Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 70961-70963 [E8-27889]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 227 / Monday, November 24, 2008 / Notices
Dated: November 19, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E8–27977 Filed 11–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
films, biosensors and for the study of
interplanetary materials and meteorites.
Application accepted by Commissioner
of Customs: October 21, 2008.
Dated: November 18, 2008.
Christopher Cassel,
Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement
Office, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–27888 Filed 11–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Applications for Duty-Free Entry of
Scientific Instruments
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
International Trade Administration
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
19:32 Nov 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
Dated: November 18, 2008.
Christopher Cassel,
Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement
Office, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–27887 Filed 11–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–936]
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.
L. 89–651, as amended by Public Law
106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301),
we invite comments on the question of
whether instruments of equivalent
scientific value, for the purposes for
which the instruments shown below are
intended to be used, are being
manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR
301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and
be postmarked on or before December
15, 2008. Address written comments to
Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room
2104, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC 20230. Applications
may be examined between 8:30 a.m.and
5:30 p.m. at the U.S. Department of
Commerce in Room 2104.
Docket Number: 08–057. Applicant:
Louisiana State University, Department
of Chemistry, 232 Choppin Hall, Baton
Rouge, LA 70803. Instrument: Electron
Microscope, Model FEI Quanta 3D FEG
DualBeam. Manufacturer: FEI Company,
the Netherlands. Intended Use: The
instrument is intended to be used for
large area cross-sectioning and
analytical work, automated 3D
tomography, nanolithography, and TEM
specimen preparation. This type of work
necessitates a high performance
Dualbeam system with Environmental
SEM capabilities. Application accepted
by Commissioner of Customs: October
21, 2008.
Docket Number: 08–058. Applicant:
University of New Mexico, Center for
Micro-Engineered Materials, MSC01
1120 Farris Eng. CTR 203, 1 University
of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
87131. Instrument: Electron Microscope,
Model FEI Quanta 3D FEG Focused Ion
Beam. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the
Netherlands. Intended Use: The
instrument is intended to be used to
study nanoscale materials. Specifically,
it will be used for the study of
heterogeneous catalysts,
heteraoepitaxial semiconductors,
quantum dots, lasers, microfluidic
devices, ion channels, free-standing thin
VerDate Aug<31>2005
70961
International Trade Administration
University of Puerto Rico, et al.; Notice
of Consolidated Decision on
Applications for Duty-Free Entry of
Electron Microscopes
This is a decision consolidated
pursuant to section 6(c) of the
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.
L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–
36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).
Related records can be viewed between
8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 2104, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC.
Docket Number: 08–048. Applicant:
University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR
00931–3334. Instrument: Electron
Microscope, Model JEM 2100–F.
Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan.
Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR
63434, October 24, 2008.
Docket Number: 08–049. Applicant:
University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR
00931–3334. Instrument: Electron
Microscope, Model JEM 2200–FS.
Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan.
Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR
63434, October 24, 2008.
Docket Number: 08–053. Applicant:
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
47907. Instrument: Electron Microscope,
Model Tecnai G2 F20 TEM.
Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech
Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 73
FR 63434, October 24, 2008.
Comments: None received. Decision:
Approved. No instrument of equivalent
scientific value to the foreign
instrument, for such purposes as these
instruments are intended to be used,
was being manufactured in the United
States at the time the instruments were
ordered. Reasons: Each foreign
instrument is an electron microscope
and is intended for research or scientific
educational uses requiring an electron
microscope. We know of no electron
microscope, or any other instrument
suited to these purposes, which was
being manufactured in the United States
at the time of order of each instrument.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel
Line Pipe from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) determines that
countervailable subsidies are being
provided to producers and exporters of
circular welded carbon quality steel line
pipe (line pipe) from the People’s
Republic of China (the PRC). For
information on the estimated subsidy
rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of
Liquidation’’ section of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: November 24,
2008.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen Johnson or John Conniff, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Operations,
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–4793 and (202) 482–1009,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This investigation covers 30 programs
and the following producers/exporters:
Huludao Seven-Star Steel Pipe Group
Co., Ltd. (Huludao Seven Star Group),
Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co. Ltd.
(Huludao Steel Pipe), and Huludao
Bohai Oil Pipe Industrial Co. Ltd.
(Huludao Bohai Oil Pipe) (collectively,
the Huludao Companies), and Liaoning
Northern Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Northern
Steel).
The petitioners in this investigation
are United States Steel Corporation,
Maverick Tube Corporation, Tex-Tube
Company, and the United Steel, Paper
and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union, AFL–CIO–
CLC (collectively, the petitioners).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (the POI)
for which we are measuring subsidies is
E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM
24NON1
70962
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 227 / Monday, November 24, 2008 / Notices
January 1, 2007, through December 31,
2007, which corresponds to the PRC’s
most recently completed fiscal year. See
19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Case History
The following events have occurred
since the Department announced the
preliminary determination on
September 3, 2008. See Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination, 73 FR 52297 (September
9, 2008) (Line Pipe Preliminary
Determination).
On September 17, 2008, we issued a
supplemental questionnaire to the
Government of the People’s Republic of
China (GOC) and the Huludao
Companies. On September 24, 2008, the
GOC and the Huludao Companies
submitted responses to the Department
supplemental questionnaire. No
supplemental questionnaire was issued
to Northern Steel.
On September 23, 2008, the
Department determined not to
investigate petitioners’ uncreditworthy
allegations as well as certain subsidy
allegations involving Northern Steel.
Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner,
Director, Office 3, Operations, from Eric
B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office
3, Operations, ‘‘Status of New Subsidy
and Uncreditworthy Allegations Filed
By Petitioners,’’ the Department
determined that it did not have the
resources or time to examine
petitioners’ uncreditworthy allegations.
Also, in September 2008, petitioners
and the GOC made several new factual
submissions consistent within the
deadline for the submission of factual
information established by 19 CFR
351.301(b)(1).
From October 7 through October 14,
2008, we conducted verification of the
questionnaire responses submitted by
the GOC, Huludao Seven Star Group,
Huludao Steel Pipe, and Huludao Bohai
Oil Pipe and Northern Steel
(collectively, respondents). We issued
the verification reports on October 23,
24, 27, and 28, 2008.1
On November 3, 2008, we received
case briefs from petitioners, the GOC,
and the Huludao Companies. Rebuttal
briefs were submitted on November 10,
2008. On November 12, 2008, we held
separate ex parte meetings with
representatives of petitioners and the
GOC. See the Department’s November
12, 2008, memoranda to the file, which
1 The public version of the verification reports
and all public reports are on file in the Central
Records Unit, room 1117 in the main building of
the Commerce Department.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:32 Nov 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
are public documents on file in room
1117 of the main Commerce building.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is circular welded carbon
quality steel pipe of a kind used for oil
and gas pipelines (welded line pipe),
not more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) in
outside diameter, regardless of wall
thickness, length, surface finish, end
finish or stenciling.
The term ‘‘carbon quality steel’’
includes both carbon steel and carbon
steel mixed with small amounts of
alloying elements that may exceed the
individual weight limits for non alloy
steels imposed in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Specifically, the term ‘‘carbon quality’’
includes products in which (1) iron
predominates by weight over each of the
other contained elements, (2) the carbon
content is 2 percent or less by weight
and (3) none of the elements listed
below exceeds the quantity by weight
respectively indicated:
(i) 2.00 percent of manganese,
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon,
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper,
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum,
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium,
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt,
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead,
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel,
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten,
(x) 0.012 percent of boron,
(xi) 0.50 percent of molybdenum,
(xii) 0.15 percent of niobium,
(xiii) 0.41 percent of titanium,
(xiv) 0.15 percent of vanadium, or
(xv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Welded line pipe is normally
produced to specifications published by
the American Petroleum Institute (API)
(or comparable foreign specifications)
including API A–25, 5LA, 5LB, and X
grades from 42 and above, and/or any
other proprietary grades or non-graded
material. Nevertheless, all pipe meeting
the physical description set forth above
that is of a kind used in oil and gas
pipelines, including all multiplestenciled pipe with an API welded line
pipe stencil is covered by the scope of
this investigation.
Excluded from this scope are pipes of
a kind used for oil and gas pipelines
that are multiple-stenciled to a standard
and/or structural specification and have
one or more of the following
characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or
less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in
outside diameter; has a galvanized and/
or painted surface finish; or has a
threaded and/or coupled end finish.
(The term ‘‘painted’’ does not include
coatings to inhibit rust in transit, such
as varnish, but includes coatings such as
polyester.)
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The welded line pipe products that
are the subject of these investigations
are currently classifiable in the HTSUS
under subheadings 7306.19.10.10,
7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and
7306.19.51.50. While HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of these
investigations is dispositive.
Injury Test
Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies
Agreement Country’’ within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the
International Trade Commission (the
ITC) is required to determine whether
imports of the subject merchandise from
the PRC materially injure, or threaten
material injury, to a U.S. industry. On
June 3, 2008, the ITC published its
preliminary determination finding that
there is a reasonable indication that an
industry in the United States is
materially injured or threatened with
material injury by reason of imports
from the PRC of the subject
merchandise. See Certain Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe
from China and Korea, Investigation
Nos. 701–TA–455 and 731–TA–1149–
1150 (Preliminary), 73 FR 31712 (June 3,
2008).
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
investigation are addressed in the
Decision Memorandum. Attached to this
notice as an Appendix is a list of the
issues that parties raised and to which
we have responded in the Decision
Memorandum. Parties can find a
complete discussion of all issues raised
in this investigation and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Department’s Central Records Unit.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Internet at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section
705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have
calculated an individual rate for the
companies under investigation: the
Huludao Companies and Northern Steel.
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the
Act state that for companies not
investigated, we will determine an allothers rate by weighting the individual
company subsidy rate of each of the
companies investigated by each
company’s exports of the subject
E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM
24NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 227 / Monday, November 24, 2008 / Notices
merchandise to the United States. The
all-others rate may not include zero and
de minimis net subsidy rates, or any
rates based solely on the facts available.
Notwithstanding the language of
section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we
have not calculated the all-others rate by
weight averaging the rates of the
Huludao Companies and Northern Steel
because doing so risks disclosure of
proprietary information. Therefore, for
the all-others rate, we have calculated a
simple average of the two responding
firms’ rates.
Producer/exporter
Liaoning Northern Steel
Pipe Co., Ltd. ..................
Huludao Seven-Star Steel
Pipe Group Co., Ltd.
(Huludao Seven Star
Group), Huludao Steel
Pipe Industrial Co. Ltd.
(Huludao Steel Pipe), and
Huludao Bohai Oil Pipe
Industrial Co. Ltd.
(Huludao Bohai Oil Pipe)
(collectively, the Huludao
Companies) .....................
All Others ............................
Subsidy rate
(percent ad
valorem)
40.05
35.63
37.84
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
As a result of the Line Pipe
Preliminary Determination and
pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act,
we instructed the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to suspend
liquidation of all entries of line pipe
from the PRC which were entered or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after September 9,
2008, the date of the publication of the
Line Pipe Preliminary Determination in
the Federal Register.
We will issue a CVD order under
section 706(a) of the Act if the ITC
issues a final affirmative injury
determination, and will require a cash
deposit of estimated countervailing
duties for such entries of merchandise
in the amounts indicated above. If the
ITC determines that material injury, or
threat of material injury, does not exist,
this proceeding will be terminated and
all estimated duties deposited or
securities posted as a result of the
suspension of liquidation will be
refunded or canceled.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of
the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. In addition, we are
making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary
information related to this investigation.
We will allow the ITC access to all
privileged and business proprietary
information in our files, provided the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:32 Nov 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
ITC confirms that it will not disclose
such information, either publicly or
under an APO, without the written
consent of the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary
Information
In the event that the ITC issues a final
negative injury determination, this
notice will serve as the only reminder
to parties subject to an administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
This determination is published
pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: November 17, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix—Issues and Decision
Memorandum
List of Comments and Issues in the Decision
Memorandum
Comment 1: Whether the Department
Should Reject the Ownership Data Supplied
by the GOC for Use in the Provision of HotRolled Steel (HRS) for Less Than Adequate
Remuneration (LTAR) Program and Resort to
the Use of Adverse Facts Available (AFA).
Comment 2: Whether the Huludao
Companies Submitted Sufficient Information
to Establish the Identity and Ownership of
Producers that Sold HRS to the Huludao
Companies through Trading Companies.
Comment 3: Whether the Five Factor Test
Should Be Used To Asses Which Producers
of HRS Are State-Owned.
Comment 4: Whether the Sale of HRS from
Privately-Held Trading Companies
Constitutes a Financial Contribution Under
the Act.
Comment 5: Whether the Use of an InCountry Benchmark is Permissible When
Calculating Benefits Under the Provision of
HRS for LTAR Program.
Comment 6: Whether the Department’s De
Facto Specificity Analysis Under the
Provision of HRS for LTAR Program was
Flawed.
Comment 7: Whether to Adjust the
Benchmark Used in the Provision of HRS for
LTAR Program for International Freight.
Comment 8: Whether the Department Erred
When Adding Import Duties and VAT to the
Benchmark Price Used in the Provision of
HRS for LTAR Program.
Comment 9: Whether the Department
Should Add VAT of 17 Percent to the
Purchase Price of HRS the Huludao
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70963
Companies Acquired During the POI When
Examining the Provision of HRS for LTAR.
Comment 10: Whether the Department
Erred in Using an Inflation-Adjusted Interest
Rate to Calculate the Short-Term Benchmark.
Comment 11: Whether the Department
Should Revise Its Short-Term Benchmark
Methodology by Either Basing the ShortTerm Benchmark On a Simple Average of
Applicable Short-Term Rates or Adding an
Additional ‘‘Governance Factor’’ to the
Regression Analysis.
Comment 12: Whether the IMF Rates Used
in the Department’s Short-Term RegressionBased Benchmark Methodology are, In Fact,
Long-Term Rates and Therefore Flawed.
Comment 13: Whether the RegressionBased Analysis Used to Derive the ShortTerm Benchmark Interest Rate is Invalid.
Comment 14: Whether the Department
Should Revise the Manner in Which It
Incorporated a Risk Premium to the RMB
Denominated Long-Term Benchmark.
Comment 15: Whether the Department’s
Regulations Authorize the Use of Out-OfCountry Interest Rate Benchmarks.
Comment 16: Whether the Department Has
the Legal Authority to Apply the CVD Law
to the PRC While Simultaneously Treating
the PRC as an NME in Parallel Antidumping
Investigations.
Comment 17: Whether the Application of
the CVD Law to the PRC Results in Double
Counting of Duties.
Comment 18: Whether the Department
Should Use a ‘‘Cut-Off’’ Date That Is More
Recent Than December 11, 2001.
Comment 19: Whether Certain Interest-Free
Loans the Huludao Companies Received
Constituted Financial Contributions Received
After December 11, 2001, the Date of the
PRC’s Accession to the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
Comment 20: Whether the Department
Erred in Refusing to Investigate the
Creditworthiness of the Huludao Companies
for Years 2004 Through 2007.
Comment 21: Whether the GOC
Established an Industrial Policy to Encourage
Preferential Lending to the Producers of
Subject Merchandise.
Comment 22: Whether the Department
Should Countervail the Provision of Land at
LTAR.
Comment 23: Whether the Department
Should Add an Additional Land-Use Right
Acquisition by the Huludao Companies to its
Subsidy Analysis Under the Provision of
Land for LTAR Program.
Comment 24: Whether Northern Steel
Acquired Land-Use Rights from a
Government Authority.
Comment 25: Whether Certain Loans
Issued to the Huludao Companies from StateOwned Banks Were Contingent Upon
Exports.
Comment 26: Whether There Is Sufficient
Information to Determine that a ProgramWide Change Occurred With Respect to the
Domestic Income Tax Credit for
Domestically-Produced Equipment Program.
[FR Doc. E8–27889 Filed 11–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM
24NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 227 (Monday, November 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70961-70963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-27889]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-936]
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters
of circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe (line pipe) from the
People's Republic of China (the PRC). For information on the estimated
subsidy rates, see the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this
notice.
DATES: Effective Date: November 24, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson or John Conniff, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Operations, Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793 and (202) 482-
1009, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This investigation covers 30 programs and the following producers/
exporters: Huludao Seven-Star Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd. (Huludao Seven
Star Group), Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co. Ltd. (Huludao Steel
Pipe), and Huludao Bohai Oil Pipe Industrial Co. Ltd. (Huludao Bohai
Oil Pipe) (collectively, the Huludao Companies), and Liaoning Northern
Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Northern Steel).
The petitioners in this investigation are United States Steel
Corporation, Maverick Tube Corporation, Tex-Tube Company, and the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC
(collectively, the petitioners).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (the POI) for which we are measuring
subsidies is
[[Page 70962]]
January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007, which corresponds to the
PRC's most recently completed fiscal year. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
Case History
The following events have occurred since the Department announced
the preliminary determination on September 3, 2008. See Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 52297
(September 9, 2008) (Line Pipe Preliminary Determination).
On September 17, 2008, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to
the Government of the People's Republic of China (GOC) and the Huludao
Companies. On September 24, 2008, the GOC and the Huludao Companies
submitted responses to the Department supplemental questionnaire. No
supplemental questionnaire was issued to Northern Steel.
On September 23, 2008, the Department determined not to investigate
petitioners' uncreditworthy allegations as well as certain subsidy
allegations involving Northern Steel. Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner,
Director, Office 3, Operations, from Eric B. Greynolds, Program
Manager, Office 3, Operations, ``Status of New Subsidy and
Uncreditworthy Allegations Filed By Petitioners,'' the Department
determined that it did not have the resources or time to examine
petitioners' uncreditworthy allegations.
Also, in September 2008, petitioners and the GOC made several new
factual submissions consistent within the deadline for the submission
of factual information established by 19 CFR 351.301(b)(1).
From October 7 through October 14, 2008, we conducted verification
of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOC, Huludao Seven Star
Group, Huludao Steel Pipe, and Huludao Bohai Oil Pipe and Northern
Steel (collectively, respondents). We issued the verification reports
on October 23, 24, 27, and 28, 2008.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The public version of the verification reports and all
public reports are on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117 in
the main building of the Commerce Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 3, 2008, we received case briefs from petitioners, the
GOC, and the Huludao Companies. Rebuttal briefs were submitted on
November 10, 2008. On November 12, 2008, we held separate ex parte
meetings with representatives of petitioners and the GOC. See the
Department's November 12, 2008, memoranda to the file, which are public
documents on file in room 1117 of the main Commerce building.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded
carbon quality steel pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines
(welded line pipe), not more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) in outside
diameter, regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, end
finish or stenciling.
The term ``carbon quality steel'' includes both carbon steel and
carbon steel mixed with small amounts of alloying elements that may
exceed the individual weight limits for non alloy steels imposed in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Specifically,
the term ``carbon quality'' includes products in which (1) iron
predominates by weight over each of the other contained elements, (2)
the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight and (3) none of the
elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively
indicated:
(i) 2.00 percent of manganese,
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon,
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper,
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum,
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium,
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt,
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead,
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel,
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten,
(x) 0.012 percent of boron,
(xi) 0.50 percent of molybdenum,
(xii) 0.15 percent of niobium,
(xiii) 0.41 percent of titanium,
(xiv) 0.15 percent of vanadium, or
(xv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Welded line pipe is normally produced to specifications published
by the American Petroleum Institute (API) (or comparable foreign
specifications) including API A-25, 5LA, 5LB, and X grades from 42 and
above, and/or any other proprietary grades or non-graded material.
Nevertheless, all pipe meeting the physical description set forth above
that is of a kind used in oil and gas pipelines, including all
multiple-stenciled pipe with an API welded line pipe stencil is covered
by the scope of this investigation.
Excluded from this scope are pipes of a kind used for oil and gas
pipelines that are multiple-stenciled to a standard and/or structural
specification and have one or more of the following characteristics: Is
32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside
diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted surface finish; or has a
threaded and/or coupled end finish. (The term ``painted'' does not
include coatings to inhibit rust in transit, such as varnish, but
includes coatings such as polyester.)
The welded line pipe products that are the subject of these
investigations are currently classifiable in the HTSUS under
subheadings 7306.19.10.10, 7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and
7306.19.51.50. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these
investigations is dispositive.
Injury Test
Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), the International Trade Commission (the ITC) is required to
determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC
materially injure, or threaten material injury, to a U.S. industry. On
June 3, 2008, the ITC published its preliminary determination finding
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United
States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by
reason of imports from the PRC of the subject merchandise. See Certain
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from China and Korea,
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-455 and 731-TA-1149-1150 (Preliminary), 73 FR
31712 (June 3, 2008).
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this investigation are addressed in the Decision Memorandum. Attached
to this notice as an Appendix is a list of the issues that parties
raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum.
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this
investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public
memorandum, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be
accessed directly on the Internet at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The
paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have
calculated an individual rate for the companies under investigation:
the Huludao Companies and Northern Steel. Sections 703(d) and
705(c)(5)(A) of the Act state that for companies not investigated, we
will determine an all-others rate by weighting the individual company
subsidy rate of each of the companies investigated by each company's
exports of the subject
[[Page 70963]]
merchandise to the United States. The all-others rate may not include
zero and de minimis net subsidy rates, or any rates based solely on the
facts available.
Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the
Act, we have not calculated the all-others rate by weight averaging the
rates of the Huludao Companies and Northern Steel because doing so
risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, for the all-
others rate, we have calculated a simple average of the two responding
firms' rates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy rate
Producer/exporter (percent ad
valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liaoning Northern Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.................. 40.05
Huludao Seven-Star Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd. (Huludao 35.63
Seven Star Group), Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co.
Ltd. (Huludao Steel Pipe), and Huludao Bohai Oil Pipe
Industrial Co. Ltd. (Huludao Bohai Oil Pipe)
(collectively, the Huludao Companies).................
All Others............................................. 37.84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the Line Pipe Preliminary Determination and pursuant
to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of line pipe
from the PRC which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after September 9, 2008, the date of the publication
of the Line Pipe Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.
We will issue a CVD order under section 706(a) of the Act if the
ITC issues a final affirmative injury determination, and will require a
cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of
merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that
material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this
proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or
securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be
refunded or canceled.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or
under an APO, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties
subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is
subject to sanction.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: November 17, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues and Decision Memorandum
List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Reject the Ownership
Data Supplied by the GOC for Use in the Provision of Hot-Rolled
Steel (HRS) for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) Program and
Resort to the Use of Adverse Facts Available (AFA).
Comment 2: Whether the Huludao Companies Submitted Sufficient
Information to Establish the Identity and Ownership of Producers
that Sold HRS to the Huludao Companies through Trading Companies.
Comment 3: Whether the Five Factor Test Should Be Used To Asses
Which Producers of HRS Are State-Owned.
Comment 4: Whether the Sale of HRS from Privately-Held Trading
Companies Constitutes a Financial Contribution Under the Act.
Comment 5: Whether the Use of an In-Country Benchmark is
Permissible When Calculating Benefits Under the Provision of HRS for
LTAR Program.
Comment 6: Whether the Department's De Facto Specificity
Analysis Under the Provision of HRS for LTAR Program was Flawed.
Comment 7: Whether to Adjust the Benchmark Used in the Provision
of HRS for LTAR Program for International Freight.
Comment 8: Whether the Department Erred When Adding Import
Duties and VAT to the Benchmark Price Used in the Provision of HRS
for LTAR Program.
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Add VAT of 17 Percent
to the Purchase Price of HRS the Huludao Companies Acquired During
the POI When Examining the Provision of HRS for LTAR.
Comment 10: Whether the Department Erred in Using an Inflation-
Adjusted Interest Rate to Calculate the Short-Term Benchmark.
Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Revise Its Short-Term
Benchmark Methodology by Either Basing the Short-Term Benchmark On a
Simple Average of Applicable Short-Term Rates or Adding an
Additional ``Governance Factor'' to the Regression Analysis.
Comment 12: Whether the IMF Rates Used in the Department's
Short-Term Regression-Based Benchmark Methodology are, In Fact,
Long-Term Rates and Therefore Flawed.
Comment 13: Whether the Regression-Based Analysis Used to Derive
the Short-Term Benchmark Interest Rate is Invalid.
Comment 14: Whether the Department Should Revise the Manner in
Which It Incorporated a Risk Premium to the RMB Denominated Long-
Term Benchmark.
Comment 15: Whether the Department's Regulations Authorize the
Use of Out-Of-Country Interest Rate Benchmarks.
Comment 16: Whether the Department Has the Legal Authority to
Apply the CVD Law to the PRC While Simultaneously Treating the PRC
as an NME in Parallel Antidumping Investigations.
Comment 17: Whether the Application of the CVD Law to the PRC
Results in Double Counting of Duties.
Comment 18: Whether the Department Should Use a ``Cut-Off'' Date
That Is More Recent Than December 11, 2001.
Comment 19: Whether Certain Interest-Free Loans the Huludao
Companies Received Constituted Financial Contributions Received
After December 11, 2001, the Date of the PRC's Accession to the
World Trade Organization (WTO).
Comment 20: Whether the Department Erred in Refusing to
Investigate the Creditworthiness of the Huludao Companies for Years
2004 Through 2007.
Comment 21: Whether the GOC Established an Industrial Policy to
Encourage Preferential Lending to the Producers of Subject
Merchandise.
Comment 22: Whether the Department Should Countervail the
Provision of Land at LTAR.
Comment 23: Whether the Department Should Add an Additional
Land-Use Right Acquisition by the Huludao Companies to its Subsidy
Analysis Under the Provision of Land for LTAR Program.
Comment 24: Whether Northern Steel Acquired Land-Use Rights from
a Government Authority.
Comment 25: Whether Certain Loans Issued to the Huludao
Companies from State-Owned Banks Were Contingent Upon Exports.
Comment 26: Whether There Is Sufficient Information to Determine
that a Program-Wide Change Occurred With Respect to the Domestic
Income Tax Credit for Domestically-Produced Equipment Program.
[FR Doc. E8-27889 Filed 11-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
