[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68129-68137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28542]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-520-804]


Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab Emirates: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that certain steel nails (nails) from the United Arab 
Emirates (UAE) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United 
States at less than fair value (LTFV) as provided in section 733(b) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of 
sales at LTFV are listed in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section 
of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this 
preliminary determination.

DATES: Effective Date: November 3, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Michael A. 
Romani, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0665 and (202) 482-0198, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 31, 2011, Mid Continent Nail Corporation (the petitioner) 
filed an antidumping petition concerning imports of nails from the UAE. 
See the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Certain 
Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates, dated March 31, 2011 (the 
petition).
    On April 27, 2011, the Department initiated the antidumping duty 
investigation on nails from the UAE. See Certain Steel Nails From the 
United Arab Emirates: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 76 
FR 23559 (April 27, 2011) (Initiation Notice).
    The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise 
issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit 
comments within 20 calendar days of the date of publication of the 
Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 23560. We received 
no comments from interested parties concerning product coverage. The 
Department also set aside a period of time for parties to comment on 
product characteristics for use in the antidumping duty questionnaire. 
See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 23560. On May 10, 2011, we received 
comments from the petitioner. On May 17, 2011, we received comments 
from Precision Fasteners LLC (Precision Fasteners), a UAE producer and 
exporter of subject merchandise. On May 24, 2011, we received 
additional comments from the petitioner. After reviewing all comments, 
we have adopted the characteristics and hierarchy as explained in the 
``Product Comparisons'' section of this notice, below.
    On May 19, 2011, we selected Dubai Wire FZE (Dubai Wire), Precision 
Fasteners, and Tech Fast International Ltd. (Tech Fast), as mandatory 
respondents in this investigation. See the ``Selection of Respondents'' 
section of this notice, below.
    On May 20, 2011, the International Trade Commission (ITC) published 
its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of nails from the UAE are materially injuring 
the U.S. industry, and the ITC notified the Department of its finding. 
See Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab Emirates; Determination, 
Investigation No. 731-TA-1185 (Preliminary), 76 FR 29266 (May 20, 
2011).
    On May 26, 2011, we issued the antidumping questionnaire to Dubai 
Wire, Precision Fasteners, and Tech Fast. We received questionnaire 
responses from Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners. We did not receive a 
questionnaire response from Tech Fast.
    On July 20, 2011, based on a timely request from the petitioner, we 
extended the deadline for alleging targeted dumping.
    On August 8, 2011, the petitioner filed allegations of targeted 
dumping by Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners. See the ``Allegation of 
Targeted Dumping'' section below.
    On August 8, 2011, the petitioner requested that the Department 
postpone its preliminary determination by 50 days. In accordance with 
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we postponed our preliminary 
determination by 50 days. See Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab 
Emirates: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation, 76 FR 52313 (August 22, 2011).
    On October 4, 2011, Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners requested 
that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 
days in accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.210(b)(2)(ii) and extend the application of the provisional 
measures prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month to a 
six-month period.
    On October 13, 2011, the petitioner submitted comments with respect 
to Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners for consideration in the 
preliminary determination. On October 18, 2011, Dubai Wire submitted 
rebuttal comments. On October 21, 2011, Precision Fasteners submitted 
rebuttal comments. On October 24, 2011, the petitioner submitted 
additional

[[Page 68130]]

comments with respect to Dubai Wire. On October 25, 2011, Precision 
Fasteners submitted additional comments concerning targeted dumping 
allegation.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. This period 
corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition, March 2011. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are nails from the UAE. 
For a full description of the scope of the investigation, as set forth 
in the Initiation Notice, please see the ``Scope of the Investigation'' 
in Appendix I of this notice.

Changes to the Scope of Investigation

    For this preliminary determination we are clarifying the scope of 
investigation to conform with the decision in Certain Steel Nails From 
the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 76 FR 22369 (April 21, 
2011) (China Nails CCR) (unchanged in Certain Steel Nails From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review, 76 FR 30101 (May 24, 2011)). The scope 
description in the Initiation Notice included language referring to the 
packaging characteristics of certain nails excluded from the scope. 
However, in China Nails CCR, we determined that the physical 
characteristics of the nails, and not the labeling, were determinative 
of their inclusion or exclusion from the scope. See China Nails CCR, 76 
FR 22371. Accordingly, we are revising the scope of this investigation 
by removing the following language pertaining to three types of roofing 
nails that are excluded from the scope of the investigation, ``and 
whose packaging and packaging marking are clearly and prominently 
labeled `Roofing' or `Roof' nails.'' See Appendix II of this notice.
    Additionally, for the preliminary determination, we are modifying 
the scope of the investigation to reflect the ASTM Standard F 1667 
(2011 revision) rather than the 2005 revision because the 2011 revision 
describes additional types of roofing nails not provided for in the 
2005 revision. Accordingly, for this preliminary determination, we have 
adopted the following revision to the scope language, ``Excluded from 
the scope of this investigation are steel nails specifically enumerated 
and identified in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2011 revision) as Type I, Style 
20 nails, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or not galvanized.'' 
See Appendix II.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these modifications to 
the scope of this investigation.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department 
discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters or producers, 
to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such companies if it 
is not practicable to examine all companies. The data on the record 
indicates that there are over 10 potential producers or exporters from 
the UAE that exported the subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POI. See letter to all interested parties dated May 2, 2011. 
In the Initiation Notice we stated that we intended to select 
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for 
U.S. imports under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) numbers 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75, the three 
categories most specific to subject merchandise, for entries made 
during the POI. See Initiation Notice, 76 FR 23563. We invited comments 
on CBP data and selection of respondents for individual examination. 
Id.
    On May 2, 2011, we released the CBP data to all parties with access 
to information protected by administrative protective order. Based on 
our review of the CBP data and our consideration of the comments we 
received from Dubai Wire on May 5, 2011, and from the petitioner on May 
9, 2011, we determined that we had the resources to examine three 
companies. Accordingly, we selected Dubai Wire, Precision Fasteners, 
and Tech Fast \1\ for individual examination in this investigation. 
These companies are the three producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise that account for the largest volume of the subject 
merchandise imported during the POI that we can reasonably examine in 
accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. See Memorandum to 
Christian Marsh entitled ``Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab 
Emirates: Selection of Respondents for Individual Examination'' dated 
May 19, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Selected respondents are listed in alphabetical order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of facts 
otherwise available with an adverse inference is appropriate for the 
preliminary determination with respect to Tech Fast.

A. Use of Facts Available

    As indicated in the ``Background'' section above, Tech Fast did not 
respond to our questionnaire dated May 26, 2011. See memorandum dated 
October 18, 2011 (documenting our attempts to deliver the questionnaire 
to Tech Fast). As such, Tech Fast withheld information necessary to 
calculate a margin for its sales to the United States. Section 
776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds 
information requested by the administering authority, fails to provide 
such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or 
in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) 
of section 782, significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the administering authority 
shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(e) of 
the Act states further that the Department shall not decline to 
consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are 
met: (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; (5) the information can be 
used without undue difficulties.
    In this case, Tech Fast did not respond to our request for 
information, withheld information the Department requested, and 
significantly impeded the proceeding. Because Tech Fast failed to 
provide any information, section 782(e) of the Act is inapplicable. 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, we are relying upon 
facts otherwise available for Tech Fast's antidumping duty margin.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department 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, the 
Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of that party 
in

[[Page 68131]]

selecting the facts otherwise available. See Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 
70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005), and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). In addition, the 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (SAA), 
explains that the Department may employ an adverse inference ``to 
ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870; 
and, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of 
the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 69663 
(December 10, 2007). Furthermore, affirmative evidence of bad faith on 
the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make 
an adverse inference. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow 
Products From Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000); Antidumping Duties, 
Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); and Nippon 
Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (CAFC 2003). It is 
the Department's practice to consider, in employing adverse inferences, 
the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of 
cooperation.
    Although we provided Tech Fast with notice informing it of the 
consequences of its failure to respond fully to our antidumping 
questionnaire, Tech Fast refrained from participating in this 
investigation and has failed to provide any response to our request for 
information. This failure to respond indicates that Tech Fast has 
determined not to cooperate with our requests for information or to 
participate in this investigation. Tech Fast's decision not to 
participate in this investigation has precluded the Department from 
performing the necessary analysis and verification of Tech Fast's 
questionnaire responses required by section 782(i)(1) of the Act. 
Accordingly, the Department concludes that Tech Fast failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information by the Department pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
    Based on the above, the Department has preliminarily determined 
that Tech Fast has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and, 
therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an 
adverse inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 
Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Japan, 65 FR at 42986 (July 12, 
2000) (where the Department applied total adverse facts available (AFA) 
where the respondent failed to respond to the antidumping 
questionnaire).

C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available

    Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 868-
870. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that is 
sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
fully cooperated. Normally, it is the Department's practice to use the 
highest rate from the petition in an investigation when a respondent 
fails to act to the best of its ability to provide the necessary 
information. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Purified 
Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 69 FR 77216 (December 27, 2004) 
(unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 70 FR 28279 (May 
17, 2005)). The rates in the petition range from 61.54 percent to 
184.41 percent. See Initiation Notice at 23563. Because the rates we 
preliminarily determined for cooperative respondents, Dubai Wire and 
Precision Fasteners, are 27.02 and 18.09, respectively, we have 
selected the petition rate of 61.54 percent. This rate achieves the 
purpose of applying an adverse inference, i.e., it is sufficiently 
adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more 
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully 
cooperated. See Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
    When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the the Act 
provides that, where the Department relies on secondary information 
(such as the petition) rather than information obtained in the course 
of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent practicable, 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means the Department 
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has 
probative value. See SAA at 870. As stated 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; 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, 11843 
(March 13, 1997)), to corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance 
of the information used. The Department's regulations state that 
independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for 
example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs 
data, and information obtained from interested parties during the 
particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and the SAA at 870.
    For the purposes of this investigation and to the extent 
appropriate information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and 
accuracy of the information in the petition during our pre-initiation 
analysis and for purposes of this preliminary determination. See 
Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist dated April 20, 2011 
(Initiation Checklist), at 5 through 14. See also Initiation Notice at 
23561-23563. We examined evidence supporting the calculations in the 
petition to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the 
petition for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary determination. 
During our pre-initiation analysis we examined the key elements of the 
Export Price (EP) and normal-value calculations used in the petition to 
derive margins. During our pre-initiation analysis we also examined 
information from various independent sources provided either in the 
petition or in supplements to the petition that corroborates key 
elements of the EP and normal-value calculations

[[Page 68132]]

used in the petition to derive estimated margins. Id.
    Based on our examination of the information, as discussed in detail 
in the Initiation Checklist and the Initiation Notice, we consider the 
petitioner's calculation of the EP and normal-value to be reliable. 
Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of the 
information underlying the calculation of margins in the petition by 
examining source documents as well as publicly available information, 
we preliminarily determine that the margins in the petition are 
reliable for the purposes of this investigation.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 
6814 (February 22, 1996) (the Department disregarded the highest 
dumping margin as best information available because the margin was 
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting 
in an unusually high margin).
    The rates in the petition reflect commercial practices of the nails 
industry and, as such, are relevant to Tech Fast. The courts have 
acknowledged that the consideration of the commercial behavior inherent 
in the industry is important in determining the relevance of the 
selected AFA rate to the uncooperative respondent by virtue of it 
belonging to the same industry. See, e.g., Ferro Union, Inc. v. United 
States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1334 (1999). Such consideration typically 
encompasses the commercial behavior of other respondents under 
investigation and the selected AFA rate is gauged against the margins 
we calculate for those respondents. Therefore, we compared the model-
specific margins we calculated for Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners 
for the POI to the petition rate of 61.54 percent, selected as AFA in 
this investigation. We found that the highest model-specific margins we 
calculated for Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners in this investigation 
were higher than or within the range of the 61.54 percent margin 
alleged in the petition.
    Specifically, after calculating the margin for Dubai Wire and 
Precision Fasteners as discussed in detail below, we examined 
individual model comparisons made by Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners 
during the POI and the margins we determined on those model comparisons 
in order to determine whether the rate of 61.54 percent is probative. 
We found a number of model comparisons with dumping margins above the 
rate of 61.54 percent and a number of model comparisons with dumping 
margins within the range of 61.54 percent. See company-specific 
analysis memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice. Accordingly, 
the AFA rate is relevant as applied to Tech Fast for this investigation 
because it falls within the range of model-specific margins we 
calculated for Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners in this 
investigation. A similar corroboration methodology has been upheld by 
the court. See PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. 
Cir. 2009). Further, it is consistent with our past practice. See 
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, 41811 (July 19, 2010).
    Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated in the pre-
initiation stage of this investigation and preliminarily determining it 
to be relevant for the uncooperative respondent in this investigation, 
we have corroborated the AFA rate of 61.54 percent ``to the extent 
practicable'' as provided in section 776(c) of the Act. See also 19 CFR 
351.308(d).
    Therefore, with respect to Tech Fast, we have used, as AFA, the 
margin in the petition of 61.54 percent, as set forth in the notice of 
initiation. See Initiation Notice at 23563.

Affiliation and Collapsing

    Section 771(33)(F) of the Act defines affiliated persons as two or 
more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or 
under common control with any person. We find that, based on record 
evidence, Dubai Wire and Global Fasteners Limited (GFL), a producer of 
screws, are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act. 
Because our analysis of affiliation involves extensive use of business-
proprietary information, for a detailed discussion, see Memorandum to 
Susan Kuhbach entitled ``Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab 
Emirates--Whether Collapsing of Affiliated Producers is Warranted,'' 
dated October 27, 2011 (Collapsing Evaluation Memo).
    Section 351.401(f) of the Department's regulations outlines the 
criteria for collapsing (i.e., treating as a single entity) affiliated 
producers for purposes of calculating a dumping margin. The regulations 
state that we will treat two or more affiliated producers as a single 
entity where (1) those producers have production facilities for similar 
or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of 
either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities and 
(2) we conclude that there is a significant potential for the 
manipulation of price or production. In identifying a significant 
potential for the manipulation of price or production, the Department 
may consider the following factors: (i) The level of common ownership; 
(ii) the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one 
firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; (iii) whether 
operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales 
information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the 
sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between 
the affiliated producers. See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2).
    With respect to the first criterion of 19 CFR 351.401(f), the 
information on the record indicates that GFL does not produce and/or 
have the potential to produce merchandise identical or similar to 
subject merchandise. Specifically, in producing screws, GFL's 
production processes and equipment are not similar to those used by 
Dubai Wire to produce nails. Thus, we find that substantial retooling 
of GFL's facilities would be required to change the companies' 
manufacturing priorities. See Collapsing Evaluation Memo. Because the 
first criteria of 19 CFR 351.401(f) was not established, we need not 
consider whether there is a significant potential for the manipulation 
of price or production.
    With respect to Precision Fasteners, we find that, based on record 
evidence, it is not affiliated with Millennium Steel and Wire LLC. 
Because our analysis of affiliation involves extensive use of business-
proprietary information, for a full discussion, see Precision Fasteners 
analysis memorandum.

Allegation of Targeted Dumping

    The statute allows the Department to employ the average-to-
transaction margin-calculation methodology under the following 
circumstances: (1) There is a pattern of export prices that differ 
significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time; (2) the 
Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into account 
using the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction methodology. 
See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act.

[[Page 68133]]

    On August 8, 2011, the petitioner submitted allegations of targeted 
dumping with respect to Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners, asserting 
that the Department should apply the average-to-transaction methodology 
to all reported U.S. sales in calculating the margins for these 
companies. In its allegations, the petitioner asserts that there are 
patterns of EPs for comparable merchandise that differ significantly 
among purchasers, regions, and periods of time. The petitioner relied 
on the Department's current version of the targeted-dumping test first 
introduced in Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 
33985 (June 16, 2008) (Nails), and used more recently in Certain Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final Determination of 
Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010) (OCTG).
    Because our analysis includes business-proprietary information, for 
a full discussion see Memorandum to Christian Marsh entitled ``Less-
Than-Fair-Value Investigation on Certain Steel Nails from the United 
Arab Emirates: Targeted Dumping--Dubai Wire FZE,'' dated October 27, 
2011, and Memorandum to Christian Marsh entitled ``Less-Than-Fair-Value 
Investigation on Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: 
Targeted Dumping--Precision Fasteners, LLC'' dated October 27, 2011 
(Targeted-Dumping Memos).

A. Targeted-Dumping Test

    We conducted customer, region, and time-period analyses of targeted 
dumping for both companies using the methodology we adopted in Nails as 
modified in Bags,\2\ to correct a ministerial error, and as further 
modified in Wood Flooring,\3\ to correct for additional ministerial 
errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Taiwan: 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 55183 (October 27, 2009) 
(test unchanged in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 14569 
(March 26, 2010)) (Bags).
    \3\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 
64318 (October 18, 2011) (Wood Flooring) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. See also Targeted-Dumping Memos 
for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodology we employed involves a two-stage test; the first 
stage addresses the pattern requirement and the second stage addresses 
the significant-difference requirement. See section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act and Nails. In this test we made all price comparisons on the 
basis of identical merchandise (i.e., by control number or CONNUM). The 
test procedures are the same for the customer, regional, and time-
period allegations of targeted dumping. We based all of our targeted-
dumping calculations on the U.S. net price which we determined for U.S. 
sales by Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners in our standard margin 
calculations. For further discussion of the test and the results, see 
the Targeted-Dumping Memos.
    As a result of our analysis, we preliminarily determine that there 
is a pattern of EPs for comparable merchandise that differ 
significantly among certain customers, regions, and time periods for 
Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners in accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and our practice as discussed in Nails.
    Dubai Wire submitted comments arguing that there was no targeted 
dumping. Dubai Wire's comments were filed a short period of time prior 
to the preliminary determination and were complex and extensive in 
nature. Accordingly, there has been insufficient time for interested 
parties to comment and for us to analyze the comments fully. We will 
consider Dubai Wire's comments in the context of the final 
determination.

B. Price Comparison Method

    Section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act states that the Department may 
compare the weighted average of the normal value to EPs or constructed 
export prices (CEPs) of individual transactions for comparable 
merchandise if the Department explains why differences in the patterns 
of EPs and CEPs cannot be taken into account using the average-to-
average methodology. As described above, we have preliminarily 
determined that, with respect to sales by Dubai Wire and Precision 
Fasteners applicable to certain customers, regions, and time periods, 
there was a pattern of prices that differ significantly. We find, 
however, that these differences can be taken into account using the 
average-to-average methodology because the average-to-average 
methodology does not mask differences in the patterns of prices between 
the targeted and non-targeted groups by averaging low-priced sales to 
the targeted group with high-priced sales to the non-targeted group. 
See Section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. Therefore, for the preliminary 
determination, we find that the standard average-to-average methodology 
takes into account the price differences because the alternative 
average-to-transaction methodology yields a difference in the margin 
that is not meaningful relative to the size of the resulting margin. 
See SAA, H.R. Doc. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994), at 843. Accordingly, for 
this preliminary determination we have applied the standard average-to-
average methodology to all U.S. sales. See Certain Coated Paper 
Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From 
Indonesia: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 24885, 24888 (May 6, 
2010) and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 16431 (April 1, 
2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

Date of Sale

    The regulation at 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that the Department 
normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the producer's or 
exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date 
of sale. The regulation provides further that the Department may use a 
date other than the date of the invoice if the Secretary is satisfied 
that a different date better reflects the date on which the material 
terms of sale are established. The Department has a long-standing 
practice of finding that, where shipment date precedes invoice date, 
shipment date better reflects the date on which the material terms of 
sale are established. See, e.g., 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; see also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams 
From Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    Record evidence indicates that for certain sales made by Dubai 
Wire, shipment date preceded the invoice date. Therefore, for such 
sales we used the shipment date as the date of sale in accordance with 
our practice.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of nails to the United States by Dubai 
Wire and Precision Fasteners were made at LTFV during the POI, we 
calculated EPs and normal values, as described in the ``U.S.

[[Page 68134]]

Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. As described in 
the ``Allegation of Targeted Dumping'' section, above, we made the 
comparisons of average EPs to normal value, based on constructed value, 
for all of Dubai Wire's and Precision Fasteners' reported sales and 
provided offsets for any non-dumped comparisons.

Product Comparisons

    We have relied on 10 criteria for matching U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise to normal value: nail form, product form, steel type, 
surface finish, diameter, shank length, collation material, head style, 
shank style, and heat treatment.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for Dubai 
Wire's and Precision Fasteners' U.S. sales where the subject 
merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States prior to importation. We calculated EP based on the packed 
``Free-on-Board,'' Cost and Freight,'' or ``Delivered, Duty Paid,'' 
price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United 
States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts and rebates. 
We also made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See company-specific analysis 
memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice.

Normal Value

A. Comparison-Market Viability

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that normal value be based on 
the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the comparison 
market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities 
(or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no 
particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the 
export price. Section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act contemplates that 
quantities (or values) will normally be considered insufficient if they 
are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of 
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States.
    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market or in the third country to serve as a viable 
basis for calculating normal value, we compared each respondent's 
volume of home-market and third-country sales of the foreign like 
product to the respective volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise in accordance with sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the 
Act. For both Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners, aggregate volumes of 
sales of foreign like product in the home market or in the third-
country markets were not greater than five percent of each company's 
sales of subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, neither 
company's sales in the home market or in the third-country markets are 
viable as a comparison market. Consequently, we based normal value on 
constructed value for both companies.

B. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used 
constructed value as the basis for normal value because neither company 
had a viable comparison market. We calculated constructed value in 
accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of 
materials and fabrication, selling, general and administrative (G&A) 
expenses, interest expenses, U.S. packing expenses, and profit in the 
calculation of constructed value. We relied on respondents' submitted 
materials and fabrication costs, G&A, interest expenses, and U.S. 
packing costs, except where noted below. Based on our examination of 
record evidence, Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners did not appear to 
experience significant changes in the cost of manufacturing during the 
period of investigation. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology 
of calculating an annual weighted-average cost.
    For Dubai Wire, we reallocated fixed overhead to products by 
calculating a new fixed overhead ratio and multiplying this ratio by 
the reported direct labor and variable overhead of each product. We 
calculated G&A expenses for Dubai Wire on an unconsolidated basis. We 
analyzed the interest expense for loans between Dubai Wire and its 
affiliate under the ``transactions disregarded rule'' of section 
773(f)(2) of the Act, and determined that the loans were not at arm's 
length rates. As a result, we included an imputed interest expense 
amount associated with the non-arm's length affiliated party loans.
    For Precision Fasteners, we reallocated the reported direct 
material costs to products by weight-averaging the reported direct 
material by steel type and surface finish to alleviate the issue of 
cost differences unrelated to differences in physical characteristics. 
We reallocated fixed overhead to products using the ratio of fixed 
overhead costs to the reported direct labor and variable overhead 
costs. For additional details on these adjustments, see memorandum to 
Neal Halper from James Balog (Precision Fasteners) or Gary Urso (Dubai 
Wire), entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination'' dated concurrently with 
this notice (Preliminary Determination Cost Calculation Memos).
    Because Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners did not have a viable 
comparison market, we did not determine selling expenses and profit 
under section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, instead relying on 773(e)(2)(B) 
of the Act. The statute does not establish a hierarchy for selecting 
among the alternative methodologies provided in section 773(e)(2)(B) of 
the Act. See SAA at 840. Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act specifies 
that profit and selling expenses may be calculated based on any other 
reasonable method as long as the result is not greater than the amount 
realized by exporters or producers ``in connection with the sale, for 
consumption in the foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same 
general category of products as the subject merchandise'' (i.e., the 
profit cap).
    For both Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners, we used the profit 
rate derived from the publicly available financial statements for the 
fiscal year most contemporaneous with the POI for a company in the 
United Arab Emirates, Arab Heavy Industries. See Exhibit 14 of April 
11, 2011, supplement to the petition. This company produces products in 
the same general category of merchandise as nails. Further, because 
this source of information did not provide enough detail to calculate 
selling expenses for Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners, we used the 
companies' respective company-wide selling-expense rates. See company-
specific analysis memorandum. We find that, absent alternatives, this 
approach satisfies sufficiently the criteria of section 773(e) because 
the selling expenses were derived for subject merchandise as well as 
for products in the same general category as subject merchandise.
    In the instant case, the profit cap cannot be calculated using the 
available data because we do not have sales in the same general 
category that would result in a profit cap that is reflective of sales 
in the foreign country. Specifically, it is not clear whether the Arab 
Heavy Industries financial statement includes only sales in the foreign 
country. Therefore, because there is no other information available on 
the record, as facts available, we are applying option (iii) of section 
773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, without quantifying a profit cap.

[[Page 68135]]

    When appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 
CFR 351.412 for circumstance-of-sale differences. We calculated 
constructed value without regard to level of trade with respect to EP 
sales because neither company had a viable comparison market.

Currency Conversion

    It is our normal practice to make currency conversions into U.S. 
dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on exchange 
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information relied upon in making our final determination for Dubai 
Wire and Precision Fasteners.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of nails from the UAE that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal 
to the weighted-average margins, as indicated below, as follows: (1) 
The rates for Dubai Wire, Precision Fasteners, and Tech Fast will be 
the rates we have determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if 
the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the 
producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of 
the subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all other producers or 
exporters will be 23.48 percent, as discussed in the ``All-Others 
Rate'' section, below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions 
will remain in effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                        margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dubai Wire FZE.............................................        27.73
Precision Fasteners LLC....................................        19.23
Tech Fast International Ltd................................        61.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-
others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the 
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters 
and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or de 
minimis margins and any margins determined entirely under section 776 
of the Act. Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners are the only respondents 
in this investigation for which we calculated a company-specific rate 
that is not zero or de minimis or determined entirely under Section 776 
of the Act. Therefore, because there are only two relevant weighted-
average dumping margins for this preliminary determination and because 
using a weighted-average risks disclosure of business proprietary 
information of Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners, the ``all-others'' 
rate is a simple-average of these two values, which is 23.48 percent. 
See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 60723, 60724 
(October 1, 2010).

 Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed in our preliminary 
determination to interested parties in this proceeding in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination. If the Department's 
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the 
later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 
45 days after our final determination whether imports of nails from the 
UAE are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the 
U.S. industry (see section 735(b)(2) of the Act). Because we are 
postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from 
the date of the publication of this preliminary determination, as 
discussed below, the ITC will make its final determination no later 
than 45 days after our final determination.

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the 
Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of 
the last verification report in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs, the 
content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, 
must be filed within five days from the deadline date for the 
submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). A list of authorities 
used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should 
accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(2). Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting 
briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the 
public version of such briefs on diskette.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold 
a public hearing, if timely requested, to afford interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on issues raised in case briefs, provided that 
such a hearing is requested by an interested party. See also 19 CFR 
351.310. If a timely request for a hearing is made in this 
investigation, we intend to hold the hearing two days after the 
deadline for filing a rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before 
the scheduled date.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Hearing requests 
should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) 
a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be 
limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is 
made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to 
be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise or, in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations 
requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    On October 4, 2011, Dubai Wire and Precision Fasteners requested 
that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 
days. At the same time, these companies requested that the Department 
extend the application

[[Page 68136]]

of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month to a six-month period. In 
accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), 
because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the 
requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of 
the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial 
exist, we are granting this request and are postponing the final 
determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be 
extended accordingly.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 27, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain 
steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel 
nails include, but are not limited to, nails made of round wire and 
nails that are cut. Certain steel nails may be of one piece 
construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel 
nails may be produced from any type of steel, and have a variety of 
finishes, heads, shanks, point types, shaft lengths and shaft 
diameters. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in 
vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by electroplating or hot-dipping 
one or more times), phosphate cement, and paint. Head styles 
include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, 
brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles 
include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, 
ring shank and fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to 
this investigation are driven using direct force and not by turning 
the fastener using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles 
include, but are not limited to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and 
no point. Certain steel nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be 
collated into strips or coils using materials such as plastic, 
paper, or wire.
    Certain steel nails subject to this investigation are currently 
classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75.
    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are steel nails 
specifically enumerated and identified in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 
revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails, whether collated or in bulk, 
and whether or not galvanized.
    Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are the 
following products:
     non-collated (i.e., hand-drive or bulk), two-piece 
steel nails having plastic or steel washers (``caps'') already 
assembled to the nail, having a bright or galvanized finish, a ring, 
fluted or spiral shank, an actual length of 0.500'' to 8'', 
inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 0.1015'' to 0.166'', 
inclusive; and an actual washer or cap diameter of 0.900'' to 
1.10'', inclusive;
     non-collated (i.e., hand-drive or bulk), steel nails 
having a bright or galvanized finish, a smooth, barbed or ringed 
shank, an actual length of 0.500'' to 4'', inclusive; an actual 
shank diameter of 0.1015'' to 0.166'', inclusive; and an actual head 
diameter of 0.3375'' to 0.500'', inclusive, and whose packaging and 
packaging marking are clearly and prominently labeled ``Roofing'' or 
``Roof'' nails;
     wire collated steel nails, in coils, having a 
galvanized finish, a smooth, barbed or ringed shank, an actual 
length of 0.500'' to 1.75'', inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 
0.116'' to 0.166'', inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 
0.3375'' to 0.500'', inclusive, and whose packaging and packaging 
marking are clearly and prominently labeled ``Roofing'' or ``Roof'' 
nails;
     non-collated (i.e., hand-drive or bulk), steel nails 
having a convex head (commonly known as an umbrella head), a smooth 
or spiral shank, a galvanized finish, an actual length of 1.75'' to 
3'', inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 0.131'' to 0.152'', 
inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 0.450'' to 0.813'', 
inclusive, and whose packaging and packaging marking are clearly and 
prominently labeled ``Roofing'' or ``Roof'' nails;
     corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made of a small 
strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side;
     thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS 
7317.00.10.00;
     fasteners suitable for use in powder-actuated hand 
tools, not threaded and threaded, which are currently classified 
under HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30;
     certain steel nails that are equal to or less than 
0.0720 inches in shank diameter, round or rectangular in cross 
section, between 0.375 inches and 2.5 inches in length, and that are 
collated with adhesive or polyester film tape backed with a heat 
seal adhesive; and
     fasteners having a case hardness greater than or equal 
to 50 HRC, a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a 
round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a 
centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in 
gas-actuated hand tools.
    While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

Appendix II

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain 
steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel 
nails include, but are not limited to, nails made of round wire and 
nails that are cut. Certain steel nails may be of one piece 
construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel 
nails may be produced from any type of steel, and have a variety of 
finishes, heads, shanks, point types, shaft lengths and shaft 
diameters. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in 
vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by electroplating or hot-dipping 
one or more times), phosphate cement, and paint. Head styles 
include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, 
brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles 
include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, 
ring shank and fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to 
this investigation are driven using direct force and not by turning 
the fastener using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles 
include, but are not limited to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and 
no point. Certain steel nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be 
collated into strips or coils using materials such as plastic, 
paper, or wire.
    Certain steel nails subject to this investigation are currently 
classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75.
    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are steel nails 
specifically enumerated and identified in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2011 
revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails, whether collated or in bulk, 
and whether or not galvanized.
    Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are the 
following products:
     Non-collated (i.e., hand-drive or bulk), two-piece 
steel nails having plastic or steel washers (``caps'') already 
assembled to the nail, having a bright or galvanized finish, a ring, 
fluted or spiral shank, an actual length of 0.500'' to 8'', 
inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 0.1015'' to 0.166'', 
inclusive; and an actual washer or cap diameter of 0.900'' to 
1.10'', inclusive;
     Non-collated (i.e., hand-drive or bulk), steel nails 
having a bright or galvanized finish, a smooth, barbed or ringed 
shank, an actual length of 0.500'' to 4'', inclusive; an actual 
shank diameter of 0.1015'' to 0.166'', inclusive; and an actual head 
diameter of 0.3375'' to 0.500'', inclusive;
     Wire collated steel nails, in coils, having a 
galvanized finish, a smooth, barbed or ringed shank, an actual 
length of 0.500'' to 1.75'', inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 
0.116'' to 0.166'', inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 
0.3375'' to 0.500'', inclusive;
     Non-collated (i.e., hand-drive or bulk), steel nails 
having a convex head (commonly known as an umbrella head), a smooth 
or spiral shank, a galvanized finish, an actual length of 1.75'' to 
3'', inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 0.131'' to 0.152'', 
inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 0.450'' to 0.813'', 
inclusive;
     Corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made of a small 
strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side;
     Thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS 
7317.00.10.00;
     Fasteners suitable for use in powder-actuated hand 
tools, not threaded and threaded, which are currently classified 
under HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30;
     Certain steel nails that are equal to or less than 
0.0720 inches in shank diameter, round or rectangular in cross 
section, between 0.375 inches and 2.5 inches in length, and that are 
Collated with adhesive or polyester film tape backed with a heat 
seal adhesive; and

[[Page 68137]]

     fasteners having a case hardness greater than or equal 
to 50 HRC, a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a 
round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a 
centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in 
gas-actuated hand tools.
    While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2011-28542 Filed 11-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P