Ltd.                             Pipes Co., Ltd.
Chengdu Wanghui Petroleum Pipe   Chengdu Wanghui                   36.53
 Co. Ltd.                         Petroleum Pipe Co. Ltd.
Dalipal Pipe Company...........  Dalipal Pipe Company...           36.53
Faray Petroleum Steel Pipe Co.   Faray Petroleum Steel             36.53
 Ltd.                             Pipe Co. Ltd.
Freet Petroleum Equipment Co.,   Freet Petroleum                   36.53
 Ltd. of Shengli Oil Field, The   Equipment Co., Ltd. of
 Thermal Recovery Equipment,      Shengli Oil Field, The
 Zibo Branch.                     Thermal Recovery
                                  Equipment, Zibo Branch.
Hengyang Steel Tube Group        Hengyang Valin MPM Tube           36.53
 International Trading, Inc.      Co., Ltd.; Hengyang
                                  Valin Steel Tube Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial    Huludao Steel Pipe                36.53
 Co., Ltd./Huludao City Steel     Industrial Co., Ltd./
 Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd.        Huludao City Steel
                                  Pipe Industrial Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Jiangsu Chengde Steel Tube       Jiangsu Chengde Steel             36.53
 Share Co., Ltd.                  Tube Share Co., Ltd.
Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel   Jiangyin City                     36.53
 Pipe Co., Ltd.                   Changjiang Steel Pipe
                                  Co., Ltd.
Pangang Group Beihai Steel Pipe  Pangang Group Beihai              36.53
 Corporation.                     Steel Pipe Corporation.
Pangang Group Chengdu Iron &     Pangang Group Chengdu             36.53
 Steel.                           Iron & Steel.
Qingdao Bonded Logistics Park    Shengli Oilfield                  36.53
 Products International Trading   Highland Petroleum
 Co., Ltd.                        Equipment Co., Ltd.;
                                  Shandong Continental
                                  Petroleum Equipment
                                  Co., Ltd.; Aofei Tele
                                  Dongying Import &
                                  Export Co., Ltd.;
                                  Highgrade Tubular
                                  Manufacturing
                                  (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.;
                                  Cangzhou City Baohai
                                  Petroleum Material
                                  Co., Ltd.
Qiqihaer Bonded Logistics Park   Qiqihaer Bonded                   36.53
 Products International Trading   Logistics Park
 Co., Ltd.                        Products International
                                  Trading Co., Ltd.
Shandong Dongbao Steel Pipe      Shandong Dongbao Steel            36.53
 Co., Ltd.                        Pipe Co., Ltd.
ShanDong HuaBao Steel Pipe Co.,  ShanDong HuaBao Steel             36.53
 Ltd.                             Pipe Co., Ltd.
Shandong Molong Petroleum        Shandong Molong                   36.53
 Machinery Co., Ltd.              Petroleum Machinery
                                  Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Metals & Minerals       Jiangsu Changbao Steel            36.53
 Import & Export Corp./Shanghai   Pipe Co., Ltd.;
 Minmetals Materials & Products   Huludao Steel Pipe
 Corp.                            Industrial Co., Ltd.;
                                  Northeast Special
                                  Steel Group Qiqihaer
                                  Haoying Steel and Iron
                                  Co., Ltd.; Beijing
                                  Youlu Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Zhongyou Tipo Steel     Shanghai Zhongyou Tipo            36.53
 Pipe Co., Ltd.                   Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.
Shengli Oil Field Freet          Freet Petroleum                   36.53
 Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd.    Equipment Co., Ltd. of
                                  Shengli Oil Field, The
                                  Thermal Recovery
                                  Equipment, Zibo
                                  Branch; Faray
                                  Petroleum Steel Pipe
                                  Co., Ltd.; Shengli Oil
                                  Field Freet Petroleum
                                  Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.
Shengli Oil Field Freet          Freet Petroleum                   36.53
 Petroleum Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.   Equipment Co., Ltd. of
                                  Shengli Oil Field, The
                                  Thermal Recovery
                                  Equipment, Zibo
                                  Branch; Tianda Oil
                                  Pipe Co., Ltd; Wuxi
                                  Fastube Dingyuan
                                  Precision Steel Pipe
                                  Co., Ltd.
Shengli Oilfield Highland        Tianjin Pipe Group                36.53
 Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd.    Corp.; Goods &
                                  Materials Supply Dept.
                                  of Shengli Oilfield
                                  SinoPEC; Dagang
                                  Oilfield Group New
                                  Century Machinery Co.
                                  Ltd.; Tianjin Seamless
                                  Steel Pipe Plant;
                                  Baoshan Iron & Steel
                                  Co. Ltd.
Shengli Oilfield Shengji         Shengli Oilfield                  36.53
 Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd.    Shengji Petroleum
                                  Equipment Co., Ltd..
Tianjin Xingyuda Import and      Tianjin Lifengyuanda              36.53
 Export Co., Ltd. & Hong Kong     Steel Group Co., Ltd.
 Gallant Group Limited.
Tianjin Seamless Steel Pipe      Tianjin Seamless Steel            36.53
 Plant.                           Pipe Plant.
Tianjin Tiangang Special         Tianjin Tiangang                  36.53
 Petroleum Pipe Manufacturer      Special Petroleum Pipe
 Co., Ltd.                        Manufacturer Co., Ltd.
Wuxi Baoda Petroleum Special     Wuxi Baoda Petroleum              36.53
 Pipe Manufacturing Co., Ltd.     Special Pipe
                                  Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Wuxi Seamless Oil Pipe Co., Ltd  Wuxi Seamless Oil Pipe            36.53
                                  Co., Ltd.
Wuxi Sp. Steel Tube              Wuxi Precese Special              36.53
 Manufacturing Co., Ltd.          Steel Co., Ltd.
Wuxi Zhenda Special Steel Tube   Huai'an Zhenda Steel              36.53
 Manufacturing Co., Ltd.          Tube Manufacturing
                                  Co., Ltd.
Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co.,  Xigang Seamless Steel             36.53
 Ltd.                             Tube Co., Ltd.; Wuxi
                                  Seamless Special Pipe
                                  Co., Ltd.
Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube      Yangzhou Lontrin Steel            36.53
 Co., Ltd.                        Tube Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Jianli Co., Ltd. &      Zhejiang Jianli Co.,              36.53
 Zhejiang Jianli Steel Tube       Ltd.; Zhejiang Jianli
 Co., Ltd.                        Steel Tube Co., Ltd.
PRC-wide Entity *..............  .......................           99.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Shengli Oil Field Freet Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. is part of the
  PRC-wide entity.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of subject merchandise exported by TPCO and produced by Tianjin 
Pipe (Group) Corporation, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the 
posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV 
exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above.
    Additionally, as the Department has determined in its Certain Oil 
Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary Negative 
Critical Circumstances Determination, 74 FR 47210 (September 15, 2009) 
(``CVD Prelim'') that the merchandise under investigation, exported by 
TPCO,

[[Page 59131]]

benefitted from an export subsidy, we will instruct CBP to require an 
antidumping cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the weighted-
average amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price for TPCO, as 
indicated above, minus the amount determined to constitute an export 
subsidy. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 
(November 17, 2007).
    We will instruct CBP not to suspend liquidation or require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond for imports of OCTG from the PRC 
exported and produced by Changbao, because we have calculated a margin 
of zero percent for Changbao.
    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise exported 
by the separate-rate respondents, in the exporter/producer combination 
identified above, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting 
of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds 
U.S. price, as indicated above.
    For the two separate-rate companies in this investigation that also 
participated as mandatory respondents in the CVD investigation (i.e., 
Wuxi Seamless Oil Pipe Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Jianli Co., Ltd. & 
Zhejiang Jianli Steel Tube Co., Ltd.), because it was determined in the 
CVD Prelim. that these companies did not benefit from any export 
subsidy, we will not make an adjustment to the antidumping duty rate of 
these companies for purposes of cash deposits.
    For the remaining separate-rate companies, we will instruct CBP to 
adjust the dumping margin by the amount of export subsidies included in 
the All Other rate from the CVD Prelim.
    Further, because we found critical circumstances with regard to the 
PRC-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of 
merchandise under consideration exported by the PRC-wide entity and 
entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption commencing 90 days 
prior to the date of this preliminary determination, and we will 
instruct CBP to require an antidumping duty cash deposit or the posting 
of a bond for each entry.
    These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect 
until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than 
fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its 
final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United 
States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by 
reason of imports of certain OCTG, or sales (or the likelihood of 
sales) for importation, of the merchandise under investigation within 
45 days of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this 
proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs 
and must be received no later than five days after the deadline date 
for case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) and (d). A list of 
authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited 
to five pages total, including footnotes.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, and if requested, we 
will hold a public hearing, to afford interested parties an opportunity 
to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing shortly after the 
deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230, 
at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before 
the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, 
and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 4, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-27574 Filed 11-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P