[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22114-22118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9742]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(C-570-968)


Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Tran and Brandon Farlander, 
AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1503 and (202) 482-0182, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    On March 31, 2010, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received a countervailing duty (``CVD'') petition concerning imports of 
certain aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') filed in proper form by the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade 
Committee\1\ and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 
International Union (collectively, ``Petitioners''). See The Petitions 
for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Against 
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, dated March 
31, 2010 (the Petition). On April 6, 2010, the Department issued 
requests to Petitioners for additional information and for 
clarification of certain areas of the Petition. Based on the 
Department's requests, Petitioners filed a supplement to the Petition, 
regarding general issues, on April 9, 2010 (``Supplement to the AD/CVD 
Petitions'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The individual members of the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade 
Committee are Aerolite Extrusion Company, Alexandria Extrusion 
Company, Benada Aluminum of Florida, Inc., William L. Bonnell 
Company, Inc., Frontier Aluminum Corporation, Futura Industries 
Corporation, Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc., Kaiser Aluminum 
Corporation, Profile Extrusion Company, Sapa Extrusions, Inc., and 
Western Extrusions Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``Act''), Petitioners allege that producers/exporters of 
aluminum extrusions from the PRC received countervailable subsidies 
within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, and that 
imports from these producers/exporters materially injure, and threaten 
further material injury to, an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties, as 
defined in section 771(9)(C),(D), and (F) of the Act, and have 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the 
investigation that they request the Department to initiate (see 
``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' below).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is January 1, 2009, through December 
31, 2009.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are aluminum extrusions 
from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, 
please see the ``Scope of the Investigation'' in Appendix I of this 
notice.

[[Page 22115]]

Comments on Scope of Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with 
Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products 
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 
discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations (Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 
1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise 
issues regarding product coverage of the scope. The Department 
encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by May 10, 
2010, twenty calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 
Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets 
Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of the scope 
consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample 
opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior 
to the issuance of the preliminary determination.

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, on April 1, 2010, 
the Department invited representatives of the Government of the PRC 
(GOC) for consultations with respect to the CVD petition. On April 12, 
2010, the Department held consultations with representatives of the GOC 
via conference call. See Ex-Parte Memorandum on Consultations regarding 
the Petition for Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Aluminum 
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China. Further discussions 
were held with representatives of the GOC on April 19, 2010. See Ex-
Parte Memorandum on Meeting with Ambassador Zhang Yesui.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission 
(``ITC''), which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic 
industry'' has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a 
domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the 
Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition 
regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they 
do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct 
authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to 
limitations of time and information. Although this may result in 
different definitions of the like product, such differences do not 
render the decision of either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 
United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel 
Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 
865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this subtitle.'' Thus, the reference point from which the 
domestic like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer 
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the 
investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on 
the record, we have determined that aluminum extrusions constitute a 
single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in 
terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic 
like product analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Aluminum Extrusions from the PRC 
(``Initiation Checklist'') at Attachment II, dated concurrently with 
this notice and on file in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the 
main Department of Commerce building.
    In determining whether Petitioners have standing, under section 
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above. To 
establish industry support, Petitioners provided their production of 
the domestic like product in 2009. See Volume I of the Petition at 
Exhibit I-3. In addition, Petitioners provided letters of support from 
ten additional companies that produce the domestic like product. See 
id. Petitioners compared their production and the production of the 
supporters of the Petition to the estimated total production of the 
domestic like product for the entire domestic industry. See Volume I of 
the Petition at 3-4 and Exhibits I-3 and I-4. Petitioners estimated 
total industry production of the domestic like product for 2009 using 
industry-wide shipment data from the Aluminum Association, which 
according to Petitioners is ``an independent and authoritative source 
for aluminum industry data.'' See Volume I of the Petition, at 3. We 
have relied upon data Petitioners provided for purposes of measuring 
industry support. For further discussion, see Checklist at Attachment 
II.
    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support. First, 
the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) 
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to 
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling). See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act and Initiation Checklist 
at Attachment II. Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met 
the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product. See Initiation Checklist at 
Attachment II. Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met 
the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the

[[Page 22116]]

production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) 
of the Act. See id.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in section 771(9)(C),(D) and (F) of the Act and they have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping 
investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate. See id.

Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine 
whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that imports of aluminum extrusions from the PRC 
are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports 
are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the domestic 
industry producing aluminum extrusions. In addition, Petitioners allege 
that subsidized imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for 
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
    Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share, increased raw material cost, lost 
sales, declining capacity, production, shipments, underselling and 
price depression or suppression, reduced employment, hours worked, and 
wages paid, declines in financial performance, lost sales and revenue, 
and an increase in import penetration. See Volume I of the Petition, at 
16, 19-27, 30-33, and Exhibits I-10 through I-15, III-33, and 
Supplement to AD/CVD Petitions, dated April 9, 2010, at 8-9, and 
Attachment 4. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence 
regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, 
and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by 
adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 
See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a 
CVD proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf 
of an industry that: (1) alleges the elements necessary for an 
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner(s) 
supporting the allegations.
    The Department has examined the Petition on aluminum extrusions 
from the PRC and finds that it complies with the requirements of 
section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) 
of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether 
manufacturers, producers, or exporters of aluminum extrusions in the 
PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence 
supporting our initiation determination, see Initiation Checklist.
    We are including in our investigation the following programs 
alleged in the Petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to 
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC:
A. Preferential Loans and Interest Rates
    1. Policy Loans to the Aluminum Extrusion Producers
    2. Loans and Interest Subsidies Provided Pursuant to the Northeast 
Revitalization Program
B. Income Tax Programs
    1. Tax Exemptions for ``Productive'' FIEs (Two Free, Three Half)
    2. Provincial Tax Exemptions and Reductions for ``Productive'' FIEs
    3. Tax Reductions for FIEs Purchasing Chinese-Made Equipment
    4. Tax Reductions for FIEs in Designated Geographic Locations
    5. Tax Reductions for Technology- or Knowledge- Intensive FIEs
    6. Tax Reductions for FIEs that are also HNTEs
    7. Tax Reductions for HTNEs Involved in Designated Projects
    8. Tax Offsets for Research and Development at FIEs
    9. Tax Credits for Domestically Owned Companies Purchasing Chinese-
Made Equipment
    10. Tax Reductions for Export-Oriented FIEs
    11. Tax Refunds for Reinvestment of FIE Profits in Export-Oriented 
Enterprises
    12. Accelerated Depreciation for Enterprises Located in the 
Northeast Region
    13. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for Enterprises in the Old 
Industrial Bases of Northeast China
C. Other Tax Programs
    1. VAT and Tariff Exemptions on Imported Equipment
    2. VAT Rebates on FIE Purchases of Chinese-Made Equipment
    3. City Tax and Surcharge Exemptions for FIEs
    4. Exemptions from Administrative Charges for Companies in Zhaoqing 
High-
Tech Industry Development Zone
D. Grant Programs
    1. The State Key Technology Renovation Project Fund
    2. ``Famous Brands'' Awards
    3. Grants to Cover Legal Fees in Trade Remedy Cases in Shenzhen
    4. Special Fund for Energy Saving Technology Reform: Guangdong 
Province
    5. The Clean Production Technology Fund
    6. Grants for Listing Shares: Liaoyang City (Guangzhou Province), 
Wenzhou Municipality (Zhejiang Province), and Quanzhou Municipality 
(Fujian Province)
    7. The Northeast Region Foreign Trade Development Fund
    8. The Northeast Region Technology Reform Fund
E. Government Provision of Goods or Services For Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration (``LTAR'')
    1. Land Use Rights in the Liaoyang High-Tech Industry Development 
Zone
    2. Allocated Land Use Rights for SOEs
    3. Primary Aluminum
F. Government Purchase of Goods For More Than Adequate Remuneration 
(``MTAR'')
For further information explaining why the Department is investigating 
these programs, see Initiation Checklist.
    We are not including in our investigation the following programs 
alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise 
in the PRC:
A. Debt Forgiveness of Asia Aluminum
    Petitioners allege that the GOC allowed managers of Asia Aluminum 
to buy the company's assets free of certain obligations and prohibited 
the original debt holders from enforcing their legal rights, thus 
effectively mandating forgiveness of the company's debt. Petitioners 
fail to establish a financial contribution by the government for the 
alleged debt forgiveness. The facts presented do not demonstrate that 
there was a financial contribution on the part of the government. 
Consequently, we do not plan on investigating this program.

[[Page 22117]]

B. Debt-to-Equity (``D/E'') Swaps for Companies in the Aluminum Sector
    Petitioners allege that the China Development Bank and two state-
owned asset management corporations traded approximately 3.4 billion 
renminbi (``RMB'') of debt owed by Aluminum Corporation of China and 
additional debt owed by Pinguo Aluminum for equity in the companies. 
The D/E swaps detailed by Petitioners occurred prior to the December 
11, 2001, cut-off date that the Department uses for investigating 
subsidies in the PRC. Consistent with recent CVD determinations, we 
continue to find that it is appropriate and administratively desirable 
to identify a uniform date from which the Department will identify and 
measure subsidies in the PRC for purposes of the CVD law, and have 
adopted December 11, 2001, the date on which the PRC became a member of 
the WTO, as that date.\2\ Therefore, Petitioners have not provided the 
Department with a factual basis to conclude that D/E swaps conferring 
benefits to producers of aluminum extrusion occurred in the period in 
which the Department will identify and measure subsidies in the PRC for 
purposes of the CVD law. Consequently, we do not plan on investigating 
this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination, 74 FR 37012 (July 27, 2009)(``KASR from the PRC''), 
and accompanying IDM at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Tax Exemptions and Reductions for Enterprises that Utilize Recycled 
Materials
    Petitioners allege that, as reported to the WTO, the GOC has 
implemented a program to assist companies that recycle. Petitioners 
fail to establish that any subsidies under the program are specific. In 
particular, they do not support their contention that the program is 
limited to an enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or 
industries. Consequently, we do not plan on investigating this program.
D. The State Science and Technology Support Scheme
    According to Petitioners, this program provides grants to promote 
research aimed at resolving scientific or technological problems 
regarding economic and social development. The Department finds there 
is insufficient evidence to establish specificity for this program. 
While Petitioners allege that recipients of benefits under this program 
are selected based on the GOC's designation of certain industries for 
development, the evidence provided does not support this claim. 
Consequently, we do not plan on investigating this program.
    We are deferring a decision on whether to initiate an investigation 
of the following programs:
    A. Land Use Rights Conferred to Asia Aluminum
    Petitioners assert that the Zhaoqing City High-Tech Development 
Zone allowed aluminum producer Asia Aluminum to acquire land use rights 
for 50 years, and then later, the Development Zone returned the payment 
to Asia Aluminum because of the company's construction of 
infrastructure. The Department will decide whether to initiate this 
allegation only if Asia Aluminum is selected as a respondent.
    B. Currency Undervaluation
    Petitioners allege that the GOC intervenes in the foreign exchange 
market by buying dollars and artificially bidding up their value to 
ensure that the RMB/dollar exchange rate understates the value of the 
RMB vis a vis the dollar. The Department has carefully considered the 
currency allegation, which is similar to an allegation currently under 
consideration in the pending coated paper countervailing duty 
investigation from the PRC. At this time, given the unique nature of 
the alleged subsidy and the complex methodological issues that it 
raises under the CVD law, the Department has determined that additional 
study of the allegation is appropriate before an initiation decision 
may be made.

Respondent Selection

    For this investigation, the Department expects to select 
respondents based on CBP data for U.S. imports during the period of 
investigation. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent 
selection within 20 days of publication of this Federal Register 
notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and 
respondent selection within seven calendar days of publication of this 
Federal Register notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been 
provided to the representatives of the Government of the PRC. Because 
of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in 
the Petition, the Department considers the service of the public 
version of the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by 
the delivery of the public version to the Government of the PRC, 
consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
702(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petition is filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of subsidized aluminum extrusions from the PRC 
are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, 
to a U.S. industry. See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC 
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 
otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    April 20, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Attachment I

Scope of the Investigations

The merchandise covered by these investigations is aluminum extrusions 
which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from 
aluminum alloys having metallic elements corresponding to the alloy 
series designations published by The Aluminum Association commencing 
with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or proprietary equivalents or other 
certifying body equivalents). Specifically, the subject merchandise 
made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series 
designation commencing with the number 1 contains not less than 99 
percent aluminum by weight. The subject merchandise made from aluminum 
alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with 
the number 3 contains manganese as the major alloying element, with 
manganese accounting for not more than 3.0 percent of total materials 
by weight. The subject merchandise made from an aluminum alloy with an 
Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 6 
contains magnesium and silicon as the major alloying elements, with 
magnesium accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than 2.0 
percent of total materials by weight, and silicon accounting for at 
least 0.1 percent but not more than 3.0 percent of total materials by 
weight. The subject aluminum extrusions are properly identified by a 
four-digit alloy series without either a decimal point or

[[Page 22118]]

leading letter. Illustrative examples from among the approximately 160 
registered alloys that may characterize the subject merchandise are as 
follows: 1350, 3003, and 6060.
Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported in a wide variety of 
shapes and forms, including, but not limited to, hollow profiles, other 
solid profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and rods. Aluminum extrusions that 
are drawn subsequent to extrusion (``drawn aluminum'') are also 
included in the scope.
Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported with a variety of 
finishes (both coatings and surface treatments), and types of 
fabrication. The types of coatings and treatments applied to subject 
aluminum extrusions include, but are not limited to, extrusions that 
are mill finished (i.e., without any coating or further finishing), 
brushed, buffed, polished, anodized (including bright-dip anodized), 
liquid painted, or powder coated. Aluminum extrusions may also be 
fabricated, i.e., prepared for assembly. Such operations would include, 
but are not limited to, extrusions that are cut-to-length, machined, 
drilled, punched, notched, bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, mitered, 
chamfered, threaded, and spun. The subject merchandise includes 
aluminum extrusions that are finished (coated, painted, etc.), 
fabricated, or any combination thereof.
Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of importation 
as parts for final finished products that are assembled after 
importation, including, but not limited to, window frames, door frames, 
solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture. Such parts that otherwise 
meet the definition of aluminum extrusions are included in the scope. 
The scope includes aluminum extrusions that are attached (e.g., by 
welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled 
merchandise.
Subject extrusions may be identified with reference to their end use, 
such as heat sinks, door thresholds, or carpet trim. Such goods are 
subject merchandise if they otherwise meet the scope definition, 
regardless of whether they are finished products and ready for use at 
the time of importation.
The following aluminum extrusion products are excluded: aluminum 
extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series 
designations commencing with the number 2 and containing in excess of 
1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum extrusions made from aluminum 
alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with 
the number 5 and containing in excess of 1.0 percent magnesium by 
weight; and aluminum extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an 
Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 7 
and containing in excess of 2.0 percent zinc by weight.
The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum 
extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and 
completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows with glass, 
doors, picture frames, and solar panels. The scope also excludes 
finished goods containing aluminum extrusions that are entered 
unassembled in a ``kit.'' A kit is understood to mean a packaged 
combination of parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of 
the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good.
The scope also excludes aluminum alloy sheet or plates produced by 
other than the extrusion process, such as aluminum products produced by 
a method of casting. Cast aluminum products are properly identified by 
four digits with a decimal point between the third and fourth digit. A 
letter may also precede the four digits. The following Aluminum 
Association designations are representative of aluminum alloys for 
casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0, 
360.0, 366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The 
scope also excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in any form.
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following 
categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTS''): 7604.21.0000, 7604.29.1000, 7604.29.3010, 7604.29.3050, 
7604.29.5030, 7604.29.5060, 7608.20.0030, and 7608.20.0090. The subject 
merchandise entered as parts of other aluminum products may be 
classifiable under the following additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 
7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99 as well as under other 
HTS chapters. While HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the scope in this 
proceeding is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2010-9742 Filed 4-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S