Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 17013 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 

23545 (April 27, 2011) (‘‘Initiation’’). 

2See Second Administrative Review of Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate From the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension of Preliminary Results, 76 FR 

73599 (November 29, 2011). 

3See Second Administrative Review of Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate From the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension of Preliminary Results, 77 FR 6060 

(February 7, 2012). 

4See letter to All Interested Parties, ‘‘Second 

Administrative Review of Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate From the People’s Republic of 

China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,’’ dated 

June 6, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Country Letter’’). 

5 ICL Performance Products and Innophos, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a81u), and the regulations of the Board 

(15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed 

on March 19, 2012. 

FTZ 64 was approved by the Board on 

December 29, 1980 (Board Order 170, 46 

FR 1330, 1/6/1981) and expanded on 

October 7, 2008 (Board Order 1579, 73 

FR 61781, 10/17/2008). FTZ 64 was 

reorganized under the ASF on May 6, 

2011 (Board Order 1759, 76 FR 28418, 

5/17/11). 

The zone project currently has a 

service area that includes the counties 

of Baker, Clay, Columbia, Duval and 

Nassau, Florida. The applicant is 

requesting authority to expand the 

service area of the zone to include 

Putnam, St. Johns and Bradford 

Counties, as described in the 

application. If approved, the grantee 

would be able to serve sites throughout 

the expanded service area based on 

companies’ needs for FTZ designation. 

The proposed expanded service area is 

within and adjacent to the Jacksonville 

Customs and Border Protection port of 

entry. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ 

Staff is designated examiner to evaluate 

and analyze the facts and information 

presented in the application and case 

record and to report findings and 

recommendations to the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address below. The closing period for 

their receipt is May 22, 2012. Rebuttal 

comments in response to material 

submitted during the foregoing period 

may be submitted during the subsequent 

15-day period to June 6, 2012. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading 

Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site, 

which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ 

ftz. For further information, contact 

Kathleen Boyce at 

Kathleen.Boyce@trade.gov or (202) 482– 

1346. 

Dated: March 19, 2012. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7061 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–908] 

Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Second 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) is conducting the 

second administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on sodium 

hexametaphosphate (‘‘sodium hex’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) for the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) March 1, 2010, through 

February 28, 2011. The Department has 

preliminarily determined that sales have 

been made below normal value (‘‘NV’’) 

by Hubei Xingfa Chemical Group Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Hubei Xingfa’’). If these 

preliminary results are adopted in the 

final results of this review, the 

Department will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 23, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Walker, 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 202.482.0413. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case Schedule 

On April 27, 2011, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

administrative review of sodium hex 

from the PRC for one company, Hubei 

Xingfa.1 On November 18, 2011 the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the preliminary results of this review to 

January 30, 2012.2 On January 25, 2012, 

the Department extended the deadline 

for the preliminary results of this review 

to March 15, 2012.3

Submissions by Interested Parties 

On April 29, 2011, the Department 

issued Hubei Xingfa the antidumping 

duty questionnaire. From June 3, 2011, 

to January 20, 2012, Hubei Xingfa 

submitted responses to the Department’s 

antidumping duty questionnaire and 

supplemental questionnaires. 

On June 6, 2011, the Department sent 

interested parties a letter inviting 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) 

data.4 Between September 15, 2011, and 

January 20, 2012, Hubei Xingfa and 

Petitioners 5 submitted comments on 

surrogate country selection and 

information to value factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this 

review is sodium hexametaphosphate. 

Sodium hexametaphosphate is a watersoluble polyphosphate glass that 

consists of a distribution of 

polyphosphate chain lengths. It is a 

collection of sodium polyphosphate 

polymers built on repeating NaPO3

units. Sodium hexametaphosphate has a 

P2O5 content from 60 to 71 percent. 

Alternate names for sodium 

hexametaphosphate include the 

following: Calgon; Calgon S; Glassy 

Sodium Phosphate; Sodium 

Polyphosphate, Glassy; Metaphosphoric 

Acid; Sodium Salt; Sodium Acid 

Metaphosphate; Graham’s Salt; Sodium 

Hex; Polyphosphoric Acid, Sodium Salt; 

Glass H; Hexaphos; Sodaphos; Vitrafos; 

and BAC–N–FOS. Sodium 

hexametaphosphate is typically sold as 

a white powder or granule (crushed) 

and may also be sold in the form of 

sheets (glass) or as a liquid solution. It 

is imported under heading 

2835.39.5000, HTSUS. It may also be 

imported as a blend or mixture under 

heading 3824.90.3900, HTSUS. The 

American Chemical Society, Chemical 

Abstract Service (‘‘CAS’’) has assigned 

the name ‘‘Polyphosphoric Acid, 

Sodium Salt’’ to sodium 

hexametaphosphate. The CAS registry 

number is 68915–31–1. However, 

sodium hexametaphosphate is 

commonly identified by CAS No. 

10124–56–8 in the market. For purposes 

of the review, the narrative description 

is dispositive, not the tariff heading, 

CAS registry number or CAS name. 

The product covered by this review 

includes sodium hexametaphosphate in 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17014 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 

6See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 

the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and 

Preliminary Notice of Intent To Rescind the 2004/ 

2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 26736 (May 8, 

2006), unchanged in Brake Rotors From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative 

Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). 

7See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. 

8See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond 

Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006). 

9See Initiation. 

10See Hubei Xingfa’s Section A questionnaire 

response dated June 3, 2011 (‘‘AQR’’) and Hubei 

Xingfa’s supplemental Section A questionnaire 

response dated October 24, 2011 (‘‘SAQR’’). 

11See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

12See Hubei Xingfa’s AQR at 1–5 and Exhibits 4 

and 5; see also Hubei Xingfa’s SAQR at 4. 

13See Silicon Cafrbide, 59 FR at 22587; 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). 

14See Hubei Xingfa’s AQR at 5–9 and Exhibit 7; 

see also Hubei Xingfa’s SAQR at 5. 

15See Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. 

Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, from Paul 

Walker, Case Analyst, Office 9, ‘‘Second 

Administrative Review of Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate from the People’s Republic of 

China: Surrogate Factor Valuations for the 

Preliminary Results,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice (‘‘Surrogate Values Memo’’). 

all grades, whether food grade or 

technical grade. The product covered by 

this review includes sodium 

hexametaphosphate without regard to 

chain length i.e., whether regular or 

long chain. The product covered by this 

review includes sodium 

hexametaphosphate without regard to 

physical form, whether glass, sheet, 

crushed, granule, powder, fines, or other 

form, and whether or not in solution. 

However, the product covered by this 

review does not include sodium 

hexametaphosphate when imported in a 

blend with other materials in which the 

sodium hexametaphosphate accounts 

for less than 50 percent by volume of 

the finished product. 

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. In 

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

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority.6 None of the 

parties to this proceeding has contested 

such treatment. Accordingly, we 

calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Separate Rates 

A designation of a country as an NME 

remains in effect until it is revoked by 

the Department.7 Accordingly, there is a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the PRC are subject to 

government control, and thus, should be 

assessed a single antidumping duty 

rate.8

In the Initiation, the Department 

notified parties of the application 

process by which exporters and 

producers may obtain separate rate 

status in NME proceedings.9 It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of the merchandise subject to 

review in NME countries a single rate 

unless an exporter can affirmatively 

demonstrate an absence of government 

control, both in law (de jure) and in fact 

(de facto), with respect to exports. To 

establish whether a company is 

sufficiently independent to be entitled 

to a separate, company-specific rate, the 

Department analyzes each exporting 

entity in an NME country under the test 

established in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

From the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

From the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In this 

administrative review, the Department 

received a completed response to the 

Section A portion of the NME 

antidumping questionnaire from Hubei 

Xingfa, which contained information 

pertaining to the company’s eligibility 

for a separate rate.10

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.11

The evidence provided by Hubei Xingfa 

supports a preliminary finding of de 

jure absence of government control 

based on the following: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with Hubei Xingfa’s business and export 

licenses; (2) there are applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of companies; and (3) there are 

formal measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.12

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses.13 The Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether respondents are, in fact, subject 

to a degree of government control which 

would preclude the Department from 

assigning separate rates. The evidence 

provided by Hubei Xingfa supports a 

preliminary finding of de facto absence 

of government control based on the 

following: (1) The company sets its own 

export prices independent of the 

government, and without the approval 

of a government authority; (2) the 

company has authority to negotiate and 

sign contracts and other agreements; (3) 

the company has autonomy from the 

government in making decisions 

regarding the selection of management; 

and (4) there is no restriction on the 

company’s use of export revenue.14

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Hubei Xingfa has established 

that it qualifies for a separate rate under 

the criteria established by Silicon 

Carbide and Sparklers. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, 

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate 

market economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOPs in one or more market economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and significant producers 

of comparable merchandise. The 

sources of the surrogate factor values are 

discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section below and in the surrogate 

values memorandum.15

As discussed in the ‘‘Non-Market 

Economy Country Status’’ section, 

above, the Department considers the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 17015 

16See Surrogate Country Letter at Attachment I. 

17See Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market 

Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process, 

dated March 1, 2004. 

18See Surrogate Values Memo. 

19See Surrogate Values Memo for details 

regarding the surrogate values for movement 

expenses. 

20See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 

1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

21See Surrogate Values Memo. 

22Published by Global Trade Information 

Services, Inc. GTA reports import statistics, such as 

those from Thailand, India and Indonesia, in the 

original reporting currency and, thus, these data 

correspond to the original currency value reported 

by each country. 

23See Omnibus 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; 

see, e.g., First Administrative Review of Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

19613 (April 15, 2010) (‘‘First Review Prelim’’), 

unchanged in First Administrative Review of 

Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

64695 (October 20, 2010) (‘‘First Review Final’’). 

24See, 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 

India, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea: 

Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Orders, 77 FR 264 (January 4, 2012); 

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. 

25See First Review Prelim, unchanged in First 

Review Final. 

26See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 

Continued 

PRC to be an NME country. The 

Department determined that Colombia, 

Indonesia, the Philippines, South 

Africa, Thailand and Ukraine are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development.16

Moreover, it is the Department’s 

practice to select an appropriate 

surrogate country based on the 

availability and reliability of data from 

these countries.17

Based on publicly available 

information placed on the record, the 

Department determines that Thailand is 

a reliable source for surrogate values 

because Thailand is at a comparable 

level of economic development, 

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

is a significant producer of comparable, 

and has publicly available and reliable 

data. Furthermore, all surrogate values 

placed on the record by the parties were 

obtained from sources in Thailand.18

Accordingly, the Department has 

selected Thailand as the surrogate 

country for purposes of valuing the 

FOPs because it meets the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate country selection. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of sodium 

hex to the United States by Hubei 

Xingfa were made at less than normal 

value, the Department compared the 

export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described 

in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections below. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated the EP for sales 

to the United States for Hubei Xingfa, 

because the first sale to an unaffiliated 

party was made before the date of 

importation and the use of constructed 

EP was not otherwise warranted. We 

calculated EP based on the price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

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

deducted from the starting price to 

unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland 

freight and foreign brokerage and 

handling. For the services provided by 

an NME vendor or paid for using an 

NME currency, we based the deduction 

of these movement charges on SVs.19

Normal Value 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine the NV using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by Hubei Xingfa for the 

POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied 

the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available 

SVs. 

In selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. We added to each 

import SV a surrogate freight cost 

calculated from 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.20 Where we could 

not obtain publicly available 

information contemporaneous to the 

POR with which to value FOPs, we 

adjusted the SVs, where appropriate, 

using the Thai Producer Price Index 

(‘‘PPI’’), or Indonesian PPI, as published 

in the International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics.21 For 

further detail, see the Surrogate Values 

Memo. 

The Department used Thai import 

statistics from Global Trade Atlas 

(‘‘GTA’’) 22 to value the raw material and 

packing material inputs that Hubei 

Xingfa used to produce subject 

merchandise during the POR, except 

where listed below. Consistent with the 

Department’s long-standing practice, the 

Department has disregarded import 

prices that we have reason to believe or 

suspect may be subsidized.23 In this 

regard, the Department has previously 

found that it is appropriate to disregard 

such prices from India, Indonesia and 

South Korea because we have 

determined that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry specific export subsidies.24

Based on the existence of these subsidy 

programs that were generally available 

to all exporters and producers in these 

countries at the time of the POR, the 

Department finds that it is reasonable to 

infer that all exporters from India, 

Indonesia and South Korea may have 

benefitted from these subsidies. 

Additionally, we disregarded prices 

from NME countries.25 Finally, imports 

that were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded 

from the average value, because the 

Department could not be certain that 

they were not from either an NME 

country or a country with generally 

available export subsidies. Therefore, 

based on the information currently 

available, we have not used import 

prices from India, Indonesia or South 

Korea when calculating import-based 

SVs. For further detail, see the Surrogate 

Values Memo. 

We did not value phosphate rock or 

ferro-phosphorous using Thai import 

statistics. Regarding phosphate rock, 

Petitioners proposed that the 

Department value phosphate rock using 

Thai Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(‘‘HTS’’) 2510.10.10 (‘‘Natural Calcium 

Phosphates * * *Apatite’’), whereas 

Hubei Xingfa proposed HTS 2510.10.90 

(‘‘Natural Calcium Phosphates * * * 

Other’’) as the correct value. Because 

record evidence indicates that neither of 

these values is specific to phosphate 

rock, we valued phosphate rock using 

HTS 2510.10.10 (‘‘Natural Calcium 

Phosphates * * * Unground’’), from 

Indonesia.26 For further discussion of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17016 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 

Results, Partial Rescission, and Request for 

Revocation, In Part, of the Fifth Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 12054 (March 4, 2011), (where the 

Department valued shrimp by-products with a 

surrogate value from Indonesia, when a value was 

not available in the primary surrogate country), 

unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Results and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

56158 (September 12, 2011). 

27See, e.g., Notice of Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 

68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 14e 

(where the Department valued a by-product using 

a U.S. price due the specificity of the value). 

28See Antidumping Methodologies in 

Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: 

Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 

36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor Methodologies’’). 

This notice followed the decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. 

United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010), 

where the Federal Circuit found that the 

Department’s regression-based method for 

calculating wage rates, as stipulated by section 

351.408(c)(3) of the Department’s regulations, uses 

data not permitted by the statutory requirements set 

forth in section 773(c)(4) of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 

1677b(c)). 

29See Surrogate Value Memo, at 7–8, and Exhibit 

6, relying on information found at http:// 

www.doingbusiness.org. 

30 Id., at 8, and Exhibit 6. 

31See Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 

18, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3 (where the Department 

was unable to calculate a financial ratio based on 

a lower level financial statement, the Department 

used a consolidated financial statement). 

32See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 

FR 16838, 16839 (April 13, 2009) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

this issue, see the Surrogate Values 

Memo. 

Regarding ferro-phosphorous, both 

parties provided import data from 

Thailand to value ferro-phosphorous. 

Hubei Xingfa proposed that the 

Department rely on Thai HTS 

7202.99.00, (‘‘Ferro alloys other’’) to 

value ferro-phosphorous, whereas 

Petitioners suggested 7202.99.11, 

(‘‘Ferro Alloys NES’’). We find, 

however, that neither of the proposed 

Thai HTS categories is sufficiently 

specific to the input in question, as both 

are basket categories containing many 

types of ferro-alloys. Therefore we have 

valued ferro-phosphorous using HTS 

7202.99.11, described as ‘‘Ferrophosphorous,’’ from India.27 For further 

discussion of this issue, see the 

Surrogate Values Memo. 

On June 21, 2011, the Department 

announced its new methodology to 

value the cost of labor in NME 

countries.28 In Labor Methodologies, the 

Department determined that the best 

methodology to value the labor input is 

to use industry-specific labor rates from 

the primary surrogate country. 

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’s 

Yearbook of Labor Statistics. 

For this review the Department found 

that Thailand last reported industryspecific data in Chapter 6A, under SubClassification 24 of the ISIC-Revision 3, 

in 2000. However, more recently 

Thailand reported total manufacturing 

wage data under Chapter 6A in 2005. To 

calculate the labor value in these 

preliminary results, the Department 

relied on total manufacturing wage data 

from Chapter 6A, reported by Thailand 

in 2005, because these data are more 

contemporaneous with the POR than the 

data reported in 2000. We further 

inflated the labor value using the 

consumer price index (‘‘CPI’’) for 

Thailand to be contemporaneous with 

the POR. For the preliminary results the 

calculated wage rate is 135.27 Baht/ 

hour. A more detailed description of the 

wage rate calculation methodology is 

provided in the Surrogate Values Memo. 

Pursuant to Labor Methodologies, the 

Department considered whether 

financial ratios required adjustment to 

account for any labor expenses that 

might also be included in the financial 

ratios. However, because the record 

evidence did not indicate that any labor 

expenses were included in the financial 

ratios, no adjustments were necessary. 

See Surrogate Values Memo. 

To value truck freight expenses, we 

used the World Bank’s Doing Business 

2012: Thailand, which we find to be 

specific to the cost of shipping goods in 

Thailand, and representative of a broad 

market average.29 Because this value 

was not contemporaneous to the POR, 

we deflated it using the Thai CPI. This 

report gathers information concerning 

the cost to transport a 20-foot container 

of dry goods from the largest city to the 

nearest seaport. Because there is no Thai 

value for inland freight charges by boat 

on the record, we valued inland freight 

charges by boat using Indonesian freight 

rates that were published by the 

Indonesian freight forwarder, PT. 

Mantap Abiah Abadi.30 Rates were 

given on a per cubic meter basis, by city, 

which we converted to a metric ton 

basis. Because this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated it using the Indonesian CPI. In 

addition, we valued brokerage and 

handling using a price list of export 

procedures necessary to export a 

standardized cargo of goods in Thailand 

published in the World Bank’s Doing 

Business 2012: Thailand. 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 in Thailand. Because 

this value was not contemporaneous to 

the POR, we deflated it using the Thai 

CPI. For further discussion of movement 

expenses, see the Surrogate Values 

Memo. 

To value the surrogate financial ratios 

for overhead, selling, general and 

administrative expenses and profit, the 

Department used the 2009–2010 

financial statement of Aditya Birla 

(Thailand) (‘‘Aditya’’). Aditya is a 

producer of sodium hex in Thailand. Its 

financial ratio expenses are comparable 

to Hubei Xingfa’s financial ratios by 

virtue of each company’s production of 

identical merchandise. However, the 

Department has determined that the 

financial statement of Aditya does not 

permit us to accurately calculate 

overhead, because it does not contain 

information upon which to apply a 

reasonable methodology to apportion 

raw material expenses and consumable 

expenses. As a result, the Department 

has used the financial statement from 

Aditya’s parent company, Aditya Birla 

Group, to calculate the overhead ratio.31

When the Department is unable to 

segregate and, therefore, exclude energy 

costs from the calculation of the 

surrogate financial ratio, it is the 

Department’s practice to disregard the 

respondent’s energy inputs in the 

calculation of NV in order to avoid 

double-counting energy costs which 

have necessarily been captured in the 

surrogate financial ratios.32 Because 

Aditya financial statement does not 

identify energy expenses, we 

disregarded Hubei Xingfa’s energy 

inputs in the NV calculation. 

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 the Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margin exists for the period March 1, 

2010, through February 28, 2011: 

Exporter Margin 

Hubei Xingfa ................................. 52.39% 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 17017 

33See 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. 

34See section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

35See section 351.309(d) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

36See section 351.309(c) and (d) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

37See section 351.212(b)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations. 38 Id. 39See section 351.106(c)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

this notice, in accordance with section 

351.224(b) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

In accordance with section 

351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department’s 

regulations, for the final results of this 

administrative review, interested parties 

may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. Interested 

parties must provide the Department 

with supporting documentation for the 

publicly available information to value 

each FOP. Pursuant to section 

351.301(c)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations, submissions of factual 

information may be rebutted, however 

the Department reminds that section 

351.301(c)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations permits new information 

only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 

corrects information recently placed on 

the record. The Department will not 

accept the submission of additional, 

alternative surrogate value information 

submitted with rebuttal submissions, 

where that information has not 

previously been part of the review 

record, pursuant to section 351.301(c)(1) 

of the Department’s regulations.33

Additionally, for each piece of factual 

information submitted with surrogate 

value rebuttal comments, the interested 

party must include an explanation to 

indicate the record information the new 

information is rebutting, clarifying, or 

correcting. 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs and/or written comments no later 

than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review.34 Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals 

to written comments are limited to 

issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, and may be filed no later 

than five days after the deadline for 

filing case briefs.35 Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and 3) a table of authorities.36

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by these 

reviews. The Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 

days after the publication date of the 

final results of this review. In 

accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations, for Hubei 

Xingfa, we calculated an exporter/ 

importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rate for the merchandise 

subject to this review. Because Hubei 

Xingfa reported reliable entered values, 

we calculated importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rates by aggregating 

the dumping margins calculated for all 

U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) 

and dividing this amount by the total 

entered value of the sales to each 

importer (or customer).37 Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is greater than de minimis, 

we will apply the assessment rate to the 

entered value of the importer’s/ 

customer’s entries during the POR.38

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in section 351.106(c)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, we calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem ratios based on the estimated 

entered value. Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 

zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP 

to liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties.39

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for shipments of 

subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results, as provided by 

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

Hubei Xingfa, the cash deposit rate will 

be that established in the final results of 

review (except, if the rate is zero or de 

minimis, no cash deposit will be 

required); (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 188.05 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility, under section 

351.402(f) of the Department’s 

regulations, to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this POR. 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 this 

notice are published in accordance with 

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

and section 351.221(b)(4) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

Dated: March 13, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7060 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–974] 

Certain Steel Wheels From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, Final Affirmative 

Critical Circumstances Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

certain steel wheels (steel wheels) from 

the People’s Republic of China (the 

PRC). For information on the estimated 

subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 23, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Conniff (for the Centurion Companies) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES