17436 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

1See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents 

from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 68148 

(November 3, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

2See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below. 

3The Department rejected Transfar’s original case 

brief because it contained untimely information. 

See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Transfar, regarding 

Transfar’s submission of untimely information 

(January 10, 2012). Transfar submitted a revised 

version of its case brief on January 13, 2012. See 

Letter from Transfar to the Secretary of Commerce, 

‘‘Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from 

China’’ (January 13, 2012) (‘‘Transfar’s Case Brief’’); 

Letter from Transfar to the Secretary of Commerce, 

‘‘Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from 

China’’ (January 11, 2012) (‘‘Transfar’s Rebuttal 

Brief’’). 

4See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

5See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical 

Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of 

calculated the AFA rate for M&M 

Industries using program-specific rates 

calculated for the cooperating 

respondents. Therefore, in the CVD 

investigation, because there was only 

one export subsidy rate calculated (for 

Baozhang, a cooperative respondent in 

the CVD investigation), the export 

subsidy portion of the AFA-rate for 

M&M Industries is equal to the export 

subsidy rate calculated for Baozhang 

(0.21%). In addition, Baozhang’s rate is 

the basis for the all-others rate in the 

CVD case. Therefore, we will instruct 

CBP to require a cash deposit or posting 

of a bond equal to the amount by which 

normal value exceeds U.S. price for the 

M&M Industries, reduced by the export 

subsidy rate (0.21%) found for all 

companies. 

Further, with respect to the other 

companies receiving a separate rate in 

the instant investigation, excluding 

M&M Industries Co., Ltd., these 

companies are subject to the all-others 

rate in the companion CVD 

investigation. Moreover, as noted above, 

all companies were found to have the 

same amount of export subsidies, the 

amount found for the cooperative 

respondent in the CVD case. Therefore, 

for companies receiving a separate rate, 

we will instruct CBP to require a cash 

deposit or posting of a bond equal to the 

amount by which normal value exceeds 

U.S. price for the separate rate 

recipients, as indicated above, reduced 

by the export subsidy rate (0.21%) 

found for all companies. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: March 19, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Company-Specific Issues 

Comment 1: The Department’s Preliminary 

Determination With Respect to Tianjin 

Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Huayuan’’) 

A. Whether the Department Incorrectly 

Determined Huayuan’s Eligibility for a 

Separate Rate 

B. Whether the Department Should Have 

Applied Adverse Facts Available 

(‘‘AFA’’) to Huayuan 

C. Whether the Department Failed to Meet 

the Statutory Obligation to Verify 

Huayuan 

Comment 2: Whether the Department Should 

Assign AFA to Tianjin Honbase 

Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Tianjin Honbase’’) and to Anhui Bao 

Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Baozhang’’) 

General Issues 

Comment 3: Whether Hobby Wire is Within 

the Scope of the Investigation 

Comment 4: Surrogate Country Selection 

Comment 5: Whether Double-Remedies Have 

Been Applied 

Comment 6: Whether the NME Separate Rate 

Methodology is Contrary to Law and 

Should Be Eliminated 

Comment 7: Appropriate Separate Rate to 

Assign to Cooperative Non-Selected 

Companies 

[FR Doc. 2012–7212 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–972] 

Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening 

Agents From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. 

SUMMARY: On November 3, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of certain 

stilbenic optical brightening agents 

(‘‘stilbenic OBAs’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 The 

Department invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary 

Determination. Based on the 

Department’s analysis of the comments 

received, the Department has made 

changes from the Preliminary 

Determination, and continues to find 

that stilbenic OBAs from the PRC are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at LTFV, as provided in 

section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The final 

dumping margins for this investigation 

are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ 

section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shawn Higgins or Maisha Cryor, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0679, or (202) 

482–5831, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published its 

Preliminary Determination of sales at 

LTFV and postponement of the final 

determination on November 3, 2011. 

Between November 7, 2011, and 

November 18, 2011, the Department 

conducted verification of mandatory 

respondents Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon 

Chemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Transfar’’) and 

Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Hongda’’).2 Clariant Corporation 

(‘‘Petitioner’’), Transfar, and Hongda 

submitted case briefs on January 6, 

2012.3 On January 11, 2012, Petitioner 

and Transfar filed rebuttal briefs. The 

Department conducted a public hearing 

on February 1, 2012. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

July 1, 2010, through December 31, 

2010. This period corresponds to the 

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition, 

which was March 2011.4

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum.5 A list of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17437 

China’’ (March 19, 2012) (‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’). 

6See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 4; Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical 

Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Surrogate Value Memorandum’’ 

(March 19, 2012) (‘‘Final SV Memo’’) at Attachment 

2. 

7See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3; Final SV Memo at Attachment 1. 

8See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, and Abdelali Elouaradia, 

Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the 

File, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 

Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the 

People’s Republic of China: Verification of the 

Antidumping Duty Questionnaire Responses of 

Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., Ltd.’’ (December 

15, 2011) (‘‘Hongda’s Verification Report’’); 

Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, International 

Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical 

Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination Analysis Memorandum 

for Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., Ltd.’’ (March 

19, 2012); Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, and Maisha Cryor, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical 

Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of 

China: Verification of the Antidumping Duty 

Questionnaire Responses of Zhejiang Transfar 

Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd.’’ (December 15, 2011) 

(‘‘Transfar’s Verification Report’’); Memorandum 

from Shawn Higgins, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 

to the File, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination 

Analysis Memorandum for Zhejiang Transfar 

Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd.’’ (March 19, 2012). 

9The brackets in this sentence are part of the 

chemical formula. 

10 Id. 

11See Transfar’s Verification Report; Hongda’s 

Verification Report. 

12See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia from 

Shawn Higgins, ‘‘Certain Stilbenic Optical 

Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of 

China: Surrogate Country Memorandum’’ (October 

27, 2011). 

these issues is attached to this notice as 

Appendix I. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is a public document and 

is on file electronically via Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is 

available in the Central Records Unit, 

room 7046 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Issues 

and Decision Memorandum and the 

electronic versions of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

• The Department changed the 

surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) for ocean freight 

to reflect shipping rates that actually 

occurred during the POI. In addition, 

the Department included certain 

additional charges (i.e., fuel surcharges, 

destination delivery charges, and bill of 

lading charges) in the ocean freight 

calculation because these charges were 

not separately covered by the brokerage 

and handling SV.6

• The Department changed the SV for 

ice blocks from Global Trade Atlas 

import data to a value reported in the 

publication Business Report Thailand.7

• The Department made changes 

based on minor corrections presented at 

verification.8

Scope of the Investigation 

The stilbenic OBAs covered by this 

investigation are all forms (whether free 

acid or salt) of compounds known as 

triazinylaminostilbenes (i.e., all 

derivatives of 4,4’-bis [1,3,5- triazin-2- 

yl]9 amino-2,2’-stilbenedisulfonic acid), 

except for compounds listed in the 

following paragraph. The stilbenic 

OBAs covered by this investigation 

include final stilbenic OBA products, as 

well as intermediate products that are 

themselves triazinylaminostilbenes 

produced during the synthesis of 

stilbenic OBA products. 

Excluded from this investigation are 

all forms of 4,4’-bis[4-anilino-6- 

morpholino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]10 amino2,2’-stilbenedisulfonic acid, 

C40H40N12O8S2 (‘‘Fluorescent Brightener 

71’’). This investigation covers the 

above-described compounds in any state 

(including but not limited to powder, 

slurry, or solution), of any 

concentrations of active stilbenic OBA 

ingredient, as well as any compositions 

regardless of additives (i.e., mixtures or 

blends, whether of stilbenic OBAs with 

each other, or of stilbenic OBAs with 

additives that are not stilbenic OBAs), 

and in any type of packaging. 

These stilbenic OBAs are classifiable 

under subheading 3204.20.8000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), but they may 

also enter under subheadings 

2933.69.6050, 2921.59.4000 and 

2921.59.8090. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

is dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, the Department verified the 

information submitted by Transfar and 

Hongda for use in its final 

determination. The Department used 

standard verification procedures, 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records and 

original source documents provided by 

the respondents.11

Non-Market Economy Country 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country. In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. The Department has not 

revoked the PRC’s status as an NME 

country. No party has challenged the 

designation of the PRC as an NME 

country in this investigation. Therefore, 

the Department continues to treat the 

PRC as an NME for purposes of the final 

determination. 

Surrogate Country 

In the preliminary determination, the 

Department selected Thailand as the 

appropriate surrogate country for use in 

this investigation pursuant to section 

773(c)(4) of the Act based on the 

following: (1) It is at a similar level of 

economic development as the PRC; (2) 

it is a significant producer of 

merchandise comparable to the 

merchandise under consideration; and 

(3) the record contains reliable data 

from Thailand that the Department can 

use to value the factors of production.12

The Department has not made changes 

to these findings for the final 

determination. 

Use of Facts Available and Adverse 

Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall apply facts 

available (‘‘FA’’) if (1) necessary 

information is not on the record, or (2) 

an interested party or any other person 

(A) withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

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

of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding, or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying FA 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17438 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

13See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68150. 

14 Id. 

15See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Market Value: Synthetic Indigo 

From the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 25706, 

25707 (May 2, 2000). 

16See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). 

17See 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 

(Nov. 18, 2005) (quoting the Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d 

Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994)). 18See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube 

From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 

FR 60725, 60729 (October 1, 2010). 19See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening 

Agents From the People’s Republic of China and 

Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 76 FR 23554, 23558 (April 27, 2011) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 20See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318, 64322 

(October 18, 2011). 

21 Id. 

22See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) and section 

776(c) of the Act; Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: 

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 

(June 24, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

23See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 23559. 

24See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries, available at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. 

reliance on information derived from 

the petition, the final determination, a 

previous administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

PRC-Wide Entity 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department determined that certain PRC 

exporters/producers did not respond to 

the Department’s requests for 

information including information 

pertaining to whether they were 

separate from the PRC-wide entity.13

Thus, the Department has found that 

these PRC exporters/producers are part 

of the PRC-wide entity and the PRCwide entity has not responded to 

requests for information.14 No 

additional information was placed on 

the record with respect to any of these 

companies after the Preliminary 

Determination. Because the PRC-wide 

entity did not provide the Department 

with requested information, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the 

Department continues to find it 

appropriate to base the PRC-wide rate 

on FA. 

Because the PRC-wide entity did not 

respond to our request for information, 

the Department has determined that the 

PRC-wide entity has failed to cooperate 

to the best of its ability. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 

the Department has found that, in 

selecting from among the FA, an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the PRCwide entity. 

Because the Department begins with 

the presumption that all companies 

within an NME country are subject to 

government control and only the 

mandatory respondents have overcome 

that presumption, the Department is 

applying a single antidumping rate to all 

other exporters of merchandise under 

consideration from the PRC. Such 

companies have not demonstrated 

entitlement to a separate rate.15

Accordingly, the PRC-wide entity rate 

applies to all entries of merchandise 

under consideration except for entries 

from Transfar and Hongda. 

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity 

In selecting a rate for adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’), the Department 

selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse 

‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of the 

adverse facts available rule to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ 16 Further, it is the 

Department’s practice to select a rate 

that ensures ‘‘that the party does not 

obtain a more favorable result by failing 

to cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ 17 It is the Department’s practice 

to select as AFA the higher of (a) the 

highest margin alleged in the petition or 

(b) the highest rate calculated for any 

respondent in the investigation.18 The 

highest margin alleged in the petition is 

203.16 percent.19 This rate is higher 

than any of the rates calculated for 

individually examined companies. 

Thus, as AFA, the Department’s practice 

would be to assign the rate of 203.16 

percent to the PRC-wide entity. 

However, in order to determine the 

probative value of the margins in the 

petition for use as AFA for purposes of 

this final determination, the Department 

examined information on the record and 

found that it was unable to corroborate 

either the highest margin in the petition 

or both its U.S. price and normal value 

components. In addition, the 

Department does not find the highest 

calculated weighted-average margin of 

the mandatory respondents to be 

sufficiently adverse to act as the AFA 

rate.20 The Department finds, however, 

that the highest transaction-specific 

margin of the mandatory respondents 

(i.e., 109.95 percent) is sufficiently 

adverse to serve as the AFA rate.21 No 

corroboration of this rate is necessary 

because the Department is relying on 

information obtained in the course of 

this investigation, rather than secondary 

information.22 This was the same 

methodology the Department employed 

in the Preliminary Determination. No 

interested party has commented on this 

methodology for calculating the PRCwide rate. 

The dumping margin for the PRCwide entity applies to all entries of the 

merchandise under investigation except 

for entries of merchandise under 

investigation from the exporter/ 

manufacturer combinations listed in the 

chart in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ 

section below. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.23 This 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1.24

Final Determination 

The Department determines that the 

following dumping margins exist for the 

period July 1, 2010, through December 

31, 2010: 

Exporter Producer Weighted average margin 

Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., Ltd ...................................... Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., Ltd ...................................... 95.29 

Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd ......................... Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon Chemical Co., Ltd ......................... 63.98 

PRC-wide Entity ....................................................................... ................................................................................................... 109.95 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17439 

1See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, 

Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation, 76 FR 70966 

(November 16, 2011) (Initiation Notice), and 

accompanying Initiation Checklist. Public 

documents and public versions of proprietary 

Departmental memoranda referenced in this notice 

are on file electronically on Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (IA 

ACCESS), accessible via the Central Records Unit, 

Room 7046 of the main Commerce building and on 

the web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. 

2See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Crystalline 

Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not 

Assembled Into Modules, from the People’s 

Republic of China, Countervailing Duty 

Investigation: Respondent Selection,’’ November 29, 

2011 (Respondent Selection Memorandum). 

Disclosure 

The Department intends to disclose 

the calculations performed to parties in 

this proceeding within five days of the 

date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue to 

suspend liquidation of all appropriate 

entries of stilbenic OBAs from the PRC 

as described in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after November 3, 

2011, the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. The Department will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond equal to the 

weighted-average amount by which the 

normal value exceeds U.S. price, as 

indicated above. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of the final affirmative determination of 

sales at LTFV. As the Department’s final 

determination is affirmative, in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 

days, whether the domestic industry in 

the United States is materially injured, 

or threatened with material injury, by 

reason of imports, or sales (or the 

likelihood of sales) for importation, of 

the merchandise under consideration. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess, upon further instruction by 

the Department, antidumping duties on 

all imports of the merchandise under 

consideration entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the effective date of the suspension 

of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of propriety information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or distruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a sanctionable 

violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 19, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Issues for Final Determination 

Issue 1: Whether the Department Should 

Revise the Surrogate Value for 4,4 ́- 

Diamino-2,2 ́ Stilbenedisulfonic Acid 

Issue 2: Whether the Department Should 

Revise the Calculation of the Surrogate 

Financial Ratios 

Issue 3: Whether the Department Should 

Revise the Surrogate Value for Ice Blocks 

Issue 4: Whether the Department Should 

Revise the Surrogate Value for Ocean 

Freight 

Issue 5: Whether the Department Should 

Revise the Surrogate Value for Brokerage 

and Handling 

Issue 6: Whether the Department Should 

Revise the Surrogate Value for Labor 

[FR Doc. 2012–7215 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–980] 

Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, 

Whether or Not Assembled Into 

Modules, From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) preliminarily 

determines that countervailable 

subsidies are being provided to 

producers and exporters of crystalline 

silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or 

not assembled into modules (solar cells) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC). For information on the estimated 

subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene Calvert, Jun Jack Zhao, or Emily 

Halle, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3586, (202) 482–1396, or (202) 482– 

0176, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department initiated a 

countervailing duty (CVD) investigation 

of solar cells from the PRC on November 

8, 2011.1 Since the initiation, the 

following events have occurred. The 

Department released U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) entry data for 

U.S. imports of solar cells from the PRC 

for the period January 1, 2010, through 

December 31, 2010, to be used as the 

basis for respondent selection. The CBP 

entry data covered products included in 

this investigation which entered under 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) numbers likely 

to include subject merchandise: 

8541.40.6020 and 8541.40.6030. The 

entry data did not cover entries under 

the other HTSUS numbers included in 

the scope description below because 

those numbers represent broad basket 

categories. In the memorandum 

releasing the entry data, the Department 

stated that, because the subject 

merchandise is imported as either solar 

cells or solar cells assembled into 

modules or panels, and thus quantity is 

not recorded consistently in the entry 

data, the Department intended to select 

respondents based on the aggregate 

value (as opposed to quantity) of subject 

merchandise that was imported into the 

United States. 

On November 29, 2011, the 

Department completed its respondent 

selection analysis. Given available 

resources, the Department determined it 

could examine no more than two 

producers/exporters and selected 

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. 

(Trina Solar) and Wuxi Suntech Power 

Co., Ltd. (Wuxi Suntech) as mandatory 

respondents.2 These companies were 

the two largest producers/exporters of 

subject merchandise, based on aggregate 

value, to the United States. 

On December 5, 2011, the petitioner, 

Solar World Industries, America, Inc. 

(Petitioner), submitted an additional 

subsidy allegation, claiming that the 

government of the PRC (GOC), through 

state-owned enterprises (SOEs), 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES