[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75992-75997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30950]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-981]


Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

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

DATES: Effective Date: December 24, 2012.
SUMMARY: On August 2, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at 
less than fair value (``LTFV'') and postponement of final determination 
in the antidumping investigation of utility scale wind towers (``wind 
towers'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ Based on an 
analysis of the comments received, the Department has made changes from 
the Preliminary Determination. The Department has determined that wind 
towers from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United 
States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the ``Act''). The final weighted-average dumping margins 
for this investigation are listed in the ``Final Determination'' 
section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Postponement of Final Determination, 77 FR 46034 (August 2, 
2012) (``Preliminary Determination'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian, Shawn Higgins, 
Thomas Martin, or Trisha Tran, 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) 482-6412, (202) 482-0679, (202) 482-3936, or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(202) 482-4852, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published its Preliminary Determination on August 2, 
2012.\2\ Between August 13, 2012, and August 24, 2012, the Department 
conducted verifications of the mandatory respondents (i.e., Chengxi 
Shipyard Co., Ltd. (``CXS'') and Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. 
(``Titan'')).\3\ Between September 14, 2012, and September 24, 2012, 
CXS,

[[Page 75993]]

Titan and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (``Petitioner'')\4\ submitted 
surrogate value (``SV'') and rebuttal SV comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
    \3\ See the ``Verification'' section below.
    \4\ The Wind Tower Trade Coalition is comprised of Broadwind 
Towers, Inc., DMI Industries, Katana Summit LLC, and Trinity 
Structural Towers, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 2, 2012, CXS, Titan and Petitioner submitted case 
briefs. On October 9, 2012, CXS, Titan, and Petitioner submitted 
rebuttal briefs.
    On November 2, 2012, the Department held a hearing, which was 
requested by Petitioner on September 4, 2012.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2011, through 
September 30, 2011. This period corresponds to the two most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which 
was December 2012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension of Final Determination Due to Government Closure During 
Hurricane Sandy

    On October 31, 2012, the Department's Import Administration 
determined that the impact of the recent government closure during 
Hurricane Sandy would be best minimized by uniformly tolling all Import 
Administration deadlines for two days.\6\ This determination applies to 
every proceeding before the Import Administration, including this 
investigation. The Department notes, however, that because the deadline 
of the final determination of this investigation was originally on 
December 15, 2012, which falls on a weekend, this deadline would have 
been automatically extended by two days until the following working 
day, Monday, December 17, 2012. Therefore, the two day extension of the 
deadlines due to government closure during Hurricane Sandy does not 
impact the deadline for the final determination of this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Memorandum For the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, ``Tolling of Administrative 
Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure During Hurricane 
Sandy'' (October 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs and rebuttal briefs by parties 
in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.\7\ A list of the issues which the parties raised and to 
which the Department responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is 
attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision 
Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via 
Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). Access to IA ACCESS is 
available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is 
available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, which is in room 
7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a 
complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed 
directly on the internet at www.trade.gov/ia. The signed Issues and 
Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Utility Scale Wind Towers from the 
People's Republic of China'' (December 17, 2012) (``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

Changes Applicable to Both Mandatory Respondents

     The Department recalculated SVs and surrogate financial 
ratios based on data from Thailand, which was selected as the surrogate 
country for the final determination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at Comment 1; Memorandum from Lilit Astvatsatrian and 
Trisha Tran, International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, to the File, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Surrogate Value Memorandum'' (December 17, 2012) (``Final SV 
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department used the unadjusted per-kg brokerage and 
handling rate for a 20-foot container to value brokerage and 
handling.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; Final SV 
Memorandum at 3-4, Attachment 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Applicable to Only CXS

     The Department used Thai tariff sub-category 8544.60 to 
value CXS's bus bars.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9; Final SV 
Memorandum at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department used Ukrainian tariff sub-category 6306.12 
to value CXS's tarpaulin.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; Final SV 
Memorandum at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department excluded stainless steel round bars from 
CXS's normal value.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department used the unadjusted per-kg international 
freight rate for a 40-foot container to value international 
freight.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Final SV Memorandum at 4, Attachment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department has not valued CXS's river water using the 
SV for municipal water.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11; Final SV 
Memorandum at 3, Attachment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department revised the distances reported by CXS to 
reflect the distances measured by the Department at verification.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins and Trisha Tran, 
International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
4, to the File, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Utility Scale 
Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China: Verification of the 
Antidumping Duty Questionnaire Responses of Chengxi Shipyard Co., 
Ltd.'' (September 21, 2012) (``CXS's Verification Report'') at 54-
56; Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Robert Bolling, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4 ``Utility Scale Wind Towers 
from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Final 
Determination Margin Calculation for Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd.'' 
(December 17, 2012) (``CXS's Final Determination Analysis 
Memorandum'') at 3, Attachments 3-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department made changes based on the minor corrections 
presented at verification.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. at 2, Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Applicable to Only Titan

     The Department applied Titan's reported market economy 
purchase price for winches.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15; 
Memorandum from Thomas Martin and Lilit Astvatsatrian, Senior 
International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD, Office 4, to Robert 
Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4 ``Utility 
Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of 
the Final Determination Margin Calculation for Titan Wind Energy 
(Suzhou) Ltd.'' (December 17, 2012) (``Titan's Final Determination 
Analysis Memorandum'') at 5-6, Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department accepted the allocated surcharge for 
shipping fixtures in Titan's gross unit price calculation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16; Titan's 
Final Determination Analysis Memorandum at Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department made changes based on the minor corrections 
presented at verification.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Memorandum from Thomas Martin and Lilit Astvatsatrian, 
Senior International Trade Compliance Analysts, Office 4, to the 
File, ``Verification of the Sales and Factors Responses of Titan 
Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of 
Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China'' 
(September 21, 2012) (``Titan's Verification Report'') at 2-3, 
Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation are certain wind 
towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind 
towers are designed to support the nacelle and

[[Page 75994]]

rotor blades in a wind turbine with a minimum rated electrical power 
generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts (``kW'') and with a 
minimum height of 50 meters measured from the base of the tower to the 
bottom of the nacelle (i.e., where the top of the tower and nacelle are 
joined) when fully assembled.
    A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel 
plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together 
(or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating, 
end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or 
without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (e.g., 
flooring/decking, ladders, lifts, electrical buss boxes, electrical 
cabling, conduit, cable harness for nacelle generator, interior 
lighting, tool and storage lockers) attached to the wind tower section. 
Several wind tower sections are normally required to form a completed 
wind tower.
    Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope 
whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as 
nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or 
external components attached to the subject merchandise.
    Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades, 
regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also 
excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached 
to the wind towers or sections thereof.
    Merchandise covered by the investigation is currently classified in 
the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (``HTSUS'') under 
subheadings 7308.20.0020 \20\ or 8502.31.0000.\21\ Prior to 2011, 
merchandise covered by the investigation was classified in the HTSUS 
under subheading 7308.20.0000 and may continue to be to some degree. 
While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is 
dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Wind towers are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when 
imported as a tower or tower section(s) alone.
    \21\ Wind towers may also be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 
when imported as part of a wind turbine (i.e., accompanying nacelles 
and/or rotor blades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope Comments

    The Department received comments regarding the scope of the 
investigation from Petitioner, CXS, and Titan. After analyzing the 
comments, the Department has made no changes to the scope of this 
investigation. For a complete discussion of this issue, see the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department verified 
the information submitted by CXS and Titan for use in the final 
determination.\22\ The Department used standard verification 
procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production 
records and original source documents provided by these respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See CXS's Verification Report at 1; Titan's Verification 
Report at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy Country

    The PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') in every 
proceeding conducted by the Department. In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering 
authority. The Department has not revoked the PRC's status as an NME 
and no party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME in 
this investigation. Therefore, the Department continues to treat the 
PRC as an NME for purposes of this final determination and, 
accordingly, applied the NME methodology.

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that 
Colombia, Indonesia, Peru, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine are (1) 
at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and 
(2) significant producers of merchandise comparable to the merchandise 
under consideration.\23\ From among these countries, the Department 
preliminarily selected Ukraine as the surrogate country because, in 
addition to being both economically comparable to the PRC and a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise, Ukraine provided SV 
information that was most specific to many factors of production 
(``FOPs''), including the most significant FOP reported by each 
respondent (i.e., steel plate).\24\ After the Preliminary 
Determination, interested parties submitted financial statements from a 
Thai producer of identical merchandise as well as comprehensive, 
detailed SV information from Thailand. For the final determination, the 
Department has selected Thailand as the surrogate country because 
Thailand is: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that 
of the PRC; (2) a significant producer of merchandise comparable to the 
merchandise under consideration; and (3) the country that provides the 
best available information to value FOPs using data that are specific, 
reliable, broad market averages, contemporaneous with the POI, and 
publicly available from a single surrogate country.\25\ Specifically, 
the Department has found that Thai import data allows the Department to 
value each respondent's steel plate, which accounts for the largest 
portion of each company's normal value, more accurately than either the 
Ukrainian or South African data on the record of this investigation 
because the Thai data is most specific to the size and chemistry of the 
respondents' steel plate.\26\ Also, Thailand provides a complete set of 
SVs (with only minor exceptions), including financial ratios from a 
surrogate company that produces identical merchandise.\27\ Therefore, 
the Department has determined that Thailand, in addition to being at a 
level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and a 
significant producer of merchandise comparable to wind towers, offers 
the best available SV information on the record of this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46036.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NMEs, the Department maintains a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the NME are subject to 
government control and, therefore, should be assessed a single 
weighted-average dumping margin.\28\ The Department's policy is to 
assign all exporters of merchandise under consideration that are in an 
NME this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.\29\ 
The Department analyzes whether each entity exporting the merchandise 
under consideration is sufficiently independent under a test 
established in Sparklers \30\ and further developed in

[[Page 75995]]

Silicon Carbide.\31\ According to this separate rate test, the 
Department will assign a separate rate in NME proceedings if a 
respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
government control over its export activities. If, however, the 
Department determines that a company is wholly foreign owned, then a 
separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether that 
company is independent from government control and eligible for a 
separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24, 
2008).
    \29\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 
(May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers'').
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies Receiving a Separate Rate

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that Sinovel 
Wind Group Co., Ltd. (``Sinovel''),\32\ Guodian United Power Technology 
Baoding Co., Ltd. (``Guodian''), CS Wind China Co., Ltd. and CS Wind 
Corporation (collectively, ``CS Wind''), and the mandatory respondents 
demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status.\33\ For the 
final determination, the Department continues to find that the evidence 
placed on the record of this investigation by Sinovel, Guodian, and the 
mandatory respondents demonstrate both a de jure and de facto absence 
of government control and, therefore, are eligible for separate-rate 
status. For further discussion of the separate rate analysis for CXS, 
see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. The Department 
also continues to find that the evidence placed on the record of this 
investigation by CS Wind demonstrates that it is wholly-owned by 
individuals and companies located in market economy countries. 
Therefore, the Department has granted CS Wind a separate rate in the 
final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In the Preliminary Determination, the Department 
inadvertently omitted the producer of the merchandise under 
consideration sold by Sinovel from the exporter/producer 
combinations listed in the rate table. The producer, Hebei 
Qiangsheng Wind Equipment Co., Ltd., has been included in the rate 
table for the final determination.
    \33\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 46037-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department did not grant a 
separate rate to AVIC International Renewable Energy Co. Ltd. 
(``AVIC'') because the company failed to submit a timely response to 
the Department's supplemental separate rate questionnaire and withdrew 
its participation in this AD investigation.\34\ Consistent with the 
Preliminary Determination, the Department did not grant AVIC a separate 
rate in this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.,77 FR at 46039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin for the Separate Rate Companies

    Normally, the Department's practice is to assign to separate rate 
entities that were not individually examined a rate equal to the 
average of the rates calculated for the individually examined 
respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 
entirely on adverse facts available (``AFA'').\35\ Consistent with this 
practice, the Department has assigned Sinovel, Guodian, and CS Wind a 
rate of 46.38 percent, which is equal to an average of the rates 
calculated for the mandatory respondents.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged 
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
19690 (April 19, 2007).
    \36\ See Memorandum from Thomas Martin, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File, 
``Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China: 
Calculation of the Final Margin for Separate Rate Recipients'' 
(December 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRC-wide Entity

    The record indicates that, in addition to AVIC, there are other PRC 
exporters and/or producers of the merchandise under consideration 
during the POI that did not respond to the Department's requests for 
information. Specifically, the Department did not receive responses to 
its quantity and value questionnaire from over 30 PRC exporters and/or 
producers of merchandise under consideration that were named in the 
petition and to whom the Department issued the questionnaire. Because 
AVIC and these non-responsive PRC companies have not demonstrated that 
they are eligible for separate rate status, the Department considers 
them part of the PRC-wide entity.

Application of Facts Available and AFA

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, 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, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    The Department has found that the PRC-wide entity withheld 
information requested by the Department, failed to provide information 
in a timely manner, and significantly impeded this proceeding by not 
submitting the requested information. The PRC-wide entity neither filed 
documents indicating it was having difficulty providing the information 
nor requested that it be allowed to submit the information in an 
alternate form. As a result, the Department has determined, pursuant to 
sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act and consistent with the 
Preliminary Determination, that it may use facts otherwise available to 
determine the rate for the PRC-wide entity.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department, in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of a party if that party has 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with a request for information. The Department has found that the PRC-
wide entity's failure to provide the requested information constitutes 
circumstances under which it is reasonable to conclude that less than 
full cooperation has been shown.\37\ Therefore, the Department has 
found, consistent with the Preliminary Determination, that the PRC-wide 
entity has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply 
with requests for information and, consequently, the Department may 
employ an inference that is adverse to the PRC-wide entity in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, 337 F.3d 
1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that the Department need not 
show intentional conduct existed on the part of the respondent, but 
merely that a ``failure to cooperate to the best of a respondent's 
ability'' existed (i.e., information was not provided ``under 
circumstances in which it is reasonable to conclude that less than 
full cooperation has been shown'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(b) of the Act states that the Department, when 
employing an adverse inference, may rely upon information derived from 
the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a 
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the 
record. In selecting a rate based on AFA, the Department selects a rate 
that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party 
does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if 
it had fully cooperated. The Department's practice is to select, as an 
AFA rate, the higher

[[Page 75996]]

of: (1) The highest dumping margin alleged in the petition, or (2) the 
highest calculated weighted-average dumping margin of any respondent in 
the investigation.\38\ In this investigation, the petition dumping 
margin is 213.54 percent. This rate is higher than any of the weighted-
average dumping margins calculated for the companies individually 
examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 77 FR 17436, 17438 (March 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration of Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts 
available. Secondary information is defined as ``information derived 
from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the 
final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous 
review under section 751 of the Act concerning the subject 
merchandise.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``SAA''), H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 
2d Session at 870 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department 
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has 
probative value.\40\ The SAA also states that independent sources used 
to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price 
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information 
obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation.\41\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, determine whether the information used 
has probative value by examining the reliability and relevance of the 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to determine the probative value of the dumping margins in 
the petition for use as AFA for purposes of this final determination, 
the Department examined information on the record and found that it was 
unable to corroborate the margin contained in the petition. Therefore, 
for the final determination, the Department has assigned to the PRC-
wide entity the rate of 70.63 percent, which is the highest 
transaction-specific dumping margin for a mandatory respondent.\42\ It 
is unnecessary to corroborate this rate because it was obtained in the 
course of this investigation and, therefore, is not secondary 
information.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See CXS's Final Determination Analysis Memorandum at 6, 
Attachment 2; see also Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 76 FR 64318, 64322 (October 18, 2011) (assigning as an AFA 
rate the highest calculated transaction-specific rate among 
mandatory respondents).
    \43\ See section 776(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c) and 
(d); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of 
China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Combination Rates

    As announced in the Initiation Notice,\44\ the Department has 
calculated combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for 
a separate rate in this investigation. This practice is described in 
Policy Bulletin 05.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of 
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 77 FR 3440, 3445-46 (January 24, 
2012) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination

    The Department has determined that the following weighted-average 
dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2011, through September 
30, 2011:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
            Exporter                     Producer             dumping
                                                              margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd......  Chengxi Shipyard Co.,             47.59
                                  Ltd..
Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co.,  Titan (Lianyungang)               44.99
 Ltd.                             Metal Product Co.,
                                  Ltd..
Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co.,  Titan Wind Energy                 44.99
 Ltd..                            (Suzhou) Co., Ltd..
CS Wind Corporation............  CS Wind China Co., Ltd.           46.38
Guodian United Power Technology  Guodian United Power              46.38
 Baoding Co., Ltd.                Technology Baoding
                                  Co., Ltd.
Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd....  Qiangsheng Wind                   46.38
                                  Equipment Co., Ltd..
PRC-Wide Entity................                                    70.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
the calculations performed in this investigation to parties within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of wind towers from the PRC, as 
described in the ``Scope of the Investigation'' section, entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 
equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. 
price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies, as follows: (1) 
The separate rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the 
table above will be the rate the Department has determined in this 
final determination; (2) for all combinations of PRC exporters/
producers of merchandise under consideration which have not received 
their own separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate for the 
PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of merchandise under 
consideration which have not received their own separate rate, the 
cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/
producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These cash 
deposit instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Department has 
notified the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of the final 
affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. In accordance with section 
735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether 
the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or 
threatened with

[[Page 75997]]

material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of 
sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration. If the 
ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue 
an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further 
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of propriety information disclosed under APO 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms 
of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 17, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

Issues for Final Determination

Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Continue to Use Ukraine as 
the Surrogate Country
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Revise its Financial Ratio 
Calculations
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Revise the SV for Brokerage 
and Handling
Comment 4: Whether Base Rings Are Included in the Scope of the 
Investigation
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Offset the Antidumping Cash 
Deposit Rate for Export Subsidies
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Grant CXS a Separate Rate
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Apply AFA to CXS
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Revise the SV for CXS's 
Expanded Metal
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Revise the SV for CXS's Bus 
Bars
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Revise the SV for CXS's 
Tarpaulin
Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Value CXS's River Water 
Using the SV for Municipal Water
Comment 12: Whether the Department Should Exclude Stainless Steel 
Round Bars from CXS's Normal Value
Comment 13: Whether the Department Should Use CXS's Reported Market 
Economy Purchase Prices
Comment 14: Whether Titan Reported the Correct Number of Flanges
Comment 15: Whether the Department Should Use Titan's Reported 
Market Economy Purchase Price for Winches
Comment 16: Whether the Department Should Exclude the Packing FOPs 
Used To Make Shipping Fixtures
Comment 17: Whether the Department Should Grant Titan a By-Product 
Offset

[FR Doc. 2012-30950 Filed 12-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P