18524 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 

1See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

and Preliminary Determination of Targeted 

Dumping, 75 FR 69403 (November 12, 2010) 

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

2See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Ministerial Error 

Memorandum, Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China, Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,’’ 

dated December 21, 2010, on file in the 

Department’s Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 

7046 of the main Department building. 

3See Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Amended Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 

FR 323 (January 4, 2011) (‘‘Amended Preliminary 

Determination’’). 

4See the Department’s verification reports on the 

record of this investigation, all on file in the CRU. 

5The Aluminum Extrusions fair Trade Committee 

is comprised of Aerolite Extrusion Company, 

Alexandria Extrusion Company, Benada Aluminum 

of Florida, Inc., William L. Bonnell Company, Inc., 

Frontier Aluminum Corporation, Futura Industries 

Corporation, Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc., 

Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Profile Extrusions 

Company, Sapa Extrusions, Inc., and Western 

Extrusions Corporation. 

6See the Department’s verification reports on the 

record of this investigation in the CRU, with respect 

to these entities. 

Comment 20: Whether the Benchmark Used 

for the Provision of Primary Aluminum for 

LTAR Program Should Include Import 

Duties 

Comment 21: Whether the Department 

Should Use In-Country Benchmarks Under 

the Provision of Primary Aluminum for 

LTAR Program 

Comment 22: Whether the Guang Ya 

Companies Properly Reported Their 

Purchases of Primary Aluminum and 

Whether the Application of AFA is 

Warranted 

Comment 23: Whether the Land for LTAR 

Program Constitutes a Financial 

Contribution, Provides a Benefit, and is 

Specific 

Comment 24: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Benchmark Used Under 

the Land for LTAR Program 

Comment 25: Whether the Department Erred 

in Rejecting Factual Information 

Concerning the Benchmark Used Under the 

Land for LTAR Program 

Comment 26: Whether the Guang Ya 

Companies Received an Additional 

Subsidy in Connection With the GOC’s 

Purchase of Land-Use Rights and Buildings 

Comment 27: Whether PRC Commercial 

Banks Are GOC Authorities That Provide a 

Financial Contribution 

Comment 28: Whether there is a Link 

Between the Alleged Policy Lending 

Program and Actual Loans Received by 

Respondents 

Comment 29: Whether the Derivation of the 

Short-Term Benchmark Interest Rate is 

Arbitrary 

Comment 30: Whether the Derivation of the 

Long-Term Benchmark Interest Rate is 

Arbitrary 

Comment 31: Whether the Department 

Committed Ministerial Errors Concerning 

the Famous Brands Program 

Comment 32: Whether the Department 

Should Provide an Entered Value 

Adjustment to the Zhongya Companies to 

Account for Price Mark-Ups Made by Their 

Hong-Kong Affiliate 

Comment 33: Whether the Department 

Improperly Declined to Initiate an 

Investigation of the GOC’s Alleged 

Currency Undervaluation 

[FR Doc. 2011–7926 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–967] 

Aluminum Extrusions From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 2011. 

SUMMARY: On November 12, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of aluminum 

extrusions from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’).1 We invited interested 

parties to comment on our preliminary 

determination. Based on our analysis of 

the comments we received, we have 

made changes to our margin 

calculations for the mandatory 

respondents. The final dumping 

margins for this investigation are listed 

in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Stolz or Lori Apodaca, 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 (202) 482– 

4551, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

Preliminary Determination on 

November 12, 2010. The Department 

subsequently issued a ministerial error 

memorandum, in which it agreed to 

correct several ministerial errors.2 On 

January 4, 2011, pursuant to the 

correction of ministerial errors, the 

Department published an Amended 

Preliminary Determination.3

Between December 6, 2010, and 

December 21, 2010, the Department 

conducted verifications of Guang Ya 

Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd. (‘‘Guang 

Ya’’), Foshan Guangcheng Aluminium 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Guangcheng’’), Kong Ah 

International Co., Ltd.(‘‘Kong Ah’’), and 

Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong 

Kong) Ltd. (‘‘Guang Ya HK’’) 

(collectively the ‘‘Guang Ya Group’’); 

Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘ZNZ’’), Zhongya Shaped 

Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited 

(‘‘Shaped Aluminum’’) and Karlton 

Aluminum Company Ltd. (‘‘Karlton’’) 

(collectively ‘‘New Zhongya’’); and 

Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel 

Product Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinya’’) (all parties, 

collectively ‘‘the Guang Ya Group/New 

Zhongya/Xinya’’). The Department 

released verification reports for each of 

these companies on January 28, 

2011.4See the ‘‘Verification’’ section 

below for additional information. On 

December 12, 2010, Aavid Thermalloy, 

Inc. (‘‘Aavid’’) submitted a request for a 

scope hearing. On December 13, 2010, 

The Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade 

Committee,5 and the United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’) and New 

Zhongya submitted requests for a public 

hearing. On February 9, 2011, 

Petitioners submitted a request for a 

closed session of the hearing. On March 

2, 2011, the Department held a public 

scope hearing for the antidumping duty 

and countervailing duty investigations, 

and both an open and a closed session 

of the antidumping duty hearing. 

New Zhongya and Petitioners 

submitted surrogate value comments on 

December 22, 2010. On February 9, 

2011, case briefs were filed by the 

Guang Ya Group, the Government of 

China (‘‘GOC’’), Petitioners, and New 

Zhongya. On February 14, 2011, the 

Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and 

Petitioners filed their rebuttal briefs. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

July 1, 2009, through December 31, 

2009. This period corresponds to the 

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition, 

which was March 2009. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 

we conducted verification of the 

information submitted by the Guang Ya 

Group/New Zhongya/Xinya for use in 

our final determination.6 We used 

standard verification procedures, 

including the examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, as 

appropriate, as well as original source 

documents provided by respondents. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 18525 

7See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo. 

However, as detailed in our verification 

report and discussed further below, we 

were unable verify the information 

submitted by Xinya. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs submitted in this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Determination in the LessThan-Fair-Value Investigation of 

Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ (‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’) dated 

concurrently with this notice, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. A list of 

the issues which parties have raised and 

to which we have responded in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum is 

attached to this notice as Appendix I. 

The Issues and Decision Memorandum 

is a public document on file in the CRU 

and is accessible on the Web at http:// 

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

electronic version of the memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

• We are amending the language of 

the scope of the antidumping duty 

(‘‘AD’’) and countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

investigations for clarification purposes 

as described in detail in the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. See Comment 3, A–J in 

the accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

• For the final determination, the 

Department has adjusted the Petition 

rates using the revised surrogate value 

for labor as described in detail in the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. The revised petition 

margins range from 32.53 percent to 

33.28 percent. See Comment 1, A–F, 

Labor Wage Rate in the accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum; see 

also March 28, 2011 Memorandum to 

the File, regarding Investigation of 

Certain Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China: Petition 

Rate Recalculation (‘‘Petition Rate 

Recalculation Memo’’). 

• For the final determination, we are 

applying a rate based on adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) to the Guang Ya 

Group/New Zhongya/Xinya single 

entity. As AFA we have assigned the 

highest rate from the petition of 33.18 

percent, as recalculated for the final 

determination.7 See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5: 

Application of Total AFA; see also 

Memorandum regarding: Application of 

Total Adverse Facts Available for the 

Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya 

in the Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated 

March 28, 2011 (‘‘Guang Ya Group/New 

Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo’’). 

• For the final determination, we 

have assigned the 29 separate rate 

applicants to whom we are granting a 

separate rate a dumping margin of 32.79 

percent, based on the simple average of 

the margins alleged in the petition, as 

recalculated for this final determination. 

See Comment 1, A–F, Labor Wage Rate 

in the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum; see also 

Petition Rate Recalculation Memo, 

detailing recalculation to correct for a 

ministerial error. 

Scope of the Investigations 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is aluminum extrusions 

which are shapes and forms, produced 

by an extrusion process, made from 

aluminum alloys having metallic 

elements corresponding to the alloy 

series designations published by The 

Aluminum Association commencing 

with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or 

proprietary equivalents or other 

certifying body equivalents). 

Specifically, the subject merchandise 

made from aluminum alloy with an 

Aluminum Association series 

designation commencing with the 

number 1 contains not less than 99 

percent aluminum by weight. The 

subject merchandise made from 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 3 

contains manganese as the major 

alloying element, with manganese 

accounting for not more than 3.0 

percent of total materials by weight. The 

subject merchandise is made from an 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 6 

contains magnesium and silicon as the 

major alloying elements, with 

magnesium accounting for at least 0.1 

percent but not more than 2.0 percent of 

total materials by weight, and silicon 

accounting for at least 0.1 percent but 

not more than 3.0 percent of total 

materials by weight. The subject 

aluminum extrusions are properly 

identified by a four-digit alloy series 

without either a decimal point or 

leading letter. Illustrative examples from 

among the approximately 160 registered 

alloys that may characterize the subject 

merchandise are as follows: 1350, 3003, 

and 6060. 

Aluminum extrusions are produced 

and imported in a wide variety of 

shapes and forms, including, but not 

limited to, hollow profiles, other solid 

profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and rods. 

Aluminum extrusions that are drawn 

subsequent to extrusion (‘‘drawn 

aluminum’’) are also included in the 

scope. 

Aluminum extrusions are produced 

and imported with a variety of finishes 

(both coatings and surface treatments), 

and types of fabrication. The types of 

coatings and treatments applied to 

subject aluminum extrusions include, 

but are not limited to, extrusions that 

are mill finished (i.e., without any 

coating or further finishing), brushed, 

buffed, polished, anodized (including 

bright-dip anodized), liquid painted, or 

powder coated. Aluminum extrusions 

may also be fabricated, i.e., prepared for 

assembly. Such operations would 

include, but are not limited to, 

extrusions that are cut-to-length, 

machined, drilled, punched, notched, 

bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, 

mitered, chamfered, threaded, and spun. 

The subject merchandise includes 

aluminum extrusions that are finished 

(coated, painted, etc.), fabricated, or any 

combination thereof. 

Subject aluminum extrusions may be 

described at the time of importation as 

parts for final finished products that are 

assembled after importation, including, 

but not limited to, window frames, door 

frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or 

furniture. Such parts that otherwise 

meet the definition of aluminum 

extrusions are included in the scope. 

The scope includes the aluminum 

extrusion components that are attached 

(e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form 

subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled 

merchandise unless imported as part of 

the finished goods ‘kit’ defined further 

below. The scope does not include the 

non-aluminum extrusion components of 

subassemblies or subject kits. 

Subject extrusions may be identified 

with reference to their end use, such as 

fence posts, electrical conduits, heat 

sinks, door thresholds, or carpet trim. 

Such goods are subject merchandise if 

they otherwise meet the scope 

definition, regardless of whether they 

are ready for use at the time of 

importation. 

The following aluminum extrusion 

products are excluded: Aluminum 

extrusions made from aluminum alloy 

with an Aluminum Association series 

designations commencing with the 

number 2 and containing in excess of 

1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum 

extrusions made from aluminum alloy 

with an Aluminum Association series 

designation commencing with the 

number 5 and containing in excess of 

1.0 percent magnesium by weight; and 

aluminum extrusions made from 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
18526 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 

8See October 27, 2010, Memorandum entitled 

‘‘Preliminary Determinations: Comments on the 

Scope of the Investigations’’ (‘‘Preliminary Scope 

Memorandum’’); see also Preliminary 

Determination. 

9Specifically: Floturn, Inc. (‘‘Floturn’’) submitted 

comments on October 7, 2010; Petitioners on 

October 13, 2010, October 19, 2010, and October 22, 

2010; the Shower Door, Tub and Shower Enclosures 

Manufacturers’ Alliance (‘‘SDMA’’) on October 7, 

2010; Eagle Metals, Inc. and Eagle Metals 

Distributors, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Eagle Metals’’) on 

October 12, 2010, October 13, 2010, and October 21, 

2010; Aavid Thermalloy (‘‘Aavid’’) on October 13, 

2010, and October 21, 2010; Brazeway Inc. 

(‘‘Brazeway’’) on October 19, 2010, and December 

15, 2010; Maine Ornamental, LLC (‘‘Maine 

Ornamental’’) on October 22, 2010; and Hubble 

Power Systems (‘‘HPS’’) on October 26, 2010. 

Additionally, Petitioners, Floturn, SDMA, Eagle 

Metals, Aavid, Brazeway, and Maine Ornamental 

submitted scope case briefs on January 20, 2011; 

Petitioners, Floturn, SDMA, and Brazeway 

submitted scope rebuttal briefs on January 25, 2011. 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 7 and 

containing in excess of 2.0 percent zinc 

by weight. 

The scope also excludes finished 

merchandise containing aluminum 

extrusions as parts that are fully and 

permanently assembled and completed 

at the time of entry, such as finished 

windows with glass, doors with glass or 

vinyl, picture frames with glass pane 

and backing material, and solar panels. 

The scope also excludes finished goods 

containing aluminum extrusions that 

are entered unassembled in a ‘‘finished 

goods kit.’’ A finished goods kit is 

understood to mean a packaged 

combination of parts that contains, at 

the time of importation, all of the 

necessary parts to fully assemble a final 

finished good and requires no further 

finishing or fabrication, such as cutting 

or punching, and is assembled ‘as is’ 

into a finished product. An imported 

product will not be considered a 

‘finished goods kit’ and therefore 

excluded from the scope of the 

investigation merely by including 

fasteners such as screws, bolts, etc. in 

the packaging with an aluminum 

extrusion product. 

The scope also excludes aluminum 

alloy sheet or plates produced by other 

than the extrusion process, such as 

aluminum products produced by a 

method of casting. Cast aluminum 

products are properly identified by four 

digits with a decimal point between the 

third and fourth digit. A letter may also 

precede the four digits. The following 

Aluminum Association designations are 

representative of aluminum alloys for 

casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, 

C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0, 360.0, 

366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 

514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The scope also 

excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in 

any form. 

The scope also excludes collapsible 

tubular containers composed of metallic 

elements corresponding to alloy code 

1080A as designated by the Aluminum 

Association where the tubular container 

(excluding the nozzle) meets each of the 

following dimensional characteristics: 

(1) Length of 37 mm or 62 mm, (2) outer 

diameter of 11.0 mm or 12.7 mm, and 

(3) wall thickness not exceeding 0.13 

mm. 

Imports of the subject merchandise 

are provided for under the following 

categories of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’): 

7604.21.0000, 7604.29.1000, 

7604.29.3010, 7604.29.3050, 

7604.29.5030, 7604.29.5060, 

7608.20.0030, and 7608.20.0090. The 

subject merchandise entered as parts of 

other aluminum products may be 

classifiable under the following 

additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 

7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 

7616.99 as well as under other HTS 

chapters. In addition, fin evaporator 

coils may be classifiable under HTS 

numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 

8418.99.80.60. While HTS subheadings 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope in this 

proceeding is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

Concurrent with the Preliminary 

Determination, on October 27, 2010, the 

Department issued a decision 

memorandum addressing ten scope 

issues in this and the concurrent 

countervailing duty investigation on 

aluminum extrusions from the PRC.8

As stated in the Preliminary 

Determination, scope comments 

received on or after October 7, 2010, but 

prior to the Preliminary Determination 

were not submitted in time for 

consideration for the Preliminary 

Determination and that, as a result, we 

would fully consider any such 

comments for the final determination. In 

addition, it came to our attention that 

our Preliminary Scope Memorandum 

inadvertently did not address scope 

comments submitted by Petitioners on 

May 10, 2010. We provided interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

the Preliminary Scope Memorandum. In 

response, multiple parties submitted 

scope case briefs on January 20, 2011, 

and scope rebuttal briefs on January 25, 

2011. 

For the final determination, we have 

considered Petitioners’ May 10, 2010, 

scope comments, the scope comments 

provided by all parties on or after 

October 7, 2011, but prior to the 

Preliminary Determination, and the 

scope case and rebuttal briefs submitted 

on January 20 and January 25, 2011, 

respectively, and addressed these issues 

in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum.9

On May 10, 2010, and in its scope 

case brief of January 11, 2011, 

Petitioners provided a series of 

proposed wording changes to clarify the 

scope language of these investigations. 

No other party provided comments on 

these proposed changes. On February 

28, 2011, the Department requested that 

Petitioners clarify whether the Petition 

intended to cover the non-aluminum 

components of subject kits and 

subassemblies and that Petitioners 

provide language if the intent of the 

Petition was to not cover the nonaluminum components. On March 9, 

2011, Petitioners submitted clarifying 

language stipulating that it is the intent 

of the petition to cover only the 

aluminum extrusion components of 

entries of subject aluminum extrusion 

subassemblies or subject kits. 

We have adopted all of Petitioners’ 

clarifications for the final 

determination. For a complete 

discussion of the parties’ scope-related 

comments (including the clarifications 

discussed above) and the Department’s 

position, see the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum accompanying this notice 

at Comment 3, A–J. 

Targeted Dumping 

Because we are basing the margin of 

the sole mandatory respondent on total 

AFA for the final determination, we 

have not considered Petitioners’ 

targeted dumping allegation for the final 

determination. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) It is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC, pursuant 

to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) 

we have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the FOPs. See 

Preliminary Determination. For the final 

determination, we received no 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and, accordingly, made no 

changes to our findings with respect to 

the selection of a surrogate country. 

Affiliation 

For the reasons set forth in our 

Preliminary Determination, we continue 

to find the entities comprising the 

Guang Ya Group, and the entities 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 18527 

10See March 28, 2011, Memorandum regarding 

the Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination 

Regarding Affiliation and Collapsing of Guang Ya 

Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd., Foshan 

Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd., Kong Ah 

International Co., Ltd., and Guang Ya Aluminium 

Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Zhaoqing New 

Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd., Zhongya Shaped 

Aluminium (HK) Holding Ltd., Karlton Aluminum 

Co., Ltd.; and Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel 

Product Co., Ltd. (‘‘Final Affiliation/Collapsing 

Memo’’). 

11See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Sixth New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 10410, 10413 (March 

5, 2004) (‘‘Mushrooms’’), unchanged in Final Results 

and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China, 

70 FR 54361 (September 14, 2005). 12See Hontex Enterprises v. United States, 342 F. 

Supp. 2d 1225, 1230–34 (CIT 2004) (‘‘Hontex II’’). 13See January 28, 2010, Memorandum regarding 

the Verification of the Sales and Factors Responses 

of Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘ZNZ’’), Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding 

Limited (‘‘Shaped Aluminum’’) and Karlton 

Aluminum Company Ltd. (‘‘Karlton’’) (collectively 

‘‘New Zhongya’’) in the Less-Than-Fair Value 

Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘New Zhongya 

Verification Report’’), at 10. 

14Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

47198 (September 15, 2009), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

15See 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 

amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

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

1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 19 CFR 351.107(d). 

16Because there is no record information to 

indicate that Xinya, which is part of this collapsed 

entity, is an exporter to the United States, Xinya is 

not eligible for consideration of a separate rate. 

comprising New Zhongya, affiliated 

pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the 

Act, as each entity is owned by a 

member of the Kuang family. Further, 

we find that New Zhongya is affiliated 

with one of its reported customers 

during the POI pursuant to section 

771(33)(F) of the Act.10 Furthermore, we 

continue to find the Guang Ya Group/ 

New Zhongya and Xinya affiliated 

pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the 

Act. 

In making this determination, we note 

that the Guang Ya Group and New 

Zhongya each stated on the record that 

a Kuang sibling was ‘‘Shareholder’’ of 

Xinya, and though the Guang Ya Group 

also made other inconsistent statements 

regarding ownership of Xinya, neither 

party has recanted these original 

statements. Further, because the 

ownership information provided by 

Xinya could not be verified, we do not 

accord any weight to its ownership 

claims, which constitute unverifiable 

information. Thus, we continue to find 

that the record evidence indicates that 

Xinya is owned by a member of the 

Kuang family. Because each entity is 

owned by a member of the Kuang 

family, we conclude that the owners of 

Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and 

Xinya are members of a family grouping, 

pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the 

Act. Further, we find that the ownership 

by the family grouping satisfies the 

requirement of affiliation pursuant to 

section 771(33)(F) of the Act, because all 

of the companies within the Guang Ya 

Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya are 

under the common control of the family 

grouping. 

To the extent that section 771(33) of 

the Act does not conflict with the 

Department’s application of separate 

rates and enforcement of the non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) provision or section 

773(c) of the Act, the Department will 

determine that affiliated exporters and/ 

or producers are a single entity if the 

facts of the case support such a 

finding.11 The Court of International 

Trade (‘‘CIT’’) has upheld the 

Department’s practice of determining 

whether to treat two or more companies 

as a single entity for antidumping 

purposes based on a consideration of 

whether there exists a significant 

potential for manipulation of prices 

and/or export decisions.12 The 

determination to treat the Guang Ya 

Group, New Zhongya, and Xinya as a 

single entity, is based on a finding that 

the family grouping holds essentially 

full ownership of the Guang Ya Group, 

New Zhongya, and Xinya, all of which 

are producers and/or exporters of 

merchandise under consideration in this 

investigation. Therefore, in considering 

the level of common ownership 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(i), we 

find nearly 100 percent common 

ownership of the Guang Ya Group, New 

Zhongya, and Xinya by the family 

grouping. In this context, the family in 

question is the ‘‘person’’ jointly owning 

and controlling the Guang Ya Group, 

New Zhongya, and Xinya. 

Regarding 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2)(ii), the 

extent to which managerial employees 

or board members of one firm sit on the 

board of directors of an affiliated firm, 

the record of this proceeding shows that 

Kuang family members sit on the boards 

of, and have management positions at, 

the Guang Ya Group, and New Zhongya, 

as described above. With respect to the 

third criterion for finding significant 

potential for manipulation, 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(2)(iii), the presence of 

intertwined operations, information on 

the record indicates significant financial 

transactions between Xinya and the 

owner of New Zhongya, which are 

recorded as part of New Zhongya’s 

accounting records.13 Accordingly, we 

find that the relationship between the 

Guang Ya Group, New Zhongya, and 

Xinya poses a significant potential for 

the manipulation of price or production 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). 

Thus, by virtue of the common 

ownership of the three entities, family 

members on the boards of at least two 

of the companies, evidence of financial 

transactions between two of these 

entities, and the fact that all entities 

produce and/or export merchandise 

under consideration, we find that there 

exists the significant potential for 

manipulation such that the Guang Ya 

Group, New Zhongya and Xinya should 

be treated as a single entity.14

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

exporters within the country are subject 

to government control and, thus, should 

be assigned a single antidumping duty 

deposit rate. It is the Department’s 

policy to assign all exporters of 

merchandise subject to an investigation 

involving an NME country this single 

rate unless an exporter can demonstrate 

that it is sufficiently independent to be 

entitled to a separate rate.15

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that the mandatory respondent 

(i.e., the Guang Ya Group/New 

Zhongya) 16 and 29 separate-rate 

applicants demonstrated their eligibility 

for separate-rate status. Specifically, 

both Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya 

provided, and the Department 

successfully verified, the requisite 

information to demonstrate an absence 

of both de jure and de facto government 

control over their respective export 

activities. For the final determination, 

we continue to find that the Guang Ya 

Group/New Zhongya single entity is 

eligible for a separate rate. 

Further, because no parties 

commented on the separate-rate status 

of the other separate-rate applicants and 

no information has come to light that 

would alter our preliminary findings, 

we continue to find that the evidence 

placed on the record of this 

investigation by the 29 separate-rate 

applicants to whom we preliminarily 

granted separate rate status 

demonstrates both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control, with 

respect to their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation; thus 

they are eligible for separate-rate status. 

See Preliminary Determination. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

denied separate rate status to one 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
18528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 

17See Preliminary Determination, the 

Department’s June 25, 2010, letter to Shanghai 

Canghai granting the company’s request to extend 

the deadline for its SRA submission to July 2, 2010, 

and the Department’s August 18, 2010, letter to 

Shanghai Canghai regarding Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China: Supplemental 

Questionnaire—Separate Rate Application. 

18See the Department’s November 27, 2010, letter 

to Shanghai Canghai regarding re-filing its Separate 

Rate Supplemental Questionnaire. 

19See also Statement of Administrative Action 

(‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 

Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). 

20See Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA 

Memo. 

separate rate applicant, Shanghai 

Canghai Aluminum Tube Packing Co. 

(‘‘Shanghai Canghai’’), but stated that we 

would provide it with an additional 

opportunity to correct deficiencies 

submitted in its original separate rate 

application (‘‘SRA’’) and September 8, 

2010, Supplemental Questionnaire 

Response (‘‘SQR’’) to the Department’s 

supplemental questionnaire.17 On 

November 27, 2010, the Department 

sent another letter to Shanghai Canghai 

rejecting its September 8, 2010, SQR 

because of procedural deficiencies and 

because it contained insufficient 

documentation to analyze Shanghai 

Canghai’s eligibility for a separate rate, 

including incomplete narrative 

responses to the questions asked and no 

translations. In this letter, however, we 

also provided Shanghai Canghai an 

opportunity to re-submit its response to 

correct these deficiencies.18 On or about 

December 9, 2010, the Department 

received Shanghai Canghai’s response to 

the Department’s November 27, 2010, 

letter. However, the December 9, 2010, 

SQR was not filed in conformance with 

the Department’s regulations regarding 

filing, service, or certification of 

documents (see 19 CFR 351.303). 

Further, Shanghai Canghai’s December 

9, 2010, SQR again provided no 

narrative responses to any of the 

Department’s questions from the 

separate-rate application. As a result, on 

March 17, 2011, the Department sent a 

letter to Shanghai Canghai rejecting its 

December 9, 2010, response. Because 

Shanghai Canghai has failed to respond 

adequately to the Department’s request 

for separate rate information despite 

being given several opportunities to do 

so, the Department has not considered 

Shanghai Canghai’s submission for the 

final determination nor retained it for 

the record. Thus, for this final 

determination, we are not granting 

Shanghai Canghai a separate rate, and it 

is part of the PRC-wide entity. 

Margin for the Separate Rate 

Companies 

Since we assigned the individually 

examined respondent a dumping margin 

based on total AFA, we do not have any 

mandatory respondents in this 

investigation whose dumping margin is 

not based on AFA. Thus, we have 

assigned the 29 separate rate applicants 

to whom we are granting a separate rate 

a dumping margin based on the simple 

average of the margins alleged in the 

petition, as recalculated for the final 

determination. 

Use of Facts Available 

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 by the Department, subject to 

sections 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. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from {the 

Department} for information, notifies 

{the Department} that such party is 

unable to submit the information 

requested in the requested form and 

manner, together with a full explanation 

and suggested alternative forms in 

which such party is able to submit the 

information,’’ the Department may 

modify the requirements to avoid 

imposing an unreasonable burden on 

that party. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e), disregard all or part of 

the original and subsequent responses, 

as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: 

(1) The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the Department ‘‘finds that 

an interested party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information from the {Department}, the 

{Department}, in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title, may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’ 19

For this final determination, in 

accordance with sections 773(c)(3)(A) 

and (B) of the Act and sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) and 776(b) 

of the Act, we have determined that the 

use of AFA is warranted for the Guang 

Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya, and the 

PRC-wide entity as discussed below. 

Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya 

The Department has determined that 

the information to construct an accurate 

and otherwise reliable margin is not 

available on the record with respect to 

the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/ 

Xinya. The Department reached this 

determination because the Guang Ya 

Group/New Zhongya/Xinya withheld 

information that had been requested, 

failed to provide such information in a 

timely manner or in the form or manner 

requested, significantly impeded this 

proceeding, and provided information 

that could not be verified, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A), (B), (C) 

and (D) of the of Act.20 Specifically, 

Guang Ya Group’s narrative 

questionnaire responses did not 

comport with the data sections of those 

same responses; moreover, the factors of 

production data submitted by Guang Ya 

Group post-verification did not reflect 

the data verified by the Department at 

Guang Ya Group’s facilities. New 

Zhongya mis-reported a portion of its 

U.S. sales indicating that they were 

constructed export price sales to the 

first unaffiliated party in the United 

States when in fact they were the 

transfer price sales to its U.S. affiliated 

party. Finally, Xinya provided no 

documentation at verification to 

demonstrate its claimed ownership. For 

additional detail, see Guang Ya Group/ 

New Zhongya/Xinya AFA Memo. As a 

result, the Department has determined 

to apply the facts otherwise available. 

Further, because the Department finds 

that the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/ 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 18529 

21See Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya AFA 

Memo. 

22See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 

(May 3, 2000). 

23See Amended Preliminary Determination; see 

also the December 10, 2010, Memorandum to the 

File, regarding the Investigation of Certain 

Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic 

of China: Petition Rate recalculation; (‘‘Amended 

Prelim Petition Rate Recalculation Memo’’); and the 

December 10, 2010, Memorandum to the File, 

regarding the Amended Preliminary Determination 

Analysis Memorandum (‘‘Amended Preliminary 

Determination Analysis Memo’’). 

24See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo. 

25See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8932 (February 23, 1998). 

26See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the 

Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 

(November 18, 2005); See also SAA at 870. 

27See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 

(December 28, 2005) unchanged in final, Certain 

Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

38366 (July 6, 2006), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. 

28See 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 ‘‘Facts 

Available.’’ 

29See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; see also 

Comment 1C, Labor Wage Rate in the 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

30See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

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

65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000); see, e.g., 

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). 

31See Amended Preliminary Determination; see 

also Amended Prelim Petition Rate Recalculation 

Memo; and the December 21, 2010, Memorandum 

to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, from Wendy Frankel, 

Director, Office 8, entitled ‘‘Ministerial Error 

Memorandum, Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China, Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value’’ 

(‘‘Ministerial Error Memo’’), at Issue 4. 

Xinya failed to cooperate to the best of 

its ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, the Department has determined 

to use an adverse inference when 

applying facts available for the final 

determination in this investigation.21

The PRC-Wide Entity 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

an NME country are subject to 

government control, and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section, below, 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate (i.e., 

the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters 

of subject merchandise from the PRC 

because these other companies did not 

demonstrate entitlement to a separate 

rate.22 The PRC-wide rate applies to all 

entries of subject merchandise except 

for entries from the companies eligible 

for separate rate status. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that there were 

producers/exporters of the subject 

merchandise during the POI from the 

PRC that did not respond to the 

Department’s request for information. 

Further, we treated these PRC 

producers/exporters as part of the PRCwide entity because they did not 

demonstrate their eligibility for a 

separate rate. Additionally, as a result of 

the PRC-wide entity’s failure to respond 

to our requests for information we 

further determined that, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the PRCwide entity failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See id. 

Accordingly, we also determined that in 

selecting from among the facts available 

an adverse inference was warranted 

because of the PRC-wide entity’s failure 

to cooperate to the best of its ability. As 

AFA, we preliminarily assigned to the 

PRC-wide entity a recalculated rate of 

33.18 percent, the highest calculated 

rate from the petition, as recalculated 

for the Amended Preliminary 

Determination.23 See Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 

1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). 

Because the PRC-wide entity did not 

respond to our requests for information, 

significantly impeded the proceeding, 

and withheld information requested by 

the Department, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, we 

determine, as in the Preliminary 

Determination, that in selecting from 

among the facts available an adverse 

inference is appropriate to determine 

the PRC-wide rate, recalculated for the 

final determination, because of the PRCwide entity’s failure to cooperate to the 

best of its ability.24

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the 

Department may rely on information 

derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 

Department selects a rate that is 

sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the 

purpose of the facts available rule to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner.’’ 25 It is 

also the Department’s practice to select 

a rate that ensures ‘‘that the party does 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ 26

Generally, the Department finds 

selecting the highest rate in any segment 

of the proceeding as AFA to be 

appropriate.27 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.28 In the instant 

investigation, as AFA, we have assigned 

to the PRC-wide entity the highest 

petition rate (as recalculated for the 

final determination) on the record of 

this proceeding that can be 

corroborated, 33.28 percent, as recalculated for the final determination.29

For the final determination in this 

investigation, the Department has 

selected this rate as the most 

appropriate from the available sources 

to effectuate the purposes of AFA. 

Accordingly, the Department has 

assigned both the Guang Ya Group/New 

Zhongya/Xinya and the PRC-wide entity 

an AFA rate of 33.28 percent. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information in using the facts 

otherwise available, it must, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. We 

have interpreted ‘‘corroborate’’ to mean 

that we will, to the extent practicable, 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information submitted.30

As total AFA, the Department 

preliminarily selected the highest 

adjusted petition rate of 33.28 percent.31

In the Amended Preliminary 

Determination, in accordance with 

section 776(c) of the Act, we 

corroborated our AFA margin by 

comparing it to the control number 

(‘‘CONNUM’’) margins we found for the 

cooperating mandatory respondents. We 

found that the margin of 33.18 percent 

had probative value because it was in 

the range of CONNUM model margins 

we found for the mandatory 

respondents, the Guang Ya Group/New 

Zhongya/Xinya, during the period of 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
18530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 

32See Amended Preliminary Determination 

Analysis Memo. 33 Id. 

34See Petition Rate Recalculation Memo; see also 

Comment 1C, Labor Wage Rate in the 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

35See Preliminary Determination; see also 

Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 75 FR 22109 (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

36See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries’’ dated April 5, 2005, available 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html. 

investigation.32 Accordingly, we found 

that the rate of 33.28 percent, which is 

only one tenth of a one percent 

difference from the rate applied in the 

Amended Preliminary Determination is 

corroborated within the meaning of 

section 776(c) of the Act.33

Because there are no cooperating 

mandatory respondents to corroborate 

the 33.28 percent margin used as AFA 

for the Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/ 

Xinya and the PRC-wide entity, to the 

extent appropriate information was 

available, we revisited our pre-initiation 

analysis of the adequacy and accuracy 

of the information in the petition. See 

Antidumping Duty Investigation 

Initiation Checklist: Aluminum 

Extrusions from the People’s Republic 

of China, dated April 20, 2010 

(‘‘Initiation Checklist’’). We examined 

evidence supporting the calculations in 

the petition and the supplemental 

information provided by Petitioners 

prior to initiation to determine the 

probative value of the margins alleged 

in the petition. During our pre-initiation 

analysis, we examined the information 

used as the basis of export price and 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the petition, and 

the calculations used to derive the 

alleged margins. Also during our preinitiation analysis, we examined 

information from various independent 

sources provided either in the petition 

or, based on our requests, in 

supplements to the petition (e.g., Global 

Trade Atlas, and Petitioners’ experience 

with selling and producing the 

merchandise under consideration), 

which corroborated key elements of the 

export price and NV calculations. See 

Initiation Checklist at 6–10. We received 

no comments as to the relevance or 

probative value of this information. In 

our examination of the petition data to 

corroborate the 33.28 percent AFA rate 

for the final determination, the 

Department found nothing impinging 

the reliability or relevance of the 

petition rate, as adjusted. 

We did receive comments on the 

Department’s wage rate calculation, 

which was utilized to derive the 

petition margin. We have evaluated 

those comments and recalculated the 

labor wage rate used in calculating the 

Petition margin.34

Therefore, the Department finds that 

the margin of 33.28 percent has 

probative value for the purpose of being 

selected as the AFA rate assigned to the 

Guang Ya Group/New Zhongya/Xinya 

and the PRC-wide entity. 

Combination Rates 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department stated that it would assign 

combination rates for respondents that 

are eligible for a separate rate in this 

investigation.35 This practice is 

described in the Separate Rate Policy 

Bulletin.36

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted-average dumping 

margin percentages are as follows: 

Exporter * Producer 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.; Foshan 

Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah International 

Company Limited; Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong 

Kong) Limited.

Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.; Foshan 

Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah International 

Company Limited; Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong 

Kong) Limited; Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd.; 

Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited; Karlton 

Aluminum Company Ltd.; Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel 

Product Co., Ltd. (A.K.A. New Asia Aluminum & Stainless 

Steel Product Co., Ltd.).

33.28 

Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Zhongya Shaped 

Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited; Karlton Aluminum Company Ltd.

Guang Ya Aluminium Industries Co., Ltd.; Foshan 

Guangcheng Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Kong Ah International 

Company Limited; Guang Ya Aluminium Industries (Hong 

Kong) Limited; Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Ltd.; 

Zhongya Shaped Aluminium (HK) Holding Limited; Karlton 

Aluminum Company Ltd.; Xinya Aluminum & Stainless Steel 

Product Co., Ltd. (A.K.A. New Asia Aluminum & Stainless 

Steel Product Co., Ltd.).

33.28 

Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd ........................................................... Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd .......................................................... 32.79 

Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Products Co., Ltd ............... Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Products Co., Ltd .............. 32.79 

China Square Industrial Limited ................................................. Zhaoqing China Square Industry Limited .................................. 32.79 

Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium Co., Ltd ................................................ Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium Co., Ltd.; Jiangmen Qunxing Hardware Diecasting Co., Ltd.32.79 

First Union Property Limited ....................................................... Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd ............................................................. 32.79 

Foshan Jinlan Non-ferrous Metal Product Co. Ltd ..................... Foshan Jinlan Aluminium Co. Ltd .............................................. 32.79 

Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Co., Ltd .............................. Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Co., Ltd ............................. 32.79 

Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd ................................... Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd .................................. 32.79 

Guangdong Weiye Aluminium Factory Co., Ltd ......................... Guangdong Weiye Aluminium Factory Co., Ltd ........................ 32.79 

Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co., Ltd ...................................... Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co., Ltd ..................................... 32.79 

Hanwood Enterprises Limited ..................................................... Pingguo Aluminium Company Limited ....................................... 32.79 

Honsense Development Company ............................................. Kanal Precision Aluminium Product Co., Ltd ............................ 32.79 

Innovative Aluminium (Hong Kong) Limited ............................... Taishan Golden Gain Aluminium Products Limited ................... 32.79 

Jiangyin Trust International Inc ................................................... Jiangyin Xinhong Doors and Windows Co., Ltd ........................ 32.79 

JMA (HK) Company Limited ....................................................... Guangdong Jianmei Aluminum Profile Company Limited; 

Foshan JMA Aluminium Company Limited.

32.79 

Kam Kiu Aluminium Products Sdn Bhd ...................................... Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd .............. 32.79 

Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd ............................................... Shandong Nanshan Aluminum Co., Ltd .................................... 32.79 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 18531 

37See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with 

this notice; see also Memorandum: Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Aluminum Extrusions from 

the People’s Republic of China: Derivation of 

Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Net Subsidy Rate 

Applied in Final Determination (March 28, 2011). 

38 Id. 

Exporter * Producer 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

Ningbo Yili Import and Export Co., Ltd ....................................... Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang Aluminum Co., Ltd ................................ 32.79 

North China Aluminum Co., Ltd .................................................. North China Aluminum Co., Ltd ................................................. 32.79 

PanAsia Aluminium (China) Limited ........................................... PanAsia Aluminium (China) Limited .......................................... 32.79 

Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd ................................................ Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd ............................................... 32.79 

Popular Plastics Co., Ltd ............................................................ Hoi Tat Plastic Mould & Metal Factory ...................................... 32.79 

Press Metal International Ltd ...................................................... Press Metal International Ltd ..................................................... 32.79 

Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium Industry Engineering Co. Ltd ..... Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory Company Limited; Guang 

Ya Aluminum Industries Co., Ltd.

32.79 

Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd ......................................... Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd ........................................ 32.79 

Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission Technology Co., Ltd Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission Technology Co., Ltd 32.79 

USA Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd; Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co.USA Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd .............. 32.79 

Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd ............. Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd ............ 32.79 

Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium Factory Ltd .................... Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium Factory Ltd ................... 32.79 

PRC-wide Entity .......................................................................... .................................................................................................... 33.28 

* Because Xinya did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, for the final determination, Xinya is not being considered for a separate rate. 

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). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all imports of subject 

merchandise entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination 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 follows: (1) The rate for the 

exporter/producer combinations listed 

in the chart above will be the rate we 

have determined in this final 

determination; (2) for all PRC exporters 

of subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash-deposit 

rate will be the PRC-wide rate; and 

(3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter/producer combination that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

suspension-of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

Additionally, as the Department has 

determined in its concurrent CVD 

investigation that the merchandise 

under investigation exported by the 

Guang Ya Group and New Zhongya 

benefitted from export subsidies, 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 the Guang Ya Group/New 

Zhongya/Xinya, as indicated above, 

reduced by the simple average of the 

amounts determined to constitute 

export subsidies for the Guang Ya Group 

and New Zhongya (0.26 percent).37 For 

the separate-rate companies, none of 

which were selected as respondents in 

the CVD investigation, we will instruct 

CBP to reduce the dumping margin by 

the amount of export subsidies included 

in the All Others rate from the CVD final 

determination (42.16 percent), 

published concurrently with this 

notice.38

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

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

45 days, determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

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

Act. 

Dated: March 28, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—List of Issues 

I. General Issues 

Comment 1: Labor Wage Rate 

A. Whether the Department Should 

Calculate the Surrogate Value for Labor 

Using Multiple Surrogate Countries or a 

Single Country, India 

B. If the Department Continues to Rely on 

a Basket of Countries, Whether that Data 

Should Be Limited to 2006 Data Onward 

and Should Exclude Ecuador 

C. Whether the Department’s Wage Rate 

Calculation as to the Ukraine is in Error 

D. Whether To Use 2009 GNI Data Because 

it is Contemporaneous With the POI 

E. Whether To Revise the Department’s 

‘‘Bookend’’ Countries Using Absolute 

Differences in GNI Data 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
18532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 

F. Whether To Use the 2008 Wage Data for 

the Philippines Rather Than the 2003 

Data 

Comment 2: Double Remedies 

Comment 3: Scope of the Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Investigations 

A. Petitioners’ Proposed Changes to the 

Scope 

B. Clarifying Language for Covered Kits 

and Subassemblies 

C. Certain Special High Purity/High 

Accuracy OPC Tubes 

D. Shower Doors 

E. Finish Types 

F. Wall Thicknesses of Various Sizes 

G. Heat Sinks 

H. Baluster Kits 

I. Grading Rings 

J. Aluminum Tubes and Fin Evaporator 

Coils 

Comment 4: Affiliation and Collapsing 

Comment 5: Application of Total AFA 

Comment 6: Whether To Recalculate Billet 

Consumption Using Partial AFA or 

Neutral Facts Available 

Comment 7: Whether To Apply Partial AFA 

To New Zhongya’s Constructed Export 

Price Sales 

II. Other Issues 

Because the issues identified below have 

been rendered moot by the Department’s 

Application of Total AFA to the Guang Ya 

Group/New Zhongya/Xinya Single Entity, we 

have not responded to these comments for 

the final determination. 

A. General Issues 

Æ Targeted Dumping 

Æ Financial Ratios 

Æ Surrogate Value for Aluminum Ingots 

Æ Surrogate Value for Coating Powders 

Æ Surrogate Value for Paints 

Æ Surrogate Values for New Factors of 

Production: Aluminum Billets, Sodium 

Carbonate, Hydrochloric Acid, and 

Paints 

Æ Surrogate Values for Movement 

Expenses: Foreign Inland Freight, Barge 

Freight, Foreign Brokerage and Handling, 

Ocean Freight, U.S. Brokerage and 

Handling, and U.S. Inland Freight 

B. The Guang Ya Group Issues 

Æ Whether To Apply Partial AFA to 

Channel One Sales 

Æ Whether To Recalculate Credit Expenses 

Using Partial AFA 

Æ Whether To Include Bad Debt in Indirect 

Selling Expenses 

Æ Treatment of Sample Sales 

Æ Whether To Deduct Discounts from U.S. 

Price 

Æ Whether To Use AFA to Value Alkali 

Etching 

Æ Surrogate Value for Steel Shelves 

C. New Zhongya Issues 

Æ Whether To Use New Zhongya’s Market 

Economy Price For Aluminum Ingots 

Æ Whether To Recalculate Surrogate Value 

for Sodium Hydroxide and Ammonium 

Bifluoride 

Æ Whether To Use AFA To Value 

Aluminum Sealant, Chromaking Agent, 

Long Life Additive for Alkaline Etching, 

Deslagging Agent and Refining Agent 

Æ Wood Packing Materials 

Æ Whether To Value Movement Expenses 

Using Surrogate Values 

Æ Whether To Deduct the Difference 

Between Freight Costs and Freight 

Revenue 

Æ Whether To Treat Scrap Aluminum 

Ingot as a Direct Material Rather Than a 

Scrap Offset 

Æ How To Account for the Full Weight of 

All Packaging Materials 

Æ Whether To Value Wood Packing 

Materials Using AFA 

[FR Doc. 2011–7927 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA345 

Fisheries of the South Atlantic; 

Southeast Data, Assessment, and 

Review (SEDAR); Assessment Process 

Webinars for South Atlantic Black Sea 

Bass (Centropristis striata) and Golden 

Tilefish (Lopholatilus 

chamaeleonticeps). 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of two SEDAR 25 South 

Atlantic assessment webinars for black 

sea bass and golden tilefish. 

SUMMARY: The SEDAR 25 assessments of 

the South Atlantic black sea bass and 

golden tilefish will consist of a series of 

workshops and webinars: This notice is 

for two webinars associated with the 

Data and Assessment portions of the 

SEDAR process. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

DATES: The SEDAR 25 ‘post-data, preassessment’ webinars will be held 

between May 25, 2011 and June 8, 2011. 

Please see list below for exact dates and 

times. The established times may be 

adjusted as necessary to accommodate 

the timely completion of discussion 

relevant to the assessment process. Such 

adjustments may result in the meeting 

being extended from, or completed prior 

to the time established by this notice. 

Webinar Date Day Time (Eastern) 

1 .................................... May 25, 2011 .................................................. Wednesday ..................................................... 1pm–4 pm. 

2 .................................... June 8, 2011 ................................................... Wednesday ..................................................... 9 am–12 pm. 

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held 

via webinar. The webinar is open to 

members of the public. Those interested 

in participating should contact Kari 

Fenske at SEDAR (See FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT to request an 

invitation providing webinar access 

information.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kari 

Fenske, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber 

Place, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 

29405; telephone: (843) 571–4366; email: kari.fenske@safmc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

of Mexico, South Atlantic, and 

Caribbean Fishery Management 

Councils, in conjunction with NOAA 

Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commissions 

have implemented the Southeast Data, 

Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 

process, a multi-step method for 

determining the status of fish stocks in 

the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a threestep process including: (1) Data 

Workshop, (2) Assessment Process 

utilizing webinars and workshops (3) 

Review Workshop. The product of the 

Data Workshop is a data report which 

compiles and evaluates potential 

datasets and recommends which 

datasets are appropriate for assessment 

analyses. The product of the Assessment 

Process is a stock assessment report 

which describes the fisheries, evaluates 

the status of the stock, estimates 

biological benchmarks, projects future 

population conditions, and recommends 

research and monitoring needs. The 

assessment is independently peer 

reviewed at the Review Workshop. The 

product of the Review Workshop is a 

Summary documenting Panel opinions 

regarding the strengths and weaknesses 

of the stock assessment and input data. 

Participants for SEDAR Workshops are 

appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South 

Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery 

Management Councils and NOAA 

Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, 

HMS Management Division, and 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 

Participants include data collectors and 

database managers; stock assessment 

scientists, biologists, and researchers; 

constituency representatives including 

fishermen, environmentalists, and 

NGOs; International experts; and staff of 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES