[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48026-48030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23173]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-803]


Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic of China; 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Determination Not To Revoke in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of final results and partial rescission of antidumping 
duty administrative review and determination not to revoke in part.

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

SUMMARY: On November 7, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative 
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools 
(HFHTs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The reviews cover 
five manufacturer/exporters with respect to the following classes or 
kinds of merchandise, Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export 
Corporation (FMEC) (axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges, and 
picks/mattocks), Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation (LMC) 
(bars/wedges), Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation (SMC) 
(axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges, and picks/mattocks), 
Shandong Huarong General Group Corporation (Huarong) (axes/adzes and 
bars/wedges) and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation (TMC) 
(axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges, and picks/mattocks). The 
period of review (POR) is February 1, 1999, through January 31, 2000. 
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in 
the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the 
preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the 
reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled Final Results 
of Reviews.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 17, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen or Esther Chen, Office 
of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-4195 and (202) 482-2305, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR 
part 351 (2000).

Background

    On November 7, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on HFHTs from the PRC. See Notice of 
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part 
of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without 
Handles, From the People's Republic of China 65 FR 66691 (November 7, 
2000) (Preliminary Results). We conducted verifications of LMC, SMC and 
Huarong after publication of the preliminary results. See Memorandum to 
the File from Jeff Pedersen re: Verification of Huarong (June 26, 
2001); Memorandum to the File from Jeff Pedersen re: Verification of 
LMC (June 26, 2001); and Memorandum to the File from Jeff

[[Page 48027]]

Pedersen re: Verification of SMC (June 26, 2001). Only after the 
verification reports were completed did we invite parties to comment on 
our preliminary results of review. Ames True Temper and its Woodings-
Verona operations (petitioner) originally filed its case brief on July 
16, 2001. Because the original case brief submitted by the petitioner 
contained new factual information, the petitioner filed an expurgated 
version of the brief on August 17, 2001. The petitioner filed its 
rebuttal brief on July 24, 2001. LMC, Huarong, SMC, and TMC 
(respondents) filed their case brief on July 18, 2001, and their 
rebuttal brief on August 3, 2001. No party requested a public hearing. 
Following the period for briefing, the Department placed on the record, 
and solicited comments on, proposed surrogate values for electricity 
and wooden pallets. The petitioner provided comments on August 22, 
2001. The Department's analysis of the comments raised in these 
submissions are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum from 
Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, 
to Richard W. Moreland, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration (Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this 
notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of HFHTs from the 
PRC comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) 
hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/
sledges); (2) bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges 
(bars/wedges); (3) picks/mattocks; and (4) axes/adzes.
    HFHTs include heads for drilling, hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, 
picks, and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may 
not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles; 
assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging 
bars and tampers; and steel wood splitting wedges. HFHTs are 
manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to 
required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final 
shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product 
shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations may 
include shot-blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the 
insertion of handles for handled products. HFHTs are currently 
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 
subheadings: 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. 
Specifically excluded are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kg (3.33 
pounds) in weight and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in 
length and under.
    Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes our written description of the scope of the orders is 
dispositive.

Partial Rescission of Review

    In our preliminary results, we determined that during the POR, (1) 
Huarong did not export hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks, and (2) LMC 
did not export axes/adzes, hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks. Our 
review of Customs import data indicated that there were no entries of 
subject merchandise made by these manufacturers/exporters during the 
POR. Therefore, we preliminarily rescinded the review of Huarong with 
respect to hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks, and LMC with respect to 
axes/adzes, hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks. We have determined that 
no changes to our decision to rescind are warranted for purposes of 
these final results. Therefore, we are rescinding those reviews with 
respect to these manufacturers/exporters and products.

Determination Not To Revoke TMC, Huarong and LMC

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, Huarong requested 
revocation with respect to the bars/wedges HFHTs orders, LMC requested 
revocation with respect to the bars/wedges HFHTs orders, and TMC 
requested revocation with respect to the hammers/sledges and picks/
mattocks HFHTs orders. After consideration of the criteria outlined at 
section 351.222(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department's 
practice, the comments of the parties, and the evidence on the record, 
we have determined that these respondents have not met the requirements 
for revocation from these respective orders. Section 351.222(b)(2) of 
the Department's regulations notes that the Secretary may revoke an 
antidumping order in part if the Secretary concludes, inter alia, that 
one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the 
merchandise at not less than normal value (``NV'') for a period of at 
least three consecutive years. With respect to Huarong and LMC, we note 
that in the instant review, both respondents failed verification with 
respect to the bars/wedges order and that both respondents have failed 
to establish their entitlement to a separate rate with respect to this 
class or kind of merchandise. As a result, both respondents' final 
results margins are based on adverse facts available and are above de 
minimis. Therefore, neither Huarong nor LMC have met the regulatory 
requirements for revocation. Further, with regard to TMC, the 
Department notes that TMC does not have three consecutive reviews with 
zero or de minimis margins for either of the requested classes or kinds 
of merchandise, See Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic 
of China; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 65 FR 50499 (August 18, 2000); Heavy Forged Hand Tools, 
Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Reviews 64 FR 43659 (August 11, 
1999). Thus, we find that TMC, Huarong and LMC do not qualify for 
revocation from the respective orders based upon section 351.222(b) of 
the Department's regulations.

Facts Available

1. Application of Facts Available

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

if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information 
that has been requested by the administering authority or the 
Commission under this title; (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the 
form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot 
be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering 
authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use 
the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title.

Moreover, section 776(b) of the Act provides that:

if the administering authority or the Commission (as the case may 
be) finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information from the administering authority or the Commission, the 
administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be), in 
reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available. As outlined in 
section 776(b) of the Act, adverse facts available in the 
investigation; (3) any previous review under section 751 of the Act 
or determination under section 753 of the Act; or (4) any other 
information placed on the record.

FMEC
    The Department sent FMEC an antidumping questionnaire, but the

[[Page 48028]]

company did not respond. See Letter from the Department to FMEC (July 
10, 2000). As described in the preliminary results, the Department 
found that FMEC was part of the ``PRC-wide'' entity and utilized facts 
available to determine the preliminary rates for the PRC-wide entity 
because information necessary to determine that margin on a calculated 
basis was not available. In addition, the Department used an adverse 
inference in selecting the margin for the PRC-wide entity because it 
found that that entity had failed to act to the best of its ability in 
responding to the Department's request for information. No parties have 
commented on this issue, nor has any additional information been placed 
on the record; therefore, we have continued to treat FMEC as part of 
the PRC-wide entity for these final results and to assign FMEC the PRC-
wide rates for this review. See HFHTs Preliminary Results (for further 
discussion of our application of facts available).

Huarong

    Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the 
Department has determined that it is appropriate to apply the Facts 
available for purposes of determining the dumping margin for Huarong in 
the instant review. Specifically, Huarong failed to report the great 
majority of its U.S. market sales to the Department. Thus, pursuant to 
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department has determined that 
Huarong has withheld information that was requested by the Department. 
For further discussions of this issue please see relevant portions of 
the Decision Memorandum and the proprietary memorandum regarding 
Application of Adverse Facts Available to Shandong Huarong General 
Group Corporation (Huarong AFA Memorandum), dated concurrently with 
this notice. In addition, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, 
we have determined that Huarong has significantly impeded this review. 
Due to the proprietary nature of this discussion, please see the 
relevant portions of the Decision Memorandum and the proprietary 
Huarong AFA Memorandum.
    We further determine that Huarong has failed to satisfy several of 
the requirements enunciated by section 782(e) of the Act. Pursuant to 
section 782(i) of the Act, the Department conducted an on-site 
verification of Huarong's data at Huarong's headquarters in China. Upon 
arrival at verification, the Department found that Huarong had prepared 
almost no documents requested of it in the Department's verification 
outline. As a result of the verification team having to devote 
extensive amounts of time to examining issues pertaining to the 
unreported U.S. sales, and difficulties in verifying the accuracy of 
the reported factors of production input levels, there was insufficient 
time for the verifiers to conduct a full factors of production 
verification. As a consequence of our findings at verification, we 
determined that Huarong did not act to the best of its ability in 
responding to the Department's requests for information pursuant to 
section 782(e)(4) of the Act.
    For the reasons stated above, the application of section 782(e) of 
the Act does not overcome section 776(a)'s direction to use facts 
otherwise available for purposes of determining a dumping margin for 
Huarong. Thus, the use of facts available is warranted for Huarong in 
this case. Moreover, we determine that, due to the nature of Huarong's 
verification failures, and the inadequacy of its cooperation, the 
integrity of this company's reported data on the whole is compromised. 
Therefore, we determine that Huarong has not adequately demonstrated 
its entitlement to rates separate from the government entity. As a 
consequence Huarong will receive the PRC-wide entity rates.
    Moreover, as discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum and the 
Huarong AFA Memorandum, pursuant to section 776(B) of the Act, we have 
determined that Huarong did not cooperate by acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with the Department's requests for information.
LMC
    Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the 
Department has determined that it is appropriate to apply the facts 
available for purposes of determining the dumping margin for LMC in the 
instant review. Pursuant to 776(a)(2)(A), we have determined that LMC 
has withheld significant information that was requested by the 
Department such that the Department is unable to calculate a dumping 
margin with respect to this company. Pursuant to 776(a)(2)(C), we 
further determined that LMC has significantly impeded the Department's 
ability to accurately determine a margin of dumping for LMC in the 
instant administrative review. Due to the proprietary nature of this 
issue, for further discussions please see the relevant portions of the 
Decision Memorandum and the proprietary memorandum regarding 
Application of Adverse Facts Available to Liaoning Machinery Import & 
Export Corporation (LMC AFA Memorandum), dated concurrently with this 
notice.
    Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act, the Department conducted an 
on-site verification of the information submitted by LMC at its sales 
headquarters in the PRC. In analyzing LMC's record information pursuant 
to section 782(e) of the Act, we have determined significant portions 
of LMC's reported data could not be verified in accordance with 
subsection 782(e)(2). Upon arrival at verification, the Department 
discovered that LMC had prepared none of the documentation requested in 
the April 9, 2001 sales verification outline. Moreover, during 
verification, it became evident that LMC could not provide the 
information necessary to verify its own submissions. As a consequence 
of our findings at verification, pursuant to section 782(e)(4) of the 
Act, we determined that LMC did not act to the best of its ability in 
responding to the Department's requests for information. Due to the 
proprietary nature of this issue, please see the relevant portions of 
the Decision Memorandum and the proprietary LMC AFA Memorandum.
    For the reasons discussed above, the application of section 782(e) 
of the Act does not overcome section 776(a)'s direction to use facts 
otherwise available to determine a margin of dumping for LMC in this 
administrative review. Thus the use of facts available is warranted for 
LMC in this case. Moreover, we determine that, due to the nature of 
LMC's verification failures, and the inadequacy of its cooperation, the 
integrity of LMC's company reported data on the whole is compromised. 
Therefore, we determine that LMC has not adequately demonstrated its 
entitlement to rates separate from the government entity. As a 
consequence LMC will receive the PRC-wide entity rates. Moreover, as 
discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum and the LMC AFA 
Memorandum, the Department has determined, pursuant to section 776(B) 
of the Act, that LMC did not cooperate by acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with the Department's requests for information.
SMC
    In the instant review, SMC responded fully to the Department's 
questionnaire with respect to the antidumping duty order on hammers/
sledges from the PRC. However, with respect to the questionnaire 
regarding the remaining three HFHT orders, SMC only responded with 
respect to the separate rate portion of the questionnaire. SMC failed 
to provide any sales or factors of production data with respect to 
sales of

[[Page 48029]]

axes/adzes, bars/wedges and picks/mattocks. Therefore, as in the 
preliminary results, we are basing SMC's margins for the final results 
of review with respect to these three classes or kinds of merchandise 
on adverse facts available. See the Preliminary Results for a full 
discussion of this issue. However, because SMC's data with respect to 
the separate rate issue is complete and was successfully verified, we 
determine that SMC has adequately established its continued entitlement 
to a separate rate for these three classes or kinds of merchandise. As 
adverse facts available for SMC for axes/adzes we have applied a margin 
of 18.72 percent, a calculated margin from the 1995-1996 POR; for bars/
wedges we have applied a calculated margin of 47.88 percent, a 
calculated margin from the 1992-1993 POR; and for picks/mattocks we 
have applied a margin of 98.77 percent, the rate currently applicable 
to SMC and the PRC-wide entity, which is a calculated margin from the 
1995-1996 POR.

2. Selection of Adverse Facts Available

    For a discussion of the Department's selection of the adverse facts 
available rates to be applied to the appropriate classes or kinds of 
merchandises for SMC and the PRC-wide entity, see the Decision 
Memorandum. We have determined the adverse facts available rates as 
follows: for axes/adzes we have applied a calculated margin of 18.72 
percent, the margin from the 1995-1996 POR; for bars/wedges we have 
applied a calculated margin of 47.88 percent, the margin from the 1992-
1993 POR; for hammers/sledges we have applied a calculated margin of 
27.71 percent, the margin from the 1992-1993 POR; and for picks/
mattocks we have applied a margin of 98.77 percent, the rate currently 
applicable to SMC and the PRC-wide entity, which is the margin from the 
1995-1996 POR.

3. Corroboration

    For a discussion of the Department's corroboration of the adverse 
facts available rates to be applied to SMC and the PRC-wide entity, see 
the Decision Memorandum.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the Decision Memorandum. A 
list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have 
responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to 
this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations 
in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Record Unit, 
room
B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a 
complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on 
Import Administration's Web site at www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy 
and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

Separate Rates Determination

    As discussed above, FMEC, Huarong, and LMC have not demonstrated 
their entitlement to a rate separate from the PRC-wide entity. 
Therefore, for these final results of review, we are treating them as 
part of the PRC-wide entity. See Decision Memorandum. As in the 
preliminary results, TMC and SMC are entitled to separate rates.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    In calculating the Final Results, the Department has made the 
following changes since the Preliminary Results.
    1. The Department has used total adverse facts available for 
determining the margins for Huarong and LMC. See Comment 1 of the 
Decision Memorandum.
    2. The Department has updated the surrogate values for factors of 
production, as appropriate, based on data contemporaneous with the POR 
where such data exists and is found not to be aberrational. See Comment 
11 of the Decision Memorandum.
    3. In valuing scrap railroad rails and wheels, the Department has 
omitted any values from HTS category 7204.49.01 in the final results, 
and used only values from HTS category 7204.49.09. See Comment 12 of 
the Decision Memorandum.
    4. In valuing the scrap resulting from the HFHTs production process 
of the respondents' factories, the Department has omitted any values 
from HTS category 7204.49.01 in the final results, and used only values 
from HTS category 7204.49.09. See Comment 13 of the Decision 
Memorandum.
    5. The Department has used a 1998 pallet wood value from the 
Indonesian publication Indonesian Foreign Trade Statistics. See Comment 
14 of the Decision Memorandum.
    6. The Department has used one truck freight rate, the rate used in 
the Bulk Aspirin FOP Valuation, for all instances in this review where 
truck freight costs were incurred. See Comment 16 of the Decision 
Memorandum.
    7. The Department has used more contemporaneous data in deriving a 
surrogate value for electricity than that used in the Preliminary 
Results. See Comment 17 of the Decision Memorandum.
    8. The Department has capped the surrogate inland freight cost 
based on the shorter of the reported distances from the closest PRC 
seaport to the factory or the domestic supplier to the factory, on an 
input-specific basis. See Comment 19 of the Decision Memorandum.
    9. The Department has selected as facts available different PRC-
wide rates for axes/adzes, bars/wedges and hammers/sledges to replace 
the rates invalidated by a judicial decision issued after the 
preliminary results. See Comment 22 of the Decision Memorandum.
    10. The Department has recalculated the results using HTS category 
7207.20.09 for the steel inputs for mauls, and using the price the 
factory paid the market economy supplier for hammers. See Comment 24 of 
the Decision Memorandum.
    11. The Department has corrected TMC's error in reporting the 
volume of plastic strip. See Comment 25 of the Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Reviews

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exist for the period February 1, 1999, through January 31, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
          Manufacturer/exporter                                (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tianjin Machinery Import & Export
               Corporation
Axes/Adzes...............................      2/1/99-1/31/00       2.66
Bars/Wedges..............................      2/1/99-1/31/00       0.56
Hammers/Sledges..........................      2/1/99-1/31/00       0.00
Picks/Mattocks...........................      2/1/99-1/31/00       0.02
    Shandong Machinery Import & Export
               Corporation
Axes/Adzes...............................      2/1/99-1/31/00      18.72

[[Page 48030]]

 
Bars/Wedges..............................      2/1/99-1/31/00      47.88
Hammers/Sledges..........................      2/1/99-1/31/00       0.54
Picks/Mattocks...........................      2/1/99-1/31/00      98.77
PRC-wide rates: \1\
Axes/Adzes...............................      2/1/99-1/31/00      18.72
Bars/Wedges..............................      2/1/99-1/31/00      47.88
Hammers/Sledges..........................      2/1/99-1/31/00      27.71
Picks/Mattocks...........................      2/1/99-1/31/00      98.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the results of this review the following companies are no
  longer eligible for separate rates for the following classes or kinds
  of merchandise: FMEC, Huarong, and LMC.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Where the 
importer-specific assessment rates calculated in these final results 
are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service to 
assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the 
assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment 
purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the 
subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. 
sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered 
value of the sales to that importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of HFHTs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates 
for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except that, 
for firms whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.5 percent, and 
therefore, de minimis, the Department shall require no deposit of 
estimated antidumping duties; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies with a separate rate not listed above, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash 
deposit rates will be the PRC-wide rates shown above; (4) for all non-
PRC exporters of the subject merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit 
requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    These final results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).

    Dated: September 7, 2001.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum

1. Verification Failures
2. Misreported LMC Sales
3. Inability to Use Accounting System
4. Differences Between Reported and Verified Consumption Rates
5. Alleged Failure to Identify Steel Input
6. Failure to Report Commissions
7. LMC's Failure to Report Certain Sales
8. Whether the Department Should Use a Steel Bar or Steel Billet 
Surrogate Value
9. Surrogate Value for Steel Bar
10. Surrogate Value for Steel Billet
11. Whether the Department Should Update and Correct Surrogate 
Values
12. Whether the Department Should Use HTS Category 7204.49.01 to 
Value Railroad Rails and Wheels Input
13. Surrogate Value for Scrap
14. Surrogate Value for Pallets
15. Surrogate Value(s) for Wooden and Fiberglass Handles
16. Surrogate Value for Truck Freight
17. Surrogate Value for Electricity
18. Financial Ratios
19. The Sigma Rule
20. Shakeproof Methodology
21. LIMAC Rate
22. PRC-wide Rate
23. Clerical Error
24. Error in the Preliminary Results for TMC
25. Reported Factors for Plastic Strip for Axes and Cartons for 
Bars/Wedges
[FR Doc. 01-23173 Filed 9-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P