68758 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 

1The Department generally does not include 

merchandise that entered the United States during 

the provisional measures gap period (‘‘gap period’’), 

in this case, September 22, 2008, to October 2, 2008, 

in our margin calculation because these entries are 

not subject to antidumping duties. See, e.g., Notice 

of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium 

from France, 69 FR 3883 (January 27, 2004). 

However, for the purposes of these preliminary 

results, we are basing the margin calculation on all 

reported U.S. sales made during the POR because 

we are unable to determine whether any of the 

respondents’ reported U.S. sales entered during the 

gap period. 

2M&B Metal Products Co., Inc. 

3 Department practice dictates that where a 

deadline falls on a weekend, the appropriate 

(minor amendment issued on May 26, 

2006), authorizes the permit holder to 

conduct research to determine the 

abundance, distribution, movement 

patterns, habitat use, contaminant 

levels, prey, behavior, energetics, and 

stock structure of cetacean species in 

the eastern North Pacific off the coast of 

Washington, Oregon, and California. 

These studies are carried out through 

vessel surveys, photo-identification 

from large and small vessels, biological 

sample collection, passive acoustic 

monitoring, and satellite/radio and data 

log/time-depth tagging and tracking. 

The permit authorizes NWFSC to take 

endangered blue whales (Balaenoptera 

musculus), fin whales (Balaenoptera 

physalus), humpback whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm 

whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and 

Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW, 

Orcinus orca), as well as 15 non-ESAlisted cetacean species. The permit 

expires on April 14, 2011. 

The permit holder is requesting the 

permit be amended to increase the 

number of SRKW suction cup tagged 

(from 10 to 20 animals annually) and to 

add satellite tagging of six SRKW with 

dart tags annually. The primary purpose 

of this request is to determine winter 

ranges and increase data on distribution 

patterns of SRKW for use in critical 

habitat determinations. The activities 

are requested for the duration of the 

permit. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a draft 

supplemental environmental assessment 

(SEA) has been prepared to examine 

whether significant environmental 

impacts could result from issuance of 

the proposed scientific research permit. 

The draft SEA is available for review 

and comment simultaneous with the 

scientific research permit application. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register, 

NMFS is forwarding copies of this 

application to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: November 3, 2010. 

P. Michael Payne, 

Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28271 Filed 11–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–918] 

Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary 

Rescission, in Part, of the First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting the first 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on steel wire 

garment hangers from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period 

March 25, 2008, through September 30, 

2009. The Department has preliminarily 

determined that sales have been made 

below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by the 

respondents. If these preliminary results 

are adopted in our final results of this 

review, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’). Interested parties are 

invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 9, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Gorelik or Josh Startup, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6905 or (202) 482– 

5260, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 6, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on steel wire 

garment hangers (‘‘hangers’’) from the 

PRC. See Notice of Antidumping Duty 

Order: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from 

the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 

58111 (October 6, 2008). On October 1, 

2009, the Department published in the 

Federal Register a notice of opportunity 

to request an administrative review of 

hangers from the PRC for the period 

March 25, 2008, to September 30, 

2009.1 See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 74 

FR 50772 (October 1, 2009). On October 

30, 2009, certain PRC exporters 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review. On November 

2, 2009, Petitioner 2 also requested that 

the Department conduct an 

administrative review of 187 companies. 

On November 25, 2009, the Department 

initiated this review of hangers from the 

PRC with respect to 187 requested 

companies covering the period of March 

25, 2008, through September 30, 2009. 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 74 FR 61658 (November 25, 

2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

Between December 28, 2009, and 

January 21, 2010, we received separate 

rate certifications or applications from 

15 exporters, in addition to those 

received from the mandatory 

respondents as discussed in the 

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section below. 

For a detailed discussion of the separate 

rate applicants, see the ‘‘Separate Rates’’ 

section below. Additionally, between 

December 16, 2009, and December 28, 

2009, the Department received noshipment certifications from five 

companies. For a detailed discussion of 

the companies that certified they had no 

shipments during the POR, see the 

‘‘Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review’’ section below. 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

See Memorandum to the Record 

regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative 

Deadlines As a Result of the 

Government Closure During the Recent 

Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. On April 30, 2010, the 

Department also published a notice in 

the Federal Register extending the 

deadline for issuing the preliminary 

results by 120 days to November 7, 

2010.3 See First Antidumping Duty 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 68759 

deadline is the next business day. See Notice of 

Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ 

Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines 

Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 

FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 

4See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding 

respondent selection, in general. 

5See ‘‘Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Josh Startup, 

Analyst; First Administrative Review of Steel Wire 

Garment Hangers from the People’s Republic of 

China: Selection of Respondents for Individual 

Review,’’ dated February 12, 2010. 

6See, e.g., Fourth Administrative Review of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results, 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke, 

In Part, 75 FR 11855 (March 12, 2010), unchanged 

in Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

49460 (August 13, 2010). 

7While HK Wells is not a producer of hangers, 

we note that where companies are affiliated, and 

there exists a significant potential for manipulation 

of prices and/or export decisions, the Department 

has found it appropriate to treat those companies 

as a single entity. The Court of International Trade 

upheld the Department’s decision to include export 

decisions in its analysis of whether there was a 

significant potential for manipulation. See Hontex 

Enterprises v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 

1343 (CIT 2003). In this case, not only is HK Wells 

an exporter of subject merchandise, but it is an 

exporter of the subject merchandise produced by its 

affiliate, Shanghai Wells. 

Administrative Review of Steel Wire 

Hangers From the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results, 75 FR 22739 (April 

30, 2010). 

Respondent Selection 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), directs the 

Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter or producer of the subject 

merchandise.4 However, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 

Department the discretion to limit its 

examination to a reasonable number of 

exporters or producers if it is not 

practicable to examine all exporters or 

producers involved in an administrative 

review. 

On November 30, 2009, the 

Department released CBP data for 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR under administrative protective 

order (‘‘APO’’) to all interested parties 

having an APO as of five days after 

publication of the Initiation Notice, and 

invited comments regarding the CBP 

data and respondent selection. The 

Department received comments and 

rebuttal comments from Petitioner and 

certain PRC exporters between 

November 30, 2009, and December 7, 

2009. 

On February 12, 2010, the Department 

issued the respondent selection 

memorandum after assessing its 

resources and determining that it could 

only reasonably examine two exporters 

subject to this review. Pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the 

Department selected Shanghai Wells 

Hanger Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Wells’’) and 

Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Shaoxing Dingli’’) as mandatory 

respondents.5 The Department sent the 

non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

antidumping questionnaire to Shanghai 

Wells and Shaoxing Dingli on February 

12, 2010. 

Period of Review 

The POR is March 25, 2008, to 

September 30, 2009. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following companies made no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR: Viet Anh Import-Export 

Joint Stock Company; Dong Nam A Co., 

Ltd.; Vietnam Hangers Joint Stock 

Company; Royal McGoun Chemicals 

Inc.; and NV Hanger Co., Ltd. As stated 

above, the Department received noshipment certifications from the 

aforementioned companies between 

December 16, 2009, and December 28, 

2009. 

The Department also issued a noshipments inquiry to CBP, asking it to 

provide any information contrary to our 

CBP run showing zero entries of subject 

merchandise for merchandise 

manufactured and shipped by the 

aforementioned companies. We did not 

receive any response from CBP 

indicating whether there were any 

entries of subject merchandise into the 

United States during the POR which 

were exported by these companies. 

Consequently, we preliminary 

determine that none of the above-named 

companies had shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR, and we are preliminarily 

rescinding the review with respect to 

the above-named companies.6

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise that is subject to the 

order is steel wire garment hangers, 

fabricated from carbon steel wire, 

whether or not galvanized or painted, 

whether or not coated with latex or 

epoxy or similar gripping materials, 

and/or whether or not fashioned with 

paper covers or capes (with or without 

printing) and/or nonslip features such 

as saddles or tubes. These products may 

also be referred to by a commercial 

designation, such as shirt, suit, strut, 

caped, or latex (industrial) hangers. 

Specifically excluded from the scope of 

the order are wooden, plastic, and other 

garment hangers that are not made of 

steel wire. Also excluded from the scope 

of the order are chrome-plated steel wire 

garment hangers with a diameter of 3.4 

mm or greater. The products subject to 

the order are currently classified under 

U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings 7326.20.0020 

and 7323.99.9060. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Affiliation/Single Entity 

Based on the evidence presented in 

the Shanghai Wells’ questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily find that 

Shanghai Wells, Hong Kong Wells 

Limited (‘‘HK Wells’’), and Hong Kong 

Wells Limited (USA) are affiliated, 

pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (E), and 

(F) of the Act. In addition, based on the 

evidence presented in its questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily find that 

Shanghai Wells and HK Wells should be 

treated as a single entity for the 

purposes of this administrative review. 

This finding is based on our 

determination that HK Wells is involved 

in the export of subject merchandise 

produced by Shanghai Wells and that a 

significant potential for manipulation of 

price or production exists between these 

two entities.7 See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) 

and (2). For further discussion of the 

Department’s affiliation and singleentity decisions, see ‘‘Memorandum to 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from 

Irene Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary 

Results in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Steel Wire 

Garment Hangers from the People’s 

Republic of China: Affiliation/Single 

Entity Memorandum for Shanghai Wells 

Hanger Co., Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently 

with this notice. Consequently, we have 

calculated a single antidumping duty 

rate for the single entity comprised of 

Shanghai Wells and HK Wells, 

hereinafter referred to as the Wells 

Group. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value 

Data 

On March 25, 2010, the Department 

sent interested parties a letter inviting 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and information regarding 

valuing factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’). 

On May 21, 2010, Petitioner filed 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
68760 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 

8 19 CFR 351.408(b). 

9The Department notes that these six countries 

are part of a non-exhaustive list of countries that are 

at a level of economic development comparable to 

the PRC. See the Department’s letter to ‘‘All 

Interested Parties; First Administrative Review of 

Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People’s 

Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country 

and Surrogate Value Comments,’’ dated March 25, 

2010 at 1 and Attachment I. 

comments on surrogate country 

selection, stating India, the Philippines, 

Indonesia and Thailand may be 

appropriate surrogates if there were 

publicly available, reliable and 

contemporaneous data for them, and 

Shaoxing Dingli filed comments 

recommending the Department select 

India as a surrogate country. On June 1, 

2010, the Department received 

information to value FOPs from 

Shaoxing Dingli and Petitioner. On June 

1, 2010, the Department also received 

surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) information from 

Fabricare Choice Distributors Group, an 

interested party. On June 11, 2010, 

Petitioner and Shaoxing Dingli filed 

rebuttal comments with respect to SVs. 

On June 21, 2010, Petitioner and 

Shaoxing Dingli provided additional 

factual information concerning SV 

information. On July 1, 2010, Shaoxing 

Dingli filed rebuttal comments to 

Petitioner’s factual information 

concerning SV information. Both 

Petitioner and Shaoxing Dingli provided 

SVs from sources in India, while 

Petitioner also provided SVs from 

Thailand. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country and 

available information does not permit 

the Department to determine NV 

pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, 

then, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, the Department bases NV on an 

NME producer’s FOPs, to the extent 

possible, in one or more marketeconomy countries that (1) are at a level 

of economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country, and (2) are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. Regarding the ‘‘level of 

economic development,’’ the 

Department places primary emphasis on 

per capita gross national income (‘‘GNI’’) 

as the measure of economic 

comparability.8 Using per capita GNI, 

the Department determined that India, 

Indonesia, Philippines, Peru, Ukraine 

and Thailand are countries comparable 

to the PRC in terms of economic 

development.9 Once we have identified 

the countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC, we select an 

appropriate surrogate country by 

determining whether an economically 

comparable country is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise 

and whether the data for valuing FOPs 

are both available and reliable. 

Regarding the ‘‘significant producer’’ 

prong of section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act, 

the Department identified all countries 

that had exports of comparable 

merchandise (defined as exports under 

HTS 7326.20, 7323.99, the HTS 

numbers identified in the scope of the 

order) between 2007 and 2009, and 

deemed such countries to be significant 

producers. In this case, we have defined 

a ‘‘significant producer’’ as a country 

that has exported comparable 

merchandise in between 2007 and 2009. 

The Department has determined that 

India is the appropriate surrogate 

country for use in this review. The 

Department based its decision on the 

following facts: (1) India is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise; 

and (3) India provides the best 

opportunity to use quality, publicly 

available data to value the FOPs. 

Although Petitioner provided SV data 

for both Thailand and India, India’s data 

is the best available data on the record 

for selection as the primary surrogate. 

Therefore, we have selected India as the 

surrogate country and, accordingly, 

have calculated NV using Indian prices 

to value the respondent’s FOPs, when 

available and appropriate. We have 

obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every proceeding conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, we have 

treated it as an NME country. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a 

country is an NME shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the Department. See, 

e.g., Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 

Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 

2006). None of the parties to this 

proceeding have contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, the Department 

calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Separate Rates 

To obtain separate rate status, the 

Department requires exporters and 

producers to submit a separate rate 

status certification and/or application. 

See Separate Rates and Combination 

Rates in Antidumping Investigations 

involving Non-Market Economy 

Countries, 70 FR 17233 (April 5, 2005) 

(‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’), also available at: 

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

However, the standard for eligibility for 

a separate rate (which is whether a firm 

can demonstrate an absence of both de 

jure and de facto government control 

over its export activities) has not 

changed. 

As noted above, a designation of a 

country as an NME remains in effect 

until it is revoked by the Department. 

See section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act. In 

proceedings involving NME countries, it 

is the Department’s practice to begin 

with a rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. See Policy Bulletin 05.1; see 

also Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In 

Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From 

the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 

53079, 53080 (September 8, 2006); and 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Final Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 29307 

(May 22, 2006). 

It is the Department’s policy to assign 

all NME exporters of merchandise 

subject to an administrative review this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

affirmatively demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent from 

government control so as to be entitled 

to a separate rate. See Policy Bulletin 

05.1. The Department analyzes each 

entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as 

further developed in 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’’). 

However, if the Department determines 

that a company is wholly foreign-owned 

or located in a market economy (‘‘ME’’) 

country, then a separate rate analysis is 

not necessary to determine whether it is 

independent from government control. 

See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum 

Wax Candles from the People’s Republic 

of China, 72 FR 52355, 52356 

(September 13, 2007). 

Excluding the companies selected for 

individual review, the Department 

received separate rate applications or 

certifications from the following 15 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 68761 

10The Department inadvertently misspelled 

Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd.’s name in the 

Initiation Notice as ‘‘Jianxing Boyi Medical Device 

Co., Ltd.’’ The name has been corrected for these 

preliminary results. 

11See Shanghai Wells’ Section A Questionnaire 

Response, dated March 12, 2010, at 2. 

12See, e.g, Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate 

from the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 

71104–05 (December 20, 1999) (where the 

respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, 

qualified for a separate rate). 

13See Shaoxing Dingli’s Section A Questionnaire 

Response, dated March 8, 2010, at 2. 

14See, e.g., Shaoxing Dingli’s Section A 

Questionnaire Response dated March 8, 2010, at 2– 

4; Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.’s 

Separate Rate Certification dated December 28, 

2009, at 4; Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., 

Ltd.’s Separate Rate Certification dated December 

28, 2009, at 4–5. 

15See, e.g., Shaoxing Dingli’s Section A 

Questionnaire Response dated September 5, 2008, 

at 5–9; Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co., 

Ltd.’s Separate Rate Certification dated December 

28, 2009, at 5; Shaoxing Andrew Metal 

Manufactured Co., Ltd.’s Separate Rate Certification 

dated December 28, 2009, at 7. 

16See Petitioner’s November 2, 2009, review 

request. These 70 companies are: Ahlers Vina 

Logistics; Alpi Trading Service Co., Ltd.; Amerasian 

Shipping Logistics Corp.; Anc Service Co., Ltd.; 

Angang Clothes Rack Manufacture Co.; Apex 

Holding Group Limited.; Arturo Huizar Velazquez; 

Biz Sources Inc. (Biz Sources PTY Ltd.); Canada 

Cleaning Supply Corp.; Centurion Logistics 

Services Ltd.; Cohesion Freight (HK) Ltd.; Cong Ty 

Duoc Thao; Cong Ty Trach Nhiem (CTN Co., Ltd.); 

Diep Son Hangers One Member Co., Ltd.; Dma 

Logistics Inc.; Dong Nam A Co., Ltd.; Evergreen 

Logistics Vietnam Co., Ltd.; Far Go Express 

Company Limited; Focus Shipping Corp.; For You 

Beautiful Industrial Co., Ltd.; General Merchandise 

Consolidators, Inc.; Giant Choice Co., Ltd.; Gle 

Logistics Co., Ltd.; Globe Express Services S.a.r.L. 

Co., Ltd.; Good Wonder Limited; Hcmc General 

Import and Export Investment Joint Stock Company 

(IMexico); Hippo Logistics Co., Ltd.; Honour Lane 

Logistics Co., Ltd.; Honour Lane Shipping Limited; 

Intercontinental Shipping Co., Ltd.; Ju Fu Co., Ltd.; 

KB Steel; Kingly Industry (Canada) Corp.; Korea 

Laundry Industry Co., Ltd.; Kyung Dong Industrial 

Co., Ltd.; Limpiaduria Zaragoza Huizar; Maple 

Hangers Inc.; Mico Mit Co., Ltd.; Moc Viet 

Manufacture Co., Ltd.; Multi–Sander Tech. Co., 

Ltd.; N2j Co., Ltd.; NV Hanger Co., Ltd.; Oec Freight 

Worldwide Co., Ltd.; Orient Star Shipping Pte.; 

Oriental Dragon Co., Ltd.; Oriental Logistics Group 

Ltd.; P T Transportation Ltd.; Pacific Star Express 

Corporation; Price Group Ltd.; Prolim De Baja 

California; Quyky–yanglei International Co., Ltd.; 

Rising Trade Inc.; Royal Cargo Combined Logistics, 

Inc.; Royal McGoun Inc.; Seamaster Logistics Inc.; 

Sirius Global Logistics Co., Ltd.; Smart Concept 

Trading Limited; Star Glory Ltd.; Summit Logistics 

International Inc.; Sun Vn Transport Corp. (Sunvn 

Transport Corporation); Tay Ruey Enterprise Co.; 

Thanh Hieu Manufacturing Trading Co., Ltd.; Top 

Harvest Metal Co. Ltd.; Topocean Vietnam; 

Transworld Transportation Co., Ltd.; Twt– 

Transworld Transportation Co., Ltd.; Unitex 

International Forwarding (HK) Ltd., Vantage 

Logistics Corporation; Viet Anh Import–Export Joint 

Stock Company; Vietnam Hangers Joint Stock 

Company; Wiexin Cargo Services Co., Ltd.; Whale 

Logistics Company Ltd.; Winwell Industrial 

Continued 

companies: (1) Shaoxing Gangyuan 

Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd.; (2) 

Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal 

Manufactured Co. Ltd.; (3) Shaoxing 

Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; 

(4) Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse 

Co., Ltd.; (5) Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products 

Co., Ltd.; (6) Shangyu Baoxiang Metal 

Manufactured Co., Ltd.; (7) Jiaxing Boyi 

Medical Device Co., Ltd.; 10 (8) Pu Jiang 

County Command Metal Products Co., 

Ltd.; (9) Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger 

Co., Ltd.; (10) Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal 

Manufactured Co., Ltd.; (11) Zhejiang 

Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd.; (12) 

Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.; 

(13) Shaoxing Guochao Metallic 

Products Co., Ltd.; (14) Shanghai Jianhai 

International Trade Co., Ltd.; and (15) 

Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured 

Co., Ltd. 

A. Separate Rate Recipients 

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned 

Shanghai Wells reported that it is a 

wholly foreign-owned entity.11

Additionally, there is no evidence that 

the Wells Group is under the control of 

the PRC government, and we have 

determined that further separate rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether this entity is independent from 

government control.12 Thus, we have 

preliminarily granted separate rate 

status to the Wells Group. 

2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and 

Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies 

Shaoxing Dingli 13 and the 15 separate 

rate applicants in this administrative 

review stated that they are either joint 

ventures between Chinese and foreign 

companies or are wholly Chineseowned companies. The Department has 

analyzed whether Shaoxing Dingli and 

the 15 separate rate applicants have 

demonstrated the absence of de jure and 

de facto governmental control over their 

respective export activities. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence 

provided by Shaoxing Dingli and the 15 

separate rate applicants supports a 

preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of government control based on the 

following: (1) an absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) there are applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and (3) there 

are formal measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.14

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

government control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. The evidence provided 

by Shaoxing Dingli and the 15 separate 

rate applicants supports a preliminary 

finding of de facto absence of 

government control based on the 

following: (1) The companies set their 

own export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) the 

companies have authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) the companies have 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) there 

is no restriction on any of the 

companies’ use of export revenue.15

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Shaoxing Dingli and the 15 

separate rate applicants have 

established that they qualify for a 

separate rate under the criteria 

established by Silicon Carbide and 

Sparklers. 

B. Companies Located Outside the PRC 

Based on the public certificate of 

service in Petitioner’s request for 

administrative review, dated November 

2, 2009, the record indicates that 70 of 

the 187 companies upon which the 

Department initiated this administrative 

review are located outside of the PRC.16


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
68762 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 

Limited; Zownzi Hardware Hanger Fty Ltd.; and 

Zynpak Packaging Products Inc. 

17These 94 companies are: Acrowell 

International Logistics; Acx Logistics (China) Ltd.; 

Agility Logistics (Shanghai) Ltd.; Alcon Express 

Corp.; Anhui Whywin International Co., Ltd.; Apex 

Maritime Co. Ltd.; Apl Logistics China, Ltd.; Ate 

Logistics Co., Ltd.; Beijing Kang Jie Kong Cargo 

Agent Co., Ltd.; Brilliant Globe Logistics Inc.; China 

Coast Freight Co., Ltd.; China Container Line 

(Shanghai) Ltd.; China International Freight Co., 

Ltd.; China Ocean Shipping Agency (Ningbo); City 

Ocean Logistics Co., Ltd.; Cixi K&J International 

Co., Ltd.; Cohesion Freight Agency Ltd. (Shanghai); 

De Well Container Shipping Corp.; Direct Service 

Inc.; Distribution Rsjo Inc.; Dragon Trading 

Shipping Co., Ltd.; Dynamic Network Container 

Line Ltd.; Expeditors China; Fastic Transportation 

Co., Ltd.; Fortune Freight International Co., Ltd.; Ge 

Li Commerce Co., Ltd.; Goldever International 

Logistics Co.; Guangdong Provincial Taoyue Mfg. 

Co., Ltd.; Guangxi Shengfeng Import and Export 

Co., Ltd.; Guangzhou Yanglei–Packing Co., Ltd.; 

Guilin Yc Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Rico 

Homeware and Apparel Ltd.; Hanhen Shipping 

(China) Co., Ltd.; Hanjin (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.; 

Hanjin Logistics (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; Hecny 

Shipping Limited; Huada Fashion Enterprise, Inc.; 

Huguang Huojia Factory; Jiangmen Hongjun 

Hardware & Elect.; Jiangsu Globe Logistics Limited 

Co.; Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Jr 

Metal Products Shanghai; Kaiping Youming 

Hardware & Plastic Products Co., Ltd.; Kuehne & 

Nagel Ltd.; Laidlaw Company LLC; Laidlaw Metal 

Products Co., Ltd.; Laidlaw Shanghai; Lights Out 

Machinery Co., Ltd.; Link & Link Shipping Ltd.; 

Nanchang Tuhai Industry Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Eidz 

Holding Ltd.; Ningbo Jude Trading Co., Ltd.; Ningbo 

Peacebird Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Yifan 

International Forwarding Agency Co., Ltd.; Ocean 

Star International Logistics Co., Ltd.; Odyssey 

International (China) Ltd.; Orient Express Container 

Co., Ltd.; Orient Star Transport International Ltd.; 

Pacific Star International Logistics (China) Co., Ltd.; 

Phoenix International Freight Services Ltd.; Pingye 

Foreign Transportation Co., Ltd.; Post–Pop Art Co., 

Ltd.; Pudong Trans USA, Inc.; RDD Freight 

International Inc.; Rich Shipping Company Limited; 

Schenker China Ltd.; Sea Bright International 

Industrial; Shanghai Air Sea Transport Inc.; 

Shanghai Channel International Logistics; Shanghai 

Fanyuan Freight Forwarding; Shanghai Garment 

Group Import/Export Corp.; Shanghai Light 

Industry and Textile Group Co., Ltd.; Shanghai 

T.H.I Transport Co., Ltd.; Shaoguang International 

Trade Co.; Shaoxing Leiluo Metal Manufactured; 

Shenzhen Center Link International; Shenzhen 

Pacific–Net Logistics Inc.; Shipping & Distribution 

Ltd.; Sino Connections Logistics Inc.; Sinobo 

International Logistics Co., Ltd.; Sinotrans Zhejiang 

Co., Ltd.; The Houjie Town Yongxiang/Hardware 

Processing Plant; Tianjin Hongtong Metal 

Manufacture Co., Ltd.; Top Shipping Logistics Co., 

Ltd.; Topocean Consolidation Service (China) Ltd.; 

Translink Shipping Inc.; U.S. United Logistics Inc.; 

Unique Logistics International (HK) Ltd.; Ups Scs 

Ltd.; Wuhu Rising International Trade Co., Ltd.; Xin 

Chang Heng Xin Yi Jia Factory; Zhejiang Hailiang 

Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang King Merchandise Industrial; 

and Zhejiang Peace Industry and Trade Inc. 

18See, e.g., Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s 

Republic of China Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 49460 (August 13, 2010); Certain 

Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of the 

Twelfth Administrative Review, 75 FR 6352 

(February 9, 2010), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

None of these companies have requested 

that the Department assign to them their 

own rate or certified that they had no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR. Because the 70 

companies did not request the 

Department to assign to them their own 

rate, any exports of subject merchandise 

by these non-PRC exporters will be 

subject to the cash deposit rate of the 

PRC exporters that supplied them. 

C. PRC-Wide Entity 

As stated above in the ‘‘Background’’ 

section, the Department initiated an 

administrative review with respect to 

187 companies. The Department 

provided companies not selected for 

individual examination the opportunity 

to file either a separate rate application 

or certification, which was made 

available on the Department’s website. 

See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 61658–9. 

Out of the 187 companies, excluding the 

two mandatory respondents, 15 filed 

either separate rate certifications or 

separate rate applications. Of the 

remaining companies, five reported 

having made no shipments to the 

United States during the POR and 70 

companies appear to be located outside 

of the PRC, thus an analysis of whether 

these companies have rebutted the 

presumption of PRC government control 

is moot. 

However, 94 companies upon which 

we initiated a review, and which are 

located within the PRC, did not: (1) 

Apply for separate rate status; or (2) 

notify the Department that they had no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR.17 These 94 companies 

listed in the Initiation Notice have not 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate rate status in this 

administrative review. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that because there were exports of 

merchandise under review from PRC 

exporters that did not demonstrate their 

eligibility for separate rate status, we are 

treating these companies as part of the 

PRC-wide entity, and subject to the 

PRC-wide entity rate of 187.25 percent. 

Separate Rate Calculation 

The statute and our regulations do not 

address directly how we should 

establish a rate to apply to imports from 

companies which we did not select for 

individual examination in accordance 

with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act in an 

administrative review. Generally, we 

have used section 735(c)(5) of the Act, 

which provides instructions for 

calculating the all-others rate in an 

investigation, as guidance when we 

establish the rate for respondents not 

examined individually in an 

administrative review.18 Section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that 

‘‘the estimated all-others rate shall be an 

amount equal to the weighted average of 

the estimated weighted average 

dumping margins established for 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated * * *’’ 

Because using the weighted-average 

margin based on the calculated net U.S. 

sales values for the Wells Group and 

Shaoxing Dingli would allow these two 

respondents to deduce each other’s 

business-proprietary information and 

thus cause an unwarranted release of 

such information, we cannot assign to 

the separate rate companies the 

weighted-average margin based on the 

calculated net U.S. sales values from 

these two respondents. 

For these preliminary results, we 

determine that using the ranged total 

U.S. sales values the Wells Group and 

Shaoxing Dingli reported in the public 

versions of their responses (dated April 

12, 2010, and October 13, 2010, 

respectively) to our request for 

information concerning the quantity and 

value of their exports to the United 

States is more appropriate than applying 

a simple average. These publicly 

available figures provide the basis on 

which we can calculate a margin which 

is the best proxy for the weightedaverage margin based on the calculated 

net U.S. sales values of the Wells Group 

and Shaoxing Dingli. We find that this 

approach is more consistent with the 

intent of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

and our use of section 735(c)(5)(A) of 

the Act as guidance when we establish 

the rate for respondents not examined 

individually in an administrative 

review. 

Because the calculated net U.S. sales 

values for the Wells Group and 

Shaoxing Dingli are businessproprietary figures, we find that 6.58 

percent, which we calculated using the 

publicly available figures of U.S. sales 

values for these two firms, is the best 

reasonable proxy for the weightedaverage margin based on the calculated 

net U.S. sales values of the Wells Group 

and Shaoxing Dingli. See 

‘‘Memorandum to the File from Joshua 

Startup, Analyst, through Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9; 

First Administrative Review of Steel 

Wire Garment Hangers from the PRC: 

Calculation of the Separate Rate,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

Date of Sale 

Both the Wells Group and Shaoxing 

Dingli reported the invoice date as the 

date of sale because they claim that, for 

their U.S. sales of subject merchandise 

made during the POR, the material 

terms of sale were established based on 

the invoice date. The Department 

preliminarily determines that the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 68763 

19See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 10. 

20See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 

50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009), unchanged in 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 (December 

10, 2009). 

21See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

determination of Critical Circumstances and Final 

Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 

(April 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 

invoice date is the most appropriate 

date to use as the Wells Group and 

Shaoxing Dingli date of sale in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and 

the Department’s long-standing practice 

of determining the date of sale.19

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

hangers to the United States by the 

Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli were 

made at less than NV, the Department 

compared either export price (‘‘EP’’) or 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to NV, 

as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections below. 

U.S. Price 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, the Department calculated EP 

for a portion of sales to the United 

States for the Wells Group and Shaoxing 

Dingli because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated party was made before the 

date of importation and the use of CEP 

was not otherwise warranted. The 

Department calculated EP based on the 

price to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. In accordance with 

section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, 

the Department deducted from the 

starting price to unaffiliated purchasers 

foreign inland freight and brokerage and 

handling (‘‘B&H’’). Each of these services 

was either provided by a NME vendor 

or paid for using a NME currency. Thus, 

the Department based the deduction of 

these movement charges on surrogate 

values. See ‘‘Memorandum to the File 

from Josh Startup, Analyst, through 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager; 

First Administrative Review of Steel 

Wire Garment Hangers from the 

People’s Republic of China: Surrogate 

Values for the Preliminary Results,’’ 

dated November 8, 2010 (‘‘Prelim 

Surrogate Value Memo’’) for details 

regarding the surrogate values for 

movement expenses. For international 

freight provided by a ME provider and 

paid in U.S. dollars, the Department 

used the actual cost per kilogram (‘‘kg’’) 

of the freight. 

Constructed Export Price 

For some of the Wells Group’s and 

Shaoxing Dingli’s sales, the Department 

based U.S. price on CEP in accordance 

with section 772(b) of the Act, because 

sales were made on behalf of the 

Chinese-based companies by a U.S. 

affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. For these sales, the 

Department based CEP on prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, the 

Department made deductions from the 

starting price (gross unit price) for 

foreign movement expenses, 

international movement expenses, U.S. 

movement expenses, and appropriate 

selling adjustments, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, the Department also 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States. The 

Department deducted, where 

appropriate, commissions, inventory 

carrying costs, interest revenue, credit 

expenses, warranty expenses, and 

indirect selling expenses. Where foreign 

movement expenses, international 

movement expenses, or U.S. movement 

expenses were provided by PRC service 

providers or paid for in renminbi, the 

Department valued these services using 

SVs (see ‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section 

below for further discussion). For those 

expenses that were provided by an ME 

provider and paid for in an ME 

currency, the Department used the 

reported expense. Due to the proprietary 

nature of certain adjustments to U.S. 

price, for a detailed description of all 

adjustments made to U.S. price for each 

company, see the company specific 

analysis memoranda, dated November 8, 

2010. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. Further, pursuant to section 

773(c)(1) of the Act, the valuation of an 

NME respondent’s FOPs shall be based 

on the best available information 

regarding the value of such factors in an 

ME country or countries considered to 

be appropriate by the Department. The 

Department bases NV on the FOPs 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of NMEs 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. 

The Department used Indian import 

statistics to value the raw material and 

packing material inputs that the Wells 

Group and Shaoxing Dingli used to 

produce the merchandise under 

investigation during the POR, except 

where listed below. In past cases, it has 

been the Department’s practice to 

calculate an SV for various FOPs using 

import statistics of the primary selected 

surrogate country from World Trade 

Atlas (‘‘WTA’’), as published by Global 

Trade Information Services (‘‘GTIS’’).20

However, in October 2009, the 

Department learned that Indian import 

data obtained from the WTA, as 

published by GTIS, began identifying 

the original reporting currency for India 

as the U.S. dollar. The Department then 

contacted GTIS about the change in the 

original reporting currency for India 

from the Indian rupee to the U.S. dollar. 

Officials at GTIS explained that while 

GTIS obtains data on imports into India 

directly from the Ministry of Commerce, 

Government of India, as denominated 

and published in Indian rupees, the 

WTA software is limited with regard to 

the number of significant digits it can 

manage. Therefore, GTIS made a 

decision to change the official reporting 

currency for Indian data from the Indian 

rupee to the U.S. dollar in order to 

reduce the loss of significant digits 

when obtaining data through the WTA 

software. GTIS explained that it 

converts the Indian rupee to the U.S. 

dollar using the monthly Federal 

Reserve exchange rate applicable to the 

relevant month of the data being 

downloaded and converted.21

However, the data reported in the 

GTA software report import statistics, 

such as data from India, in the original 

reporting currency and thus these data 

correspond to the original currency 

value reported by each country. 

Additionally, the data reported in GTA 

software are reported to the nearest digit 

and thus there is not a loss of data by 

rounding, as there is with the data 

reported by the WTA software. 

Consequently, the Department will now 

obtain import statistics from GTA for 

valuing FOPs because the GTA import 

statistics are in the original reporting 

currency of the country from which the 

data are obtained and have the same 

level of accuracy as the original data 

released. 

With respect to the SVs based on 

Indian import statistics, the Department 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
68764 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 

22Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 

No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) at 590. 

23See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 

India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year 

(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 

75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from 

Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 

FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; See 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 

2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at 23. 

24See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), 

unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008) (‘‘PET 

Film’’). 

has disregarded prices that the 

Department has reason to believe or 

suspect may be subsidized. In 

accordance with the OTCA 1988 

legislative history, the Department 

continues to apply its long-standing 

practice of disregarding SVs if it has a 

reason to believe or suspect the source 

data may be subsidized.22 The 

Department has previously found that it 

is appropriate to disregard such prices 

from India, Indonesia, South Korea and 

Thailand because we have determined 

that these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry specific, export 

subsidies.23 Based on the existence of 

these subsidy programs that were 

generally available to all exporters and 

producers in these countries at the time 

of the POR, the Department finds that it 

has reason to believe or suspect that all 

exporters from Indonesia, South Korea 

and Thailand may have benefitted from 

these subsidies and that we should 

therefore disregard any data from these 

countries contained in the Indian 

import statistics used to calculate SVs. 

Additionally, the Department 

disregarded prices from NME countries. 

Finally, imports that were labeled as 

originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’ 

country were excluded from the average 

value, because the Department could 

not be certain that they were not from 

either an NME country or a country 

with generally available export 

subsidies.24 For further discussion 

regarding all SV calculations using 

Indian import statistics derived from the 

GTA data, see Prelim Surrogate Value 

Memo. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, for subject merchandise 

produced by the Wells Group and 

Shaoxing Dingli, the Department 

calculated NV based on the FOPs 

reported by the Wells Group and 

Shaoxing Dingli for the POR. The 

Department used data from GTA and 

other publicly available Indian sources 

in order to calculate SVs for the Wells 

Group and Shaoxing Dingli FOPs (direct 

materials, energy, and packing 

materials) and certain movement 

expenses. To calculate NV, the 

Department multiplied the reported perunit factor quantities by publicly 

available Indian SVs (except as noted 

below). Because the statute is silent 

concerning what constitutes the ‘‘best 

available information’’ for a particular 

SV, the courts have recognized that the 

Department enjoys ‘‘broad discretion to 

determine the best available information 

for an antidumping review.’’ See Ad Hoc 

Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United 

States, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18745 

(Fed. Cir. 2010). The Department’s 

practice when selecting the best 

available information for valuing FOPs 

is to select, to the extent practicable, 

SVs which are product-specific, 

representative of a broad market 

average, publicly available, 

contemporaneous with the POR and 

exclusive of taxes and duties. See, e.g., 

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

As appropriate, the Department 

adjusted input prices by including 

freight costs to render them delivered 

prices. Specifically, the Department 

added to the Indian import SVs a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision of the 

Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United 

States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 

1997). For a detailed description of all 

SVs used for the Wells Group and 

Shaoxing Dingli, see Prelim Surrogate 

Value Memo. 

In those instances where the 

Department could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

to the POR with which to value FOPs, 

consistent with our practice, we 

adjusted the SVs using, where 

appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price 

Index as published in the International 

Financial Statistics of the International 

Monetary Fund, a printout of which is 

attached to the Prelim Surrogate Value 

Memo at Exhibit 2. See also PET Film. 

Where necessary, the Department 

adjusted SVs for inflation, exchange 

rates, and taxes, and the Department 

converted all applicable items to a per 

kg basis. 

The Department valued electricity 

using the updated electricity price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority, an administrative body of the 

Government of India, in its publication 

titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and 

Average Rates of Electricity Supply in 

India, dated March 2008. These 

electricity rates represent actual 

country-wide, publicly available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charged to small, medium, and 

large industries in India. We did not 

inflate this value because utility rates 

represent current rates, as indicated by 

the effective dates listed for each of the 

rates provided. See Prelim Surrogate 

Value Memo. 

The Department valued water using 

publicly available data from the 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation (http://www.midcindia.org) 

because these data include a wide range 

of industrial water tariffs. This source 

provides industrial water rates within 

the Maharashtra province for ‘‘inside 

industrial areas’’ and ‘‘outside industrial 

areas’’ from April 2009 through June 

2009. Because the average of these 

values is contemporaneous with the 

POR, we did not adjust it for inflation. 

See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo. 

On May 14, 2010, the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘CAFC’’) in Dorbest Ltd. v. United 

States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 

2010), found that the ‘‘{regressionbased} method for calculating wage 

rates {as stipulated by 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3)} uses data not permitted 

by {the statutory requirements laid out 

in section 773 of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 

1677b(c))}.’’ The Department is 

continuing to evaluate options for 

determining labor values in light of the 

recent CAFC decision. However, for 

these preliminary results, we have 

calculated an hourly wage rate to use in 

valuing the respondents’ reported labor 

input by averaging industry-specific 

earnings and/or wages in countries that 

are economically comparable to the PRC 

and that are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. 

For the preliminary results of this 

administrative review, the Department 

is valuing labor using a simple average 

industry-specific wage rate using 

earnings or wage data reported under 

Chapter 5B by the International Labor 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 68765 

25Lakshmi’s 2008–2009 audited financial 

statements were submitted by Petitioner on June 1, 

2010. 

26See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

44827 (August 9, 2007), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

27See, e.g., Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Strand From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 

FR 28560 (May 21, 2010) and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

28See, e.g., Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road 

Tires from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 59 and 69 (where we 

stated that ‘‘consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we have utilized all expenses incurred 

during the {period of investigation} and allocated 

such across all {period of investigation} sales using 

a value-based allocation methodology’’). 

29See Petitioner’s comments dated August 27, 

2010. 30See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the 

Third New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 29473 (June 22, 

2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5. 31See, e.g., Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing 

Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

51781 (September 11, 2007), unchanged in FloorStanding, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 14437 (March 18, 2008). 

Organization (‘‘ILO’’). To achieve an 

industry-specific labor value, we relied 

on industry-specific labor data from the 

countries we determined to be both 

economically comparable to the PRC, 

and significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. A full description of the 

industry-specific wage rate calculation 

methodology is provided in the Prelim 

Surrogate Value Memo. The Department 

calculated a simple average industryspecific wage rate of $1.39 for these 

preliminary results. Specifically, for this 

review, the Department has calculated 

the wage rate using a simple average of 

the data provided to the ILO under SubClassification 28 of the ISIC–Revision 3 

standard by countries determined to be 

both economically comparable to the 

PRC and significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. The 

Department finds the two-digit 

description under ISIC–Revision 3 

(Manufacture of Fabricated Metal 

Products, Except Machinery and 

Equipment) to be the best available 

wage rate SV on the record because it is 

specific and derived from industries 

that produce merchandise comparable 

to the subject merchandise. 

Consequently, we averaged the ILO 

industry-specific wage rate data or 

earnings data available from the 

following countries found to be 

economically comparable to the PRC 

and are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise: Ecuador, the 

Arab Republic of Egypt, Indonesia, 

Jordan, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, and 

Ukraine. For further information on the 

calculation of the wage rate, see Prelim 

Surrogate Values Memo. 

The Department valued truck freight 

expenses using an Indian per-unit 

average rate calculated from publicly 

available data on the following web site: 

http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. We did not inflate this rate since 

it is contemporaneous with the POR. 

See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo. 

To value B&H, the Department used a 

price list of export procedures necessary 

to export a standardized cargo of goods 

in India. The price list is publicly 

available and compiled based on a 

survey case study of the procedural 

requirements for trading a standard 

shipment of goods by ocean transport in 

India that is published in Doing 

Business 2010: India (published by the 

World Bank). See Prelim Surrogate 

Value Memo. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) 

expenses, and profit, the Department 

used the 2008–2009 audited financial 

statements of Lakshmi Precision Screws 

Ltd. (‘‘Lakshmi’’) and Nasco Steels 

Private Limited (‘‘Nasco’’), both of which 

are Indian screw/nail and fastener 

manufacturers.25 Among all the other 

financial statements placed on the 

record of this review, we find that 

Lakshmi’s and Nasco’s financial 

statements are the most appropriate for 

these preliminary results because they 

are both producers of downstream 

products made of steel wire rod. 

Furthermore, the Department finds that 

both financial statements are 

appropriate sources given that no usable 

financial statements are available for 

producers of identical merchandise. 

Finally, Lakshmi’s and Nasco’s 2008– 

2009 financial statements fulfill the 

broadest range of the criteria examined 

by the Department when selecting 

appropriate financial statements with 

which to value SG&A expenses, such as 

contemporaneity, specificity, and 

quality of data.26 For a detailed 

discussion regarding our selection of 

Lakshmi’s and Nasco’s 2008–2009 

financial statements to calculate the 

surrogate financial ratios, see Prelim 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

Company Specific Issues 

Shaoxing Dingli 

For these preliminary results, the 

Department is not granting Shaoxing 

Dingli a by-product offset for ‘‘Scrap 

Iron Buckets’’ because they are not 

generated from the subject merchandise 

production process. This is consistent 

with the Department’s practice of not 

granting offsets to by-products which 

are not generated in the production 

process.27

Shaoxing Dingli reported a warranty 

expense for damaged or defective 

merchandise, and reported its sales 

quantity net of these returns in its 

Section C database. Shaoxing Dingli 

credited its customers for the damaged 

merchandise, and allocated the cost out 

over all of its sales. Consistent with the 

Department’s practice, for these 

preliminary results, we are allowing the 

warranty expenses to be allocated over 

all of Shaoxing Dingli’s CEP sales.28

Petitioner submitted comments 

alleging that Shaoxing Dingli may have 

not reported the universe of subject 

merchandise sales to the United States 

during the POR, following the 

indictment of an importer of subject 

merchandise on a duty evasion 

charge.29 The Department has taken 

note of this issue, but for these 

preliminary results is not including the 

sales alleged by Petitioner as 

unreported, because Shaoxing Dingli 

produced documentation showing that a 

bonded truck was contracted to 

transport all of the merchandise in 

question to Mexico and there is no CBP 

documentation that any of the alleged 

unreported sales entered the United 

States for consumption.30

The Wells Group 

In its questionnaire responses and 

sales databases, the Wells Group 

reported certain expenses incurred, and 

corresponding revenues earned, related 

to the transportation or movement of the 

subject merchandise sales during the 

POR. Our practice with respect to 

revenue earned, such as freight revenue, 

from sales is to add the revenue to the 

gross unit price.31 Here, to account for 

post-sale adjustments of various 

reported transportation-related revenues 

as an addition to the gross unit price 

and the corresponding transportationexpenses incurred as a deduction 

included in the international and U.S. 

movement charges, we deducted the 

transportation-related revenues from the 

corresponding transportation-related 

expenses, where applicable, resulting 

only in a deduction of the actual 

transportation-related expense incurred, 

which inherently accounts for the Wells 

Group’s transportation-related revenues 

earned by reducing the associated 

expenses. This is consistent with our 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
68766 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 

32See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 47587 (August 

14, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 9A (‘‘Hangers LTFV’’). 

33See Shanghai Wells’ Supplemental Section C 

Questionnaire Response dated May 13, 2010 at 13, 

where Shanghai Wells stated that it reported ‘‘in the 

field REVDOCT the revenue of antidumping duty 

that is being part of the invoiced price that 

Shanghai Wells charged its customers.’’ 

34 In the this administrative review, Shaoxing 

Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd., Shaoxing 

Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd., and 

Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. all 

reported in their respective separate rate 

certifications that their affiliations, legal structure, 

and ownership structure have not changed since the 

underlying investigation. Thus, we continue to find 

that these three companies comprise a single entity, 

as determined in the underlying investigation, 

where we found that Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal 

Manufactured Co. Ltd., Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal 

Manufactured Co. Ltd., and Shaoxing Andrew 

Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. were a single entity 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). See 

Hangers LTFV, 73 FR at 47589. 

35The PRC-Wide entity includes the 94 

companies listed in footnote 16 of this notice. 

treatment of the Wells Group’s 

transportation-related revenues in the 

underlying investigation.32

However, with respect to U.S. 

antidumping duty revenue reported by 

the Wells Group, the Department 

excluded this ‘‘revenue’’ item as an 

addition to gross unit price, because the 

increased ‘‘revenue’’ of the Wells 

Group’s U.S. sales during the POR to 

cover antidumping duties are already 

accounted for in the reported gross unit 

price, as confirmed by the Wells Group 

itself.33 For a full discussion of the 

adjustments to the gross unit price, see 

‘‘Memorandum to the File from Irene 

Gorelik, Senior Analyst: Program 

Analysis for the Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.,’’ dated 

November 8, 2010. 

Currency Conversion 

The Department made currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars, in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act, based on the exchange rates in 

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist: 

STEEL WIRE GARMENT HANGERS

FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF

CHINA

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. 

and/or Hong Kong Wells Limited .......................................... 1.10 

Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd. ........................ 12.25 

Shaoxing Metal Companies 34 .... 6.58 

Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co. Ltd. ......................... 6.58 

Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., 

Ltd. .......................................... 6.58 

Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. .................... 6.58 

Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., 

Ltd. .......................................... 6.58 

STEEL WIRE GARMENT HANGERS

FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF

CHINA—Continued 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Pu Jiang County Command 

Metal Products Co. Ltd. .......... 6.58 

Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger 

Co., Ltd. .................................. 6.58 

Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. .................. 6.58 

Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger 

Co., Ltd. .................................. 6.58 

Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. 

Co., Ltd. .................................. 6.58 

Shaoxing Guochao Metallic 

Products Co. Ltd. .................... 6.58 

Shanghai Jianhai International 

Trade Co., Ltd. ........................ 6.58 

Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. .................... 6.58 

PRC-Wide Entity 35 ..................... 187.25 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Because the Department 

intends to seek additional information, 

the Department will establish the 

briefing schedule at a later time, and 

will notify parties of the schedule in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309. 

Parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each 

argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 

(2) a brief summary of the argument; 

and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c) and (d). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. Requests 

should contain: (1) The party’s name, 

address and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; and (3) a list of 

issues to be discussed. Id. Issues raised 

in the hearing will be limited to those 

raised in the respective case briefs. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of the issues 

raised in any written briefs, not later 

than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by these 

reviews. The Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 

days after the publication date of the 

final results of this review excluding 

any reported sales that entered during 

the gap period. In accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated 

exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

subject to this review. Where the 

respondent has reported reliable entered 

values, we calculated importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rates by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer (or customer) and dividing this 

amount by the total entered value of the 

sales to each importer (or customer). See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is greater than de minimis, 

we will apply the assessment rate to the 

entered value of the importers’/ 

customers’ entries during the POR. See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perunit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

For the companies receiving a 

separate rate that were not selected for 

individual review, we will calculate an 

assessment rate based on the weightaverage of the publicly-ranged values 

reported by the companies selected for 

individual review pursuant to section 

735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2010 / Notices 68767 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 187.25 percent; 

and (4) 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 exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: November 3, 2010. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28287 Filed 11–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–915] 

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube From the People’s Republic of 

China: Rescission of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 9, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Austin Redington or Patricia Tran, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–1664 and (202) 

482–1503, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 2, 2010, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the countervailing duty order 

on light-walled rectangular pipe and 

tube from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period of review 

January 1, 2009, through December 31, 

2009. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 75 

FR 45094 (August 2, 2010). On August 

30, 2010, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), the Department received a 

timely request from Sun Group Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Sun Group’’) to conduct an 

administrative review of Sun Group. No 

other party requested an administrative 

review. 

On September 29, 2010, the 

Department published the notice of 

initiation of this countervailing duty 

administrative review with respect to 

Sun Group. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 60076, 

60082 (September 29, 2010). 

Rescission of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if the party 

who requested the administrative 

review withdraws the request within 90 

days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the requested 

administrative review. On October 15, 

2010, Sun Group timely withdrew its 

request for an administrative review, 

and no other party requested a review. 

Therefore, in response to Sun Group’s 

withdrawal of its request for review, and 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Department hereby rescinds this 

administrative review. 

Assessment Instructions 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess countervailing duties on all 

appropriate entries. For the Sun Group, 

countervailing duties shall be assessed 

at rates equal to the cash deposit or 

bonding rate of the estimated 

countervailing duties required at the 

time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of this notice. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to 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(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 sanctionable violation. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: November 1, 2010. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28283 Filed 11–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XZ23 

Taking of Threatened or Endangered 

Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Commercial Fishing Operations 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1