15042 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices 

1See 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) (‘‘Final Results’’). 2See Final Results. 

3See SGL Carbon LLC v. United States, Consol. 

Court No. 11–00389 (Ct. Int’l Trade February 22, 

2012) (order granting the Department leave to 

publish amended final results correcting ministerial 

errors no later than March 16, 2012). 

4See also 19 CFR 351.224(f). 

5See Final Results. 

6See Ministerial Error Memo. 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

administrative review and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 7, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Issues & Decision 

Memorandum 

COMMENT I: SELECTION OF SURROGATE 

COUNTRY 

A. Economic Comparability 

B. Significant Producer of the Comparable 

Merchandise 

C. Data Considerations 

COMMENT II: SURROGATE VALUES 

A. Financial Ratios 

1. Selection of Surrogate Companies 

B. By-Products Offsets 

1. Fish Waste 

2. Fish Oil 

3. Fresh Broken Fillets 

4. Frozen Broken Fillets 

5. Fish Meal 

C. Farming Factors 

1. Fingerlings, Fish Feed, Nutrients, Lime 

D. Other Surrogate Values 

1. Labor 

2. Salt 

3. STPP, CO Gas, PE Bags, Cartons, Tape, 

Label, Plastic Sheet, Banding, Diesel, 

Coal 

4. Brokerage & Handling 

COMMENT III: ZEROING 

Company-Specific Issues 

COMMENT IV: VINH HOAN 

A. Fish Consumption 

B. Revocation 

C. Farming Water 

COMMENT V: CONSIDERATION OF VINH 

QUANG AS A VOLUNTARY 

RESPONDENT 

COMMENT VI: SOUTH VINA SEPARATE 

RATE CERTIFICATION 

[FR Doc. 2012–6201 Filed 3–13–12; 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: 

Amended Final Results of the First 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2012. 

SUMMARY: On September 13, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published the final 

results of the antidumping duty 

administrative review of small diameter 

graphite electrodes (‘‘SDGE’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), 

covering the period August 21, 2008, 

through January 31, 2010.1 We are 

amending our Final Results to correct 

certain ministerial errors made in the 

calculation of the antidumping duty 

margins for Fushun Jinly Petrochemical 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fushun Jinly’’); 

Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Beijing Fangda’’), Fangda Carbon New 

Material Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fangda Carbon’’), 

Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘‘Fushun 

Carbon’’), and Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Hefei’’); and Xinghe County Muzi Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Muzi’’) pursuant to section 751(h) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.224(e). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lindsey Novom or Frances Veith, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5256 or (202) 482– 

4295, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 13, 2011, the 

Department published its affirmative 

final results in this proceeding.2 On 

September 19, 2011, Fushun Jinly and 

Beijing Fangda, Chengdu Rongguang 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rongguang’’), Fangda 

Carbon, Fushun Carbon, and Hefei 

(collectively ‘‘the Fangda Group’’), 

mandatory respondents, submitted 

ministerial error allegations and 

requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.224(c), that the Department correct 

the alleged ministerial errors in the 

calculation of Fushun Jinly and the 

Fangda Group’s dumping margins. 

Muzi, a separate rate company, also 

submitted ministerial error allegations 

on September 19, 2011. SGL Carbon 

LLC and Superior Graphite Co. 

(‘‘Petitioners’’) submitted rebuttal 

comments on September 23, 2011. 

Before the Department could take action 

on the alleged ministerial errors, 

Petitioners filed a summons and 

complaint with the U.S. Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) challenging 

the Final Results, which vested the CIT 

with jurisdiction over the administrative 

proceeding. On February 22, 2012, the 

CIT granted the Department leave to 

publish these amended final results to 

correct certain ministerial errors.3

Ministerial Errors 

A ministerial error as defined in 

section 751(h) of the Act includes 

‘‘errors in addition, subtraction, or other 

arithmetic function, clerical error 

resulting from inaccurate copying, 

duplication, or the like, and any other 

type of unintentional error which the 

administering authority considers 

ministerial.’’ 4

After analyzing all interested party 

comments and rebuttals, we have 

determined, in accordance with section 

751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), 

that we made certain ministerial errors 

in our calculations for the Final Results. 

For a detailed discussion of these 

ministerial errors, as well as the 

Department’s analysis of the errors and 

allegations, see the Memorandum to the 

File, ‘‘First Administrative Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Small 

Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the 

People’s Republic of China: Analysis of 

Ministerial Error Allegations,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice 

(‘‘Ministerial Error Memo’’). 

Additionally, in the Final Results, we 

determined that Muzi qualified for a 

separate rate.5 Because the cash deposit 

rate for Muzi was based on the 

calculated rate of the mandatory 

respondents, Fushun Jinly and the 

Fangda Group, and the margins for both 

companies have changed since the Final 

Results, the separate rate has changed as 

well.6 Finally, we have corrected a 

misspelling of Muzi’s full name. The 

amended weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

SDGEs from the PRC 

Exporters Percent 

margin 

Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., 

Ltd., Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon 

Co., Ltd., Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd 1.10 

Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd .............................. 39.83 

Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co., 

Ltd ............................................. 16.00 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices 15043 

7See SGL Carbon LLC and Superior Graphite Co. 

v. United States, CIT Court No. 11–00389 dated 

September 28, 2011. 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation that 

is subject to sanction. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed for these amended final 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice to interested 

parties in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Assessment Rate 

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

Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

amended final results of this review. For 

assessment purposes, we calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for merchandise 

subject to this review. Where 

appropriate, we calculated an ad 

valorem rate for each importer (or 

customer) by dividing the total dumping 

margins for reviewed sales to that party 

by the total entered values associated 

with those transactions. For dutyassessment rates calculated on this 

basis, we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting ad valorem rate against the 

entered customs values for the subject 

merchandise. Where appropriate, we 

calculated a per-unit rate for each 

importer (or customer) by dividing the 

total dumping margins for reviewed 

sales to that party by the total sales 

quantity associated with those 

transactions. For duty-assessment rates 

calculated on this basis, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate 

against the entered quantity of the 

subject merchandise. Where an importer 

(or customer)-specific assessment rate is 

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

the Department will instruct CBP to 

assess that importer (or customer’s) 

entries of subject merchandise without 

regard to antidumping duties, in 

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

On September 28, 2011, the U.S. Court 

of International Trade issued a 

preliminary injunction enjoining 

liquidation of certain entries which are 

subject to the antidumping duty order 

on SDGEs from the PRC, for the POR.7

Accordingly, the Department will not 

issue assessment instructions for any 

entries subject to the above-mentioned 

injunction to CBP after publication of 

this notice. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective 

retroactively on any entries made on or 

after September 13, 2011, the date of 

publication of the Final Results, for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided for by 

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

Fushun Jinly, the Fangda Group, and 

Muzi, the cash deposit rate will be the 

amended final margin rate shown above 

in the ‘‘Ministerial Errors’’ section of 

this notice; (2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC 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 PRCwide rate of 159.64 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 non-PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

These amended final results are 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1), 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: March 7, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6188 Filed 3–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Minority Business Development 

Agency 

Request for Tribal Consultation on the 

Minority Business Development 

Agency’s (MBDA) Native American 

Business Enterprise Center (NABEC) 

Program; Notice of Public Webinars 

AGENCY: Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Meeting Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce’s (Department) Minority 

Business Development Agency (MBDA) 

seeks to redesign its Native American 

Business Center (NABEC) program. The 

NABEC program is a key component of 

MBDA’s business development 

assistance program and promotes the 

growth and competitiveness of eligible 

Native American and minority-owned 

businesses. As part of the NABEC 

program, businesses that are owned or 

controlled by the following persons or 

groups of persons are eligible to receive 

business assistance services: American 

Indians and Native Americans 

(including Alaska Natives, Alaska 

Native Corporations, Tribal entities, 

tribal universities and tribal 

governments), African Americans, Asian 

Indian Americans, Asian and Pacific 

Islander Americans, Hasidic Jewish 

Americans, and Hispanic Americans. 

The MBDA will conduct two 

webinars, on March 13 and 15, 2012, to 

seek input and recommendations from 

tribal organizations and tribal 

governments on the proposed redesign 

of the NABEC program. MBDA has 

planned a more cohesive program 

involving collaboration among the 

NABECs and Minority Business 

Enterprises (MBEs) to achieve the same 

program goals, and to expand and 

promote export initiatives and 

international trade opportunities 

aligned with President Obama’s 

National Export Initiative (NEI). 

DATES: Webinars will be held on the 

following dates and times: March 13, 

2012, 3 p.m.–4 p.m. EDT; and March 15, 

2012 at 3 p.m.–4 p.m. EDT. Registration 

information is provided in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dee 

Alexander, Senior Advisor on Native 

American Affairs, Office of Legislative 

and Intergovernmental Affairs, 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW., Room 5422, 

Washington, DC 20230, by telephone at 

(202) 482–0789, or by email at 

dalexander@doc.gov. You may also 

contact Holden Hoofnagle, Chief of the 

MBDA Office of Business Development, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES