Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2010 / Notices 80791 

1 (88,267 × .5 hr × 3 waves + 3,100 × .167 hr × 

3 waves). 

1See Pure Magnesium from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of the 2008–2009 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

34689 (June 18, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

2See Preliminary Results, at 75 FR at 34692. 

3 Id. 

4See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Wage Data,’’ 

dated of July 14, 2010. 

5See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Treatment of 

Alleged New Information in U.S. Magnesium’s Case 

Brief,’’ dated of August 23, 2010. 

• Assets and Liabilities. 

• Real Estate, Dependent Care, and 

Vehicles. 

• 6 Asset Sections (Interest Earning 

Accounts, Stocks and Mutual Funds, 

Mortgages, Value of Business, Rental 

Property, and Other Assets). 

• Medical Expenses and Utilization of 

Health Care (Adults and Children). 

• Work Related Expenses and Child 

Support Paid. 

• Child Well-Being. 

Wave 10 interviews will be conducted 

from September 1, 2011 through 

December 31, 2011. 

A 10-minute re-interview of 3,100 

people is conducted at each wave to 

ensure the accuracy of responses. 

Reinterviews require an additional 

1,553 burden hours in FY 2011. 

II. Method of Collection 

The SIPP is designed as a continuing 

series of national panels of interviewed 

households that are introduced every 

few years with each panel having 

durations of one to six years. All 

household members 15 years old or over 

are interviewed using regular proxyrespondent rules. During the 2008 

panel, respondents are interviewed a 

total of 17 times (17 waves) at 4-month 

intervals making the SIPP a longitudinal 

survey. Sample people (all household 

members present at the time of the first 

interview) who move within the country 

and reasonably close to a SIPP primary 

sampling unit will be followed and 

interviewed at their new address. 

Individuals 15 years old or over who 

enter the household after Wave 1 will be 

interviewed; however, if these 

individuals move, they are not followed 

unless they happen to move along with 

a Wave 1 sample individual. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0607–0944. 

Form Number: SIPP/CAPI Automated 

Instrument. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

Households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

88,267 people per wave. 

Estimated Time per Response: 30 

minutes per person on average. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 133,953.1

Estimated Total Annual Cost: The 

only cost to respondents is their time. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Legal Authority: Title 13, United 

States Code 182. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: December 20, 2010. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32284 Filed 12–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–832] 

Pure Magnesium From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

2008–2009 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 18, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results in the 

2008–2009 antidumping duty 

administrative review of pure 

magnesium from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) is May 1, 2008, through April 

30, 2009. We initiated an administrative 

review of the antidumping order on 

pure magnesium from the PRC with 

respect to Tianjin Magnesium 

International Co., Ltd. (‘‘TMI’’), Tianjin 

Xianghaiqi Resources Import & Export 

Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘TXR’’), and Pan Asia 

Magnesium Co., Ltd. (‘‘Pan Asia’’). 

Because neither TXR nor Pan Asia 

responded to the Department’s 

antidumping duty questionnaire, we 

determined that they were not entitled 

to a separate rate in the Preliminary 

Results and included them in the PRCWide Entity.2 We determined that TMI, 

the only responsive respondent in this 

proceeding, made sales in the United 

States at prices below normal value 

(‘‘NV’’). We invited interested parties to 

comment on our Preliminary Results. 

Based on our analysis of the comments 

received, we made changes to the 

margin calculations for TMI. The final 

dumping margin for this review is listed 

in the ‘‘Final Results Margins’’ section 

below. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 23, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel LaCivita, Sergio Balbontin, or 

Eve Wang, 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) 482–4243, 

(202) 482–6478, and (202) 482–6231, 

respectively. 

Background 

On June 18, 2010, the Department 

published its Preliminary Results of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of pure magnesium from the PRC.3

On July 8, 2010, U.S. Magnesium LLC 

(‘‘Petitioner’’) and TMI submitted 

publicly available surrogate value data 

to value TMI’s factors of production. On 

July 19, 2010, both Petitioner and TMI 

submitted rebuttal comments 

concerning valuation of factors of 

production. 

On July 14, 2010, the Department 

released additional data related to its 

reconsideration of its valuation of the 

labor wage rate in this review in light of 

a decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United 

States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010), 

and afforded interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the narrow 

issue of the new labor wage data.4 In 

addition, when it appeared that TMI did 

not understand that it had the 

opportunity to provide rebuttal 

information concerning the new wage 

data, the Department granted TMI 

another opportunity to comment and 

provide rebuttal factual comments.5 On 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

80792 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2010 / Notices 

6See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Wage Rate 

Calculation—Error in Currency Conversion of the 

Hourly Wage Rate for El Salvador,’’ dated of July 15, 

2010. 

7See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Administrative 

Review of Pure Magnesium from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘PRC’): Return of Untimely 

Submission of TMI’s August 5, 2010 Rebuttal Brief,’’ 

dated of August 23, 2010. 

8See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Treatment of 

Alleged New Information in U.S. Magnesium’s Case 

Brief,’’ dated August 23, 2010. 

9 Id. at 3; see Memorandum to the File, 

‘‘Telephone Conversation Concerning Deadlines for 

the Submission of New Factual Information,’’ dated 

of August 24, 2010. 

10See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Honduras Data 

on Labor Wage Rate,’’ dated August 5, 2010. 

11Petitioner and TMI requested a hearing for 

issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs on June 

18, 2010, and July 14, 2010, respectively. 

12See Pure Magnesium from the People’s 

Republic of China; Extension of Time for the Final 

Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 63440 (October 15, 2010). 

13See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium 

from the People’s Republic of China: Verification of 

the Sales and Factors of Production (‘FOP’) of 

Tianjin Magnesium Industries,’’ dated of June 7, 

2010, on the record of this review CRU, Room 7046 

of the main Department building. 

July 15, 2010, the Department noted an 

error in the currency-conversion 

calculation of the hourly wage-rate data 

for El Salvador and released corrected 

data to the parties.6

We received case briefs from 

Petitioner and TMI on July 29, 2010, 

and Petitioner’s rebuttal briefs on 

August 3, 2010. We rejected TMI’s 

rebuttal brief because the brief was 

untimely filed.7 On August 9, 2010, TMI 

alleged that Petitioner’s case brief 

contained new factual information and 

requested the Department to reject it. On 

August 23, 2010, the Department 

declined to reject the information 

because it determined that the 

information at issue did not constitute 

new factual information within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3).8

Following the time period for case and 

rebuttal briefs, the Department noted 

that it inadvertently omitted the 

underlying data used in making its 

preliminary determination of the 

surrogate value for truck freight, and it 

afforded parties opportunities to 

comment on and rebut the data 

concerning truck freight.9

On August 5, 2010, the Department 

requested all interested parties to 

provide comments on the Department’s 

recent determination in the 2008–2009 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam that the wage rate 

reported by the International Labor 

Organization for Honduras was 

inaccurate.10 In response, Petitioner 

filed its comments on August 16, 2010, 

and TMI provided comments on August 

26, 2010. On August 30, 2010, Petitioner 

submitted rebuttal comments 

concerning wage rate. 

The Department held a hearing on 

September 1, 2010.11 On October 7, 

2010, the Department extended the 

deadline for the final results of review 

to December 15, 2010.12

On November 10, 2010, the 

Department re-opened the record to 

place additional industry-specific wagerate information on the record for 

consideration in the final results, 

afforded parties an opportunity to 

provide rebuttal factual information, 

and requested parties to comment on 

the industry-specific wage-rate data 

placed on the record by the Department. 

On November 15, 2010, TMI submitted 

factual information on wage rate. On 

November 19, 2010, TMI submitted 

comments on the Department’s 

industry-specific wage-rate data. 

Petitioner filed rebuttal comments to 

TMI’s November 19, 2010, wage rate 

comments on November 24, 2010. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this 

review are addressed in the 

Memorandum from Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, ‘‘Pure Magnesium from 

the People’s Republic of China: Issues 

and Decision Memorandum for the 

Final Results of the 2008–2009 

Administrative Review,’’ dated 

December 15, 2010 (‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’), which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. A list of 

the issues that parties raised and to 

which we responded in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum follows as an 

appendix to this notice. The Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce 

Building, Room 7046, and is also 

accessible on the Web at http:// 

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

electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), we verified the information 

submitted by TMI for use in our final 

results of review.13 We used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by TMI. 

Period of Review 

The POR is May 1, 2008, through 

April 30, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

Merchandise covered by the order is 

pure magnesium regardless of 

chemistry, form or size, unless expressly 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy 

containing by weight primarily the 

element magnesium and produced by 

decomposing raw materials into 

magnesium metal. Pure primary 

magnesium is used primarily as a 

chemical in the aluminum alloying, 

desulfurization, and chemical reduction 

industries. In addition, pure magnesium 

is used as an input in producing 

magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium 

encompasses products (including, but 

not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns 

and crystals) with the following primary 

magnesium contents: 

(1) Products that contain at least 

99.95% primary magnesium, by weight 

(generally referred to as ‘‘ultra pure’’ 

magnesium); 

(2) Products that contain less than 

99.95% but not less than 99.8% primary 

magnesium, by weight (generally 

referred to as ‘‘pure’’ magnesium); and 

(3) Products that contain 50% or 

greater, but less than 99.8% primary 

magnesium, by weight, and that do not 

conform to ASTM specifications for 

alloy magnesium (generally referred to 

as ‘‘off-specification pure’’ magnesium). 

‘‘Off-specification pure’’ magnesium is 

pure primary magnesium containing 

magnesium scrap, secondary 

magnesium, oxidized magnesium or 

impurities (whether or not intentionally 

added) that cause the primary 

magnesium content to fall below 99.8% 

by weight. It generally does not contain, 

individually or in combination, 1.5% or 

more, by weight, of the following 

alloying elements: aluminum, 

manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, 

zirconium and rare earths. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are alloy primary magnesium (that 

meets specifications for alloy 

magnesium), primary magnesium 

anodes, granular primary magnesium 

(including turnings, chips and powder) 

having a maximum physical dimension 

(i.e., length or diameter) of one inch or 

less, secondary magnesium (which has 

pure primary magnesium content of less 

than 50% by weight), and remelted 

magnesium whose pure primary 

magnesium content is less than 50% by 

weight. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2010 / Notices 80793 

14See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 34697. 

15See Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, 

337 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003), where the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) 

provided an explanation of the ‘‘failure to act to the 

best of its ability’’ standard noting that the 

Department need not show intentional conduct 

existed on the part of the respondent, but merely 

that a ‘‘failure to cooperate to the best of a 

respondent’s ability’’ existed (i.e., information was 

not provided ‘‘under circumstances in which it is 

reasonable to conclude that less than full 

cooperation has been shown’’). 

16 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8911(February 23, 1998); see also 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) and the Statement of 

Administrative Action accompany the Uruguay 

Round Agreement Act, H.R. Rep. No. 316, 103d 

Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (‘‘SAA’’). 

17See Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 15930, 15934 (April 

8, 2009), unchanged in Glycine From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 41121 (August 

14, 2009); see also Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. 

v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (CIT 

August 10, 2009) (‘‘Commerce may, of course, begin 

its total AFA selection process by defaulting to the 

highest rate in any segment of the proceeding, but 

that selection must then be corroborated, to the 

extent practicable.’’). 

18See, e.g., NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. 

Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004) 

(affirming a 73. 55 percent total AFA rate, the 

highest available dumping margin from a different 

respondent in the investigation); Kompass Food 

Trading International v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 

683–84 (2000) (affirming a 51. 16 percent total AFA 

rate, the highest available dumping margin from a 

different, fully cooperative respondent); and 

Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (Ct. Int’l 

Trade 2005) (affirming a 223. 01 percent total AFA 

rate, the highest available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a previous administrative 

review). 

19See Pure Magnesium from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336 

(December 16, 2008) (‘‘Pure Magnesium 06–07Final 

Results’’). 

Pure magnesium products covered by 

the order are currently classifiable 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) 

subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 

8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 

3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope is dispositive. 

Use of Facts Available and Adverse 

Facts Available (‘‘AFA’’) 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary 

information is not on the record, or (2) 

an interested party or any other person 

(A) withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding, or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits and subject to section 782(e) 

of the Act, the Department may 

disregard all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 

and if the interested party acted to the 

best of its ability in providing the 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information 

supplied if it can do so without undue 

difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Such an adverse 

inference may include reliance on 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Application of Total AFA to the PRC– 

Wide Entity 

Because TXR and Pan Asia did not 

respond to the Department’s 

antidumping duty questionnaire, we 

preliminarily determined that these 

companies withheld information 

requested by the Department in 

accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) 

and (B) of the Act.14 Furthermore, by 

not providing the requested 

information, these companies 

significantly impeded the proceeding in 

accordance with section 776(a)(2)(C) of 

the Act. 

Because there is no information on 

the record demonstrating TXR’s or Pan 

Asia’s eligibility for a separate rate in 

accordance with section 776(a) of the 

Act, the Department has treated these 

companies as part of the PRC-Wide 

Entity. Further, because these parties 

did not respond to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire and are part 

of the PRC-Wide Entity, the Department 

is basing the dumping margin of the 

PRC-Wide Entity on the facts otherwise 

available on the record. No other party 

provided any additional information 

regarding the PRC-Wide Entity. 

Furthermore, the PRC-Wide Entity’s 

refusal to provide the requested 

information constitutes circumstances 

under which it is reasonable to 

conclude that less than full cooperation 

has been shown.15 Hence, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, the 

Department has determined that, when 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is warranted with respect to 

the PRC-Wide Entity. 

Selection of AFA Rates 

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. The Department’s practice is to 

select an AFA 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’’ and that ensures 

‘‘that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.16

Specifically, the Department’s practice 

in reviews, in selecting a rate as total 

AFA, is to use the highest rate on the 

record of the proceeding which, to the 

extent practicable, can be corroborated 

(assuming the rate is based on 

secondary information).17 The Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) and the 

CAFC have affirmed decisions to select 

the highest margin from any prior 

segment of the proceeding as the AFA 

rate on numerous occasions.18

Therefore, as AFA, the Department has 

assigned the PRC-Wide Entity a 

dumping margin of 111.73 percent. This 

margin is the highest calculated rate for 

a respondent on the record of any 

segment of the proceeding.19

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

80794 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2010 / Notices 

20See SAA. 

21See id. 

22See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in 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; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

23See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High 

Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 

68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra High Voltage Ceramic 

Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560 

(November 5, 2003); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183–84 

(March 11, 2005). 

24KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010) (quoting Rhome Poulenc, Inc. v. United 

States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

25 Id. 

26See Preliminary Results, at 75 FR at 34697. 

27See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 

1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not 

use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.20

Corroborate means that the Department 

will satisfy itself that the secondary 

information to be used has probative 

value.21 To corroborate secondary 

information, the Department will, to the 

extent practicable, examine the 

reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used.22 Independent 

sources used to corroborate such 

evidence may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation.23

As discussed above, the 111.73 

percent AFA margin is the highest rate 

on the record of any segment of this 

antidumping duty order. This rate was 

calculated for a cooperative respondent 

in the 2006–2007 administrative review 

of this order. This rate was recently 

applied to a separate rate company as 

well as the PRC-Wide Entity in the 

immediately preceding administrative 

review. No party has provided 

information related to the PRC-Wide 

Entity. During the 2006–2007 

administrative review, this margin was 

calculated using data from a cooperative 

respondent. The Federal Circuit has 

held that the Department ‘‘is permitted 

to use a ‘common sense inference that 

the highest prior margin is most 

probative evidence of current margins 

because, if it were not so, the importer, 

knowing of the rule, would have 

produced current information showing 

the margin to be less.’’’ 24 The Federal 

Circuit has held that ‘‘{t}he presumption 

that a prior dumping margin imposed 

against an exporter in an earlier 

administrative review continues to be 

valid if the exporter fails to cooperate in 

a subsequent administrative review.’’ 25

Here, the PRC-Wide Entity failed to 

cooperate or demonstrate that the 

margin applied is no longer valid. 

The Department continues to find that 

the 111.73 percent margin is probative, 

as it is both reliable and relevant.26 The 

rate is reliable as it was calculated for 

a cooperative mandatory respondent in 

a prior segment of this proceeding. The 

rate is relevant because, as discussed 

above, no party overcame the courtaffirmed presumption that a rate applied 

to an exporter remains valid unless that 

exporter demonstrates that facts exist to 

rebut that presumption. 

Where circumstances indicate that the 

selected margin is not appropriate as 

AFA, the Department will disregard the 

margin and determine an appropriate 

margin. For example, in Fresh Cut 

Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of 

Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 

FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the 

Department disregarded the highest 

margin in that case as adverse best 

information available (the predecessor 

to facts available) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense 

resulting in an unusually high margin. 

Similarly, the Department does not 

apply a margin that has been 

discredited.27 None of these unusual 

circumstances are present in this 

proceeding. 

Accordingly, we determine that the 

highest rate determined in any segment 

of this administrative proceeding (i.e., 

111.73 percent) is corroborated (i.e., it 

has probative value) within the meaning 

of section 776 (c) of the Act. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on an analysis of the comments 

received, the Department has made 

certain changes in TMI’s margin 

calculation. For the final results, the 

Department has made the following 

changes: 

• We based our determination of the 

surrogate financial ratios on the 

financial statements of Madras 

Aluminum Company Ltd. (‘‘MALCO’’) 

rather than Sudal Industries Ltd. See 

Comment 2 of the accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. 

• Consistent with our current 

practice, we revised the surrogate value 

for direct labor, indirect labor and 

packing labor to account for industryspecific wage rates. Additionally, for 

these final results we made corrections 

to the industry-specific labor calculation 

that we originally released to the parties 

on November 10, 2010. See Comment 8 

of the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

• We revised the calculation of the 

surrogate value for dolomite to reflect 

the average of the value for dolomite 

reflected in the April 1, 2008–March 31, 

2009 financial statements of Madras 

Cements Ltd., Tata Sponge Iron Ltd., 

Sagar Cements Limited, and Bhushan 

Steel Limited. See Comment 9 of the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

• We revised our calculation of 

brokerage and handling to divide the 

brokerage and handling costs reported 

in Doing Business 2010—India by the 

publicly available value for the average 

maximum cargo load per container of 

21,727 kgs. See Comment 12 of the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

• We revised our calculation of the 

surrogate value for the inputs of 

magnesium metal waste and magnesium 

waste to use the categories of 8104.20 

and 8104.11, respectively. See Comment 

13 of the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

• We revised the surrogate value for 

plastic bags, steel bands, and plastic 

bands. See Comment 14 of the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

Final Results Margin 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins for the final results are as 

follows: 

Exporter 

Weightedaverage margin 

(percentage) 

Tianjin Magnesium International Co. Ltd ............. 0.73 

PRC-Wide Entity ** ........... 111.73 

** Pan Asia and TXR are part of this PRCWide Entity. 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2010 / Notices 80795 

1See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 

and Sixth New Shipper Review, 75 FR 56062 

(September 15, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

Department will determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

final results of this review. For 

assessment purposes, we calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for merchandise 

subject to this review. Where 

appropriate, we calculated an ad 

valorem rate for each importer (or 

customer) by dividing the total dumping 

margins for reviewed sales to that party 

by the total entered values associated 

with those transactions. For dutyassessment rates calculated on this 

basis, we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting ad valorem rate against the 

entered customs values for the subject 

merchandise. Where appropriate, we 

calculated a per-unit rate for each 

importer (or customer) by dividing the 

total dumping margins for reviewed 

sales to that party by the total sales 

quantity associated with those 

transactions. For duty-assessment rates 

calculated on this basis, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate 

against the entered quantity of the 

subject merchandise. Where an importer 

(or customer)-specific assessment rate is 

de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), 

the Department will instruct CBP to 

assess that importer (or customer’s) 

entries of subject merchandise without 

regard to antidumping duties, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of these 

final results of review. 

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 TMI, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate listed 

above; (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 111.73 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 exporter that supplied that nonPRC exporter. The deposit requirements 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a final 

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 the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under the APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

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). 

We are issuing and publishing the 

final results and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: December 15, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Comment 1: Whether the Department Should 

Apply Total AFA to TMI 

Comment 2: Selection of Surrogate Financial 

Statements 

Comment 3: Whether the Department Should 

Calculate the Surrogate Value for Labor 

Using Multiple Surrogate Countries or a 

Single Country, India 

Comment 4: Whether the Department Should 

Expand the List of Economically 

Comparable Countries 

Comment 5: Whether the Department’s Wage 

Data Memorandum Contained Data Errors 

Comment 6: Whether To Use ILO Wage Data 

Contemporaneous With the POR Rather 

Than Using Pre-POR Data and Adjusting 

for Inflation as Reported in the Wage Rate 

Memorandum 

Comment 7: Whether the Department Should 

Exclude Indian Data from the Wage Rate 

Calculation 

Comment 8: Whether the Countries Used to 

Determine the Wage Rate in this Case Are 

‘‘Significant Producers of Comparable 

Merchandise’’ 

Comment 9: Valuation of Dolomite 

Comment 10: Valuation of Flux 

Comment 11: The Source of the Surrogate 

Value for Foreign Inland Freight 

Comment 12: The Surrogate Value for 

Brokerage and Handling 

Comment 13: The Appropriate HTS 

Classification for Magnesium Waste/Scrap 

(‘‘MGS’’) and Magnesium Metal Waste/ 

Scrap (‘‘ALLOYS’’) 

Comment 14: The Per-Unit Basis for Plastic 

Bags, Steel Bands, and Plastic Bands 

[FR Doc. 2010–32329 Filed 12–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Extension of Time Limit for the Final 

Results of the Sixth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 23, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emeka Chukwudebe or Javier 

Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

9, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0219 or 

(202) 482–2243, respectively. 

Background 

On September 15, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the Preliminary Results of the 

sixth administrative and new shipper 

reviews of certain frozen fish fillets from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

covering the period August 1, 2008, 

through July 31, 2009.1 Subsequent to 

the publication of the Preliminary 

Results, the Department extended the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES