[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68400-68404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28649]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-932]


Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: On May 9, 2011, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published the Preliminary Results of the first administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on certain steel threaded rod (``steel 
threaded rod'') from the People's Republic of China

[[Page 68401]]

(``PRC'').\1\ We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
the Preliminary Results and, based upon our analysis of the comments 
and information received, we made changes to the margin calculations 
for the final results of this review. The final weighted-average 
margins are listed below in the ``Final Results of the Review'' section 
of this notice. The period of review (``POR'') is October 8, 2008, 
through March 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and 
Preliminary Rescission, in Part 76 FR 26696 (May 9, 2011) 
(``Preliminary Results'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: November 4, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    As noted above, on May 9, 2011, the Department published the 
Preliminary Results of this administrative review. On May 31, 2011, the 
Department received surrogate value information to value factors of 
production (``FOP'') for the final results from Jiaxing Brother 
Fastener Co., Ltd. and its affiliates \2\ (collectively the ``RMB/IFI 
Group'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ RMB Fasteners Ltd. and IFI & Morgan Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department invited interested parties to comment on the 
Preliminary Results. Between June 22 and July 5, 2011, the Department 
received case and rebuttal briefs from Petitioner,\3\ the RMB/IFI 
Group, Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd. (``Gem-Year''), and Hubbell Power 
Systems, Inc. (``Hubbell''). On July 22, 2011, the Department extended 
the time limit for completion of the final results of this 
administrative review until October 31, 2011.\4\ On June 27, 2011, the 
Department invited comments from parties regarding the Department's 
wage rate methodology, in response to which the Department received no 
comments.\5\ On July 7, 2011, the Department placed entry data on the 
record of this review regarding certain entries by Zhejiang New 
Oriental Fastener Co., Ltd. (``New Oriental'') and invited comments on 
this data. On July 14, 2011, the Department received comments on this 
entry data from Petitioner. Also, on July 14, 2011, the Department 
received comments from Gem-Year regarding the Department's collection 
of new factual information. On August 11, the Department held a public 
hearing, attended by representatives for Petitioner, the RMB/IFI Group, 
and Hubbell. As a result of our analysis, the Department has made 
changes to the Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Vulcan Threaded Products Inc.
    \4\ See Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of 
China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 4398 (July 22, 2011).
    \5\ See Letter to All Interested Parties, From Toni Dach, Re: 
First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel 
Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China, dated June 27, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 7318.15.5051, 7318.15.5056, 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 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.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties are 
addressed in ``First Administrative Review of Certain Steel Threaded 
Rod from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum 
for the Final Results,'' (October 31, 2011) (``I&D Memo''). A list of 
the issues which parties raised, and to which the Department responded 
in the I&D Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The I&D 
Memo is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit 
(``CRU''), main Commerce Building, Room 7046, and is accessible on the 
Department's Web site at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from 
interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, the Department 
has made certain revisions to the surrogate values used in the 
calculation of the margin for the RMB/IFI Group. For changes to the 
surrogate values (``SVs''), see the I&D Memo and ``Memorandum to the 
File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AC/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from Toni Dach, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: 
Surrogate Values for the Final Results,'' (October 31, 2011).
    Since the Preliminary Results, the Department has determined that 
New Oriental's no-shipment certification was not supported by record 
evidence, that it, in fact, had entries subject to this review, and 
that New Oriental did not act to the best of its ability in providing 
information regarding its shipments. Therefore, we are applying adverse 
facts available (``AFA'') to New Oriental. Further, as New Oriental did 
not file a separate rate application, it has not demonstrated its 
eligibility for a separate rate. Accordingly, the

[[Page 68402]]

Department will consider New Oriental a part of the PRC-Wide Entity.
    The Department also updated the language of the scope of this order 
to reflect the fact that HTSUS subheading 7318.15.5050 was replaced 
with two new subheadings: 7318.15.5051 for ``Continuously threaded rod: 
Of alloy steel'' and 7318.15.5056 for ``Continuously threaded rod: 
Other'' (i.e., of carbon steel). See I&D Memo at Comment 9.

Final Partial Rescission

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded 
the review with respect to Gem-Year. Gem-Year submitted information to 
the Department indicating that it had no suspended entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR. As stated in the Preliminary Results, Gem-
Year failed to meet the requirements to qualify for an administrative 
review.\6\ Comments received by the Department regarding the 
preliminary rescission of Gem-Year are addressed in the I&D Memo. As a 
result of the Department's analysis of the comments received regarding 
our preliminary rescission of this review with respect to Gem-Year, the 
Department is rescinding the administrative review with respect to Gem-
Year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 26697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded 
the review with respect to New Oriental, based on New Oriental's 
certification that it made no shipments of subject merchandise during 
the POR. Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') notified the Department that suspended entries 
existed for New Oriental during the POR. The Department obtained entry 
documentation for certain suspended entries of New Oriental's subject 
merchandise, placed these entry documents on the record on July 7, 
2011, and invited comments on these entry documents by interested 
parties. On July 14, 2011, Petitioner submitted comments on New 
Oriental's entry packages. No other party submitted comments on this 
topic. Petitioner's comments are addressed in the I&D Memo. The 
Department's analysis of these entry documents and the comments 
received indicate that New Oriental did not ensure, to the best of its 
ability, that the information submitted to the Department was accurate. 
Accordingly, because we determine that New Oriental had shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR, we are not rescinding the review 
for New Oriental. For further analysis of this issue, please see 
``Adverse Facts Available'' section below and the I&D Memo at Comment 
3.

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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Separate Rates and Combination Rates in Antidumping 
Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233 
(April 5, 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, 53080 (September 8, 2006); and 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our Preliminary Results, we determined that, in addition to the 
mandatory respondents, the following 7 companies met the criteria for 
separate rate status: Certified Products International Inc.; Haiyan 
Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd.; Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.; 
Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. 
Ltd.; Suntec Industries Co. Ltd.; and Haiyan Julong Standard Part Co. 
Ltd. The Department has not received any information since the issuance 
of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for reconsideration of 
this treatment. Therefore, the Department continues to find that the 
above-named companies meet the criteria for a separate rate.
    In our Preliminary Results, we indicated that we intended to 
rescind this review with respect to New Oriental on the basis of its 
no-shipment certification. Since that time, the Department has received 
information contradicting New Oriental's no shipment certification. New 
Oriental did not comment on this new information, despite the 
Department providing an opportunity to do so, and did not file a 
separate rate application or certification, as required of all 
companies wishing to demonstrate their independence from government 
control. Therefore, New Oriental has failed to demonstrate its 
independence from the PRC government and, consequently, its eligibility 
for a separate rate. Because we are not rescinding the review with 
respect to New Oriental, New Oriental will be considered a part of the 
PRC-wide entity for these final results.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See I&D Memo at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rate Calculation

    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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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 final results, calculated a 
de minimis dumping margin for the sole participating mandatory 
respondent, the RMB/IFI Group. The Department has additionally assigned 
an AFA dumping margin to the other mandatory respondent, Shanghai Recky 
International Trading Co. Ltd. (``Shanghai Recky''), as part of the 
PRC-wide entity.\10\ See ``PRC-Wide Entity'' section 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. In 
the Preliminary Results, we found that a reasonable method was to 
assign to non-reviewed companies in

[[Page 68403]]

this review the rate calculated in the most recent segment for any 
company that was not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on FA.\11\ No 
party has made an argument that the Department should use an 
alternative calculation to determine the separate rate. We, therefore, 
continue to find that a reasonable method is to assign to non-reviewed 
companies in this review the only rate that has been calculated in this 
proceeding that was not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on FA. 
Pursuant to this method, we are assigning to the separate rate 
respondents in the instant review the rate of 55.16 percent, from the 
less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation calculated for 
cooperative separate rate respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ No party commented on the Department's application of 
adverse facts available to Shanghai Recky in the Preliminary 
Results.
    \11\ See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 26699.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRC-Wide Entity

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department treated certain PRC 
exporters/producers as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not 
demonstrate that they operate free of government control.\12\ In 
addition, the Department treated Shanghai Recky as part of the PRC-wide 
entity as it failed to respond to the Department's requests for 
information, including with respect to its eligibility for a separate 
rate.\13\ Since the Preliminary Results, the Department has determined 
that New Oriental is subject to this review because it had shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR. However, New Oriental failed to 
submit a separate rate application. Because New Oriental has not 
established its eligibility for a separate rate, it is considered to be 
a part of the PRC-wide entity. See I&D Memo at Comment 3. No additional 
information was placed on the record with respect to the remaining 115 
companies after the Preliminary Results. Because the Department begins 
with the presumption that all companies within a NME country are 
subject to government control, and because only the companies listed 
under the ``Final Results of Review'' section below have overcome that 
presumption, the Department is applying a single antidumping rate, 
i.e., the PRC-wide entity rate, to all other exporters of subject 
merchandise from the PRC. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of 
the merchandise under consideration, except for those from companies 
which have received a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 26699-26700.
    \13\ Id. at 26703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 776(a) and (b) of the Act and as 
explained in more detail in the Preliminary Results, we determined that 
the PRC-wide entity's rate should be based on total AFA.\14\ No party 
has commented on the use of a total AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity. 
For these final results, the Department determined that New Oriental, 
which is part of the PRC-wide entity, failed to cooperate to the best 
of its ability. Accordingly, the Department continues to assign an AFA 
rate to the PRC-wide entity. As an AFA rate, the Department continues 
to use the highest percent margin alleged in the Petition, 206.00 
percent.\15\ As explained in the Preliminary Results, the Department 
considers that rate corroborated pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act 
based upon our comparison of this rate to transaction-specific margins 
for the RMB/IFI Group.\16\ No party has commented on the Department's 
corroboration of the selected total AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 26703.
    \15\ See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 
FR 8907, 8910 (February 27, 2009).
    \16\ See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 26703-26704.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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 July 7, 2011, the Department placed information obtained from 
CBP on the record of this review contradicting New Oriental's no-
shipment certification. Despite being given an opportunity to comment 
on this data, New Oriental provided no explanation for this 
discrepancy. As a result of the Department's analysis of this 
information, the Department has concluded that New Oriental had 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Because New Oriental 
failed to provide accurate information regarding its shipments, the 
Department determines that New Oriental significantly impeded the 
proceeding pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Furthermore, in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, the Department finds that 
New Oriental failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by 
reporting inaccurate information and not responding to the information 
placed on the record by the Department demonstrating shipments of 
subject merchandise from New Oriental. Further, as explained above, we 
find that New Oriental should be treated as

[[Page 68404]]

part of the PRC-wide entity because although it had shipments during 
the POR, it failed to provide information regarding its eligibility for 
a separate rate.\17\ Accordingly, we are continuing to apply AFA to the 
PRC-wide entity, which includes New Oriental and Shanghai Recky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See I&D Memo at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of the Review

    The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                          Exporter                              margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RMB Fasteners Ltd., and IFI & Morgan Ltd. (``RMB/IFI            \1\ 0.37
 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 Standard Part Co. Ltd........................        55.16
PRC-wide Entity (including Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd.,          206.00
 Shanghai Recky International Trading Co. Ltd., and
 Zhejiang New Oriental Fastener Co., Ltd.).................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (de minimis).

Assessment

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the date of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department will calculate importer-
specific (or customer) per unit duty assessment rates based on the 
ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. The 
Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate is above de minimis.

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 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 the rate established in 
these final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be 
required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed 
Chinese and non-Chinese 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 Chinese 
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-Chinese exporters of 
subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporters that 
supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 
notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is 
subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--Issues & Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Rescission of Review With Respect to Gem-Year
Comment 2: Application of AFA to Shanghai Recky
Comment 3: No Shipments Certification from New Oriental
Comment 4: Wage Rate
Comment 5: Excluding Sterling Tool's Financial Statement
Comment 6: Selection of Surrogate Financial Statements
Comment 7: Correction of Error in Financial Ratios for Nasco Steels 
Private Limited
Comment 8: Surrogate Value for Hydrochloric Acid
Comment 9: Adding HTSUS Numbers to the Scope
Comment 10: Separate Rate Determination
Comment 11: Zeroing

[FR Doc. 2011-28649 Filed 11-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P