[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26696-26705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11255]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-932]


Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and Preliminary 
Rescission, in Part

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the 
first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
steel threaded rod (``steel threaded rod'') from the People's Republic 
of China (``PRC'') for the period of review (``POR'') October 8, 2008, 
through February 28, 2010. As discussed below, we preliminarily 
determine that sales have been made below normal value (``NV''). If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, 
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for 
which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.

DATES: Effective Date: May 9, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Dach or Steven Hampton, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1655, (202) 
482-0116, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 14, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on steel threaded rod from the PRC. See 
Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 17154 (April 14, 2009) (``Order''). On 
April 1, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order 
for the period October 8, 2008, through March 31, 2010. See Antidumping 
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 16426 (April 1, 
2010).
    Between April 1, 2010, and April 30, 2010, we received requests to 
conduct administrative reviews from Vulcan Threaded Products Inc. 
(``Petitioner'') and certain Chinese companies. On May 28, 2010, the 
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of 
this administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 29976, 29980-29982 
(May 28, 2010) (``Initiation Notice'').
    On November 19, 2010, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice extending by 120 days the time period for issuing the 
preliminary results. See Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's 
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 70908 (November 19, 
2010).
    Of the 126 companies/groups for which we initiated an 
administrative review, seven companies submitted separate rate 
certifications, three companies submitted separate rate applications, 
one company stated that it did not export subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR, and the remaining 115 companies did not 
submit a separate rate application to the Department.

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act'') directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins 
for each known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise. 
However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion 
to limit its examination to a reasonable number of exporters or 
producers if it is not practicable to examine all exporters or 
producers involved in the review.
    On June 7, 2010, the Department placed on the record data obtained 
from CBP with respect to the selection of respondents, inviting 
comments from interested parties. See Letter from the Department to 
Interested Parties: 2008--2010 Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the PRC: CBP Data for 
Respondent Selection, dated June 7, 2010. Between June 7, 2010, and 
August 9, 2010, Petitioner and certain respondents provided comments on 
the Department's respondent selection methodology.
    Because of the large number of exporters involved in this review, 
the Department limited the number of respondents individually examined 
and issued a respondent selection memorandum on September 24, 2010. 
Based upon section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected 
IFI & Morgan Limited and RMB Fasteners Ltd. (``RMB/IFI Group'' \1\) and 
Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd. (``Gem-Year'') because they were the 
largest exporters, by volume, of subject merchandise during the POR. 
See Memorandum to James Doyle from Steven Hampton: First Administrative 
Review of Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: 
Selection of Respondents for Individual Review, dated September 24, 
2010. The Department sent antidumping duty questionnaires to the RMB/
IFI Group and Gem-Year on September 27, 2010. Gem-Year submitted its 
Section A Questionnaire Response (``AQR'') on October 25, 2010. The 
RMB/IFI Group submitted its AQR on October 27, 2010. The RMB/IFI Group 
and Gem-Year submitted their Sections C and D

[[Page 26697]]

Questionnaire Responses on November 17, 2010. The Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Gem-Year in November 2010, and to the 
RMB/IFI Group between November 2010 and April 2011, to which all 
companies responded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department determined that these companies constituted a 
single entity in the antidumping duty investigation on steel 
threaded rod from the PRC. See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 58931 (October 8, 2008), unchanged in 
Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 8907 
(February 27, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 7, 2010, the Department deselected Gem-Year as a 
mandatory respondent in this review, and selected Shanghai Recky 
International Trading Co. Ltd. (``Shanghai Recky''), a separate rate 
respondent, as an additional mandatory respondent. See Memorandum to 
the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, from Steven Hampton: First 
Administrative Review of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's 
Republic of China: Replacement Respondent Selection, dated December 7, 
2010 (``Replacement Respondent Selection Memo''). The Department sent a 
full antidumping duty questionnaire to Shanghai Recky on December 8, 
2010. On December 29, 2010, Shanghai Recky informed the Department that 
it would not participate in this review, and did not respond to the 
Department's December 8, 2010, antidumping duty questionnaire.
    The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the RMB/IFI 
Group between November 2010 and April 2011, to which it responded.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    On December 7, 2010, the Department indicated that it intended to 
rescind this administrative review with respect to Gem-Year, as Gem-
Year failed to meet the requirements to qualify for an administrative 
review. Due to the proprietary nature of the information underlying 
this decision, a detailed analysis of the facts is available in the 
Replacement Respondent Selection Memo. On March 7, 2011, the Department 
referred this matter to CBP for possible further investigation and 
enforcement action.
    Additionally, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have 
preliminarily determined that Zhejiang New Oriental Fastener Co., Ltd. 
(``New Oriental'') made no shipments of subject merchandise during the 
POR for this administrative review. The Department received a no-
shipment certification from New Oriental on July 26, 2010. The 
Department issued a no-shipment inquiry to CBP, informing CBP of the 
no-shipment certifications from New Oriental during the POR, and asking 
CBP to provide any information that contradicted this certification. We 
did not receive any response from CBP of subject merchandise into the 
United States exported by this company. Consequently, as New Oriental 
made no exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR, we preliminarily intend to rescind this administrative review with 
respect to New Oriental. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    On January 7, 2011, Petitioner submitted a withdrawal of its 
request for administrative review of Certified Products International 
Inc. (``CPII''), Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd. (``Haiyan Dayu''), and 
Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Jiashan Zhongsheng''). 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an 
administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested 
the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of 
publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. 
Petitioner's request to withdraw its request for review was submitted 
224 days after the initiation of this administrative review. 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1) permits the Department to extend beyond 90 days the time 
limit for withdrawing a request for review. In this instance, the 
Department finds that it is not reasonable to extend the deadline and 
declines to rescind the review with respect to these companies. 
Specifically, at the point that Petitioner's request to withdraw its 
request for review was received, this proceeding was at an advanced 
stage (lasting from May 28, 2010, to January 7, 2011), and the 
Department had expended significant resources in the 224 days we had 
spent conducting this review. Therefore, the Department has continued 
to treat CPII, Haiyan Dayu, and Jiashan Zhongsheng as respondents in 
this administrative review.

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On November 8, 2010, the Department provided a letter to interested 
parties inviting comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate 
value (``SV'') data.\2\ On November 18, 2010, the Department extended 
the comment period for surrogate country selection from November 29, 
2010, to January 14, 2011, and for SV comments from December 15, 2010, 
to March 3, 2011. On January 14, 2011, the Department received comments 
on surrogate country selection from Petitioner. On March 3, 2011, the 
Department received information to value factors of production 
(``FOP'') from Petitioner and the RMB/IFI Group. On March 14, 2011, the 
Department received a rebuttal response to Petitioner's SV submission 
from the RMB/IFI Group. The SVs placed on the record from the RMB/IFI 
Group were obtained from sources in India, whereas the SVs placed on 
the record by Petitioner were from sources in both India and Thailand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties: 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Threaded Rod 
from the People's Republic of China, dated November 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is steel threaded rod. Steel 
threaded rod is certain threaded rod, bar, or studs, of carbon quality 
steel, having a solid, circular cross section, of any diameter, in any 
straight length, that have been forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-
rolled, machine straightened, or otherwise cold-finished, and into 
which threaded grooves have been applied. In addition, the steel 
threaded rod, bar, or studs subject to the order are non-headed and 
threaded along greater than 25 percent of their total length. A variety 
of finishes or coatings, such as plain oil finish as a temporary rust 
protectant, zinc coating (i.e., galvanized, whether by electroplating 
or hot-dipping), paint, and other similar finishes and coatings, may be 
applied to the merchandise.
    Included in the scope of the order are steel threaded rod, bar, or 
studs, in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the 
other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, 
by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the 
quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

 1.80 percent of manganese, or
 1.50 percent of silicon, or
 1.00 percent of copper, or
 0.50 percent of aluminum, or
 1.25 percent of chromium, or
 0.30 percent of cobalt, or
 0.40 percent of lead, or
 1.25 percent of nickel, or
 0.30 percent of tungsten, or
 0.012 percent of boron, or
 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
 0.10 percent of niobium, or
 0.41 percent of titanium, or
 0.15 percent of vanadium, or
 0.15 percent of zirconium.

    Steel threaded rod is currently classifiable under subheading 
7318.15.5050, 7318.15.5090, and 7318.15.2095 of the United States 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading 
is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the merchandise is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of the order are: (a) Threaded rod, bar, or 
studs

[[Page 26698]]

which are threaded only on one or both ends and the threading covers 25 
percent or less of the total length; and (b) threaded rod, bar, or 
studs made to American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') 
A193 Grade B7, ASTM A193 Grade B7M, ASTM A193 Grade B16, or ASTM A320 
Grade L7.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority. See, e.g., Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic 
of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper 
from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007). 
None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. 
Accordingly, we calculated the NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, it is the Department's 
practice to begin with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and thus should be 
assessed a single antidumping duty rate. See, e.g., Separate Rates and 
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233 (April 5, 2005)(as corrected in 70 FR 
19841 (April 14, 2005)); see also Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, 
In Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of 
China, 71 FR 53079, 53082 (September 8, 2006) (``CLPP LTFV Final''); 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 
and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 
29307 (May 22, 2006) (``Diamond Sawblades''). It is the Department's 
policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation 
in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively 
demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to 
a separate rate. See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307. 
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both 
de jure and de facto government control over export activities. Id. The 
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under 
a test arising from the 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''), as further developed in Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 
From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 
1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the Department determines that 
a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy 
(``ME''), then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine 
whether it is free of government control. In this review, one company, 
the RMB/IFI Group, provided evidence that it was wholly owned by 
individuals or companies located in MEs in its separate rate 
application. Therefore, because the RMB/IFI Group is wholly foreign-
owned and there is no record evidence indicating that it is under the 
control of the government of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not 
necessary to determine whether the RMB/IFI Group is free of government 
control. See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 7244, 7249 
(February 18, 2010) (determining that the respondent was wholly 
foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a separate rate), unchanged in 
Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 
41808 (July 19, 2010). Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily 
granted a separate rate to the RMB/IFI Group.
    In addition to the RMB/IFI Group, the Department received a 
separate rate application from Gem-Year, and a separate rate 
certification from Shanghai Recky. With respect to Gem-Year, as further 
discussed in the ``Preliminary Rescission of Review'' section of this 
notice, the Department has determined that Gem-Year does not meet the 
requirements to participate in this review. Therefore, the Department 
is not assessing Gem-Year's eligibility for a separate rate in the 
context of this review.
    With regard to Shanghai Recky, we note that, as further discussed 
in the ``Adverse Facts Available'' section of this notice, it failed to 
respond to the Department's full questionnaire, including sections 
regarding separate rates, once it was selected as a mandatory 
respondent. Because Shanghai Recky failed to respond to the 
Department's request for information regarding its eligibility for a 
separate rate once it was selected as a mandatory respondent, it will 
be preliminarily included as a part of the PRC-wide entity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
76 FR 16379, 16381 (March 23, 2011) (``Nails from the PRC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Department received separate rate applications or 
certifications from the following seven companies: Haiyan Dayu 
Fasteners Co. Ltd.; Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part Co. Ltd.; Jiashan 
Zhongsheng Metal Products; Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. Ltd.; Suntec 
Industries Co. Ltd.; CPII; and Haiyan Julong Standard Part Co. Ltd. 
(``Haiyan Julong'') (collectively, ``Separate Rate Applicants''). 
Finally, 115 companies subject to the review submitted neither separate 
rate applications nor certifications.\4\ Therefore, because these 
companies did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate 
status, they are preliminarily included as part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Appendix 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by the Separate 
Rate Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of 
government control based on the following: (1) An absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's 
business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) there are 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See, e.g., Haiyan Julong's Separate Rate Application at Questions 5 and 
6.

b. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto

[[Page 26699]]

government control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export 
prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a government 
agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy 
from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its 
export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of 
profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 
22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an 
analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether 
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control 
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The 
evidence provided by the Separate Rate Applicants supports a 
preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on 
the following: (1) The companies set their own export prices 
independent of the government and without the approval of a government 
authority; (2) the companies have authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements; (3) the companies have autonomy from 
the government in making decisions regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) there is no restriction on any of the companies' 
use of export revenue. See, e.g., Haiyan Julong's Separate Rate 
Application at Exhibits IV 2-b, 2-d, 8, 9, and 10. Therefore, the 
Department preliminarily finds that the Separate Rate Applicants have 
established that they qualify for a separate rate under the criteria 
established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

Separate Rate Calculation

    In the ``Respondent Selection'' section above, we stated that the 
Department employed a limited examination methodology, as it did not 
have the resources to examine all companies for which a review request 
was made, and selected two exporters as mandatory respondents in this 
review. The RMB/IFI Group participated in the review as a selected 
mandatory respondent. The other selected mandatory respondent, Shanghai 
Recky, informed the Department that it would not participate in this 
review and did not respond to the Department's antidumping duty 
questionnaire. See ``Respondent Selection'' section above. Seven 
additional companies (listed in the ``Separate Rates'' section above) 
submitted timely information as requested by the Department and 
remained subject to review as separate rate respondents.
    We note that the statute and the Department's regulations do not 
directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to 
individual companies not selected for examination where the Department 
limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 
777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in cases involving 
limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes 
of trade has been to look for guidance in section 735(c)(5) of the Act, 
which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an 
investigation. Consequently, the Department generally weight-averages 
the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding zero and 
de minimis rates and rates based entirely on facts available (``FA''), 
and applies that resulting weighted-average margin to non-selected 
cooperative separate-rate respondents. See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New 
Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 
8273 (February 13, 2008) (unchanged in Wooden Bedroom Furniture From 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 
2008)).
    However, the Department has, for these preliminary results, 
calculated a de minimis dumping margin for the sole participating 
mandatory respondent, the RMB/IFI Group. The Department has 
additionally assigned an adverse facts available dumping margin to the 
other mandatory respondent, Shanghai Recky, as part of the PRC-wide 
entity. See ``Adverse Facts Available'' and ``Application of Total 
Adverse Facts Available to the PRC-Wide Entity'' sections below. In 
this circumstance, we again look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for 
guidance. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs that we are not to 
calculate an all-others rate using any zero or de minimis margins or 
any margins based entirely on FA. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also 
provides that, where all margins are zero rates, de minimis rates, or 
rates based entirely on FA, we may use ``any reasonable method'' for 
assigning the rate to non-selected respondents. Therefore, because all 
rates in this proceeding are de minimis or based entirely on FA, we 
must look to other reasonable means to assign separate rate margins to 
non-reviewed companies eligible for a separate rate in this review. We 
find that a reasonable method is to assign to non-reviewed companies in 
this review the rate we calculated in the most recent segment for any 
company that was not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on FA. 
Pursuant to this method, we are assigning the rate of 55.16 percent, 
the most recent positive rate (from the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') 
investigation) calculated for cooperative separate rate respondents, to 
those separate rate respondents in the instant review. We note that 
this calculated rate from the LTFV investigation is the only calculated 
positive rate in any segment of this proceeding. See Order.

PRC-Wide Entity

    Upon initiation of the administrative review, we provided an 
opportunity for all companies for which the review was initiated to 
complete either the separate rate application or certification. The 
separate rate certification and separate rate application were 
available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html.
    We have preliminarily determined that 116 companies failed to 
demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate and are properly 
considered part of the PRC-wide entity. In NME proceedings, `` `rates' 
may consist of a single dumping margin applicable to all exporters and 
producers.'' See 19 CFR 351.107(d). As explained above in the 
``Separate Rates'' section, all companies within the PRC are considered 
to be subject to government control unless they are able to demonstrate 
an absence of government control with respect to their export 
activities. Accordingly, such companies are assigned a single 
antidumping duty rate distinct from the separate rate(s) determined for 
companies that are found to be free of government control with respect 
to their export activities. We consider that the overall influence that 
the PRC has been found to have over its economy warrants determining 
separate rates for the entity that are distinct from the rates found 
for companies that have provided sufficient evidence to establish that 
they operate freely with respect to their export activities. See Notice 
of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish 
Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 
2003). In this regard, we note that no party has submitted

[[Page 26700]]

evidence in this proceeding to demonstrate that such government 
influence is no longer present or that our treatment of the PRC-wide 
entity is otherwise incorrect. Therefore, we are assigning the PRC-wide 
entity's current rate of 206%, the only rate ever determined for the 
PRC-wide entity in this proceeding.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department conducts an antidumping administrative review 
of imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it 
to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued 
in a surrogate ME country or countries considered to be appropriate by 
the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in 
valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, 
the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1) 
At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME 
country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. 
Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally 
value FOPs in a single country, except for labor. The sources of the 
surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' 
section below and in the Memorandum to the File through Scot Fullerton, 
Program Manager, Office 9 from Toni Dach, International Trade Analyst, 
Office 9: 2008-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel 
Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for 
the Preliminary Results, dated May 2, 2011 (``Surrogate Value 
Memorandum'').
    On March 3, 2011, Petitioner and the RMB/IFI Group submitted SV 
information for valuation of FOPs. On March 14, 2011, the Department 
received a rebuttal response to the Petitioner's SV submission from the 
RMB/IFI Group.
    Pursuant to its practice, the Department received a list of 
potential surrogate countries from Import Administration's Office of 
Policy (``OP'').\5\ The OP determined that India, the Philippines, 
Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru were at a comparable level of 
economic development to the PRC. See Surrogate Country List. The 
Department considers the six countries identified by the OP in its 
Surrogate Country List as ``equally comparable in terms of economic 
development.'' Id. Thus, we find India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 
Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru are all at an economic level of development 
equally comparable to that of the PRC. We note that the Surrogate 
Country List is a non-exhaustive list of economically comparable 
countries. We also note that the record does not contain publicly 
available SV factor information for the Philippines, Indonesia, 
Ukraine, or Peru. Thus, we find that India and Thailand are both 
economically comparable to the PRC and significant producers of the 
subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of 
Policy, to Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 
on Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China, 
dated November 3, 2010 (``Surrogate Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's practice when selecting the best available 
information for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act, is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are 
product-specific, representative of a broad-market average, publicly 
available, contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and 
duties.\6\ As a general matter, the Department prefers to use publicly 
available data representing a broad-market average to value SVs. Id. 
Petitioner provided data for Thailand from the World Trade Atlas 
(``WTA'') to value some material inputs, and financial statements from 
producers of comparable merchandise in Thailand to calculate surrogate 
financial ratios. Petitioner and the RMB/IFI Group provided data for 
India from the WTA and various government, non-governmental 
organization, and industry publications to value all material inputs, 
energy, and movement expenses, and financial statements from producers 
of comparable merchandise in India to calculate surrogate financial 
ratios. Although the data on the record for both India and Thailand to 
value material inputs meets the Department's criteria for selecting the 
best available information, we preliminarily find that the information 
on the record for India is more complete, as data is provided to value 
all material inputs, energy, and movement expenses. In addition, the 
Indian financial statements on the record for producers of comparable 
merchandise reflect the experiences of producers of a broad range of 
comparable merchandise, while the financial statements on the record 
from producers of comparable merchandise in Thailand reflects the 
experience of producers of only one type of comparable merchandise 
(i.e., springs). Thus, because there are Indian data on the record for 
valuation of all FOPs, and a wider variety of Indian financial 
statements with which to calculate surrogate financial ratios, we 
preliminarily find that Thailand is not the most appropriate surrogate 
country for purposes of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Eleventh Administrative Review 
and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, given the facts summarized above, we find that the 
information on the record supports a finding that India is an 
appropriate surrogate country because it is at a similar level of 
economic development to the PRC, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the 
Act, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and 
reliable, publicly available data have been provided on the record for 
surrogate valuation purposes.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results.

Date of Sale

    The RMB/IFI Group reported the invoice date as the date of sale 
because it claims that, for its U.S. sales of subject merchandise made 
during the POR, the material terms of sale were established on the 
invoice date. The Department preliminarily determines that the invoice 
date is the most appropriate date to use as the RMB/IFI Group's date of 
sale, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of steel threaded rod to the United 
States by the RMB/IFI Group were made at less than NV, the Department 
compared the export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. 
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below.

U.S. Price

A. Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated the EP for sales to the United States from the RMB/IFI 
Group's sales, because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made 
before the date of importation. The Department calculated EP based on 
the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate,

[[Page 26701]]

we deducted foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling from the 
starting price to unaffiliated purchasers. Each of these services was 
either provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. 
Thus, we based the deduction of these movement charges on SVs. 
Additionally, for international freight provided by an ME provider and 
paid in an ME currency, we used the actual cost per kilogram of the 
freight. See Surrogate Value Memorandum for details regarding the SVs 
for movement expenses.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is 
exported from an NME and the information does not permit the 
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or 
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases 
NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various 
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOPs reported by the respondents for the POR, except as noted 
above. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-
consumption rates by publicly available Indian SVs. In selecting the 
SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the 
data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight 
costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian 
import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported 
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of production or the 
distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of production where 
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit's (``CAFC'') decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See Department 
Policy Bulletin No. 10.2: Inclusion of International Freight Costs When 
Import Prices Constitute Normal Value, dated November 1, 2010.
    Where we did not use Indian Import Statistics, we calculated 
freight based on the reported distance from the supplier to the 
factory.
    In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the 
Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of 
disregarding SVs if it has reason to believe or suspect the source data 
may be subsidized.\8\ In this regard, the Department has previously 
found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices from India, 
Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because we have determined that 
these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific 
export subsidies.\9\ Based on the existence of these subsidy programs 
that were generally available to all exporters and producers in these 
countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it is 
reasonable to infer that all exporters from India, Indonesia, South 
Korea and Thailand likely benefitted from these subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. 
Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd 
Sess. (1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590.
    \9\ See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final 
Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the 
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of 
Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at 17, 19-20; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\10\ 
Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an 
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because 
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an 
NME country or a country with general export subsidies. For further 
detail, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and 
Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 
2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, based on the information currently available, we have 
not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian 
import-based SVs or in calculating ME input values. In instances where 
an ME input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these 
countries, we used Indian import-based SVs to value the input.
    In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs, in 
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice 
is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are 
non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POR product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that data 
in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as those from the other Indian 
sources, are contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. In those instances where we 
could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the 
POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the SVs using, where 
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in 
the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary 
Fund.\11\ For each input value, we used the average value per unit for 
that input imported into India from all countries that the Department 
has not previously determined to be NME countries. Import statistics 
from countries that the Department has determined to be countries which 
subsidized exports (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and India) 
and imports from unspecified countries also were excluded in the 
calculation of the average value. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the 
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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, 77380 (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); Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products 
from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695 (April 17, 2006), 
unchanged in CLPP LTFV Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department used Indian Import Statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that the RMB/IFI Group used to 
produce the merchandise under review during the POR, except where 
listed below. For a detailed description of all SVs for

[[Page 26702]]

respondents, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    On May 14, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(``CAFC'') in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. 
Cir. 2010), found that the ``{regression-based{time}  method for 
calculating wage rates {as stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3){time}  
uses data not permitted by {the statutory requirements laid out in 
section 773 of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. Sec.  1677b(c)){time} .'' The 
Department is continuing to evaluate options for determining labor 
values in light of the recent CAFC decision. However, for these 
preliminary results, we have calculated an hourly wage rate to use in 
valuing the respondent's reported labor input by averaging industry-
specific earnings and/or wages in countries that are economically 
comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise.
    For the preliminary results of this administrative review, the 
Department is valuing labor using a simple average industry-specific 
wage rate using earnings or wage data reported under Chapter 5B by the 
International Labor Organization (``ILO''). To achieve an industry-
specific labor value, we relied on industry-specific labor data from 
the countries we determined to be both economically comparable to the 
PRC, and significant producers of comparable merchandise. A full 
description of the industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology 
is provided in the Surrogate Value Memorandum. The Department 
calculated a simple average industry-specific wage rate of $1.95 for 
these preliminary results. Specifically, for this review, the 
Department has calculated the wage rate using a simple average of the 
data provided to the ILO under Sub-Classification 27 of the ISIC-
Revision 3 standard by countries determined to be both economically 
comparable to the PRC and significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. The Department finds the two-digit description under ISIC-
Revision 3 (``Manufacture of Basic Metals'') to be the best available 
wage rate SV on the record because it is specific and derived from 
industries that produce merchandise comparable to the subject 
merchandise. Consequently, we averaged the ILO industry-specific wage 
rate data or earnings data available from the following countries found 
to be economically comparable to the PRC and are significant producers 
of comparable merchandise: the Philippines, Egypt, Indonesia, Ukraine, 
Jordan, Thailand, Ecuador, and Peru. For further information on the 
calculation of the wage rate, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    We valued zinc chloride using data from the publication Chemical 
Weekly. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    We valued electricity using data from the Central Electricity 
Authority of the Government of India in its publication titled 
Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in 
India, dated March 2008. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    We valued water using data from the Maharastra Industrial 
Development Corporation (http://www.midcindia.org). We inflated the 
value using the POR average WPI rate. Id.
    We valued diesel using the 2007 diesel fuel price in India reported 
by the IEA statistics for Energy Prices & Taxes, First Quarter 2007. We 
inflated the value using the POR average WPI rate. Id.
    To value truck freight, we used data from The Great Indian Bazaar, 
Gateway to Overseas Markets available at http://www.infobanc.com. Id.
    To value marine insurance, the Department used rates from RJG 
Consultants. These rates are for sea freight from the Far East Region. 
Id.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, & administrative 
expenses, and profit, we used the simple average of the 2008-2009 
financial statement of Nasco Steels Private Limited, the 2009-2010 
financial statement of Rajratan Global Wire Limited, the 2008-2009 
financial statement of Bansidhar Granites Private Limited, the 2008-
2009 financial statement of J&K Wire & Steel Industries (P) Ltd., and 
the 2009-2010 financial statement of Sterling Tools Limited, all of 
which are manufacturers of processed steel wire rod or steel round bar 
products. See Surrogate Value Memorandum, at Exhibit 9.

Currency Conversion

    Where necessary, the Department made currency conversions into U.S. 
dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank. We relied on the daily exchange rates 
posted on the Import Administration Web site (http://www.trade.gov/ia/
). See Surrogate Value Memorandum.

Facts Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2) of the Act provide that, if 
necessary information is not available on the record, or 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 sections 
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.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time}  for 
information, notifies {the Department{time}  that such party is unable 
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, 
together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in 
which such party is able to submit the information,'' the Department 
may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on 
that party.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and 
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established 
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is 
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information 
and meeting the requirements established by the Department; and (5) the 
information can be used without undue difficulties.
    On November 17, 2010, RMB/IFI Group requested that it be excused 
from reporting FOP data for one model, as this model was produced prior 
to the POR. RMB/IFI Group suggested that the Department instead use the 
input consumption for the most similar model for this CONNUM due to the 
associated burdens for RMB/IFI Group to report, and for the Department 
to verify the data provided by the RMB/IFI Group,

[[Page 26703]]

for a single model produced outside of the POR.
    In accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the Department is 
applying FA to determine the NV for the sales corresponding to the FOP 
data that the RMB/IFI Group has been excused from reporting. As FA, the 
Department is applying the FOPs for the most similar models to this 
unreported model. Due to the proprietary nature of the factual 
information concerning the FOPs applied for this model, these issues 
are addressed in a separate business proprietary memorandum where a 
detailed explanation of the FA calculation is provided. See Memorandum 
to Scot Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from 
Steven Hampton, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary 
Results Analysis Memorandum for The RMB IFI Group in the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the 
People's Republic of China, dated May 2, 2011 (``RMB IFI Prelim 
Analysis Memo'').

Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an 
adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a 
party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse inference may 
include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record.
    On December 29, 2010, Shanghai Recky informed the Department that 
it would not participate in this review, and did not respond to the 
Department's December 8, 2010, antidumping duty questionnaire. Because 
Shanghai Recky withheld information requested by the Department, failed 
to provide requested information in the form and manner required, and 
significantly impeded the Department's proceeding by not providing 
requested information, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) 
of the Act, the Department will preliminarily rely on facts otherwise 
available in determining the rate applicable to Shanghai Recky in this 
administrative review. Furthermore, in accordance with section 776(b) 
of the Act, the Department is applying an adverse inference in 
selecting the facts otherwise available to apply to Shanghai Recky 
because we find that it has failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability in replying to the Department's requests for information. 
Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we find that 
Shanghai Recky should be treated as part of the PRC-wide entity because 
it failed to respond to the Department's request for information 
regarding its eligibility for a separate rate.

Application of Total Adverse Facts Available to the PRC-Wide Entity

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that if one of the 
companies for which this review was initiated ``does not qualify for a 
separate rate, all other exporters of STR from the PRC that have not 
qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review 
as part of the single PRC entity.'' See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 
29984, footnote 6. As noted above, Shanghai Recky, one of the companies 
for which this review was initiated, has not qualified for a separate 
rate. Therefore, the PRC-wide entity is now under review.
    As explained above, Shanghai Recky, as part of the PRC-wide entity, 
did not respond to the Department's December 8, 2010, Sections A, C, 
and D questionnaire. For these reasons, the Department has 
preliminarily determined that the PRC-wide entity: (1) Withheld 
information that was requested; (2) failed to provide information 
within the deadlines established and in the form and manner requested 
by the Department; (3) significantly impeded this proceeding; and (4) 
provided information that cannot be verified. Therefore, in accordance 
with subsections 776(a)(2)(A) through (D) of the Act, the Department 
has preliminarily based the dumping margin of the PRC-wide entity on 
the facts otherwise available. Further, because the PRC-wide entity 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with the Department's requests for information, the Department has 
preliminarily determined, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, to use 
an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available.

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate

    Section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the 
Department's adverse inference ``may include reliance on information 
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the 
investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
other information placed on the record.'' In selecting a rate for use 
as AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``to 
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner''\12\. Furthermore, it is the 
Department's practice to ensure ``that the party does not obtain a more 
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully'' \13\ and to select ``the highest rate on the record of the 
proceeding'' \14\ that can be corroborated, to the extent 
practicable.\15\ Therefore, as AFA, the Department has preliminarily 
assigned the PRC-wide entity a dumping margin of 206.00 percent, which 
was the margin calculated in the petition, and is the highest dumping 
margin on the record of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    \13\ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. I, at 870 
(1994) (``SAA''), reprinted at 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99.
    \14\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 39940, 39942 (July 11, 2008).
    \15\ See Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 638 
F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration of Secondary Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. 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.\16\ ``Corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value.\17\ To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information to be used.\18\ Independent sources used 
to

[[Page 26704]]

corroborate such information may include, for example, published price 
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information 
obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation or 
review.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See SAA at 870.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).
    \19\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post 
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), unchanged 
in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from 
Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003); Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 
12181, 12183-84 (March 11, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To corroborate the 206.00 percent petition rate, we compared this 
margin to the margins we found for the RMB/IFI Group in this review. We 
found that the margin of 206.00 percent has probative value because it 
is in the range of the transaction-specific margins that we found for 
the RMB/IFI Group.\20\ Accordingly, we find that the rate of 206.00 
percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See RMB IFI Prelim Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                        Exporter                              margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RMB Fasteners Ltd., and IFI & Morgan Ltd. (``RMB/IFI              \1\.27
 Group'')...............................................
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd..............................           55.16
Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. Ltd........................           55.16
Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part Co., Ltd...................           55.16
Certified Products International Inc....................           55.16
Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd..............           55.16
Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd..........................           55.16
Haiyan Julong...........................................           55.16
PRC-wide Entity (including Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd.           206.00
 and Shanghai Recky International Trading Co. Ltd.).....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (de minimus).

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). As noted 
above, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final 
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value the FOPs within 20 days after 
the date of publication of these preliminary results. Interested 
parties must provide the Department with supporting documentation for 
the publicly available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this 
administrative review, interested parties may submit factual 
information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted 
by an interested party no less than ten days before, on, or after, the 
applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. 
However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new 
information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects 
information recently placed on the record. The Department generally 
cannot accept the submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-
record alternative SV information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 
Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 
72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
Room 1117, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested 
parties may be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five 
days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case 
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary 
of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) 
and (d).
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in 
any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of 
publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by these reviews. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 
calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates 
for the merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has 
reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated 
for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this 
amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or 
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will apply the 
assessment rate to the entered value of the importers'/customers' 
entries during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we 
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping 
duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or 
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where 
an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
    As noted above, consistent with Nails from the PRC, for the 
preliminary results, for the companies receiving a separate rate that 
were not selected for individual review, we have applied the margin 
calculated for the company selected for individual review, excluding 
any rates based entirely upon FA, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of 
the Act.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication

[[Page 26705]]

date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 
exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in 
the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required 
for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and 
non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 206.00 
percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which 
have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC 
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: May 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

 Advanced Hardware Company
 Anhui Ningguo Zhongding Sealing Co. Ltd.
 Autocraft Industrial (Shanghai) Ltd.
 Beijing Peace Seasky International
 Billion Land Ltd.
 Century Distribution Systems
 China Jiangsu International Economic Technical Cooperation 
Corporation
 Dalian Americh International Trading Co., Ltd.
 Dalian Fortune Machinery Co., Ltd.
 Dalian Harada Industry Co., Ltd.
 EC International (Nantong) Co. Ltd.
 Ever Industries Co.
 Fastwell Industry Co. Ltd.
 Haining Light Industry Trade Co. Ltd.
 Haiyan County No. 1 Fasteners Factory (Hu-Hang Company)
 Haiyan Feihua Fasteners Co. Ltd.
 Haiyan Haiyu Hardware Co. Ltd.
 Haiyan Lianxiang Hardware Products
 Haiyan Sanhuan Import & Export Co.
 Haiyan Xiyue Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.
 Haiyan Yida Fastener Co. Ltd.
 Handsun Industry General Co.
 Hangshou Daton Wind Power
 Hangshou Huayan Imp. and Exp. Co. Ltd.
 Hangzhou Everbright Imp & Exp Co. Ltd.
 Hangzhou Grand Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.
 Hangzhou Robinson Trading Co. Ltd.
 HD Supply Shanghai Distribution Center
 Hebei Richylin Trading Co Ltd.
 Honghua International Co. Ltd.
 Jiangsu Changzhou International
 Jiangsu Soho International Group Corp.
 Jiangsu Yanfei Special Steel Products
 Jiangxi Yuexin Standard Part Co. Ltd.
 Jiashan Lisan Metal Products Co. Ltd.
 Jiaxing Pacific Trading Co. Ltd.
 Jiaxing Tsr Hardware Inc.
 Jiaxing Wonper Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.
 JS Fasteners Co. Ltd.
 Jun Valve Junshan Co. Ltd.
 Kewell Products Corporation
 Lanba Fasteners Co. Ltd.
 Nantong Harlan Machinery Co. Ltd.
 Ningbiao Bolts & Nuts Manufacturing Co.
 Ningbo ABC Fasteners Co. Ltd.
 Ningbo Beilun Fastening Co. Ltd.
 Ningbo Beilun Longsheng
 Ningbo Daxie Chuofeng Industrial Development Co., Ltd.
 Ningbo Etdz Holding Ltd.
 Ningbo Fengya Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.
 Ningbo Fourway Co. Ltd.
 Ningbo Haishu Wit Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.
 Ningbo Haobo Commerce Co. Ltd.
 Ningbo Jiansheng Metal Products Co.
 Ningbo Shareway Import and Export Co. Ltd.
 Ningbo Weiye Co.
 Ningbo Xinyang Weiye
 Ningbo Yinzhou Foreign Trade Co. Ltd.
 Ningbo Yonggang Fastener Co. Ltd.
 Ningbo Zhenghai Yongding Fastener Co.
 Ningbo Zhengyu Fasteners Co., Ltd.
 Ningbo Zhongbin Fastener Mfg. Co. Ltd.
 Ningbo Zhongjiang High Strength
 Ningbo Zhongjiang Petroleum Pipes & Machinery Co. Ltd.
 Orient International Enterprise Ltd.
 Penglai City Bohai Hardware Tool Co. Ltd.
 Pennengineering Automotive Fastener
 Pinghu City Zhapu Screw Cap
 Qingdao H.R. International Trading Co.
 Qingdao Hengfeng Development Trade
 Qingdao Huaqing Imp. and Exp. Co. Ltd.
 Qingdao Morning Bright Trading
 Qingdao Uni-trend Int'l Ltd.
 Roberts Co.
 R-union Enterprise Co. Ltd.
 Shaanxi Shcceed Trading Co. Ltd.
 Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprises Pudong Co. Ltd.
 Shanghai Huiyi International Trade
 Shanghai Jiading Foreign Trade Co. Ltd.
 Shanghai Overseas International Trading Co. Ltd.
 Shanghai Recky International Trading Co., Ltd.
 Shanghai Shangdian Washer Co.
 Shanghai Shenguang High Strength Bolts Co. Ltd.
 Shanghai Sunrise International Co.
 Shanghai Tianying Metal Parts Co. Ltd.
 Shanghai Wisechain Fastener Ltd.
 Shanghai Xianglong International Trading Co., Ltd. 
(Wangzhai Group)
 Shanghai Xiangrong International Trading Co., Ltd.
 Shenzhen Texinlong Trading Co.
 Shenzhen Xiguan Trading Ltd.
 Suzhou Textile Silk Co. Ltd.
 Synercomp China Co. Ltd.
 T and C Fastener Co. Ltd.
 T and L Industry Co. Ltd.
 T&S Technology LLC
 Tong Ming Enterprise
 Tri-Star Trading Co. (Hong Kong)
 Unimax International Ltd.
 Wujiang Foreign Trade Corporation
 Wuxi Zontai International
 Yancheng Sanwei Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.
 Yi Chi Hsiung Ind. Corp.
 Yixunda Industrial Products Supply
 Yueyun Imp & Exp Co. Ltd.
 Yuyao Nanshan Development Co. Ltd.
 Zhapu Creative Standard Parts Material Co., Ltd.
 Zhejiang Guorui Industry Co., Ltd.
 Zhejiang Hailiang Co. Ltd.
 Zhejiang Huamao International Co. Ltd.
 Zhejiang Laibao Hardware Co. Ltd.
 Zhejiang Machinery & Equipment Co. Ltd.
 Zhejiang Minmetals Sanhe Import & Export Co. Ltd.
 Zhejiang Morgan Brother
 Zhejiang New Oriental Fastener Co., Ltd.
 Zhejiang Peace Industry and Trading
 Zhejiang Xingxing Optoelectron
 Zhejiang Zhenglian Corp.

[FR Doc. 2011-11255 Filed 5-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P