27302 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 

competitiveness of the nation’s MBEs, 

as defined in Executive Order 11625, as 

amended, and 15 CFR 1400.1. NACMBE 

will provide advice and 

recommendations on a broad range of 

policy issues that affect minority 

businesses and their ability to 

successfully access the domestic and 

global marketplace. These policy issues 

may include, but are not limited to: 

• Methods for increasing jobs in the 

health care, manufacturing, technology, 

and ‘‘green’’ industries; 

• Global and domestic barriers and 

impediments; 

• Global and domestic business 

opportunities; 

• MBE capacity building; 

• Institutionalizing global business 

curriculums at colleges and universities 

and facilitating the entry of MBEs into 

such programs; 

• Identifying and leveraging pools of 

capital for MBEs; 

• Methods for creating high value 

loan pools geared toward MBEs with 

size, scale and capacity; 

• Strategies for collaboration amongst 

minority chambers, trade associations 

and nongovernmental organizations; 

• Accuracy, availability and 

frequency of economic data concerning 

minority businesses; 

• Methods for increasing global 

transactions with entities such as but 

not limited to the Export-Import Bank, 

OPIC and the IMF; and 

• Requirements for a uniform and 

reciprocal MBE certification program. 

The advice and recommendations 

provided by NACMBE may take the 

form of one or more written reports. 

NACMBE will also serve as a vehicle for 

an ongoing dialogue with the MBE 

community and with other stakeholders. 

The Secretary has determined that the 

establishment of NACMBE is necessary 

and in the public interest in connection 

with MBDA’s duties and responsibilities 

in advancing the growth and 

competitiveness of MBEs pursuant to 

Executive Order 11625, as amended. 

Membership: NACMBE shall be 

composed of not more than 25 members. 

The NACMBE members shall be 

distinguished individuals from the 

nonfederal sector appointed by the 

Secretary. The members shall be 

recognized leaders in their respective 

fields of endeavor and shall possess the 

necessary knowledge and experience to 

provide advice and recommendations 

on a broad range of policy issues that 

impact the ability of MBEs to 

successfully participate in the domestic 

and global marketplace. NACMBE shall 

have a balanced membership reflecting 

a diversity of industries, ethnic 

backgrounds and geographical regions, 

and to the extent practicable, gender 

and persons with disabilities. 

NACMBE members shall be appointed 

as Special Government Employees for a 

two-year term and shall serve at the 

pleasure of the Secretary. Members may 

be re-appointed to additional two-year 

terms, without limitation. The Secretary 

may designate a member or members to 

serve as the Chairperson or ViceChairperson(s) of NACMBE. The 

Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson(s) 

shall serve at the pleasure of the 

Secretary. 

NACMBE members will serve without 

compensation, but will be allowed 

reimbursement for reasonable travel 

expenses, including a per diem in lieu 

of subsistence, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 

5703, as amended, for persons serving 

intermittently in federal government 

service. NACMBE members will serve in 

a solely advisory capacity. 

Eligibility. In addition to the above 

criterion, eligibility for NACMBE 

membership is limited to U.S. citizens 

who are not full-time employees of the 

Federal Government, are not registered 

with the U.S. Department of Justice 

under the Foreign Agents Registration 

Act and are not a federally-registered 

lobbyists pursuant to the Lobbying 

Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended, at 

the time of appointment to the 

NACMBE. 

Nomination Procedures and Selection 

of Members: The Department of 

Commerce is accepting nominations for 

NACMBE membership for the upcoming 

2-year charter term beginning in April 

2010. Members shall serve until the 

NACMBE charter expires in April 2012, 

although members may be re-appointed 

by the Secretary without limitation. 

Nominees will be evaluated consistent 

with the factors specified in this notice 

and their ability to successfully carryout 

the goals of the NACMBE. 

For consideration, a nominee must 

submit the following materials: (1) 

Resume, (2) personal statement of 

interest, including a summary of how 

the nominee’s experience and expertise 

would support the NACMBE objectives; 

(3) an affirmative statement that the 

nominee is not required to register as a 

foreign agent under the Foreign Agents 

Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 

and (4) an affirmative statement that: (a) 

The nominee is not currently a 

federally-registered lobbyist and will 

not be a federally-registered lobbyist at 

the time of appointment and during his/ 

her tenure as a NACMBE member, or (b) 

if the nominee is currently a federallyregistered lobbyist, that the nominee 

will no longer be a federally-registered 

lobbyist at the time of appointment to 

the NACMBE and during his/her tenure 

as a NACMBE member. All nomination 

information should be provided in a 

single, complete package by the 

deadline specified in this notice. 

Nominations packages should be 

submitted by either mail or 

electronically, but not by both methods. 

Self-nominations will be accepted. 

NACMBE Members will be selected in 

accordance with applicable Department 

of Commerce guidelines and in a 

manner that ensures that NACMBE has 

a balanced membership. In this respect, 

the Secretary seeks to appoint members 

who represent a diversity of industries, 

ethnic backgrounds and geographical 

regions, and to the extent practicable, 

gender and persons with disabilities. 

All appointments shall be made 

without discrimination on the basis of 

age, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual 

orientation, or cultural, religious, or 

socioeconomic status. All appointments 

shall also be made without regard to 

political affiliations. 

Dated: May 10, 2010. 

David A. Hinson, 

National Director, Minority Business 

Development Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11596 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–898] 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

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 an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

chlorinated isocyanurates (‘‘chlorinated 

isos’’) from the People’s Republic of 

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

(‘‘POR’’) for this administrative review is 

June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009. 

Because the Department is rescinding 

the review of Zhucheng Taisheng 

Chemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhucheng’’), this 

administrative review only covers one 

producer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise, i.e., Hebei Jiheng 

Chemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiheng’’). 

We preliminarily determine that 

Jiheng made sales in the United States 

at prices below normal value (‘‘NV’’). If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 27303 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 36561 (June 24, 2005). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 26202 

(June 1, 2009). 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Deferral of Administrative Review 74 FR 37690 (July 

29, 2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

4See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, Notice of Intent to Partially 

Rescind Administrative Review, 74 FR 51557 

(October 7, 2009). 

5See Memorandum regarding: Request for 

Surrogate-Country Selection: 2008–2009 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated January 5, 2010; 

see also Memorandum regarding: Request for a List 

of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated January 25, 2010 

(‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). 

6See Memorandum regarding: Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the 

Government Closure During the Recent Snow 

Storm, dated February 12, 2010. 

7See Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Extension of 

Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administration Review, 75 FR 

9160 (March 1, 2010). 

our final results of review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

the importer-specific assessment rates 

are above de minimis. We invite 

interested parties to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 14, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brandon Petelin or Charles Riggle, 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) 482–8173 or (202) 482– 

0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 24, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on chlorinated 

isos from the PRC.1 On June 1, 2009, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on chlorinated 

isos from the PRC for the period June 1, 

2008, through May 31, 2009.2 On June 

29, 2009, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(2), Zhucheng, a foreign 

producer/exporter of subject 

merchandise, requested that the 

Department review its sales of subject 

merchandise. On June 30, 2009, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), 

Jiheng, a foreign producer/exporter of 

subject merchandise, requested that the 

Department review its sales of subject 

merchandise. 

On July 29, 2009, the Department 

initiated the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

chlorinated isos from the PRC covering 

the period June 1, 2008, through May 

31, 2009.3 On August 4, 2009, the 

Department issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to both Jiheng and 

Zhucheng. However, on October 7, 

2009, because the Department 

determined that Zhucheng did not have 

standing to request an administrative 

review, the Department issued a Federal 

Register Notice stating that it intended 

to rescind the administrative review 

with respect to Zhucheng.4 On August 

17, 2009, Clearon Corporation and 

Occidental Chemical Corporation, 

domestic producers of chlorinated isos 

(collectively ‘‘Petitioners’’), submitted an 

entry of appearance in the underlying 

administrative review. 

On September 8, 2009, Jiheng 

submitted its section A questionnaire 

response (‘‘AQR’’). On September 23, 

2009, Jiheng submitted its sections C 

and D questionnaire responses (‘‘CQR 

and DQR’’, respectively). On December 

16, 2009, the Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng. 

On January 7, 2010, Jiheng submitted its 

supplemental questionnaire response 

(‘‘1st SQR’’). On March 16, 2010, the 

Department issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng. 

On March 26, 2010, Jiheng submitted its 

second supplemental questionnaire 

response (‘‘2nd SQR’’). 

On January 5, 2010, the Department 

requested that the Office of Policy 

provide a list of surrogate countries for 

this review, which it did on January 25, 

2010.5 On January 26, 2010, the 

Department issued a letter to interested 

parties seeking comments on surrogate 

country selection and surrogate values. 

On February 12, 2010, in the 

memorandum regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines as a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm’’ from the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated February 12, 

2010, the Department exercised its 

discretion to toll deadlines for the 

duration of the partial shutdown of the 

Federal Government from February 5 

through February 11, 2010.6 Thus, all 

deadlines in this segment of the 

proceeding were extended by 7 days. 

On February 12, 2010, Jiheng 

submitted comments regarding the 

selection of a surrogate country. On 

February 16, 2010, Jiheng submitted 

publicly available information in order 

to value Jiheng’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’). Also, on February 16, 2010, 

Arch Chemicals, Inc. (‘‘Arch’’), a United 

States importer of subject merchandise 

from Jiheng, submitted surrogate value 

information from Chemical Weekly for 

certain chemicals used in Jiheng’s 

production of the subject merchandise. 

On February 23, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted publicly available 

information to value certain FOPs. On 

March 1, 2010, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register extending the time limit for the 

preliminary results of review until May 

10, 2010.7

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are chlorinated isos, which are 

derivatives of cyanuric acid, described 

as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There 

are three primary chemical 

compositions of chlorinated isos: (1) 

Trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3), 

(2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

(dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3(2H2O)), and 

(3) sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

(anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated 

isos are available in powder, granular, 

and tableted forms. This order covers all 

chlorinated isos. Chlorinated isos are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, 

2933.69.6050, 3808.40.50, 3808.50.40 

and 3808.94.50.00 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). The tariff classification 

2933.69.6015 covers sodium 

dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and 

dihydrate forms) and 

trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff 

classifications 2933.69.6021 and 

2933.69.6050 represent basket categories 

that include chlorinated isos and other 

compounds including an unfused 

triazine ring. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

On April 9, 2008, the Department 

issued a final scope ruling stating that 

Chinese-origin chlorinated isos 

imported into Canada from the PRC by 

Capo Industries, Ltd., which are then 

processed and exported by Capo to the 

United States, are within the scope of 

the antidumping duty order covering 

chlorinated isos from the PRC. The 

Department found that Capo’s 

processing in Canada is essentially a 

repackaging operation with respect to 

Chinese-origin product and does not 

substantially transform the chlorinated 

isos imported from the PRC by Capo. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
27304 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 

8See Letter from Zhucheng Taisheng, 

‘‘Chlorinated Isocyanurates from China; Inquiry 

Regarding Status of Administrative Review’’ 

(August 24, 2009) (‘‘Inquiry Regarding Status of 

Administrative Review’’). 

9See Clorinated Isos/PRC 10/7/2009. 

10See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

52645 (September 10, 2008); see also Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21, 

2009). 

11See Memorandum regarding: 2008–2009 

Administrative Review of Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate Value Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Results, dated May 10, 2010 (‘‘Surrogate Value 

Memorandum’’). 

12 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for 

the final results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 

submitted by an interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after the applicable deadline for 

submission of such factual information. However, 

the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) 

permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information placed on the 

record. The Department generally will not accept 

the submission of additional, previously absentfrom-the-record alternative surrogate value 

On March 23, 2009, the Department 

issued a final scope ruling stating that 

chlorinated isos produced and exported 

from Vietnam by Tian Hua (Vietnam) 

SPC Industries Ltd. are not within the 

scope of the antidumping duty order 

covering chlorinated isos from the PRC 

because Tian Hua demonstrated on the 

record of the scope inquiry that it 

produces chlorinated isos in its 

production facilities in Vietnam. 

Partial Rescission of Review 

The Department is hereby rescinding 

the administrative review with respect 

to Zhucheng, covering the period of 

June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009. The 

Department’s regulations at 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(2) state that an exporter or 

producer covered by an antidumping 

order may request that the Department 

conduct an administrative review of 

only that party during the anniversary 

month of the publication of an 

antidumping order. On June 29, 2009, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), 

Zhucheng submitted a timely request for 

an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on chlorinated 

isos from the PRC purporting to be a 

producer and exporter of subject 

merchandise. In a letter dated August 

24, 2009, however, Zhucheng explained 

that, in the process of preparing its 

section A questionnaire response for 

this review, it discovered that the actual 

producer and exporter of the subject 

merchandise was Zhucheng Taisheng 

Angmu Chemical Co., Ltd., with whom 

Zhucheng claims to be affiliated.8

Therefore, because Zhucheng requested 

a review as a producer/exporter but was 

neither a producer nor an exporter of 

the subject merchandise during the 

POR, Zhucheng is not entitled to request 

an administrative review pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.213(b)(2). 

Because Zhucheng did not have 

standing to request an administrative 

review, the Department previously 

issued a Federal Register Notice of its 

intent to partially rescind the review 

with respect to Zhucheng, as the 

Department had initiated a review of 

Zhucheng in error.9 Thus, the 

Department hereby rescinds the 

administrative review with respect to 

Zhucheng for the period June 1, 2008, 

through May 31, 2009. 

Non-Market Economy Country 

The Department has treated the PRC 

as a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country in all past antidumping duty 

investigations and administrative 

reviews and continues to do so in this 

review.10 No interested party in this 

case has argued that we should do 

otherwise. Designation as an NME 

country remains in effect until it is 

revoked by the Department. See section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the ‘‘Act’’). Accordingly, we 

calculated normal value (‘‘NV’’) in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, which applies to NME countries. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it, in most 

instances, to base NV on the NME 

producer’s FOPs. The Act further 

instructs that valuation of the FOPs 

shall be based on the best available 

information in the surrogate market 

economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. See section 773(c)(1) of the 

Act. When 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: (1) At a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country; and (2) significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

See section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Further, 

the Department normally values all 

FOPs in a single surrogate country. See 

19 CFR 351.408(c)(2). The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section below 

and in the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 

1117 of the main Commerce Department 

building.11

In examining which country to select 

as its primary surrogate for this 

proceeding, the Department determined 

that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, 

Ukraine, Thailand, and Peru are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development. See 

Surrogate Country List. On January 26, 

2010, the Department issued a request 

for interested parties to submit 

comments on surrogate country 

selection. On February 12, 2010, Jiheng 

submitted comments regarding the 

selection of a surrogate country. On 

February 23, 2010, Petitioners submitted 

FOP surrogate value information that 

included several values obtained from 

India. 

Jiheng argues that the Department 

should continue to use India as the 

surrogate country for this segment of the 

proceeding, as it has in previous 

segments, because, in this case, India 

produces comparable merchandise and 

there are publicly available data with 

which to value the reported FOP 

information. All parties which 

submitted surrogate value data 

submitted only Indian-sourced data. 

After evaluating interested parties’ 

comments, the Department determined 

that India is the appropriate surrogate 

country for this review. The Department 

based its decision on the following facts: 

(1) India is at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

PRC; (2) India is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise, i.e., 

calcium hypochlorite; and (3) India 

provides the best opportunity to use 

reliable, publicly available data to value 

the FOPs. On the record of this review, 

we have usable surrogate financial data 

from India, but no such surrogate 

financial data from any other potential 

surrogate country. Additionally, all of 

the data submitted by both Jiheng and 

the Petitioners for our consideration as 

potential surrogate values are sourced 

from India. 

Therefore, because India best 

represents the experience of producers 

of comparable merchandise operating in 

a surrogate country, we have selected 

India as the surrogate country and 

accordingly have calculated NV using 

Indian prices to value the respondents’ 

FOPs, when available and appropriate. 

See Surrogate Value Memorandum. We 

have obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value FOPs until 20 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

results.12


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 27305 

information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 

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. 

13See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 10; and Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel 

Beams from Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

14See Jiheng’s CQR at page C–15. 

15See, e.g., Notice of Final Determinations of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Durum 

Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, 

68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3. 

16See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

27104 (June 8, 2009) (unchanged in Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 66087 (December 14, 2009)). 

17See Memorandum regarding: Analysis for the 

Preliminary Results of the 2008–2009 

Administrative Review of Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China: 

Hebei Jiheng Chemical Company Ltd. (May 10, 

Continued 

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 assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the 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 arising from the Notice of 

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 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’’). 

However, if the Department determines 

that a company is wholly foreign-owned 

or located in a market economy country, 

then a separate-rate analysis is not 

necessary to determine whether it is 

independent from government control. 

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. See 

Sparklers at 20589. 

The evidence provided by Jiheng 

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 

companies. See Jiheng’s AQR at Exhibit 

A3.1 through Exhibit A5. 

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. See 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). 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 placed on the record of 

this administrative review by Jiheng 

demonstrates an absence of de facto 

government control with respect to 

Jiheng’s exports of the merchandise 

under review, in accordance with the 

criteria identified in Sparklers and 

Silicon Carbide. See Jiheng’s AQR at 

pages A–12 through A–18. 

Date of Sale 

19 CFR 351.401(i) states that: 

In identifying the date of sale of the subject 

merchandise or foreign like product, the 

Secretary normally will use the date of 

invoice, as recorded in the exporter or 

producer’s records kept in the normal course 

of business. However, the Secretary may use 

a date other than the date of invoice if the 

Secretary is satisfied that a different date 

better reflects the date on which the exporter 

or producer establishes the material terms of 

sale. 

Jiheng reported the shipment date as 

the date of sale because it claims that, 

for its U.S. sales of subject merchandise 

made during the POR, the material 

terms of sale were established on the 

shipment date, and for many of its sales 

the shipment date occurs on or before 

the invoice date. Jiheng also stated that 

selecting the shipment date as the date 

of sale insures a consistent methodology 

for selecting the date of sale with 

previous segments in which Jiheng has 

participated. We have preliminarily 

determined that the shipment date is the 

most appropriate date to use as Jiheng’s 

date of sale in accordance with our longstanding practice of determining the 

date of sale as the date on which the 

final terms of sale are established.13

Evidence on the record demonstrates 

that, with respect to Jiheng’s sales to the 

United States, sometimes the shipment 

date occurs prior to the invoice date,14

and it is the Department’s practice to 

use shipment date as the date of sale 

when the shipment date occurs prior to 

the invoice date.15 Though not a 

dispositive factor for this POR, we note 

that we used the shipment date as the 

sale date in the prior POR.16

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

chlorinated isos to the United States by 

Jiheng were made at less than NV, we 

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

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice, 

pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act. 

Export Price 

Jiheng sold the subject merchandise 

directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States prior to importation into 

the United States. Therefore, we have 

used EP in accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act because the use of the 

constructed export price methodology is 

not otherwise indicated. We calculated 

EP based on the price, including the 

appropriate shipping terms, to the first 

unaffiliated purchasers reported by 

Jiheng. To this price, we added amounts 

for components that were supplied free 

of charge or reimbursed by the 

customer, where applicable, pursuant to 

section 772(c)(1)(A) of the Act.17


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
27306 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 

2010) (‘‘Jiheng’s Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum’’). 

18 Jiheng stated that its customer sourced 

materials from both market-economy and NME 

suppliers. Jiheng further stated that it does not 

know the names of the market-economy suppliers. 

See Jiheng’s DQR at page D–8. 

19See, e.g., 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 (September 8, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17. 

20See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof 

Assembly Components Div. of Ill 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). 

21See, e.g., Frontseating Service Valves from the 

People’s Republic of China; Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 73 FR 62952 (October 22, 2008) 

(unchanged in Frontseating Service Valves from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 

10886 (March 13, 2009); and China National 

Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United 

States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), affirmed 

104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Jiheng reported that its U.S. 

customer(s) provided it with certain raw 

materials and packing materials free of 

charge. For Jiheng’s products that 

contained inputs provided free of charge 

by a customer,18 we added to the U.S. 

price paid by Jiheng’s customer the 

built-up cost (i.e., the surrogate value for 

these raw materials and packing 

materials multiplied by the reported 

FOPs for these items).19

Normal Value 

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

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine 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 will base NV on 

FOPs in NMEs 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. Therefore, we 

calculated NV based on FOPs in 

accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and 

(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). 

The FOPs include: (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 the 

FOPs reported by the respondent for 

materials, energy, labor, by-products, 

and packing. These reported FOPs 

included various FOPs provided free of 

charge by a customer as discussed in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ section, above. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to value the FOPs, but 

when a producer sources an input from 

a market-economy country and pays for 

it in market-economy currency, the 

Department may value the factor using 

the actual price paid for the input.20

Jiheng reported that it did not purchase 

any inputs from market economy 

suppliers for the production of the 

subject merchandise. See Jiheng’s DQR 

at page D–9. 

With regard to the Indian importbased surrogate values, we have 

disregarded prices that we have reason 

to believe or suspect may be subsidized, 

such as those from Indonesia, South 

Korea, and Thailand. We have found in 

other proceedings that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and, 

therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all 

exports to all markets from these 

countries may be subsidized.21 We are 

also guided by the statute’s legislative 

history that explains that it is not 

necessary to conduct a formal 

investigation to ensure that such prices 

are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. No. 

100–576 (1988), at 590. Rather, the 

Department was instructed by Congress 

to base its decision on information that 

is available to it at the time it is making 

its determination. Therefore, we have 

not used prices from these countries in 

calculating the Indian import-based 

surrogate values. Additionally, we 

disregarded prices from NME countries. 

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 general export subsidies. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by Jiheng for the POR. To 

calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor quantities by 

publicly available Indian surrogate 

values (except as noted below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

selected, where possible, publicly 

available data, which represent an 

average non-export value and are 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to render them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

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. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 

3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a 

detailed description of all surrogate 

values used for Jiheng, see the Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

Except as noted below, we valued raw 

material inputs using the weightedaverage unit import values derived from 

the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 

Trade of India, as published by the 

Directorate General of Commercial 

Intelligence and Statistics of the 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 

Government of India in the World Trade 

Atlas, available at http://www.gtis.com/ 

wta.htm (‘‘WTA’’). Where we could not 

obtain publicly available information 

contemporaneous with the POR with 

which to value FOPs, we adjusted the 

surrogate values using, where 

appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price 

Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. We 

further adjusted these prices to account 

for freight costs incurred between the 

supplier and respondent. 

To value truck freight, we used the 

freight rates published by http:// 

www.infobanc.com, ‘‘The Great Indian 

Bazaar, Gateway to Overseas Markets.’’ 

The logistics section of the website 

contains inland freight truck rates 

between many large Indian cities. The 

truck freight rates are for the period 

August 2008 through May 2009 and, 

therefore, are contemporaneous with the 

POR. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

The Department valued brokerage and 

handling using a simple average of the 

brokerage and handling costs that were 

reported in public submissions that 

were filed in three antidumping duty 

cases. Specifically, we averaged the 

public brokerage and handling expenses 

reported by Navneet Publications (India) 

Ltd. in the 2007–2008 administrative 

review of certain lined paper products 

from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 

2006–2007 antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot-rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India, 

and Himalaya International Ltd. in the 

2005–2006 administrative review of 

certain preserved mushrooms from 

India. The Department adjusted the 

average brokerage and handling rate for 

inflation. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 27307 

22See, e.g., 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 (September 8, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17. 

23See Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries 

(December 9, 2009), available at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages; see also, 2009 Calculation of 

Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 74 FR 65092 

(December 9, 2009). The source of these wage rate 

data on the Import Administration’s web site is the 

Yearbook of Labour Statistics, ILO, (Geneva), 

Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of 

the reported wage rates range from 2006 to 2007. 

To value calcium chloride, barium 

chloride, zinc sulfate, and sulfuric acid, 

we used Chemical Weekly data. We 

adjusted these values for taxes and to 

account for freight costs incurred 

between the supplier and the 

respondent. 

Jiheng reported that its U.S. 

customer(s) provided certain raw 

materials and packing materials free of 

charge. For Jiheng’s products that 

included raw materials and packing 

materials provided free of charge by its 

customer, consistent with the 

Department’s practice and section 

773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we used the 

built-up cost (i.e., the surrogate value for 

these raw materials and packing 

materials multiplied by the reported 

FOPs for these items) in the NV 

calculation.22 Where applicable, we also 

adjusted these values to account for 

freight costs incurred between the port 

of exit and Jiheng’s plants. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum, and 

Jiheng’s Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

To value electricity, we used price 

data for small, medium, and large 

industries, as published by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India in its publication entitled 

‘‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average 

Rates of Electricity Supply in India,’’ 

dated March 2008. These electricity 

rates represent actual country-wide, 

publicly-available information on taxexclusive electricity rates charged to 

industries in India. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value water, we used the 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation (‘‘MIDC’’) water rates 

available at http://www.midcindia.com/ 

water-supply. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value steam coal, we used data 

obtained for grades B and C coal 

reported in the December 2007 Coal 

India Limited Circular. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

To value steam, we used data 

obtained from the Indian financial 

statements of Hindalco Industries 

Limited. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Jiheng reported chlorine, hydrogen 

gas, ammonia gas, and sulfuric acid as 

by-products in the production of subject 

merchandise. We find in this 

administrative review that Jiheng has 

appropriately reported its by-products 

and, therefore, we have granted Jiheng 

a by-product offset for the quantities of 

these reported by-products. We valued 

chlorine gas with POR data obtained 

from the financial statements of Bihar 

Caustic & Chemicals, Kanoria Chemicals 

& Industries Limited, DCM Shriram 

Consolidated Ltd., all of which are 

Indian producers and sellers of chlorine 

gas. We valued hydrogen gas with POR 

data obtained from the financial 

statements of Bihar Caustic & Chemicals 

and DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd., 

both of which are Indian producers and 

sellers of hydrogen gas. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

For direct labor, indirect labor, and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression-based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s Web site.23

Because this regression-based wage rate 

does not separate the labor rates into 

different skill levels or types of labor, 

we have applied the same wage rate to 

all skill levels and types of labor 

reported by Jiheng. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

For packing materials, we used the 

per-kilogram values obtained from the 

WTA and made adjustments to account 

for freight costs incurred between the 

PRC supplier and Jiheng’s plants. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

To calculate surrogate values for 

factory overhead, selling, general, and 

administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and 

profit for the preliminary results, we 

used financial information from both 

Kanoria Chemicals and Industries 

Limited (‘‘Kanoria’’) and Aditya Birla 

Chemicals (India) Limited (‘‘Aditya’’) for 

the year ending March 31, 2009. From 

this information, we were able to 

determine average factory overhead as a 

percentage of the total raw materials, 

labor, and energy (‘‘ML&E’’) costs, 

average SG&A as a percentage of ML&E 

plus overhead (i.e., cost of 

manufacture), and an average profit rate 

as a percentage of the cost of 

manufacture plus SG&A. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum for a full 

discussion of the calculation of these 

ratios. 

Currency Conversion 

Where the factor valuations were 

reported in a currency other than U.S. 

dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, we made currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars based on 

the exchange rates in effect on the dates 

of the U.S. sales, as certified by the 

Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted-average dumping 

margin exists: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd 11.65 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding within five days of the 

publication date of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are 

invited to comment on the preliminary 

results and may submit case briefs and/ 

or written comments within 30 days of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal 

briefs and rebuttals to written 

comments, limited to issues raised in 

such briefs or comments, may be filed 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing the case briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). The Department 

requests that parties submitting written 

comments provide an executive 

summary and a table of authorities as 

well as an additional copy of those 

comments electronically. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Hearing requests should contain the 

following information: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. If a request for a 

hearing is made, parties will be notified 

of the time and date for the hearing to 

be held at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

The Department intends to 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 this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
27308 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this review. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will 

calculate exporter/importer (or 

customer) -specific assessment rates for 

the merchandise subject to this review. 

Where the respondent has 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). See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 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 importers’/customers’ entries 

during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perunit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), 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. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Further, the following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

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

the cash deposit rate will be the 

company-specific rate established in the 

final results of review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, a zero 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 that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 285.63 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporter(s) that supplied that nonPRC exporter. 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)(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. 

These preliminary results are issued 

and published in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: May 10, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11605 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–914] 

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of the 

2008–2009 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a timely 

request from one importer, FitMAX Inc. 

(‘‘FitMAX’’), the Department of 

Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) is 

conducting the 2008–2009 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on light-walled 

rectangular pipe and tube (‘‘LWR’’) from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

We have preliminarily determined that 

sales have been made below normal 

value (‘‘NV’’) by the exporter 

participating in the instant 

administrative review. 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 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the period of review (‘‘POR’’) for which 

the importer-specific assessment rate is 

above de minimis. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 14, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith, 

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) 482–3518 and (202) 

482–5193, respectively. 

Background 

On June 24, 2008, the Department 

published its final determination of 

sales at less-than-fair-value in the 

antidumping duty investigation of LWR 

from the PRC. See 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 

(June 24, 2008). On August 5, 2008, the 

Department published its antidumping 

duty order on LWR from the PRC. See 

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube 

from Mexico, the People’s Republic of 

China, and the Republic of Korea: 

Antidumping Duty Orders; Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

Republic of Korea: Notice of Amended 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 73 FR 45403 (August 

5, 2008). On August 3, 2009, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the above-referenced order. 

See Antidumping or Countervailing 

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 38397 

(August 3, 2009). Based on a timely 

request from FitMAX for an 

administrative review, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on LWR from 

the PRC with respect to the Sun Group 

Inc. (the ‘‘Sun Group’’), a producer/ 

exporter of subject merchandise 

imported by FitMAX. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Request for 

Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224 

(September 22, 2009) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). 

On September 25, 2009, the 

Department issued an antidumping duty 

questionnaire to the Sun Group. The 

Sun Group submitted responses to the 

Department’s questionnaire from 

October through December 2009. We 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES