13284 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

1See ‘‘Partial Rescission of the Administrative 

Review’’ section below. 

statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

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 to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, filed electronically using 

Import Administration’s Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 

An electronically filed document must 

be received successfully in its entirety 

by the Department’s electronic records 

system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time within 30 days after 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. 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 completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). The Department will 

issue appropriate appraisement 

instructions for the companies subject to 

this review directly to CBP 15 days after 

the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

For Apex and Falcon, we will 

calculate importer-specific ad valorem 

duty assessment rates based on the ratio 

of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of the sales. 

See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

For the companies which were not 

selected for individual review, we will 

calculate an assessment rate based on 

the weighted average of the cash deposit 

rates calculated for the companies 

selected for individual review excluding 

any which are de minimis or 

determined entirely on AFA. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer-specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct 

CBP to liquidate without regard to 

antidumping duties any entries for 

which the assessment rate is de 

minimis. The final results of this review 

shall be the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. See 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy 

Notice. This clarification will apply to 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by companies 

included in the final results of this 

review for which the reviewed 

companies did not know that the 

merchandise they sold to the 

intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading 

company, or exporter) was destined for 

the United States. In such instances, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the all-others rate 

if there is no rate for the intermediary 

involved in the transaction. See 

Assessment Policy Notice for a full 

discussion of this clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

this review, or the original less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will continue to be 10.17 

percent, the all-others rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

Shrimp Order, 70 FR at 5148. 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) 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 administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

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

and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5449 Filed 3–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–929] 

Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on small 

diameter graphite electrodes (graphite 

electrodes) from the People’s Republic 

of China (PRC), covering the period 

February 1, 2010, through January 31, 

2011. The Department has preliminarily 

determined that during the period of 

review (POR) respondents in this 

proceeding have made sales of subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

(NV). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. The Department is also 

rescinding this review for those 

exporters for which requests for review 

were timely withdrawn.1 Furthermore, 

we determine that 16 companies for 

which a review was requested have not 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 13285 

2See ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section below. 

3See ‘‘PRC-Wide Entity’’ section below. 

4See Antidumping Duty Order: Small Diameter 

Graphite Electrodes from the People’s Republic of 

China, 74 FR 8775 (February 26, 2009). 

5See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 5559 

(February 1, 2011). 

6 In Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in 

Part, and Deferral of Administrative Review, 76 FR 

17825 (March 31, 2011) (Initiation Notice), we listed 

additional names by which certain companies are 

also known, or were known formerly, as reflected 

in the petitioners’ February 25, 2011, review 

request. 

7See the Department’s memorandum to ‘‘All 

Interested Parties,’’ dated April 4, 2011. 

8See the Department’s memorandum entitled 

‘‘Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the 

People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Examination,’’ dated 

May 6, 2011 (Respondent Selection Memo). 

9See ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section below. 

10See ‘‘Partial Rescission of the Administrative 

Review’’ section below. 

11See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From 

the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 67411 (November 1, 

2011), and Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of 

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 6060 (February 

7, 2012). 

12The petitioners did not request a review on 

Xinghe Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd. 

demonstrated entitlement to a separate 

rate.2 As a result, we have preliminarily 

determined that they are part of the 

PRC-wide entity, and are subject to the 

PRC-wide entity rate.3

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue final results no later than 

120 days from the date of publication of 

this notice, pursuant to section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0665 or (202) 482– 

1690, respectively. 

Background 

On February 26, 2009, we published 

in the Federal Register the antidumping 

duty order on graphite electrodes from 

the PRC.4 On February 1, 2011, we 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of this 

order.5 On February 25 and February 28, 

2011, we received timely review 

requests in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b) from Fushun Jinly 

Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. (Fushun 

Jinly), Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co., 

Ltd. (Muzi Carbon), Sichuan Guanghan 

Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. (Shida Carbon), 

and Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., 

Ltd., Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co., 

Ltd., Fangda Carbon New Material Co., 

Ltd., Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd., and Hefei 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (collectively, the 

Fangda Group). On February 25, 2011, 

the Department also received a timely 

request for an administrative review of 

117 companies from SGL Carbon LLC 

and Superior Graphite Co. (the 

petitioners). On March 31, 2011, we 

initiated an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on graphite 

electrodes from the PRC with respect to 

160 companies.6

On April 4, 2011, we released to 

interested parties CBP data covering 

POR imports of graphite electrodes from 

the PRC and invited comments on the 

Department’s selection of respondents 

for individual examination.7 On May 6, 

2011, we selected Jilin Carbon Import 

and Export Company (Jilin Carbon) and 

Fushun Jinly for individual examination 

in this review.8

On May 11, 2011, we sent the 

antidumping duty questionnaire to Jilin 

Carbon and Fushun Jinly. On May 31, 

2011, we received separate-rate 

certifications from the Fangda Group 

and Muzi Carbon, and a separate-rate 

application from Shida Carbon.9 On 

June 13, 2011, and June 14, 2011, the 

petitioners submitted comments 

concerning separate-rate certifications 

provided by Muzi Carbon and the 

Fangda Group, respectively. On June 14, 

2011, and June 27, 2011, in response to 

our requests for information, Muzi 

Carbon clarified certain information in 

its separate-rate certification. On June 

30, 2011, the petitioners submitted 

comments concerning the separate-rate 

application provided by Shida Carbon. 

On July 20, 2011, in response to our 

request for information, Shida Carbon 

clarified certain information in its 

separate-rate application. 

On June 29, 2011, the petitioners filed 

a timely request for rescission of review 

with respect to 134 of the 160 

companies for which the Department 

initiated a review.10 Between June 15 

and November 29, 2011, Fushun Jinly 

responded to the Department’s original 

and supplemental questionnaires. Jilin 

Carbon did not respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire. 

On November 1, 2011, and February 

7, 2012, we extended the time limit for 

the preliminary results of review by 120 

days as allowed under section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act to February 28, 

2012.11

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

includes all small diameter graphite 

electrodes of any length, whether or not 

finished, of a kind used in furnaces, 

with a nominal or actual diameter of 

400 millimeters (16 inches) or less, and 

whether or not attached to a graphite 

pin joining system or any other type of 

joining system or hardware. The 

merchandise covered by the order also 

includes graphite pin joining systems 

for small diameter graphite electrodes, 

of any length, whether or not finished, 

of a kind used in furnaces, and whether 

or not the graphite pin joining system is 

attached to, sold with, or sold separately 

from, the small diameter graphite 

electrode. Small diameter graphite 

electrodes and graphite pin joining 

systems for small diameter graphite 

electrodes are most commonly used in 

primary melting, ladle metallurgy, and 

specialty furnace applications in 

industries including foundries, smelters, 

and steel refining operations. Small 

diameter graphite electrodes and 

graphite pin joining systems for small 

diameter graphite electrodes that are 

subject to the order are currently 

classified under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheading 8545.11.0000. The HTSUS 

number is provided for convenience and 

customs purposes, but the written 

description of the scope is dispositive. 

Partial Rescission of the Administrative 

Review 

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

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

that requested the review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of the initiation notice. 

For 152 of the companies for which 

the Department initiated an 

administrative review, the petitioners 

were the only party that requested the 

review. On June 29, 2011, the 

petitioners timely withdrew their 

review requests for 134 of those 152 

companies. Further, on May 17, 2011, 

Muzi Carbon clarified its request for 

review in which Muzi Carbon was 

named erroneously as Xinghe Muzi 

Carbon Co., Ltd.12 Therefore, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

we are rescinding this administrative 

review with respect to 135 companies 

named as follows in the Initiation 

Notice: 

1. 5-Continent Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 

2. Acclcarbon Co., Ltd. 

3. Allied Carbon (China) Co., Limited 

4. AMGL 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13286 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

13See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 

(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 

Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 

60632 (October 25, 2007). 

14See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses From the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 75 FR 24892, 24899 (May 6, 2010), 

5. Anssen Metallurgy Group Co., Ltd. 

6. Beijing Xinchengze Inc. 

7. Beijing Xincheng Sci-Tech. Development 

Inc. 

8. Brilliant Charter Limited 

9. Chang Cheng Chang Electrode Co., Ltd. 

10. Chengdelh Carbonaceous Elements 

Factory 

11. Chengdu Jia Tang Corp. 

12. China Industrial Mineral & Metals 

Group 

13. China Shaanxi Richbond Imp. & Exp. 

Industrial Corp. Ltd. 

14. China Xingyong Carbon Co., Ltd. 

15. CIMM Group Co., Ltd. 

16. Dalian Carbon & Graphite Corporation 

17. Dalian Hongrui Carbon Co., Ltd. 

18. Dalian Honest International Trade Co., 

Ltd. 

19. Dalian Horton International Trading 

Co., Ltd. 

20. Dalian LST Metallurgy Co., Ltd. 

21. Dalian Shuangji Co., Ltd. 

22. Dalian Thrive Metallurgy Imp. & Exp. 

Co., Ltd. 

23. Datong Carbon 

24. Datong Carbon Plant 

25. Datong Xincheng Carbon Co., Ltd. 

26. De Well Container Shipping Corp. 

27. Dewell Group 

28. Dignity Success Investment Trading 

Co., Ltd. 

29. Double Dragon Metals and Mineral 

Tools Co., Ltd. 

30. Fangda Lanzhou Carbon Joint Stock 

Company Co. Ltd. 

31. Foset Co., Ltd. 

32. GES (China) Co., Ltd. 

33. Guangdong Highsun Yongye (Group) 

Co., Ltd. 

34. Haimen Shuguang Carbon Industry Co., 

Ltd. 

35. Handan Hanbo Material Co., Ltd. 

36. Hebei Long Great Wall Electrode Co., 

Ltd. 

37. Heilongjiang Xinyuan Carbon Products 

Co., Ltd. 

38. Heilongjiang Xinyuan Metacarbon 

Company, Ltd. 

39. Henan Sanli Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 

40. Hopes (Beijing) International Co., Ltd. 

41. Huanan Carbon Factory 

42. Hunan Mec Machinery and Electronics 

Imp. & Exp. Corp. 

43. Hunan Yinguang Carbon Factory Co., 

Ltd. 

44. Inner Mongolia QingShan Special 

Graphite and Carbon Co., Ltd. 

45. Inner Mongolia Xinghe County 

Hongyuan Electrical Carbon Factory 

46. Jiang Long Carbon 

47. Jiangsu Yafei Carbon Co., Ltd. 

48. Jiaozuo Zhongzhou Carbon Products 

Co., Ltd. 

49. Jichun International Trade Co. Ltd. of 

Jilin Province 

50. Jiexiu Juyuan Carbon Co., Ltd./Jiexiu 

Ju-Yuan & Coaly Co., Ltd. 

51. Jilin Songjiang Carbon Co Ltd. 

52. Jinneng Group 

53. Jinyu Thermo-Electric Material Co., 

Ltd. 

54. Kaifeng Carbon Company Ltd. 

55. KASY Logistics (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. 

56. Kimwan New Carbon Technology and 

Development Co., Ltd. 

57. Kingstone Industrial Group Ltd. 

58. L & T Group Co., Ltd. 

59. Laishui Long Great Wall Electrode Co. 

Ltd. 

60. Lanzhou Carbon Co., Ltd./Lanzhou 

Carbon Import & Export Corp. 

61. Lanzhou Hailong Technology 

62. Lanzhou Ruixin Industrial Material Co., 

Ltd. 

63. LH Carbon Factory of Chengde 

64. Lianxing Carbon Qinghai Co., Ltd. 

65. Lianxing Carbon Science Institute 

66. Lianxing Carbon (Shandong) Co., Ltd. 

67. Lianyungang Jianglida Mineral Co., Ltd. 

68. Lianyungang Jinli Carbon Co., Ltd. 

69. Liaoyang Carbon Co. Ltd. 

70. Linghai Hongfeng Carbon Products Co., 

Ltd. 

71. Linyi County Lubei Carbon Co., Ltd. 

72. Maoming Yongye (Group) Co., Ltd. 

73. Nantong Falter New Energy Co., Ltd. 

74. Nantong River-East Carbon Co., Ltd. 

75. Nantong River-East Carbon Joint Stock 

Co., Ltd. 

76. Nantong Yangtze Carbon Corp. Ltd., 

Orient (Dalian) Carbon Resources Developing 

Co., Ltd. 

77. Peixian Longxiang Foreign Trade Co. 

Ltd. 

78. Qingdao Grand Graphite Products Co., 

Ltd. 

79. Quingdao Haosheng Metals & Minerals 

Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 

80. Qingdao Haosheng Metals Imp. & Exp. 

Co., Ltd. 

81. Qingdao Likun Graphite Co., Ltd. 

82. Qingdao Liyikun Carbon Development 

Co., Ltd. 

83. Qingdao Ruizhen Carbon Co., Ltd. 

84. Rt Carbon Co., Ltd. 

85. Ruitong Carbon Co., Ltd. 

86. Shandong Basan Carbon Plant 

87. Shandong Zibo Contient Carbon 

Factory 

88. Shanghai Carbon International Trade 

Co., Ltd. 

89. Shanghai GC Co., Ltd. 

90. Shanghai Jinneng International Trade 

Co., Ltd. 

91. Shanghai P.W. International Ltd. 

92. Shanghai Shen-Tech Graphite Material 

Co., Ltd. 

93. Shanghai Topstate International 

Trading Co., Ltd. 

94. Shenyang Jinli Metals & Minerals Imp. 

& Exp. Co., Ltd. 

95. Shanxi Datong Energy Development 

Co., Ltd. 

96. Shanxi Foset Carbon Co. Ltd. 

97. Shanxi Jiexiu Import and Export Co., 

Ltd. 

98. Shanxi Jinneng Group Co., Ltd. 

99. Shanxi Yunheng Graphite Electrode 

Co., Ltd. 

100. Shenyang Jinli Metals & Minerals Imp. 

& Exp. Co., Ltd. 

101. Shijaizhuang Carbon Co., Ltd. 

102. Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon Factory 

103. Sichuan 5-Continent Imp. & Exp. Co., 

Ltd. 

104. Sichuan GMT International Inc. 

105. SMMC Group Co., Ltd. 

106. Tangshan Kimwan Special Carbon & 

Graphite Co., Ltd. 

107. Tengchong Carbon Co., Ltd. 

108. Tianjin (Teda) Iron & Steel Trade Co., 

Ltd. 

109. Tianjin Kimwan Carbon Technology 

and Development Co., Ltd. 

110. Tianzhen Jintian Graphite Electrodes 

Co., Ltd. 

111. Tianjin Yue Yang Industrial & Trading 

Co., Ltd. 

112. Tielong (Chengdu) Carbon Co., Ltd. 

113. UK Carbon & Graphite 

114. United Carbon Ltd. 

115. United Trade Resources, Inc. 

116. Weifang Lianxing Carbon Co., Ltd. 

117. World Trade Metals & Minerals Co., 

Ltd. 

118. XC Carbon Group 

119. Xinghe Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd 

120. Xinghe Xingyong Carbon Co., Ltd. 

121. Xinghe Xinyuan Carbon Products Co., 

Ltd. 

122. Xinyuan Carbon Co., Ltd. 

123. Xuanhua Hongli Refractory and 

Mineral Company 

124. Xuchang Minmetals & Industry Co., 

Ltd. 

125. Xuzhou Carbon Co., Ltd. 

126. Xuzhou Electrode Factory 

127. Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon 

Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

128. Yangzhou Qionghua Carbon Trading 

Ltd. 

129. Yixing Huaxin Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. 

130. Youth Industry Co., Ltd. 

131. Zhengzhou Jinyu Thermo-Electric 

Material Co., Ltd. 

132. Zibo Continent Carbon Factory 

133. Zibo DuoCheng Trading Co., Ltd. 

134. Zibo Lianxing Carbon Co., Ltd. 

135. Zibo Wuzhou Tanshun Carbon Co., 

Ltd. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (NME) country.13 In 

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

the Act, any determination that a 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. None of the 

parties to this proceeding has contested 

such treatment. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty rate.14 It is the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 13287 

unchanged in Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 

FR 59217 (September 27, 2010). 

15See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 17826. 

16See id. 

17These companies are the Fangda Group 

(comprising five collapsed companies), Shida 

Carbon, Muzi Carbon, Dechang Shida Carbon Co., 

Ltd., Fushun Carbon Plant, Fushun Jinli 

Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd., Guanghan Shida 

Carbon Co., Ltd., Jilin Carbon Graphite Material Co., 

Ltd., Lanzhou Hailong New Material Co., Liaoning 

Fangda Group Industrial Co., Ltd., Shida Carbon 

Group, Sichuan Dechang Shida Co., Ltd., Sichuan 

Shida Trading Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Anhui Co., Ltd., 

Sinosteel Corp., Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Co., Ltd., 

Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., 

Sinosteel Sichuan Co., Ltd., and Xinghe County 

Muzi Carbon Plant. 

18See ‘‘PRC-Wide Entity’’ section below. 

19See Fushun Jinly’s Section A questionnaire 

response, dated June 15, 2011. 

20See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

21See Fushun Jinly’s Section A questionnaire 

response, dated June 15, 2011; the Fangda Group’s 

and Muzi Carbon’s separate rate certifications, 

dated May 31, 2011, and Shida Carbon’s separate 

rate application, dated May 31, 2011. 

22See 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). 23See Fushun Jinly’s Section A questionnaire 

response, dated June 15, 2011; the Fangda Group’s 

and Muzi Carbon’s separate rate certifications, 

dated May 31, 2011, and Shida Carbon’s separate 

rate application, dated May 31, 2011. 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to 

review in an NME country this single 

rate unless an exporter can demonstrate 

that it is sufficiently independent so as 

to be entitled to a separate rate. 

Exporters can demonstrate this 

independence through the absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control over export activities. The 

Department analyzes each entity 

exporting the subject merchandise 

under a test articulated in the 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 the 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). If the Department 

determines, however, that a company is 

wholly foreign-owned or located in a 

market economy (ME), then a separaterate analysis is not necessary to 

determine whether it is independent 

from government control. 

In order to demonstrate separate-rate 

status eligibility, the Department 

normally requires entities for whom a 

review was requested, and who were 

assigned a separate rate in a previous 

segment of this proceeding, to submit a 

separate-rate certification stating that 

they continue to meet the criteria for 

obtaining a separate rate.15 For entities 

that were not assigned a separate rate in 

the previous segment of a proceeding, to 

demonstrate eligibility for such, the 

Department requires a separate-rate 

application.16

In this administrative review, of the 

23 companies not selected for 

individual examination 17 and for which 

the review has not been rescinded or for 

which the Department does not intend 

to rescind the review, only three 

entities, the Fangda Group, Shida 

Carbon, and Muzi Carbon, submitted 

separate-rate information. The 

remaining 16 companies under review 

provided neither a separate rate 

application nor separate rate 

certification, as applicable. Therefore, 

the Department preliminarily 

determines that there were exports of 

merchandise under review from 16 PRC 

exporters that did not demonstrate their 

eligibility for separate rate status. As a 

result, the Department is treating these 

16 PRC exporters as part of the PRCwide entity, subject to the PRC-wide 

rate.18 Additionally, we received a 

complete response to Section A of the 

NME antidumping questionnaire from 

Fushun Jinly, which contained 

information pertaining to the company’s 

eligibility for a separate rate.19

Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.20

The evidence provided by the Fangda 

Group, Fushun Jinly, Muzi Carbon, and 

Shida Carbon 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 the 

companies.21

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.22

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 over export 

activities which would preclude the 

Department from assigning separate 

rates. For the Fangda Group, Fushun 

Jinly, Muzi Carbon, and Shida Carbon 

we determine that the evidence on the 

record supports a preliminary finding of 

de facto absence of government control 

based on record statements and 

supporting documentation showing that 

each respondent: (1) Sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) retains the 

proceeds from its sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) has autonomy from 

the government regarding the selection 

of management.23

The evidence placed on the record of 

this review by the Fangda Group, 

Fushun Jinly, Muzi Carbon, and Shida 

Carbon demonstrates an absence of de 

jure and de facto government control 

with respect each company’s respective 

exports of the merchandise under 

review, in accordance with the criteria 

identified in Sparklers and Silicon 

Carbide. Therefore, we are preliminarily 

granting the Fangda Group, Fushun 

Jinly, Muzi Carbon, and Shida Carbon 

each a separate rate. 

Separate-Rate Comments 

The petitioners assert that the Fangda 

Group and Shida Carbon do not qualify 

for separate-rate status because these 

entities did not have the requisite 

knowledge of destination of their 

respective sales. Specifically, the 

petitioners contend that because neither 

the Fangda Group nor Shida Carbon 

knew at the time of sale and shipment 

to U.S. ports whether their shipments 

would be entered for consumption in 

the United States during the POR, the 

Fangda Group and Shida Carbon did not 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13288 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

24See the Department’s memorandum entitled 

‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from 

the People’s Republic of China: Identification of 

Reviewable Transactions for Certain Companies 

Under Review,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice. See also Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results 

of the First Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order and Final Rescission of 

the Administrative Review, in Part, 76 FR 56397 

(September 13, 2011), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 (finding that, 

because respondents properly reported their sales 

as export price sales, the knowledge test did not 

apply). 

25See Muzi Carbon’s submission, dated May 31, 

2011, at 5. 

26See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). 

27These companies are Dechang Shida Carbon 

Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon Plant, Fushun Jinli 

Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd., Guanghan Shida 

Carbon Co., Ltd., Jilin Carbon Graphite Material Co., 

Ltd., Lanzhou Hailong New Material Co., Liaoning 

Fangda Group Industrial Co., Ltd., Shida Carbon 

Group, Sichuan Dechang Shida Co., Ltd., Sichuan 

Shida Trading Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Anhui Co., Ltd., 

Sinosteel Corp., Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Co., Ltd., 

Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., 

Sinosteel Sichuan Co., Ltd., and Xinghe County 

Muzi Carbon Plant. 

28See 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, 53082 (September 8, 2006). 

have any U.S. sales, as defined in the 

statute. 

We preliminarily find that the 

petitioners’ allegations with regard to 

the Fangda Group’s and Shida Carbon’s 

knowledge of destination are 

speculative and not supported by record 

evidence. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign a separate rate to an exporter 

that can demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent from 

government control. See Initiation 

Notice, 76 FR at 17826. Moreover, 19 

CFR 351.213(e)(1)(i) specifically 

instructs that an administrative review 

may cover ‘‘entries, exports or sales of 

the subject merchandise’’ during the 

POR. Because the Fangda Group and 

Shida Carbon were not selected as 

mandatory respondents, the companies 

were not required and did not report 

their U.S. sales information to the 

Department. Record evidence does 

indicate, however, that both the Fangda 

Group and Shida Carbon had reviewable 

U.S. transactions during the POR.24

Because the Fangda Group and Shida 

Carbon had reviewable U.S. transactions 

during the POR, irrespective of their 

knowledge of U.S. entry, and because 

both companies also demonstrated their 

independence from the PRC 

government, we preliminarily conclude 

that the Fangda Group and Shida 

Carbon are both eligible to receive a 

separate rate. 

The petitioners assert that the 

Department cannot consider Muzi 

Carbon’s separate-rate request in this 

review. Specifically, the petitioners 

argue that because Muzi Carbon 

submitted a separate-rate certification 

instead of a separate-rate application, 

Muzi Carbon’s submission is untimely. 

The petitioners assert that the 

Department’s separate-rate instructions 

require the submission of a separate-rate 

application if an exporter underwent 

changes in corporate structure, 

ownership, or official company name. 

The petitioners also contend that Muzi 

Carbon had a change in ownership 

during the POR and, thus, was required 

to submit a separate-rate application. 

Information on the record indicates that 

Muzi Carbon’s separate rate certification 

illuminated that the proprietor of Muzi 

Carbon acquired the remaining three 

percent of the value of outstanding 

shares that he did not already own from 

his nephew, thus becoming the sole 

shareholder of Muzi Carbon.25 While 

this event established a change in the 

make-up of Muzi Carbon’s shareholder 

structure, we find that it does not 

constitute a change in the company’s 

ownership because the ownership 

stayed within the family and the control 

of the company remained with its 

proprietor. We therefore preliminarily 

find Muzi Carbon’s filing of a separaterate certification to be sufficient. 

Rate for Non-Selected Companies 

In accordance with section 

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

employed a limited examination 

methodology, as it did not have the 

resources to examine all companies for 

which a review request was made. We 

selected Fushun Jinly and Jilin Carbon 

as mandatory respondents in this 

review. See Respondent Selection 

Memo. As discussed above, the Fangda 

Group, Muzi Carbon, and Shida Carbon 

are exporters of graphite electrodes from 

the PRC that demonstrated their 

eligibility for a separate rate, but which 

were not selected for individual 

examination in this review. The statute 

and the Department’s regulations do not 

directly address the establishment of a 

rate to be applied to individual 

companies not selected for individual 

examination where the Department 

limited its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The 

Department’s practice in cases involving 

limited selection based on exporters 

accounting for the largest volumes of 

trade has been to look to section 

735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which 

provides instructions for calculating the 

all-others rate in an investigation. 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs 

that we are not to calculate an all-others 

rate using any zero or de minimis 

margins or any margins based entirely 

on facts available. Section 735(c)(5)(B) 

of the Act also provides that, where all 

margins are zero rates, de minimis rates, 

or rates based entirely on facts available, 

we may use ‘‘any reasonable method’’ 

for assigning the rate to non-selected 

respondents. In this instance, we have 

calculated a rate above de minimus for 

Fushun Jinly and determined a rate for 

Jilin Carbon based entirely on facts 

available. 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, as the separate rate, we have 

established a margin for the Fangda 

Group, Muzi Carbon, and Shida Carbon 

based on the rate we calculated for the 

mandatory respondent, Fushun Jinly, 

excluding, where appropriate, any rates 

that were zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on adverse facts available 

(AFA).26

PRC-Wide Entity 

We have preliminarily determined 

that 16 companies did not demonstrate 

their eligibility for a separate rate and 

are properly considered part of the PRCwide entity.27 As explained above in the 

‘‘Separate Rates’’ section, all companies 

within the PRC are considered to be 

subject to government control unless 

they are able to demonstrate an absence 

of government control with respect to 

their export activities. Such companies 

are thus assigned a single antidumping 

duty rate distinct from the separate 

rate(s) determined for companies that 

are found to be independent of 

government control with respect to their 

export activities. We consider the 

influence that the government has been 

found to have over the economy to 

warrant determining a rate for the entity 

that is distinct from the rates found for 

companies that have provided sufficient 

evidence to establish that they operate 

freely with respect to their export 

activities.28

Use of Facts Available and 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 13289 

29See 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 Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, Statement of Administrative 

Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 

(SAA). 

30See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from 

the People’s Republic of China; Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 68 FR 19504, 19507 (April 21, 2003). 

31See KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760, 

766–67 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (KYD); Rhone Poulenc, Inc. 

v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 

1990) (Rhone Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 

346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding 

a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available 

dumping margin from a different respondent in a 

less-than-fair-value investigation); Kompass Food 

Trading Int’l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 684 

(2000) (upholding 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 (CIT 

2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, 

the highest available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a previous administrative 

review). 

32SAA at 870. 

33 Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, 69 FR 

76910, 76912 (December 23, 2004), and D&L Supply 

Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 

1997). 

34KYD, 607 F.3d at 766 (citing Rhone Poulenc, 

899 F.2d at 1190) (emphasis in original). 

35See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances: Small Diameter Graphite 

Electrodes from the People’s Republic of China, 74 

FR 2049, 2054–55 (January 14, 2009) (Graphite 

Electrodes Final Determination). 

36See section 776(c) of the Act and the 

‘‘Corroboration of Secondary Information’’ section. 

37SAA at 870. 

38 Id. 

39See 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). 

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. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

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 PRCWide Entity 

Jilin Carbon did not respond to the 

Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

company withheld information 

requested by the Department in 

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

and (B) of the Act. Furthermore, this 

company’s refusal to participate in the 

review significantly impeded the 

proceeding in accordance with section 

776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Specifically, had 

this company participated in the review, 

the Department would have been able to 

calculate an appropriate dumping 

margin. 

Further, because there is no 

information on the record 

demonstrating this company’s 

entitlement to a separate rate in 

accordance with section 776(a) of the 

Act, the Department has preliminarily 

treated Jilin Carbon as part of the PRCwide entity. 

Because Jilin Carbon did not respond 

to the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire, and is part of the PRCwide entity, the PRC-wide entity’s 

refusal to provide any information 

constitutes justifiable grounds under 

which the Department can conclude 

that less than full cooperation has been 

shown.29 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 Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

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

CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from: (1) The petition; (2) a final 

determination in the investigation; (3) 

any previous review or determination; 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In reviews, the Department 

normally selects as AFA the highest rate 

determined for any respondent in any 

segment of the proceeding.30 The Court 

of International Trade (CIT) and the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(Federal Circuit) have consistently 

upheld the Department’s practice.31 The 

Department’s practice, when selecting 

an AFA rate from among the possible 

sources of information, has been to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the statutory 

purposes of the adverse facts available 

rule to induce respondents to provide 

the Department with complete and 

accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ 32 The Department’s practice 

also ensures ‘‘that the party does not 

obtain a more favorable result by failing 

to cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ 33 In choosing the appropriate 

balance between providing respondents 

with an incentive to respond accurately 

and imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondent’s prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin reflects a ‘‘common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ 34 Consistent with the statute, 

court precedent, and its normal practice, 

the Department has assigned 159.64 

percent to the PRC-wide entity, 

including Jilin Carbon, as AFA, which 

is the PRC-wide rate determined in the 

investigation and the rate currently 

applicable to the PRC-wide entity.35

The Department preliminarily 

determines that this information is the 

most appropriate from the available 

sources to effectuate the purposes of 

AFA. The Department’s reliance on the 

PRC-wide rate from the original 

investigation to determine an AFA rate 

is subject to the requirement to 

corroborate secondary information.36

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at the Department’s 

disposal. Secondary information is 

described in the SAA as ‘‘information 

derived from the petition that gave rise 

to the investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning the subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’ 37 The SAA 

explains that ‘‘corroborate’’ means to 

determine that the information used has 

probative value.38 The Department has 

determined that to have probative value, 

information must be reliable and 

relevant.39 The SAA also explains that 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13290 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

40See SAA at 870; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183 

(March 11, 2005). 

41See Graphite Electrodes Final Determination, 

74 FR at 2054, and Small Diameter Graphite 

Electrodes from the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

8287 (February 13, 2008) (Graphite Electrodes 

Investigation Initiation); see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality 

Steel Pipe from the People’s Republic of China, 73 

FR 31970, 31972 (June 5, 2008) (where the 

Department relied upon pre-initiation analysis to 

corroborate the highest margin alleged in the 

petition). 

42See Graphite Electrodes Investigation 

Initiation, 73 FR at 8288–8290. 

43See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer 

Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian 

Federation, 65 FR 1139, 1141 (January 7, 2000), 

unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer 

Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian 

Federation, 65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000). 

44See the Department’s Policy Bulletin No. 04.1, 

regarding, ‘‘Non-Market Economy Surrogate 

Country Selection Process,’’ (March 1, 2004), 

available on the Department’s Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html. 

45See the Department’s memorandum entitled 

‘‘Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from 

the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated August 29, 

2011 (Surrogate Country Memo). 

46See the petitioners’ submission, dated 

September 22, 2011. 

47See Fushun Jinly’s submission, dated 

September 22, 2011. 

48See Certain Steel Wheels From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 76 FR 67703 (November 2, 2011) 

(Steel Wheels). 

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.40

As stated above, we are applying as 

AFA to the PRC-wide entity the highest 

rate from any segment of this 

administrative proceeding, which is the 

PRC-wide rate of 159.64 percent. The 

159.64 percent is the highest rate on the 

record of any segment of the 

antidumping duty order. In the 

investigation, the Department relied 

upon our pre-initiation analysis of the 

adequacy and accuracy of the 

information in the petition.41 During our 

pre-initiation analysis, we examined the 

information used as the basis of export 

price and NV in the petition, and the 

calculations used to derive the alleged 

margins. Also, during our pre-initiation 

analysis, we examined information from 

various independent sources provided 

either in the petition or, based on our 

requests, in supplements to the petition, 

which corroborated key elements of the 

export price and NV calculations.42

Since the investigation, the Department 

has found no other corroborating 

information available in this case, and 

received no comments from interested 

parties as to the relevance or reliability 

of this secondary information. Based 

upon the above, for these preliminary 

results, the Department finds that the 

rates derived from the petition are 

corroborated to the extent practicable 

for purposes of the AFA rate assigned to 

the PRC-wide entity, including Jilin 

Carbon. 

Because these are the preliminary 

results of review, the Department will 

consider all margins on the record at the 

time of the final results of review for the 

purpose of determining the most 

appropriate final margin for the PRCwide entity.43

Surrogate Country 

When the Department conducts an 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of imports from an NME country, 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department to base NV, in most cases, 

on the NME producer’s factors of 

production (FOP), valued in a surrogate 

ME country or countries considered 

appropriate by the Department. In 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, the Department will value FOPs 

using ‘‘to the extent possible, the prices 

or costs of the FOPs in one or more ME 

countries that are: (A) At a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country, and (B) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise.’’ 44 Once the Department 

has identified the countries that are 

economically comparable to the PRC, it 

identifies those countries which are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. From the countries which 

are found to be both economically 

comparable to the PRC and significant 

producers of comparable or identical 

merchandise, the Department will then 

select a primary surrogate country based 

upon whether the data for valuing FOPs 

are both available and reliable. 

In the instant review, the Department 

has identified Colombia, Indonesia, the 

Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, 

and Ukraine as countries that are at a 

level of economic development 

comparable to the PRC.45 Therefore, we 

consider all six of these countries as 

having satisfied the first prong of the 

surrogate-country selection criteria of 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act. 

With respect to the Department’s 

selection of a surrogate country, the 

petitioners commented that Ukraine is 

the appropriate surrogate country from 

which to derive surrogate factor values 

for the PRC because Ukraine is most 

economically comparable to the PRC 

and is also a significant producer of 

graphite electrodes.46 The petitioners 

suggested we use the 2010 publicly 

available financial statements for JSC 

Ukrainsky Grafit, a major Ukrainian 

producer of graphite electrodes, in order 

to derive surrogate financial ratios and 

placed such financial statements on the 

record. The petitioners also comment 

that Ukraine is a major importer of the 

inputs consumed in the production of 

graphite electrodes and placed the 

relevant POR Ukrainian import statistics 

on the record. 

Fushun Jinly commented that, 

consistent with the Department’s 

determination in the original 

investigation and in the 2008–2010 

administrative review, India should be 

selected as the surrogate country.47

Fushun Jinly commented that although 

India is not one of the countries 

identified by the Department as 

economically comparable to the PRC, 

the list identified by the Department is 

neither exclusive nor exhaustive. 

Fushun Jinly commented that World 

Bank’s 2011 World Development Report 

(the source of 2009 Gross National 

Income (GNI) data used by the 

Department) classifies both the PRC and 

India as ‘‘lower middle income 

countries,’’ and while the PRC is at the 

higher end of the ‘‘lower middle 

income’’ scale and India is at the lower 

end of that scale, World Bank classifies 

both countries within the same 

economic grouping. Further, Fushun 

Jinly asserts that the economic growth 

trends shared by the PRC and India also 

support a finding that India is 

economically comparable to the PRC. 

In Steel Wheels 48 we stated that, 

unless we find that all of the countries 

determined to be equally economically 

comparable are not significant 

producers of comparable merchandise, 

do not provide a reliable source of 

publicly available surrogate data, or are 

unsuitable for use for other reasons, we 

will rely on data from one of these 

countries. Because we found that one of 

the six countries listed in the Surrogate 

Country Memo meets the selection 

criteria, as explained below, we are not 

considering India as the primary 

surrogate country. 

Because we were unable to find the 

actual production data to evaluate the 

significance of production of subject 

merchandise with respect to potential 

surrogate countries, we relied on export 

data as a proxy for overall production 

data in this review. From the countries 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 13291 

49See the Department’s memorandum entitled 

‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from 

the People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

Surrogate Values,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice (Factor Valuation Memorandum), at Exhibit 

1. 

50See Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

51See Factor Valuation Memorandum; see also 

‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section, below. 52See Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

53See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof 

Assembly Components, Div of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. 

v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382–1383 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department’s use of 

market-based prices to value certain FOPs). 

54See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December 

4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6, and Final Results of 

First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China, 

66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

55See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Continued 

that we identified to be economically 

comparable to the PRC, only Ukraine 

and South Africa exported significant 

quantities of graphite electrodes during 

the POR based on Global Trade Atlas 

(GTA) data for exports under HTS 

8545.11.00.49 As such, we find that 

Ukraine and South Africa meet the 

‘‘significant producer’’ requirement of 

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. 

Like the PRC, Ukraine has a broad and 

diverse production base, and we have 

reliable data from Ukraine that we can 

use to value the FOPs and derive 

surrogate financial ratios.50 Unlike the 

data for Ukraine, we do not have the 

financial statements from the producers 

of graphite electrodes in South Africa or 

any data concerning certain freight 

expenses and electricity. Therefore, we 

have determined that it is appropriate to 

use Ukraine as a surrogate country for 

the purposes of this administrative 

review, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of 

the Act, based on the following: (1) It is 

at a comparable level of economic 

development to the PRC; (2) it is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, and (3) we have reliable 

data from Ukraine that we can use to 

value the FOPs. Accordingly, we have 

calculated NV using Ukrainian prices to 

value Fushun Jinly’s FOPs.51

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Fushun Jinly’s 

sales of subject merchandise were made 

at less than NV, we compared the NV to 

individual export price transactions in 

accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of 

the Act. See ‘‘Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice, 

below. 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, export price is ‘‘the price at 

which subject merchandise is first sold 

(or agreed to be sold) before the date of 

importation by the producer or exporter 

of the subject merchandise outside of 

the United States to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States or to an 

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 

the United States,’’ as adjusted under 

section 772(c) of the Act. For Fushun 

Jinly, we used export price 

methodology, in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act, for sales in 

which the subject merchandise was first 

sold prior to importation by the exporter 

outside the United States directly to an 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States and for sales in which 

constructed export price was not 

otherwise indicated. 

We based export price on the price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, where 

appropriate, we made deductions from 

the starting price (gross unit price) for 

foreign inland freight and foreign 

brokerage and handling. We valued 

brokerage and handling using a price 

list of export procedures necessary to 

export a standardized cargo of goods 

from Ukraine. The price list is compiled 

based on a survey case study of the 

procedural requirements for trading a 

standard shipment of goods by ocean 

transport from Ukraine as reported in 

World Bank Group’s Doing Business 

2011—Ukraine; Trading Across 

Borders.52

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine NV 

using an FOP methodology if: (1) The 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

country; and (2) 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. When 

determining NV in an NME context, the 

Department will base NV on FOPs 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of these 

economies renders price comparisons 

and the calculation of production costs 

invalid under our normal 

methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) 

of the Act, FOPs include but are not 

limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; 

(2) quantities of raw materials 

employed; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; and (4) 

representative capital costs. We used 

FOPs reported by Fushun Jinly for 

direct materials, energy, labor, packing 

and by-products. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

FOPs reported by Fushun Jinly for the 

POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to find an appropriate 

surrogate value (SV) to value FOPs, but 

when a producer sources an input from 

a ME and pays for it in ME currency, the 

Department normally will value the 

factor using the actual price paid for the 

input if the quantities were meaningful 

and where the prices have not been 

distorted by dumping or subsidies.53 To 

calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor-consumption 

rates by publicly available SVs (except 

as discussed below). In selecting SVs, 

we considered the quality, specificity, 

and contemporaneity of the data.54 As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to import SVs surrogate freight cost 

using the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory, where 

appropriate. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the Federal Circuit’s 

decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 

States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997). 

On September 8, 2011, we invited all 

interested parties to submit publicly 

available information to value FOPs for 

our consideration in the preliminary 

results of this review. On September 22, 

2011, and October 6, 2011, the 

petitioners and Fushun Jinly submitted, 

respectively, publicly available 

information to value FOPs for the 

preliminary results. See Factor 

Valuation Memorandum for a detailed 

description of all SVs used in this 

review. 

For these preliminary results, in 

accordance with our practice, except 

where indicated below, we used data 

from the Ukrainian import statistics in 

the GTA and other publicly available 

Ukrainian sources in order to calculate 

SVs for Fushun Jinly’s reported FOPs 

(i.e., direct materials, energy, and 

packing materials) and certain 

movement expenses. In selecting the 

best available information for valuing 

FOPs in accordance with section 

773(c)(1) of the Act, our practice is to 

select, to the extent practicable, SVs 

which are non-export average values, 

most contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive.55


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13292 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

Circumstances and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). 56See Factor Valuation Memorandum. 57See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009) 

(Kitchen Racks Prelim), unchanged in Certain 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 

2009) (Kitchen Racks Final). 

58Omnibus 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, 

reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24. 

59See, 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; 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; 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. 

60See, e.g., Kitchen Racks Prelim, 74 FR at 9600, 

unchanged in Kitchen Racks Final. 

61See id. 

62See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 

1997). 

63See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy 

Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 

71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) 

(Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy 

Inputs). 

64For a detailed description of the actual values 

used for the ME inputs reported, see the 

Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from 

the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

Analysis Memorandum for Fushun Jinly 

Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

65See Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

66See id. 

67See, e.g., Wire Decking from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 32905 (June 10, 2010), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3. 

68See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093. 

69See id. 76 FR at 36093–94. 

The record shows that data in the 

Ukrainian import statistics, as well as 

those from the other Ukrainian sources, 

are contemporaneous with the period of 

investigation, product-specific, and taxexclusive.56 In those instances where we 

could not obtain publicly available 

information contemporaneous to the 

POR with which to value factors, we 

adjusted the SVs using, where 

appropriate, the Ukrainian Wholesale 

Price Index (WPI) or, where appropriate, 

Consumer Price Index (CPI), as 

published in the International Monetary 

Fund’s International Financial 

Statistics.57

As explained in the legislative history 

of the Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988, the 

Department continues to apply its longstanding practice of disregarding SVs if 

it has a reason to believe or suspect the 

source data may be subsidized.58 In this 

regard, 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, nonindustry specific export subsidies.59

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, we 

find that it is reasonable to infer that all 

exporters from India, Indonesia, South 

Korea and Thailand may have benefitted 

from these subsidies. Additionally, we 

disregarded prices from NME 

countries.60 Finally, imports that were 

labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded 

from the import average value, because 

we could not be certain that they were 

not from either an NME country or a 

country with generally available export 

subsidies.61

Fushun Jinly reported that certain of 

its raw material inputs were sourced 

from an ME country and paid for in ME 

currencies. When a respondent sources 

inputs from an ME supplier in 

meaningful quantities, we use the actual 

price paid by respondent for those 

inputs, except when prices may have 

been distorted by dumping or 

subsidies.62 Where we found ME 

purchases to be of significant quantities 

(i.e., 33 percent or more), in accordance 

with our statement of policy as outlined 

in Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs,63 we used the actual 

purchases of these inputs to value the 

inputs. 

Accordingly, we valued certain of 

Fushun Jinly’s inputs using the ME 

prices paid for in ME currencies for the 

inputs where the total volume of the 

input purchased from all ME sources 

during the POR exceeds or is equal to 

33 percent of the total volume of the 

input purchased from all sources during 

the period. Where appropriate, we 

added freight to the ME prices of 

inputs.64

We valued truck freight expenses 

using a per-unit average rate we 

calculated from the data we obtained 

from budmo.org, as suggested by the 

petitioners. This Web site is an online 

provider of container shipping, logistics, 

and freight forwarding services. The 

Web site provides freight rates for 

transporting goods in containers by road 

from major ports in Ukraine to many 

large Ukrainian cities.65 Because data 

reported in this source were current as 

of March, 2011, and, thus, not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

adjusted the value for inland truck 

freight using the Ukrainian WPI 

deflator. 

We valued electricity using the 

electricity tariff data for corporate 

consumers, as published by the National 

Electricity Regulatory Commission of 

Ukraine, an administrative body of the 

government of Ukraine, at 

www.nerc.gov.ua. These electricity rates 

were furnished by major power 

distribution companies in Ukraine and 

represent actual, country-wide, 

publicly-available information on taxexclusive basis.66 We obtained 

electricity tariffs for each month of the 

POR and computed a single PORaverage rate.67

To calculate the labor input, we based 

our calculation on the methodology 

which the Department enunciated on 

June 21, 2011 in Antidumping 

Methodologies in Proceedings Involving 

Non-Market Economies: Valuing the 

Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 

36092 (June 21, 2011) (Labor 

Methodologies). Prior to 2010, the 

Department used regression-based 

wages that captured the worldwide 

relationship between per capita GNI and 

hourly manufacturing wages, pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). On May 3, 

2010, the Federal Circuit, in Dorbest 

Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 

1372 (Fed Cir. 2010) (Dorbest), 

invalidated part of that regulation. As a 

consequence of the Federal Circuit’s 

ruling in Dorbest, the Department no 

longer relies on the regression-based 

methodology described in 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3). 

In Labor Methodologies, the 

Department explained that the best 

methodology to value the labor input is 

to use industry-specific labor rates from 

the primary surrogate country.68

Additionally, the Department 

determined that the best data source for 

industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 

6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from 

the International Labor Organization 

(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics.69

We could not identify Chapter 6A 

labor data for Ukraine pertaining to the 

industry specific to subject 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 13293 

70 Id. 76 FR at 36094, n.11. 

71See id. 76 FR at 36093–94. 

72See id. 76 FR at 36094. 

73See Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

74See id. 

75See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

76See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 351.309(d)(1). 

77See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

78See 19 CFR 351.310. 

79See, e.g., Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in 

Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

merchandise. In Labor Methodologies, 

the Department explained that, ‘‘if there 

is no industry-specific data available for 

the surrogate country within the 

primary data source, i.e., ILO Chapter 

6A data, the Department will then look 

to national data for the surrogate 

country for calculating the wage rate.’’ 70

The latest year for which ILO Chapter 

6A reports national data for Ukraine is 

2006. We selected this monthly labor 

value, converted it to an hourly basis, 

and inflated it to 2010 (the majority of 

the POR) using the Ukrainian CPI. 

We find that the ILO Chapter 6A data 

constitute the best available information 

on the record with which to value labor 

costs in this review on the basis that it 

accounts for all direct and indirect labor 

costs, such as, for example, wages, 

benefits, housing, training, etc., and, 

thus, more accurately reflective of the 

actual labor costs in Ukraine.71 For more 

details on this calculation, see the 

Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

Because the financial statements used 

to calculate the surrogate financial ratios 

do not include itemized detail of labor 

costs, we did not make adjustments to 

certain labor costs in the surrogate 

financial ratios.72

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general and administrative expenses 

and profit, we used the ratios we 

derived using the 2010 publicly 

available financial statements for JSC 

Ukrainsky Grafit, a major Ukrainian 

producer of graphite electrodes.73

Fushun Jinly reported that it 

recovered certain by-products in its 

production of subject merchandise and 

successfully demonstrated that all of 

them have commercial value. Therefore, 

we have granted a by-product offset for 

the quantities of Fushun Jinly’s reported 

by-products. We valued the by-product 

using Ukrainian GTA data.74

Currency Conversion 

Where appropriate, we made currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars, in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act, based on the exchange rates in 

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

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period February 1, 

2010, through January 31, 2011: 

Company Margin 

(percent) 

Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd ............................ 36.87 

Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co., 

Ltd ........................................... 36.87 

Sichuan Guanghan Shida Carbon Co., Ltd ............................ 36.87 

Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech 

Co., Ltd ................................... 36.87 

Chengdu Rongguang Carbon 

Co., Ltd ................................... 36.87 

Fangda Carbon New Material 

Co., Ltd ................................... 36.87 

Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd ............. 36.87 

Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd ................ 36.87 

PRC-wide entity † ....................... 159.64 

* Part of PRC-wide entity. 

† The PRC-wide entity includes the following 

companies: Dechang Shida Carbon Co., Ltd., 

Fushun Carbon Plant, Fushun Jinli Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd., Guanghan Shida 

Carbon Co., Ltd., Jilin Carbon Graphite Material Co., Ltd., Jilin Carbon Import and Export 

Company, Lanzhou Hailong New Material Co., 

Liaoning Fangda Group Industrial Co., Ltd., 

Shida Carbon Group, Sichuan Dechang Shida 

Co., Ltd., Sichuan Shida Trading Co., Ltd., 

Sinosteel Anhui Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Corp., 

Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Jilin 

Carbon Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., Sinosteel 

Sichuan Co., Ltd., and Xinghe County Muzi 

Carbon Plant. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

The Department intends to disclose to 

parties to this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of these 

preliminary results.75 Interested parties 

may submit written comments (case 

briefs) within 30 days of publication of 

the preliminary results and rebuttal 

comments (rebuttal briefs) within five 

days after the time limit for filing case 

briefs.76 Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be 

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs. Parties who submit arguments are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. 

Interested parties, who wish to 

request a hearing, or to participate if one 

is requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, filed electronically using 

Import Administration’s Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 

An electronically filed document must 

be received successfully in its entirety 

by the Department’s electronic records 

system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time within 30 days after the 

date of publication of this notice.77

Requests should contain the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number, 

the number of participants, and a list of 

the issues to be discussed. If a request 

for a hearing is made, we will inform 

parties of the scheduled date for the 

hearing which will be held at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

location to be determined.78 Parties 

should confirm by telephone the date, 

time, and location of the hearing. 

Unless the deadline is extended 

pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of 

the Act, the Department will issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of our 

analysis of the issues raised by the 

parties in their comments, within 120 

days after issuance of these preliminary 

results. 

Deadline for Submission of Publicly 

Available Surrogate Value Information 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3), the deadline for 

submission of publicly available 

information to value FOPs under 19 

CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date 

of publication of these preliminary 

results. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1), if an interested party 

submits factual information less than 

ten days before, on, or after (if the 

Department has extended the deadline), 

the applicable deadline for submission 

of such factual information, an 

interested party may submit factual 

information to rebut, clarify, or correct 

the factual information no later than ten 

days after such factual information is 

served on the interested party. However, 

the Department notes that 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1), permits new information 

only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 

corrects information recently placed on 

the record. The Department generally 

cannot accept in rebuttal the submission 

of additional, previously absent-fromthe-record alternative SV information 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1).79

Furthermore, the Department generally 

will not accept business proprietary 

information in either the SV 

submissions or the rebuttals thereto, as 

the regulation regarding the submission 

of SVs allows only for the submission of 

publicly available information. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13294 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2012 / Notices 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuing the final results of the 

review, the Department shall determine, 

and CBP shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of the final results of 

review. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 

will calculate importer-specific ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. However, the final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, will apply 

to all shipments of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The 

cash deposit rate for Fushun Jinly, Muzi 

Carbon, Shida Carbon, and the 

companies comprising the Fangda 

Group will be the rate established in the 

final results of this administrative 

review; (2) for any previously reviewed 

or investigated PRC or non-PRC 

exporter, not covered in this 

administrative review, with a separate 

rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 

company-specific rate established in the 

most recent segment of this proceeding; 

(3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the PRCwide rate (i.e., 159.64 percent); and (4) 

the cash-deposit rate for any non-PRC 

exporter of subject merchandise from 

the PRC will be the rate applicable to 

the PRC exporter that supplied that 

exporter. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice 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 administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

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

CFR 351.213. 

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5448 Filed 3–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

[Docket No.: 110107015–1402–02] 

Announcing Approval of Federal 

Information Processing Standard 

(FIPS) Publication 180–4, Secure Hash 

Standard (SHS); a Revision of FIPS 

180–3 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST), Commerce 

Department. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

Secretary of Commerce’s approval of 

Federal Information Processing 

Standard (FIPS) Publication 180–4, 

Secure Hash Standard (SHS). FIPS 180– 

4 updates FIPS 180–3 by providing a 

general procedure for creating an 

initialization value, adding two 

additional secure hash algorithms to the 

Standard: SHA–512/224 and SHA–512/ 

256 and removing a restriction that 

padding must be done before hash 

computation begins, which was 

required in FIPS 180–3. 

DATES: The approved Standard is 

effective as of March 6, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elaine Barker, (301) 975–2911, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, 

100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930, 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8930, email: 

elaine.barker@nist.gov, or Quynh Dang, 

(301) 975–3610, email: 

quynh.dang@nist.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice announces the Secretary of 

Commerce’s approval of Federal 

Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 

Publication 180–4, Secure Hash 

Standard (SHS). FIPS 180–4 updates 

FIPS 180–3 by providing a general 

procedure for creating an initialization 

value, adding two additional secure 

hash algorithms to the Standard: SHA– 

512/224 and SHA–512/256, and 

removing a restriction that padding 

must be done before hash computation 

begins, which was required in FIPS 

180–3. SHA–512/224 and SHA–512/256 

may be more efficient alternatives to 

SHA–224 and SHA–256 respectively, on 

platforms that are optimized for 64-bit 

operations. Removing the restriction on 

the padding operation in the secure 

hash algorithms will potentially allow 

more flexibility and efficiency in 

implementing the secure hash 

algorithms in many computer network 

applications. 

On February 11, 2011, NIST 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register (76 FR 7817) announcing the 

availability of draft FIPS 180–4, and 

soliciting comments on the draft 

standard from the public, research 

communities, manufacturers, voluntary 

standards organizations and Federal, 

State and local government 

organizations. Comments were received 

from two corporations and one 

individual. The following is a summary 

of the specific comments and NIST’s 

responses to them: 

Comment: One commenter requested 

NIST to provide more detail for the 

calculation of the initialization values 

for SHA–512/224 and SHA–512/256, 

especially for the variable t. 

Response: Clarification of the variable 

‘‘t’’ has been provided in the FIPS. 

Sufficient examples are provided at the 

Web site: http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/ 

toolkit/examples.html, as indicated in 

the APPENDIX A of the FIPS. 

Comment: One commenter indicated 

that the notation for SHA–512 (‘‘SHA– 

512/t’’) and SHA–512 (‘‘SHA–512/256’’) 

needs to be further defined, including a 

definition for ASCII strings. 

Response: Clarification of the variable 

‘‘t’’ was provided in Section 5.3.6 of the 

FIPS, along with further clarification of 

the input string to the SHA–512 hash 

function. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

NIST to define SHA–512/160 as an 

approved hash algorithm. 

Response: NIST believes that there is 

not much demand for a new SHA–512- 

based hash algorithm with 160-bit hash 

output at this time, since generating 

digital signatures using 160-bit hash 

values will be not approved after the 

year 2013. 

FIPS 180–4 is available electronically 

from the NIST Web site at: http:// 

csrc.nist.gov/publications/ 

PubsFIPS.html. 

Authority: In accordance with the 

Information Technology Management Reform 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES