49408 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 

encouraging participation in the 2010 

Census. 

The information will be used to 

development and conduct pretesting of 

materials prior to placing them into 

production as well as to monitor and 

evaluate responses to communications. 

Research activities will involve one of 

the following methods: one-on-one 

interviews, focus groups, respondent 

debriefings, usability tests, or tracking 

surveys. 

II. Method of Collection 

Any of the following methods may be 

used: mail, telephone, face-to-face 

interviews; paper-and-pencil, CATI, 

CAPI or Internet. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: None. 

Form Number: Various. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

13,000. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 13,000. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., 

Sections 141 and 193. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: August 15, 2008. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–19346 Filed 8–20–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Regulations and Procedures Technical 

Advisory Committee; Notice of 

Partially Closed Meeting 

The Regulations and Procedures 

Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) 

will meet September 9, 2008, 9 a.m., 

Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover 

Building, 14th Street between 

Constitution and Pennsylvania 

Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The 

Committee advises the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration on implementation of 

the Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) and provides for continuing 

review to update the EAR as needed. 

Agenda 

Public Session 

1. Opening remarks by the Chairman. 

2. Presentation of papers or comments 

by the Public. 

3. Opening remarks by Bureau of 

Industry and Security. 

4. Export Enforcement update. 

5. Regulations update. 

6. Working group reports. 

7. Automated Export System (AES) 

update. 

Closed Session 

8. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions 

relating to public meetings found in 

5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 

10(a)(3). 

The open session will be accessible 

via teleconference to 20 participants on 

a first come, first serve basis. To join the 

conference, submit inquiries to Ms. 

Yvette Springer at 

Yspringer@bis.doc.gov no later than 

September 2, 2008. 

A limited number of seats will be 

available for the public session. 

Reservations are not accepted. To the 

extent that time permits, members of the 

public may present oral statements to 

the Committee. The public may submit 

written statements at any time before or 

after the meeting. However, to facilitate 

the distribution of public presentation 

materials to the Committee members, 

the Committee suggests that presenters 

forward the public presentation 

materials prior to the meeting to Ms. 

Springer via e-mail. 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, with the concurrence of 

the delegate of the General Counsel, 

formally determined on July 17, 2008, 

pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 

U.S.C. app. 2 §§ (10)(d)), that the portion 

of the meeting dealing with matters the 

disclosure of which would be likely to 

frustrate significantly implementation of 

an agency action as described in 5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt 

from the provisions relating to public 

meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 

§§ 10(a)1 and 10(a)(3). The remaining 

portions of the meeting will be open to 

the public. 

For more information, call Yvette 

Springer at (202) 482–2813. 

Dated: August 18, 2008. 

Yvette Springer, 

Committee Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–19459 Filed 8–20–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–929] 

Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement 

of Final Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

Effective Date: August 21, 2008. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) preliminarily 

determines that small diameter graphite 

electrodes (‘‘graphite electrodes’’) from 

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

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’). The estimated dumping 

margins are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Magd Zalok or Drew Jackson, 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) 482–4162 or (202) 482–

4406, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 17, 2008, the Department 

received a petition concerning imports 

of graphite electrodes from the PRC filed 

in proper form by SGL Carbon LLC and 

Superior Graphite Co. (collectively 

‘‘petitioners’’). The Department initiated 

an antidumping duty investigation of 

graphite electrodes from the PRC on 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 49409 

1The Department did not send Q&V 

questionnaires to 21 companies listed in the 

petition due to incomplete addresses. 

February 6, 2008. See Small Diameter 

Graphite Electrodes from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

8287 (February 13, 2008) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). On February 13, 2008, the 

Department provided interested parties 

with U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data on U.S. imports 

of graphite electrodes from the PRC 

during the period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’). Between February 19, 2008, 

and February 21, 2008, the Department 

requested quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

information from 81 of the 102 

companies identified by the petitioners 

as potential exporters and/or producers 

of graphite electrodes from the 

PRC.1See Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties Against Small 

Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the 

People’s Republic of China, Exhibit 

General 3, Volume I (January 17, 2008) 

(‘‘Petition’’). 

On March 3, 2008, the International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) notified the 

Department that it had preliminarily 

determined that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of imports of graphite electrodes 

from the PRC. See Small Diameter 

Graphite Electrodes From China, 

Investigation No. 731–TA–1143 

(Preliminary), 73 FR 12461 (March 7, 

2008). 

Between March 7, 2008, and March 

13, 2008, the Department received 

timely responses to its Q&V 

questionnaire from the following 13 

companies: Fushun Jinly Petrochemical 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fushun Jinly’’); 

Fushun Carbon Co. Ltd. (‘‘Fushun 

Carbon’’); Shanghai Jinneng 

International Trade Co., Ltd.; Dalian 

Thrive Metallurgy Import and Export 

Co., Ltd.; GES (China) Co., Ltd.; Brilliant 

Charter Limited; Qingdao Haosheng 

Metals & Minerals Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.; 

Nantong River-East Carbon Joint Stock 

Co., Ltd.; Jilin Carbon Import and Export 

Company (‘‘Jilin Carbon’’); Xinghe 

County Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd.; 

Guangham Shida Carbon Co., Ltd.; 

Shenyang Jinli Metals & Minerals Imp & 

Exp Co., Ltd.; and Shijiazhuang Huanan 

Carbon Factory. On April 4, 2008, the 

Department selected Fushun Jinly and 

Fushun Carbon as mandatory 

respondents. See Memorandum to 

Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

through Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, 

Office 4, and Howard Smith, Program 

Manager, Office 4, from Magd Zalok and 

Rebecca Pandolph, International Trade 

Analysts, ‘‘Selection of Respondents in 

the Antidumping Investigation of Small 

Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

April 4, 2008 (‘‘Respondent Selection 

Memorandum’’). 

On April 14, 2008, the Department 

received separate-rate applications from 

Jilin Carbon; Guangham Shida Carbon 

Co., Ltd.; Nantong River-East Carbon 

Joint Stock Co., Ltd.; Xinghe County 

Muzi Carbon Co. Ltd.; Brilliant Charter 

Limited; Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon 

Factory; Shenyang Jinli Metals & 

Minerals Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.; Shanghai 

Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd.; 

Dalian Thrive Metallurgy Import and 

Export Co., Ltd.; GES (China) Co., Ltd.; 

and Qingdao Haosheng Metals & 

Minerals Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. (the 

mandatory respondents filed separaterate applications in their responses to 

section A of the Department’s 

questionnaire). The Department rejected 

an untimely filed separate-rate 

application from Shanxi Xinrong 

International Trade Co. 

On April 7, 2008, the Department 

issued its antidumping questionnaire to 

the mandatory respondents. Fushun 

Jinly and the Fushun Carbon submitted 

timely responses to all sections of the 

Department’s questionnaire during 

April and May 2008. Fushun Carbon, 

along with its affiliated companies, 

Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Fangda Carbon’’), Beijing Fangda 

Carbon Tech Co., Ltd. (‘‘Beijing 

Fangda’’), and Chengdu Rongguang 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Chengdu 

Rongguang’’) (collectively ‘‘Fangda 

Group’’) submitted a consolidated 

response to the Department’s 

questionnaire. See ‘‘Affiliation’’ and 

‘‘Single Entity’’ sections below. The 

Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to, and received 

responses from, Fushun Jinly, the 

Fangda Group, and the separate rate 

respondents in May, June, and July 

2008. The petitioners submitted 

comments to the Department regarding 

Fushun Jinly and the Fangda Group’s 

questionnaire and supplemental 

questionnaire responses, and the 

separate rates response of Jilin Carbon 

in May, June, and July 2008. 

On May 30, 2008, the Department 

released to interested parties a 

memorandum which listed potential 

surrogate countries and invited 

interested parties to comment on 

surrogate country and factor value 

selection. See Letter to All Interested 

Parties from Howard Smith, Program 

Manager, Office 4, concerning 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’

dated May 30, 2008. No party responded 

to the Department’s invitation to 

comment on surrogate country 

selection. However, in June and July 

2008, both the petitioners and the 

respondents submitted surrogate values 

for use in this investigation. All of the 

submitted surrogate data are from India. 

On July 15, 2008, the petitioners 

alleged targeted dumping by Fushun 

Jinly. 

On July 23, 2008, the petitioners 

requested that the Department make a 

finding that critical circumstances exist 

with respect to imports of graphite 

electrodes from the PRC. The 

Department issued questionnaires 

regarding critical circumstances to 

Fushun Jinly and the Fangda Group on 

July 24, 2008. Fushun Jinly and the 

Fangda Group submitted their responses 

to those questionnaires on July 30, 2008. 

See the ‘‘Critical Circumstances’’ section 

of this notice for additional information. 

Period of Investigation 

The POI is July 1, 2007, through 

December 31, 2007. This period 

comprises the two most recently 

completed fiscal quarters as of the 

month preceding the month in which 

the petition was filed (i.e., January 

2008). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation includes all small 

diameter graphite electrodes of any 

length, whether or not finished, of a 

kind used in furnaces, with a nominal 

or actual diameter of 400 millimeters 

(16 inches) or less, and whether or not 

attached to a graphite pin joining system 

or any other type of joining system or 

hardware. Small diameter graphite 

electrodes are most commonly used in 

primary melting, ladle metallurgy, and 

specialty furnace applications in 

industries including foundries, smelters, 

and steel refining operations. Small 

diameter graphite electrodes subject to 

this investigation are currently 

classified under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 8545.11.0000. 

The HTSUS number is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, but 

the written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

the Department’s regulations, we set 

aside a period of time in our Initiation 

Notice for parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage, and 

encouraged all parties to submit 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

49410 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 

publication of that notice. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997); see also Initiation Notice. The 

Department received no comments 

concerning the scope of the graphite 

electrodes antidumping duty 

investigation during the 20 day period 

set aside for such comments. 

However, in response to a request 

from the Department for comments on 

whether graphite pin joining systems 

(connecting pins) are within the scope 

of the investigation, on July 25, 2008, 

and July 30, 2008, parties submitted 

direct and rebuttal comments, 

respectively. On August 6, 2008, the 

petitioners submitted additional 

comments regarding connecting pins 

and revised language to clarify the scope 

of the investigation. 

According to the respondents, 

connecting pins are within the scope of 

the investigation when they are sold 

with electrodes (either attached to the 

electrode or unattached), but not when 

they are sold separately from the 

electrodes (i.e., listed separately on an 

invoice). When there are more 

connecting pins than electrodes in a 

sale, the respondents believe the 

additional connecting pins are within 

the scope of the investigation if the 

connecting pins are part of the electrode 

sale and not listed as a separate line 

item on the invoice. 

In contrast, the petitioners maintain 

that connecting pins are covered by the 

scope of the investigation, regardless of 

whether they are attached to, shipped 

with, or sold separately from, 

electrodes. According to the petitioners, 

the word ‘‘attached’’ in the scope 

language is to be read as ‘‘sold with,’’

and should not be interpreted as 

requiring the connecting pin to be 

physically attached to the electrode to 

be covered by the scope. Additionally, 

the petitioners maintain that the HTSUS 

number listed in the scope includes 

connecting pins and the U.S. domestic 

industry included connecting pin sales 

in the sales data reported to the 

Department and the ITC. Lastly, the 

petitioners note that if the Department 

does not include connecting pins in the 

scope of the investigation, foreign 

producers will begin selling electrodes 

at artificially high prices (to avoid 

dumping duties) while separately 

selling connecting pins at very low 

prices. 

After reviewing the parties’

comments, we have preliminarily 

determined that all connecting pins are 

outside of the scope of the investigation. 

The description of the scope identifies 

only small diameter graphite electrodes 

as subject merchandise; it does not state 

that both electrodes and connecting pins 

are subject merchandise. Furthermore, 

we do not agree that the word 

‘‘attached’’ in the scope language 

conveys the meaning ‘‘sold with.’’ Even 

if the word ‘‘attached’’ is read as ‘‘sold 

with,’’ such a reading simply means that 

electrodes are covered by the scope 

whether or not they are sold with 

connecting pins; it does not indicate 

that connecting pins are subject 

merchandise. Furthermore, although the 

Petition notes that finished electrodes 

may be fitted with a threaded graphite 

pin joining system, the Petition 

consistently describes subject 

merchandise as small diameter graphite 

electrodes regardless of the type of 

joining system to which they are 

attached. The Petition does not state 

that connecting pins are also subject 

merchandise. Given the foregoing, we 

find that all connecting pins are outside 

the scope of the investigation, regardless 

of whether the connecting pin is sold or 

shipped with an electrode (either 

attached to the electrode or unattached), 

or sold or shipped separately from the 

electrode. Therefore, we have not 

considered sales of connecting pins in 

calculating the preliminary dumping 

margins. 

Targeted Dumping 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(1) of the 

Act, in calculating dumping margins in 

investigations, the Department normally 

will compare U.S. prices and normal 

values using a weighted average-toaverage or transaction-to-transaction 

comparison methodology. However, 

section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act allows 

the Department to compare transactionspecific export or constructed export 

prices to weighted-average normal 

values if there is a pattern of export or 

constructed export prices for 

comparable merchandise that differ 

significantly among purchasers, regions, 

or periods of time, and the Department 

explains why such differences cannot be 

taken into account using the weighted 

average-to-average or transaction-totransaction methods. See sections 

777A(d)(1)(B)(i)–(ii) of the Act. Section 

351.414(f)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations allows the Department to 

apply a average-to-transaction method if 

‘‘through the use of, among other things, 

standard and appropriate statistical 

techniques’’ there is a pattern of export 

or constructed export prices for 

comparable merchandise that differ 

significantly among purchasers, regions, 

or periods of time (‘‘targeted dumping’’). 

The regulations further state that 

targeted dumping allegations ‘‘must 

include all supporting factual 

information, and an explanation as to 

why the average-to-average or 

transaction-to-transaction method could 

not take into account any alleged price 

differences.’’ 19 CFR 351.414(f)(3). 

On July 15, 2008, the petitioners 

alleged that Fushun Jinly targeted 

certain sales of graphite electrodes for 

dumping. On July 28, 2008, the 

petitioners submitted additional 

information regarding targeted dumping 

in response to the Department’s July 22, 

2008 supplemental questionnaire. 

According to the petitioners, targeted 

dumping is evidenced by differing 

export prices for comparable 

merchandise among U.S. purchasers. 

Specifically, in their July 15, 2008, 

allegation, the petitioners argued that, in 

most instances, the average net price of 

subject merchandise sold by Fushun 

Jinly to a particular customer in a 

particular month of the POI differed by 

more than two percent from the average 

net price of all sales of that merchandise 

in the same month to all other 

customers. The petitioners explain that 

they used the two-percent price 

difference as the threshold for a 

significant price difference based on: (1) 

The Department’s use of plus/minus 

two percent as the basis for determining 

whether sales to affiliated parties are at 

arm’s length prices; (2) the fact that a 

dumping margin of two percent is used 

as the threshold for a finding of 

dumping, and (3) the pricing pattern of 

Fushun Jinly’s sales to a particular 

customer compared to its other sales of 

the subject merchandise. The petitioners 

therefore argue that Fushun Jinly 

engaged in targeted dumping with 

respect to a particular customer. 

The petitioners note that the 

Department has recently relied on a 

different methodology for purposes of 

determining whether targeted dumping 

has occurred. See Certain New 

Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the 

People’s Republic of China; Final 

Affirmative Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 40485, 40487 

(July 15, 2008) (‘‘Off-The-Road Tires’’). 

The petitioners also note that in OffThe-Road Tires, although the 

Department relied on a different 

methodology for calculating the final 

margin for purposes of initiating an 

investigation regarding targeted 

dumping, the Department accepted the 

petitioners’ allegation of targeted 

dumping in that case based on the 

methodology relied on by petitioners in 

the instant case. See Off-The-Road Tires, 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 23.A. 

Accordingly, the petitioners maintain 

that the information submitted in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 49411 

2See, e.g., Gray Portland Cement and Clinker 

From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 63 FR 12764, 12774 (March 

16, 1998). 

3See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails From 

Taiwan, 62 FR 51427, 51436 (October 1, 1997). 

4See, e.g., Off-The-Road Tires (citing 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 amplified 

by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s 

Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) 

(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 19 CFR 351.107(d)). 

5See id. 

6See Certain Steel Nails From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 

3928 (January 23, 2008) (unchanged in final 

determination, Certain Steel Nails From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 2008), and 

amended final determination, Certain Steel Nails 

From the People’s Republic of China: Amended 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 7254 (February 7, 2008)). 

7See id. 

support of their targeted dumping 

allegation is, at a minimum, sufficient to 

initiate a targeted dumping analysis by 

the Department. 

The petitioners point out that they 

disagree with the methodology used in 

Off-The-Road Tires to determine 

whether there is targeted dumping. 

Specifically, the petitioners claim that 

the methodology used in Off-The-Road 

Tires does not appropriately measure 

whether targeted dumping is occurring 

because it cannot detect obvious 

patterns of targeting and does not rely 

on an appropriate statistical technique 

to determine whether targeted dumping 

exists. Thus, the petitioners argue that 

the Department’s method is inconsistent 

with the express statutory directive and 

regulatory requirement. Additionally, 

the petitioners contend that the 

Department’s methodology is complex, 

redundant and difficult to satisfy, 

thereby limiting domestic industries’

ability to obtain relief from unfair 

trading practices, in contravention of 

legislative intent. Nevertheless, in 

support of their allegation, the 

petitioners submitted a targeted 

dumping analysis based on the 

methodology used by the Department in 

the final determination of Off-The-Road 

Tires. 

The Department has determined that 

the petitioners’ analysis provides a basis 

for accepting their targeted dumping 

allegation and performing a targeted 

dumping analysis. After performing 

such an analysis, we have determined 

that targeted dumping was occurring 

with respect to the particular customer 

identified by the petitioners. However, 

because there are no negative 

transaction-specific dumping margins in 

this preliminary determination, it is not 

possible that the targeted dumping of 

sales is being masked by our normal 

calculation methodology. See 

Memorandum to the File from Magd 

Zalok, regarding ‘‘Transaction-specific 

Margins’’ dated August 14, 2008. Thus, 

the petitioners’ claim that the observed 

price differences can only be taken into 

account using an average-to-transaction 

comparison is not supported. See id. As 

mentioned above, Section 

777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act requires 

that, in order to use the average-totransaction comparison methodology, 

the Department must explain why the 

average-to-average or transaction-totransaction methodology cannot account 

for the price differences. See also 

Statement of Administrative Action, 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 

Vol. I at 843 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’), reprinted 

in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040 (‘‘{b}efore 

relying on {the average-to-transaction 

comparison} methodology, however, 

Commerce must establish and provide 

an explanation why it cannot account 

for such differences through the use of 

an average-to-average or transaction-totransaction comparison.’’). Hence, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that the average-to-average comparison 

methodology does account for price 

differences and, therefore, finds that 

petitioners’ allegation does not warrant 

the use of the average-to-transaction 

comparison methodology. 

Critical Circumstances 

After reviewing record information, 

the Department preliminarily finds that 

there is reason to believe or suspect that 

critical circumstances exist for imports 

of subject merchandise from the Fangda 

Group and the separate rate companies 

because: (A) In accordance with section 

733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the person by 

whom, or for whose account, the 

merchandise was imported knew or 

should have known that the exporter 

was selling the subject merchandise at 

less than its fair value and that there 

was likely to be material injury by 

reason of such sales; and (B) in 

accordance with section 733(e)(1)(B) of 

the Act, the Fangda Group and the 

separate rate companies had massive 

imports during a relatively short period. 

However, record evidence does not 

indicate that critical circumstances exist 

with respect to imports of subject 

merchandise from Fushun Jinly or the 

PRC wide entity. See Memorandum to 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, 

Office 4, ‘‘Preliminary Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances,’’ dated August 14, 2008. 

Single Entity Treatment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), the 

Department will treat producers as a 

single entity, or ‘‘collapse’’ them, where: 

(1) Those producers are affiliated; (2) 

the producers have production facilities 

for producing similar or identical 

products that would not require 

substantial retooling of either facility in 

order to restructure manufacturing 

priorities; and (3) there is a significant 

potential for manipulation of price or 

production.2 In determining whether a 

significant potential for manipulation 

exists, 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) states that 

the Department may consider various 

factors, including: (1) The level of 

common ownership; (2) the extent to 

which managerial employees or board 

members of one firm sit on the board of 

directors of an affiliated firm; and (3) 

whether the operations of the affiliated 

firms are intertwined through the 

sharing of sales information, 

involvement in production and pricing 

decisions, the sharing of facilities or 

employees, or significant transactions 

between the affiliated producers.3

In proceedings involving non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with the rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control.4 Companies subject to 

government control are treated as part of 

the NME entity and assigned the same 

dumping rate.5 The Department, 

however, recognizes that NME 

companies may also be connected by 

means other than government control. 

Hence, even if certain companies are not 

part of the NME entity, it may be 

appropriate to treat the companies as a 

single entity and to determine a single 

dumping margin for the entity.6

Therefore, to the extent that the 

Department’s practice does not conflict 

with section 773(c) of the Act, the 

Department has, in prior cases, treated 

certain NME exporters and/or producers 

as a single entity if the facts of the case 

supported such treatment.7

Moreover, the Department has 

determined that the factors listed in 19 

CFR 351.401(f)(2) are not exhaustive 

and, in the context of an NME 

proceeding, other factors unique to the 

relationships between business entities 

within the NME country may lead the 

Department to determine that collapsing 

is warranted. The Court of International 

Trade has upheld the Department’s 

practice of taking into account one such 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

49412 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 

8See Hontex Enterprises v. United States, 342 F. 

Supp. 2d 1225, 1230–34 (CIT 2004). 

9See, e.g., Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled 

Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Notice 

of Final Determination at Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value, 65 FR 5554 (February 4, 2000); Certain 

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 

Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 63 FR 55578 (October 16, 

1998) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2; Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields from the People’s 

Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 

25545 (May 7, 2004); Automotive Replacement 

Glass Windshields from the People’s Republic of 

China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 61790 (October 21, 

2004); Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Sixth 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 

54635 (September 9, 2004) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

See also Hontex Enterprises v. United States, 248 

F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1343 (CIT 2003). 

10The Fangda Group reported that Beijing Fangda 

is a sales entity, and does not produce subject 

merchandise. 

11Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: ‘‘while continuing 

the practice of assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the Department 

will now assign in its NME investigations will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 

however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter 

and all of the producers which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period of investigation. 

This practice applied both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an individually calculated 

separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated 

firms receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination rates’’

because such rates apply to specific combinations 

of exporters and one or more producers. The cashdeposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only 

to merchandise both exported by the firm in 

unique factor, namely export decisions, 

in applying the collapsing provisions in 

NME proceedings.8 Thus, although the 

Department’s regulations do not address 

the treatment of non-producing entities 

(e.g., exporters), where non-producing 

entities are affiliated, and there exists a 

significant potential for manipulation of 

prices and/or export decisions, the 

Department has considered such 

entities, as well as any other affiliated 

entities (where appropriate), as a single 

entity.9

We have preliminarily determined 

that the exporters and producers of the 

Fangda Group (i.e., Beijing Fangda, 

Fangda Carbon, Fushun Carbon, 

Chengdu Rongguang, and Hefei Carbon) 

are affiliated pursuant to sections 

771(33)(F) and (G) of the Act and that 

these companies should be treated as a 

single entity for the purposes of the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

graphite electrodes from the PRC. These 

companies have common ownership 

and are under common control, and 

therefore, are affiliated in accordance 

sections 771(33)(F) and (G) of the Act 

(which states that affiliated persons 

include two or more persons directly or 

indirectly controlling, controlled by, or 

under common control with, any person 

(subsection F); and any person who 

controls any other person and such 

other person (subsection G)). 

Further, we find that the member 

companies of the Fangda Group that 

operate production facilities 

(specifically, Fushun Carbon, Fangda 

Carbon, and Chengdu Rongguang) 10

produce similar or identical products 

that would not require substantial 

retooling of their facilities in order to 

restructure manufacturing priorities. We 

have also determined that there is a 

significant potential for the 

manipulation of price or production 

among these companies as evidenced by 

the level of common ownership, the 

degree of management overlap, and the 

intertwined nature of the operations of 

these companies. See Memorandum to 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

through Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, 

Office 4, and Howard Smith, Program 

Manager, Office 4, from Drew Jackson, 

International Trade Analyst, concerning 

‘‘Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Affiliation and Single Entity Status of 

Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd.; 

Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd.; 

Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd.; Chengdu 

Rongguang Carbon Co., Ltd.; and Hefei 

Carbon Co., Ltd.,’’ dated August 11, 

2008. 

Non-Market Economy Treatment 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be an NME country. In accordance with 

section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of 2001–2002 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 

(February 14, 2003), unchanged in 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 

2003). The Department has not revoked 

the PRC’s status as an NME country. 

Therefore, in this preliminary 

determination, we have treated the PRC 

as an NME country and applied our 

current NME methodology. 

Selection of a Surrogate Country 

In antidumping proceedings involving 

NME countries, the Department, 

pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Act, 

will generally base normal value (‘‘NV’’) 

on the value of the NME producer’s 

factors of production. In accordance 

with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in 

valuing the factors of production, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of factors of 

production in one or more market 

economy countries that are at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country and are 

significant producers of merchandise 

comparable to the subject merchandise. 

The Department has determined that 

India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 

Philippines, and Egypt are countries 

that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

PRC. See Memorandum from Carol 

Showers, Acting Director, Office of 

Policy to Howard Smith, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 

concerning ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Small Diameter 

Graphite Electrodes (SDGE) from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC): 

Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries,’’ dated May 22, 2008. From 

among these economically comparable 

countries, the Department has 

preliminarily selected India as the 

surrogate country for this investigation 

because it determined that: 1) India is a 

significant producer of merchandise 

comparable to the subject merchandise; 

and 2) reliable Indian data for valuing 

the factors of production are readily 

available. See Memorandum to the File 

through Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, 

Office 4, and Howard Smith, Program 

Manager, Office 4, from Magd Zalok, 

International Trade Analyst, concerning 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Selection of a Surrogate Country,’’ dated 

June 25, 2008. 

Separate Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department notified parties of the recent 

application process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate-rate 

status in NME investigations. See 

Initiation Notice. Pursuant to the 

Department’s practice, exporters and 

producers are required to submit a 

separate-rate status application. See also 

Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005) 

(‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’), available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov.11 However, the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 49413 

question and produced by a firm that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation.’’ See 

Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6. 

12See e.g., Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon Factory’s 

April 15, 2008, submission at Exhibit 4, and Fushun 

Jinly’s July 8, 2008, submission at Appendices A–

6 and A–11. 

13See Fushun Jinly’s July 8, 2008, submission at 

4 and Appendix A–11. 

standard for eligibility for a separate 

rate, which is whether a firm can 

demonstrate an absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

its export activities, has not changed. 

Id., at ‘‘Background.’’

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 investigation 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 

governmental control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

Sparklers, as further developed in 

Silicon Carbide. However, if the 

Department determines that a company 

is wholly foreign-owned or located in a 

market economy, then a separate rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether it is independent from 

government control. 

A. Separate Rate Applicants 

All of the separate rate applicants, 

including the mandatory respondents 

Fushun Jinly and the Fangda Group, 

stated that they are either joint ventures 

between Chinese and foreign companies 

or are wholly Chinese-owned 

companies (collectively ‘‘PRC SR 

Applicants’’). For one applicant, 

mandatory respondent Fushun Jinly, 

there is conflicting information on the 

record regarding its ownership status 

during the POI. 

Fushun Jinly reported that it was 

established in 1987 as a collectivelyowned enterprise (i.e. owned by 

Nianpan Township), known as the 

Fushun Carbon Products Plant, but that 

the plant was sold to the Factory 

Director in 2002. Despite the sale, 

Fushun Jinly reported that it did not 

change its legal status as a collectivelyowned enterprise since suppliers were 

more willing to extend credit to a 

collectively-owned entity. However, 

according to Fushun Jinly, by 2007 most 

of the township’s collectively-owned 

enterprises had been sold and, thus, it 

decided it was time to officially change 

its status to a limited liability company. 

Thus, in June 2007, the Factory Director 

began the process of changing the 

company’s legal status from a 

collectively-owned entity to a limited 

liability company. In order to make the 

transition, Fushun Jinly reported that it 

obtained contracts from the township, 

dated in June 2007, showing the sale of 

the plant. Fushun Jinly obtained a new 

business license identifying it as a 

limited liability company on November 

1, 2007. 

Given the above information, we have 

preliminarily determined that Fushun 

Jinly continued to be a collectivelyowned enterprise until October 31, 

2007, four months into the POI. Record 

evidence, namely Fushun Jinly’s 

business license, shows that the 

company legally remained a 

collectively-owned enterprise until 

October 31, 2007. Additionally, Fushun 

Jinly has provided conflicting 

information as to when the township 

sold the factory’s assets. Thus, we have 

considered Fushun Jinly to be a 

‘‘collectively-owned enterprise’’ until 

October 31, 2007, and a limited liability 

company thereafter. 

Since none of the separate rate or 

mandatory respondents are wholly 

foreign-owned (with no PRC control) or 

located in a market economy with no 

PRC ownership, we must analyze 

whether these respondents can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

export activities. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR 20589. 

The evidence provided by the PRC SR 

Applicants supports a preliminary 

finding of de jure absence of 

governmental control based on the 

following: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporters’ business and 

export licenses; (2) applicable legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of the 

companies; and (3) and formal measures 

by the government decentralizing 

control of these companies.12

With respect to Fushun Jinly, the 

record indicates that while the company 

was collectively owned, it was subject 

to the ‘‘Regulations on Rural 

Collectively-Owned Enterprises of the 

People’s Republic of China’’

(‘‘Collectively-Owned Enterprise 

Regulations’’), Order No. 59 of the State 

Council, Implemented on July 1st 

1990.13 The Department has cited the 

Collectively-Owned Enterprise 

Regulations, together with a number of 

other laws, as a basis for finding an 

absence of de jure government control of 

respondents in a number of 

proceedings. See e.g., Brake Rotors from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Sixth Administrative 

Review and Preliminary Results and 

Final Partial Rescission of the Ninth 

New Shipper Review, 69 FR 10402 

(March 5, 2004). Thus, our preliminary 

finding of an absence of de jure 

government control with respect to 

Fushun Jinly is consistent with the 

Department’s findings in prior 

determinations. Id. 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a governmental 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 

22586–22587; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). 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 

governmental control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by the PRC SR 

Applicants demonstrate an absence of 

de facto government control with 

respect to each of the exporters’ exports 

of the merchandise under investigation, 

in accordance with the criteria 

identified in Sparklers and Silicon 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

49414 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 

14The Department received only 13 timely 

responses to the requests for Q&V information that 

it sent to 81 potential exporters identified in the 

petition. With a few exceptions, the record 

indicates the questionnaires were received by the 

exporters. See Respondent Selection Memorandum. 

15Secondary information is described in the SAA 

as ‘‘information dervied from the petition that gave 

rise to the investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 concerning 

the subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870. 

Carbide. Thus, there is an absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control with respect to each of the PRC 

SR Applicants. Therefore, the 

Department has preliminarily granted 

separate rate status to the following 

companies: Fushun Jinly, Fushun 

Carbon, Fangda Carbon, Beijing Fangda 

Chengdu Rongguang, Jilin Carbon, 

Guangham Shida Carbon Co., Ltd., 

Nantong River-East Carbon Joint Stock 

Co., Ltd., Xinghe County Muzi Carbon 

Co. Ltd., Brilliant Charter Limited, 

Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon Factory, 

Shenyang Jinli Metals & Minerals Imp & 

Exp Co., Ltd., Shanghai Jinneng 

International Trade Co., Ltd., Dalian 

Thrive Metallurgy Import and Export 

Co., Ltd., GES (China) Co., Ltd., and 

Qingdao Haosheng Metals & Minerals 

Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. The Department has 

calculated company-specific dumping 

margins for the two mandatory 

respondents, Fushun Jinly and the 

Fangda Group (i.e., Fushun Carbon, 

Fangda Carbon, Beijing Fangda, and 

Chengdu Rongguang) and assigned the 

other companies that have been granted 

a separate rate a dumping margin equal 

to a simple average of the dumping 

margins calculated for the two 

mandatory respondents. 

B. Companies Not Receiving a Separate 

Rate 

The Department has determined that 

all parties applying for a separate rate in 

this segment of the proceeding have 

demonstrated an absence of government 

control both in law and in fact (see 

discussion above), and is, therefore, not 

denying separate rate status to any 

applicants. 

The PRC-Wide Entity 

Although PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise to the United States were 

given an opportunity to provide Q&V 

information to the Department, not all 

exporters responded to the Department’s 

request for Q&V information.14 Based 

upon our knowledge of the volume of 

imports of subject merchandise from the 

PRC, we have concluded that the 

companies that responded to the Q&V 

questionnaire do not account for all U.S. 

imports of subject merchandise from the 

PRC made during the POI. We have 

treated the non-responsive PRC 

producers/exporters as part of the PRCwide entity because they did not qualify 

for a separate rate. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall, subject to 

subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination if an 

interested party: (A) Withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department; (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified. 

As noted above, the PRC-wide entity 

withheld information requested by the 

Department. As a result, pursuant to 

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

it appropriate to base the PRC-wide 

dumping margin on facts available. See 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in 

Notice of Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products From the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); see 

also ‘‘Statement of Administrative 

Action,’’ accompanying the URAA, H.R. 

Rep. No. 103–316, 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’) 

at 870. Since the PRC-wide entity did 

not respond to the Department’s request 

for information, the Department has 

concluded that the PRC-wide entity has 

failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability. Therefore, the Department 

preliminarily finds that, in selecting 

from among the facts available, an 

adverse inference is appropriate. 

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes 

the Department to use, as adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’): (1) Information 

derived from the petition; (2) the final 

determination from the LTFV 

investigation; (3) a previous 

administrative review; or (4) any other 

information placed on the record. In 

selecting a rate for AFA, the Department 

selects one that is sufficiently adverse 

‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 

available rule to induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 

63 FR 8909 (February 23, 1998). 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 

calculated rate for any respondent in the 

investigation. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon 

Quality Steel Products From the 

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 

(May 31, 2000) and accompanying 

Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 

Facts Available. The highest margin 

alleged in the petition is 159.34 percent. 

Since the dumping margin derived from 

the Petition is higher than the calculated 

weighted-average margins for the 

mandatory respondents, we examined 

whether it was appropriate to base the 

PRC-wide dumping margin on the 

secondary information in the Petition. 

When the Department relies on 

secondary information, rather than 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation, section 776(c) of the Act 

requires it to, to the extent practicable, 

corroborate that information from 

independent sources reasonably at its 

disposal.15 The SAA also states that the 

independent sources may include 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. See SAA at 870. 

The SAA also clarifies that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870. To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information used. See 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 

Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

From Japan; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 

57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged 

in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 49415 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 

Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

From Japan: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 

11825 (March 13, 1997). 

To corroborate the Petition margin, 

we compared the range of control 

number-specific preliminary dumping 

margins calculated for the mandatory 

respondents to the dumping margin 

alleged in the Petition. Based on this 

comparison, we have preliminarily 

corroborated the 159.34 percent 

dumping from the Petition, which is 

within the range of control numberspecific dumping margins calculated for 

the mandatory respondents. See 

Memorandum regarding ‘‘Corroboration 

of the PRC-Wide Facts Available Rate 

for the Preliminary Determination in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’

dated concurrently with this notice. The 

dumping margin for the PRC-wide 

entity applies to all entries of the 

merchandise under investigation except 

for entries of subject merchandise from 

Fushun Jinly, the Fangda Group, Jilin 

Carbon, Guangham Shida Carbon Co., 

Ltd., Nantong River-East Carbon Joint 

Stock Co., Ltd., Xinghe County Muzi 

Carbon Co. Ltd., Brilliant Charter 

Limited, Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon 

Factory, Shenyang Jinli Metals & 

Minerals Imp & Exp Co., Ltd., Shanghai 

Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd., 

Dalian Thrive Metallurgy Import and 

Export Co., Ltd., GES (China) Co., Ltd., 

and Qingdao Haosheng Metals & 

Minerals Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Fushun Jinly or 

the Fangda Group sold graphite 

electrodes to the United States at LTFV, 

we compared the weighted-average 

export price of the graphite electrodes to 

the normal value of the graphite 

electrodes, as described in the ‘‘U.S. 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. 

U.S. Price 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we based U.S. price on export 

price (‘‘EP’’) because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated purchaser was made prior 

to importation and the use of 

constructed export price was not 

otherwise warranted. In accordance 

with section 772(c) of the Act, we 

calculated EP by deducting, where 

applicable, the following expenses from 

the starting price (gross unit price) 

charged to the first unaffiliated 

customer in the United States: Foreign 

movement expenses, marine insurance, 

international freight, and foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses. 

We based these movement expenses 

on surrogate values where a PRC 

company provided the service and was 

paid in Renminbi. If market economy 

service providers, who were paid in a 

market economy currency, provided 

movement services for over 33 percent 

of subject merchandise shipments, by 

volume, we based the movement 

expenses on the actual price charged by 

the service provider. If market economy 

service providers, who were paid in a 

market economy currency, provided 

movement services for less than 33 

percent of subject merchandise 

shipments, by volume, we calculated 

the movement expenses by weightaveraging surrogate values with the 

actual price charged by the service 

provider. See Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 

Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 

Duty Drawback; and Request for 

Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717–18 

(October 19, 2006). 

For details regarding our EP 

calculation, see Memorandum to the 

File, through, Howard Smith, Program 

Manager, Office 4, from Drew Jackson, 

International Trade Analyst, 

‘‘Investigation of Small Diameter 

Graphite Electrodes from the People’s 

Republic of China: Analysis 

Memorandum for Beijing Fangda 

Carbon Tech Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon 

Co. Ltd., and Chengdu Rongguang 

Carbon Co., Ltd.,’’ dated August 14, 

2008, and Memorandum to the File, 

through, Howard Smith, Program 

Manager, Office 4, from Magd Zalok, 

International Trade Analyst, 

‘‘Investigation of Small Diameter 

Graphite Electrodes from the People’s 

Republic of China: Analysis 

Memorandum for Fushun Jinly 

Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.,’’ dated 

August 14, 2008 (collectively, ‘‘Analysis 

Memoranda’’). 

Normal Value 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we constructed normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) from the factors of production 

employed by the respondents to 

manufacture subject merchandise 

during the POI. Specifically, we 

calculated NV by adding together the 

values of the factors of production, 

general expenses, profit, and packing 

costs. We valued the factors of 

production using prices and financial 

statements from the surrogate country, 

India. In selecting surrogate values, we 

followed, to the extent practicable, the 

Department’s practice of choosing 

values which are non-export average 

values, contemporaneous with, or 

closest in time to, the POI, productspecific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). We also 

considered the quality of the source of 

surrogate information in selecting 

surrogate values. 

We valued material inputs and 

packing materials by multiplying the 

amount of the factor consumed in 

producing subject merchandise by the 

average unit value of the factor. We 

derived the average unit value of the 

factor from Indian import statistics. In 

addition, we added freight costs to the 

surrogate costs that we calculated for 

material inputs. We calculated freight 

costs by multiplying surrogate freight 

rates by the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory that produced the subject 

merchandise or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory that 

produced the subject merchandise, as 

appropriate. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit’s decision in 

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

1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where 

we could only obtain surrogate values 

that were not contemporaneous with the 

POI, we inflated (or deflated) the 

surrogate values using the Indian 

Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as 

published in the International Financial 

Statistics of the International Monetary 

Fund. 

Further, in calculating surrogate 

values from Indian imports, we 

disregarded imports from Indonesia, the 

Republic of South Korea, and Thailand 

because in other proceedings the 

Department found that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies. 

Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that 

all exports to all markets from these 

countries may be subsidized. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Negative 

Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

49416 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 

16 In addition, we note that legislative history 

explains that the Department is not required to 

conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such 

prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 

590 (1988). As such, it is the Department’s practice 

to base its decision on information that is available 

to it at the time it makes its determination. 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7.16 Thus, 

we have not used prices from these 

countries in calculating the Indian 

import-based surrogate values. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication titled Electricity Tariff & 

Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India, dated July 2006. These 

electricity rates represent actual 

country-wide, publicly-available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. 

Since the rates are not contemporaneous 

with the POI, we inflated the values 

using the WPI. See Memorandum to the 

File regarding ‘‘Investigation of Small 

Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the 

People’s Republic of China: Surrogate 

Values Selected’’ for Fushun Jinly and 

the Fangda Group, dated August 14, 

2008 (‘‘Factor Value Memorandum’’). 

We valued natural gas using a value 

obtained from the Gas Authority of 

India Ltd.’s Web site, a supplier of 

natural gas in India. See http:// 

www.gailonline.com/gailnewsite/ 

index.html. The value relates to the 

period January through June 2002. 

Therefore, we inflated the value using 

the WPI. In addition, we added 

transportation charges to the value. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum and 

Polyvinyl Alcohol From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 27991 (May 15, 2006), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

For direct labor, indirect labor and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the most recently 

calculated regression-based wage rate, 

which relies on 2005 data. This wage 

rate can be found on the Department’s 

Web site on Import Administration’s 

home page. See Expected Wages of 

Selected NME Countries (revised May 

2008) (available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages/index.html). The source of these 

wage rate data on the Import 

Administration’s Web site is the 

International Labour Organization, 

Geneva, Labour Statistics Database 

Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. 

Since 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 Fushun Jinly and the 

Fangda Group. See Factor Value 

Memorandum. 

We valued truck freight expenses 

using a per-unit average rate calculated 

from data on the following Web site: 

http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this Web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. Since this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

deflated the rate using the WPI. See 

Factor Value Memorandum. 

We valued rail freight expenses using 

a per-unit average rate from data 

obtained from the Web site of the Indian 

Ministry of Railways and distance data 

obtained from an Indian transportation 

company, InFreight Technologies India 

Limited. See http:// 

www.indianrailways.gov.in/ and http:// 

www.infreight.com/. See Factor Value 

Memorandum. 

We 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 Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. 

in the antidumping duty administrative 

review of certain preserved mushrooms 

from India, Kejirwal Paper Ltd. in the 

LTFV investigation of certain lined 

paper products from India, and Essar 

Steel in the antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot-rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India. 

See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

India: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

10646 (March 2, 2006); see also Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined 

Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 

(April 17, 2006), unchanged in Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, and Negative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India, 71 FR 45012 

(August 8, 2006) and Certain hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

2018, 2021 (January 12, 2006) 

(unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 

Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 

(July 18, 2006). Since the resulting value 

is not contemporaneous with the POI, 

we inflated the rate using the WPI. See 

Factor Value Memorandum. 

We valued marine insurance using a 

publicly available price quote from a 

marine insurance provider at http:// 

www.rjgconsultants.com/ 

insurance.html. 

We valued factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, using the 2007–2008 audited 

financial statements of Graphite India 

Limited. Record evidence indicates that 

Graphite India Limited is an Indian 

company that produces subject 

merchandise. The financial statements 

of Graphite India Limited were placed 

on the record by both the petitioners 

and the respondents and are the only 

surrogate financial statements on the 

record. See Factor Value Memorandum. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

submit publicly available information 

with which to value factors of 

production in the final determination 

within 40 days after the date of 

publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank of the United States. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

upon which we will rely in making our 

final determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation Notice. This change in 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1: 

(W)hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its NME investigations will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. 

Note, however, that one rate is calculated for 

the exporter and all of the producers which 

supplied subject merchandise to it during the 

period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination 

rates’’ because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 49417 

17As noted above, the separate rate applicants are 

Jilin Carbon; Guangham Shida Carbon Co., Ltd; 

Nantong River East Carbon Co. Ltd.; Xinghe County 

Muzi Carbon Co. Ltd.; Brilliant Charter Limited; 

Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon Factory; Shenyang 

Jinli Metals & Minerals Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.; 

Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd.; 

Dalian Thrive Metallurgy Import and Export Co., 

Ltd.; GES (China) Co., Ltd.; and Qingdao Haosheng 

Metals & Minerals Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation. 

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Exporter & producer 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................... 132.80 

Produced by: Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. 

Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 147.80 

Produced by: Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd. 

Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................................................... 147.80 

Produced by: Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd. 

Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................................................................... 147.80 

Produced by: Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co., Ltd.; Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd.; or Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd. 

Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................................... 147.80 

Produced by: Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co., Ltd. 

Jilin Carbon Import and Export Company ................................................................................................................................................. 140.30 

Produced by: Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Co., Ltd. 

Guangham Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................................... 140.30 

Produced by: Guangham Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. 

Nantong River—East Carbon Joint Stock Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................................. 140.30 

Produced by: Nantong River—East Carbon Co., Ltd.; or Nantong Yangzi Carbon Co., Ltd. 

Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co. Ltd. ....................................................................................................................................................... 140.30 

Produced by: Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd. 

Brilliant Charter Limited ............................................................................................................................................................................. 140.30 

Produced by: Nantong Falter New Energy Co., Ltd.; or Shanxi Jinneng Group Co., Ltd. 

Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon Factory ...................................................................................................................................................... 140.30 

Produced by: Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon Factory 

Shenyang Jinli Metals & Minerals Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................ 140.30 

Produced by: Shenyang Jinli Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 

Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd. ....................................................................................................................................... 140.30 

Produced by: Shanxi Jinneng Group Datong Energy Development Co., Ltd. 

Dalian Thrive Metallurgy Import and Export Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................... 140.30 

Produced by: Linghai Hongfeng Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; Tianzhen Jintian Graphite Electrodes Co., Ltd.; Jiaozuo Zhongzhou 

Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; Heilongjiang Xinyuan Carbon Products Co., Ltd.; Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon Manufacture Co., 

Ltd.; or Xinghe Xinyuan Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 

GES (China) Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 140.30 

Produced by: Shanghai GC Co., Ltd.; Fushun Jinli Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.; Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Plant and 

Linyi County Lubei Carbon Co., Ltd. Shandong Province 

Qingdao Haosheng Metals & Minerals Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................... 140.30 

Produced by: Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Co., Ltd. 

PRC-Wide Entity ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 159.34 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed to parties in this proceeding 

within five days of the date of the public 

announcement of the preliminary 

determination in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

As noted above, the Department has 

found that critical circumstances exist 

with respect to imports of subject 

merchandise from the Fangda Group 

and the separate rate companies. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP 

to suspend liquidation of all entries of 

graphite electrodes from the Fangda 

Group and the separate rate 

applicants 17 entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after 90 days prior to the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. For Fushun Jinly and the PRC 

wide entity, we will instruct CBP to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

graphite electrodes entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption upon the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. 

price, as indicated above. The 

suspension of liquidation will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the ITC to make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

graphite electrodes, or sales (or the 

likelihood of sales) for importation, of 

the subject merchandise within 45 days 

of our final determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date the 

final verification report is issued in this 

proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in case briefs, no later 

than five days after the deadline for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

49418 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 

submitting case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities used 

and an executive summary of issues 

should accompany any briefs submitted 

to the Department. This summary 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a 

request for a hearing is made, we intend 

to hold the hearing three days after the 

deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs 

at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, time and room 

to be determined. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the date, time, and 

room location of the hearing two days 

before the scheduled hearing date. 

Interested parties that wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 

if one is requested, must submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

1870, within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Requests should contain the 

party’s name, address, and telephone 

number, the number of hearing 

participants, and a list of the issues to 

be discussed in the hearing. At the 

hearing, each party may make an 

affirmative presentation only on issues 

raised in that party’s case brief and may 

make rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the 

Act, on July 30, 2008, Fushun Jinly and 

the Fangda Group, respectively, 

requested that in the event of an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in this investigation, the Department 

postpone its final determination by 60 

days. At the same time, Fushun Jinly 

and the Fangda Group agreed that the 

Department may extend the application 

of the provisional measures prescribed 

under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 4- 

month period to a 6-month period. In 

accordance with section 733(d) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b), we are 

granting the request and are postponing 

the final determination until no later 

than 135 days after the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register 

because (1) our preliminary 

determination is affirmative, (2) the 

requesting exporters account for a 

significant proportion of exports of the 

subject merchandise, and (3) no 

compelling reasons for denial exist. 

Suspension of liquidation will be 

extended accordingly. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 14, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–19412 Filed 8–20–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Notice of Scope Rulings 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 21, 2008. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) hereby publishes a list 

of scope rulings completed between 

April 1, 2008, and June 30, 2008. In 

conjunction with this list, the 

Department is also publishing a list of 

requests for scope rulings and 

anticircumvention determinations 

pending as of June 30, 2008. We intend 

to publish future lists after the close of 

the next calendar quarter. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Juanita H. Chen, AD/CVD Operations, 

China/NME Group, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–1904. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s regulations provide 

that the Secretary will publish in the 

Federal Register a list of scope rulings 

on a quarterly basis. See 19 C.F.R. 

351.225(o). Our most recent notification 

of scope rulings was published on May 

22, 2008. See Notice of Scope Rulings, 

73 FR 29739 (May 22, 2008). This 

current notice covers all scope rulings 

and anticircumvention determinations 

completed by Import Administration 

between April 1, 2008, and June 30, 

2008, inclusive, and it also lists any 

scope or anticircumvention inquiries 

pending as of June 30, 2008. As 

described below, subsequent lists will 

follow after the close of each calendar 

quarter. 

Scope Rulings Completed Between 

April 1, 2008, and June 30, 2008: 

People’s Republic of China 

A–570–868: Folding Metal Tables and 

Chairs from the People’s Republic of 

China 

Requestor: Ignite USA, LLC; the VIKA 

Twofold 2–in–1 Workbench/Scaffold is 

not within the scope of the antidumping 

duty order; April 18, 2008. 

A–570–890: Wooden Bedroom Furniture 

from the People’s Republic of China 

Requestor: AP Industries; convertible 

cribs (model nos. 1000–0100; 1000–

0125; 1000–0160; 1000–1195/2195; 

1000–2145; and 1000–2165) are not 

within the scope of the antidumping 

duty order; April 30, 2008. 

A–570–891: Hand Trucks from the 

People’s Republic of China 

Requestor: WelCom Products, Inc.; its 

MCX Magna Cart is not within the scope 

of the antidumping duty order; May 12, 

2008. 

A–570–898: Chlorinated Isocyanurates 

from the People’s Republic of China 

Requestor: BioLab, Inc.; chlorinated 

isocyanurates originating in the People’s 

Republic of China, that are packaged, 

tableted, blended with additives, or 

otherwise further processed in Canada 

by Capo Industries, Ltd., before entering 

the U.S., are within the scope of the 

antidumping duty order; April 9, 2008. 

A–570–899: Artist Canvas from the 

People’s Republic of China 

Requestor: Tara Materials, Inc.; artist 

canvas purchased in the U.S. that has 

been woven, primed with gesso, and cut 

to size in the U.S. and shipped to the 

PRC for assembling (i.e., wrapping and 

stapling to the wooden frame) and 

returned to the U.S. are not within the 

scope of the antidumping duty order; 

April 10, 2008. 

Multiple Countries 

A–549–821: Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Thailand; A–557–813: 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Malaysia; A–570–886: Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s 

Republic of China 

Requestor: Medline Industries, Inc.; 

certain hospital patient belongings bags 

and surgical kit bags (drawstring bags 

model nos. DS500C, DS400C, 38667, 

25117, 28614, and 42817) are within the 

scope of the antidumping duty orders; 

certain hospital patient belongings bags 

and surgical kit bags (drawstring bags 

model nos. DONDS600, 7510, 42818, 

and rigid handle bag model no. 26900) 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES