[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27022-27029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11089]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-932]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the 
second 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'') April 1, 2010, 
through March 31, 2011. 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 all appropriate entries of subject merchandise 
during the period of review.

DATES: Effective Date: May 8, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Lord, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department 
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-7425.

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.\1\ On 
April 1, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order 
for the period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011.\2\ Between April 
29, 2011, and May 2, 2011, we received requests to conduct 
administrative reviews from Vulcan Threaded Products Inc. 
(``Petitioner'') and other interested parties. On May 27, 2011, the 
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of 
this

[[Page 27023]]

administrative review.\3\ On December 12, 2011, and March 29, 2012, the 
Department published in the Federal Register notices extending by 90 
days and 30 days, respectively, the time period for issuing the 
preliminary results.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 17154 (April 14, 
2009) (``Order'').
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 18153 (April 1, 2011).
    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 30912 (May 27, 2011) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
    \4\ 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, 76 FR 77205 (December 12, 
2011), and Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People's Republic of 
China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 19003 (March 29, 
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 191 companies for which we initiated an administrative 
review, two companies submitted separate rate certifications, no 
companies submitted separate rate applications, and five companies 
stated that they did not export subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. On June 29, 2011, Petitioner submitted a 
withdrawal of its request for administrative review of 184 of the 191 
companies upon which reviews were initiated.
    Because of the large number of exporters involved in this review, 
the Department limited the number of respondents individually examined 
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''), and selected exporters IFI & Morgan Limited and RMB 
Fasteners Ltd., along with their affiliated producer, Jiaxing Brother 
Fastener Co., Ltd. (collectively, the ``RMB/IFI Group'') as a mandatory 
respondent.\5\ The Department sent antidumping duty questionnaires to 
the RMB/IFI Group on October 18, 2011. The RMB/IFI Group submitted its 
Sections A, C, and D Questionnaire Responses on November 22, December 
9, and December 16, 2011, respectively. The Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires to the RMB/IFI Group between December 29, 
2011, and March 15, 2012, to which the RMB/IFI Group responded in a 
timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum to James Doyle from Toni Dach: 2010-2011 
Administrative Review of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of Mandatory Respondent and 
Response to Petitioner's Comments, dated October 14, 2011. The 
Department determined that IFI & Morgan Limited and RMB Fasteners 
Ltd. 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) (``Steel Threaded Rod from PRC 
LTFV Final'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On November 18, 2011, the Department invited interested parties to 
comment on surrogate country selection and surrogate value (``SV'') 
data.\6\ On December 7, 2011, the Department extended the comment 
period for surrogate country selection from December 9, 2011, to no 
later than February 3, 2012. On February 16, 2012, the Department 
extended the comment period for SV selection from December 16, 2011, to 
March 2, 2012. On February 3, 2012, the Department received comments on 
surrogate country selection from Petitioner and the RMB/IFI Group. On 
March 2, 2012, the Department received comments on SV data from 
Petitioner and the RMB/IFI Group. On March 12, 2012, 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 Thailand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 18, 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, 7318.15.5090, 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.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    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. On 
June 29, 2011, the Department received a timely withdrawal of the 
requests for review for 184 companies. Of these companies, Suntec 
Industries Co., Ltd., Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. Ltd., Certified 
Products International Inc., Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., 
Ltd, Haiyan Dayu Fasteners Co., Ltd., and Jiaxing Xinyue Standard Part 
Co., Ltd. have a separate rate from a prior segment of this proceeding; 
accordingly, we are rescinding this review with respect to them.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We note that there are additional companies for which all 
review requests were withdrawn within the 90 day period. See 
Petitioner's withdrawal of review requests regarding specific 
companies, dated June 29, 2011. These additional companies for which 
all review requests were withdrawn do not have a separate rate from 
a prior segment of this proceeding. These companies thus are not 
separate from the PRC-wide entity and the administrative review will 
continue for them.

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

[[Page 27024]]

Intent To Partially Rescind Administrative Review

    As noted above, the Department received no shipment claims from 
five companies. In order to examine these claims, we sent an inquiry to 
CBP requesting that any CBP office that had any information contrary to 
the no shipments claims alert the Department accordingly. We have 
received no such response from CBP.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily determine that 
Haiyan Julong made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, 
and we intend to rescind the review with respect to Haiyan Julong.
    With respect to Gem Year, Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. 
(``Hubbell''), in requesting an administrative review of Gem Year, 
stated that the steel threaded rod it imported from Gem Year ``may be 
determined to fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order'' and 
that it was ``not presently aware that any entry falls within the scope 
of the antidumping duty order in this proceeding.'' \8\ Given that 
entry data obtained from CBP showed that Gem Year had no entries 
subject to antidumping duties during the POR, we preliminarily 
determine that Gem Year had no reviewable entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR. As such,we intend to rescind the review 
with respect to Gem Year.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Letter from Hubbell to the Department: Certain Steel 
Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China; Hubbell Power 
Systems, Inc.'s Request for an Administrative Review, dated April 
28, 2011. Petitioner subsequently requested an anti-circumvention 
inquiry related to merchandise produced by Gem Year, which the 
Department initiated on January 5, 2012. See Certain Steel Threaded 
Rod From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anti-
Circumvention Inquiry, 77 FR 473 (January 5, 2012).
    \9\ See, e.g., Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 18497, 18500 (April 4, 
2008) (preliminarily rescinding review because of lack of reviewable 
entries), unchanged in Certain Tissue Paper Products from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in 
Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 58113 
(October 6, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a nonmarket 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.\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\11\ 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.\12\ Exporters can demonstrate this independence 
through the absence of both de jure and de facto government control 
over export activities.\13\ 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.\14\ Accordingly, the 
Department has preliminarily granted a separate rate to the RMB/IFI 
Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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); 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'').
    \12\ See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See, e.g., 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department received no separate rate applications, and received 
separate rate certifications from the RMB/IFI Group and Jiaxing Xinyue 
Standard Part Co. Ltd (``Jiaxing Xinyue''). However, because Jiaxing 
Xinyue was one of the companies for which the request for 
administrative review was timely withdrawn, the Department is not 
assessing Jiaxing Xinyue's eligibility for a separate rate in the 
context of this review.
    Finally, one company subject to review, New Pole Power Systems Co., 
Ltd. (``New Pole''), submitted neither a separate rate application nor 
certification. Therefore, because New Pole did not demonstrate its 
eligibility for separate rate status, we preliminarily find that it is 
not separate from the PRC-wide entity. There are, therefore, no 
respondents for which to calculate a separate rate in this 
administrative review.

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.
    As noted above in the ``Separate Rates'' section of this notice, we 
have preliminarily determined that one company, New Pole, failed to 
demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate and is thus properly 
considered not to be separate from PRC-wide entity. In NME proceedings, 
```rates' may consist of a single dumping margin applicable to all 
exporters and producers.'' \15\ 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

[[Page 27025]]

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.\16\ In this regard, we note that no party 
has submitted 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 a rate of 206.00 percent, the only rate ever determined 
for the PRC-wide entity in this proceeding.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 19 CFR 351.107(d).
    \16\ See, e.g., 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).
    \17\ See, e.g., Steel Threaded Rod from PRC LTFV Final, 74 FR at 
8910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 factors of 
production (``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. Once the Department has identified the 
countries that are economically comparable to the PRC, it identifies 
those countries which are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. From the countries which are both economically comparable 
and significant producers the Department will then select a primary 
surrogate country based upon whether the data for valuing FOPs are both 
available and reliable.
    Pursuant to its practice, the Department received a list of 
potential surrogate countries from Import Administration's Office of 
Policy (``OP'') within which it was determined that Colombia, 
Indonesia, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine 
are at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC.\18\ The 
Department considers the seven countries identified by the OP in its 
Surrogate Country List as ``equally comparable in terms of economic 
development,'' \19\ and thus, all at an economic level of development 
equally comparable to that of the PRC.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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 18, 2011 (``Surrogate Country List'').
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ See section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also considers whether a country is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise in surrogate country selection.\21\ 
The Department retrieved data from the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA''), 
showing that all of the countries on the Surrogate Country List 
exported significant quantities of steel threaded rod exports during 
the POR,\22\ and thus can each be considered significant producers of 
comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act.
    \22\ See Surrogate Value Memo at Attachment 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, it is the Department's practice to select an appropriate 
surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data 
from these countries.\23\ Petitioner provided data for Thailand from 
GTA to value certain material inputs, and a financial statement from a 
Thai producer of comparable merchandise to calculate surrogate 
financial ratios. The RMB/IFI Group provided GTA data for India, as 
well as various Indian government, non-governmental organization, and 
industry publications to value material inputs, energy, and movement 
expenses. In addition, the RMB/IFI Group submitted Indian financial 
statements to calculate surrogate financial ratios. However, the 
Department has stated that ``unless we find that all of the countries 
determined to be equally economically comparable are not significant 
producers of comparable merchandise, do not provide a reliable source 
of publicly available surrogate data or are unsuitable for use for 
other reasons, we will rely on data from one of these countries.'' \24\ 
Because the Department finds that one of the countries from the 
Surrogate Country List meets the selection criteria, as explained in 
these preliminary results, the Department is not considering India, a 
country not included in the OP memorandum, as the primary surrogate 
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate 
Country Selection Process, dated March 1, 2004.
    \24\ See Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 76 
FR 67703, 67708 (November 2, 2011), unchanged in Certain Steel 
Wheels From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 
Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, 77 FR 
17021 (March 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data on the record for Thailand to value material inputs meet 
the Department's criteria for selecting the best available information 
because we find that the data are available and reliable. Specifically, 
we preliminarily find that the information on the record for Thailand 
is complete and allows us to value material inputs, energy, movement 
expenses, and financial ratios.
    Based on publicly available information placed on the record, the 
Department determines that Thailand is a reliable source for surrogate 
values because Thailand is at a comparable level of economic 
development, is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and 
has publicly available and reliable data. Accordingly, the Department 
has selected Thailand as the surrogate country for purposes of valuing 
the FOPs because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate 
country selection.

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).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the 
weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in 
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping 
Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final 
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (``Final Modification 
for Reviews''). In particular, the Department compared monthly 
weighted-average export prices (or constructed export prices) with 
monthly weighted-average normal values and granted offsets for non-
dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted average 
dumping margin.

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

[[Page 27026]]

U.S. 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, 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.\27\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Memorandum to the File through Paul Walker, Acting 
Program Manager, Office 9 from Tim Lord, International Trade 
Analyst, Office 9: 2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate 
Values for the Preliminary Results, dated April 30, 2012 
(``Surrogate Value Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Thai SVs. In selecting the SVs, 
we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the 
data.\28\ As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight 
costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Thai 
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 (``Federal Circuit'') decision in Sigma Corp. 
v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For a detailed discussion of SVs and the resulting 
calculations, see Surrogate Value Memo.
    \29\ See Policy Bulletin No. 10.2: Inclusion of International 
Freight Costs When Import Prices Constitute Normal Value, dated 
November 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\30\ As a general matter, the Department prefers to use publicly 
available data representing a broad-market average to value SVs.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, e.g., 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.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department used Thai import statistics from GTA to value the 
raw material and packing material inputs that the RMB/IFI Group used to 
produce subject merchandise during the POR, except where listed 
below.\32\ The record shows that data in the Thai import statistics, as 
well as those from the other Thai sources, are contemporaneous with the 
POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. 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 Thai Consumer Price Index (``CPI'') as published in 
the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary 
Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. GTA 
reports import statistics, such as those from Thailand, India and 
Indonesia, in the original reporting currency and, thus, these data 
correspond to the original currency value reported by each country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the legislative history of the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988, 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.\33\ 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.\34\ 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. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\35\ 
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. Therefore, 
based on the information currently available, we have not used prices 
from these countries in calculating the Thai import-based SVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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) at 590.
    \34\ 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.
    \35\ See, e.g., 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2011, the Department announced its new methodology to 
value the cost of labor in NME countries.\36\ In Labor Methodologies, 
the Department determined that the best methodology to value the labor 
input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the primary 
surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that the 
best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: Labor 
Cost in Manufacturing, from

[[Page 27027]]

the International Labor Organization's Yearbook of Labor 
Statistics.\37\
    To calculate the labor value in these preliminary results, the 
Department has relied on total manufacturing labor cost data in 
Thailand reported under ILO Chapter 6A. Although the Department's 
preference, as in indicated in Labor Methodologies, is for industry-
specific data from Chapter 6A, the Department notes that the most 
recent industry-specific data for Thailand under Sub-Classification 24 
of the ISIC-Revision 3 are more than ten years prior to the start of 
the POR. Consistent with Citric Acid from China, the Department has not 
relied on labor data when there is a significant lag between the 
reporting date and the period of review.\38\ Therefore, the Department 
has selected total manufacturing labor cost data from Thailand, which 
were reported in 2005, as the surrogate labor value for this 
review.\39\ We further inflated the labor value using the consumer 
price index (``CPI'') for Thailand to be contemporaneous with the POR. 
For the preliminary results the calculated wage rate is 135.93 Baht/
hour.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies''). This notice 
followed the decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 
1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010), in which the Federal Circuit 
invalidated the Department's regression-based methodology for 
calculating wage rates under 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    \37\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093-94.
    \38\ See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of the First Administrative Review 
of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 77772 (December 14, 2011) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
    \39\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36094, n.11.
    \40\ See Surrogate Value Memo at Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Labor Methodologies, the Department considered whether 
financial ratios required adjustment to account for any labor expenses 
that might also be included in the financial ratios. However, because 
record evidence did not indicate that any labor expenses were included 
in the financial ratios, no adjustments were necessary.
    To value truck freight expenses, we used the World Bank's Doing 
Business 2012: Thailand, which we find to be specific to the cost of 
shipping goods in Thailand, and representative of a broad market 
average.\41\ Because this value was not contemporaneous to the POR, we 
deflated it using the Thai CPI. This report gathers information 
concerning the cost to transport a 20-foot container of dry goods from 
the largest city to the nearest seaport. Because there is no Thai value 
for inland freight charges by boat on the record, we valued inland 
freight charges by boat using Indonesian freight rates that were 
published by the Indonesian freight forwarder, PT. Mantap Abiah 
Abadi.\42\ Rates were given on a per cubic meter basis, by city, which 
we converted to a metric ton basis. Because this value is not 
contemporaneous with the POR, we deflated it using the Indonesian CPI. 
In addition, we valued brokerage and handling using a price list of 
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in 
Thailand published in the World Bank's Doing Business 2012: 
Thailand.\43\ The price list is compiled based on a survey case study 
of the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods 
by ocean transport in Thailand. Because this value was not 
contemporaneous to the POR, we deflated it using the Thai CPI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Surrogate Value Memo at 7-8, and Exhibit 6 (relying on 
information found at http://www.doingbusiness.org).
    \42\ Id. at 8, and Exhibit 6.
    \43\ Id. at Exhibit 3 (relying on information found at http://www.doingbusiness.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value factory overhead, selling, general, & administrative 
expenses, and profit, we used the 2010 annual report of Capital 
Engineering Network Public Company Limited (``CEN''), a Thai 
manufacturer of pre-stressed concrete and welding wires. When the 
Department is unable to segregate and, therefore, exclude energy costs 
from the calculation of the surrogate financial ratio, it is the 
Department's practice to disregard the respondent's energy inputs in 
the calculation of NV in order to avoid double-counting energy costs 
which have necessarily been captured in the surrogate financial 
ratios.\44\ Because CEN's annual report does not identify energy 
expenses, we disregarded the RMB/IFI Group's energy inputs in the NV 
calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See, e.g., Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 16838, 16839 (April 13, 2009) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value marine insurance, the Department used rates from RJG 
Consultants. These rates are for sea freight from the Far East Region.

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/
).

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 December 16, 2011, the RMB/IFI Group requested that it be 
excused from reporting FOP data for two models, as these models were 
produced prior to the POR. The RMB/IFI Group suggested that the 
Department instead use the input consumption for the most similar 
models produced during the POR due to the associated burdens for the 
RMB/IFI Group to report (and for the Department

[[Page 27028]]

to verify) the data for the two models produced outside of the POR.
    The Department intends to have the RMB/IFI group report the FOP 
data for these two models for the final results. However, because the 
model-specific data currently is not on the record, for the preliminary 
results, in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the 
Department is applying facts available (``FA'') to determine the NV for 
the sales corresponding to the FOP data for these two models. As FA, 
the Department is applying the FOPs for the most similar models to the 
unreported models. Due to the proprietary nature of the factual 
information concerning the FOPs applied for these models, these issues 
are addressed in a separate business proprietary memorandum where a 
detailed explanation of the FA calculation is provided.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Memorandum to Paul Walker, Acting Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, from Tim Lord, 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 April 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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               56.07
 Group'')..................................................
PRC-wide Entity............................................       206.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 pursuant to 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 the 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).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 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. 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. 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

    The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. Suntec Industries Co., Ltd., Shanghai Prime 
Machinery Co. Ltd., Jiaxing Xinyue, Certified Products International 
Inc., Jiashan Zhongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd, Haiyan Dayu Fasteners 
Co., Ltd., and Haiyan Julong have a separate rate from a prior segment 
of this proceeding; therefore, antidumping duties shall be assessed at 
rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties 
required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for 
consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department 
intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 
days after publication of this notice. For those companies not assigned 
a separate rate from a prior segment of the proceeding, the Department 
has stated that they are not separate from the PRC-wide entity and that 
the administrative review will continue for these companies. See 
Initiation Notice. The Department intends to issue liquidation 
instructions for the PRC-wide entity 15 days after publication of the 
final results of this review.
    For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average 
dumping margin is above de minimis, we calculated exporter and/or 
importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for the merchandise 
subject to this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).\47\ 
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).\48\ 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.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the 
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Final Modification for 
Reviews, i.e., on the basis of monthly average-to-average 
comparisons using only the transactions associated with that 
importer with offsets being provided for non-dumped comparisons.
    \48\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2).

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 from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the RMB/IFI Group, 
the cash deposit rate will be their respective rates established in the 
final results of this review, except if the rate is zero or de minimis 
no cash deposit will be required; (2) for previously investigated or 
reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate 
rates, the cash

[[Page 27029]]

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: April 30, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-11089 Filed 5-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P