Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 12323 

carbon content is two percent or less, by 

weight, and (3) none of the elements 

listed below is equal to or 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 0.10 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 zirconium. All products that 

meet the written physical description, 

and in which the chemistry quantities 

do not equal or exceed any one of the 

levels listed above, are within the scope 

of the orders unless otherwise 

specifically excluded. The following 

products are specifically excluded from 

the orders: (1) Products clad, plated, or 

coated with metal, whether or not 

painted, varnished or coated with 

plastic or other non-metallic substances; 

(2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of 

series 2300 and above; (3) products 

made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their 

proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasionresistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS 

AR 500); (5) products made to ASTM 

A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade 

S, or their proprietary equivalents; (6) 

ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8) 

silicon manganese steel or silicon 

electric steel. 

Regarding the scope of the order for 

Japan, the following additional 

exclusions apply with respect to 

abrasion-resistant steels: NK–EH–360 

(NK Everhard 360) and NK–EH–500 (NK 

Everhard 500). NK–EH–360 has the 

following specifications: (a) Physical 

Properties: Thickness ranging from 6–50 

mm, Brinell Hardness: 361 min.; (b) 

Heat Treatment: controlled heat 

treatment; and (c) Chemical 

Composition (percent weight): C: 0.20 

max., Si: 0.55 max., Mn: 1.60 max., P: 

0.030 max., S: 0.030 max., Cr: 0.40 max., 

Ti: 0.005–0.020, B: 0.004 max. NK–EH– 

500 has the following specifications: (a) 

Physical Properties: Thickness ranging 

from 6–50 mm, Brinell Hardness: 477 

min.; (b) Heat Treatment: Controlled 

heat treatment; and (c) Chemical 

Composition (percent weight): C: 0.35 

max., Si: 0.55 max., Mn: 1.60 max., P: 

0.030 max., S: 0.030 max., Cr: 0.80 max., 

Ti: 0.005–0.020, B: 0.004 max. 

The merchandise subject to the orders 

is currently classifiable in the HTSUS 

under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 

7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 

7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 

7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 

7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 

7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 

7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 

7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 

7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 

7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 

7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description of the 

merchandise covered by the orders is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Certain Cut-To-Length 

Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from India, 

Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and the Republic 

of Korea’’ from Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

(Decision Memo), which is hereby 

adopted by, and issued concurrently 

with, this notice. The issues discussed 

in the Decision Memo include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of dumping and the magnitude of the 

margins likely to prevail if the orders 

were revoked. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in these reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the 

main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on CTL Plate 

from India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and 

the Republic of Korea would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the rates listed below: 

Exporter/manufacturer Margin 

percentage 

India: 

Steel Authority of India, Ltd .. 42.39 

All Others .............................. 42.39 

Indonesia: 

PT Gunawan Dianjaya/PT 

Jaya Pari Steel Corporation ..................................... 50.80 

PT Krakatau Steel ................. 52.42 

All Others .............................. 50.80 

Italy: 

Palini and Bertoli S.p.A ......... 7.64 

All Others .............................. 7.64 

Japan: 

Exporter/manufacturer Margin 

percentage 

Kawasaki Steel Corporation 9.46 

Kobe Steel, Ltd ..................... 59.12 

Nippon Steel Corporation ..... 59.12 

NKK Corporation ................... 59.12 

Sumitomo Metal Industries, 

Ltd ...................................... 59.12 

All Others .............................. 9.46 

Republic of Korea: 

Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd .. 2.98 

All Others .............................. 2.98 

This notice also serves as the only 

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 notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

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 the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: March 1, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5125 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–827] 

Certain Cased Pencils From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the Expedited Third Sunset 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2011. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the notice of initiation of the 

third sunset review of the antidumping 

duty order on certain cased pencils 

(‘‘pencils’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’), pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of 

Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 

67082 (November 1, 2010). The 

Department has conducted an expedited 

sunset review of this order pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12324 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result 

of the sunset review, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the margins identified in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth 

Isenberg or Yasmin Nair, 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) 482–0588 and (202) 

482–3813, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The antidumping duty order that 

covers pencils from the PRC was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 28, 1994. See Antidumping 

Duty Order: Certain Cased Pencils from 

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

66909 (December 28, 1994), amended at 

Certain Cased Pencils From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Amended 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Amended 

Antidumping Duty Order in Accordance 

With Final Court Decision, 64 FR 25275 

(May 11, 1999). On November 1, 2010, 

the Department initiated the third 

sunset review of this order, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 

67082 (November 1, 2010). The 

Department received a notice of intent 

to participate from domestic interested 

parties Sanford Corp.; General Pencil 

Co., Inc.; and Musgrave Pencil Co. 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’), within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). Petitioners claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of 

a domestic-like product in the United 

States. The Department also received a 

notice of intent to participate from 

Dixon Ticonderoga Company (‘‘Dixon’’), 

within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). Dixon claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(4)(B) of the Act, as an importer of 

the subject merchandise that is related 

to a foreign producer and exporter of the 

subject merchandise. 

On December 1, 2010, the Department 

received a substantive response from 

Petitioners. In addition to meeting the 

other requirements of 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3), Petitioners provided 

information on the volume and value of 

exports of pencils from the PRC. The 

Department did not receive a 

substantive response from Dixon. The 

Department did not receive adequate 

substantive responses, or any response 

at all, from any respondent interested 

parties to this proceeding. As a result, 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), 

the Department conducted an expedited 

(120-day) sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on pencils from 

the PRC. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of certain cased pencils of 

any shape or dimension (except as 

described below) which are writing and/ 

or drawing instruments that feature 

cores of graphite or other materials, 

encased in wood and/or man-made 

materials, whether or not decorated and 

whether or not tipped (e.g., with erasers, 

etc.) in any fashion, and either 

sharpened or unsharpened. The pencils 

subject to the order are currently 

classifiable under subheading 

9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Specifically excluded from 

the scope of the order are mechanical 

pencils, cosmetic pencils, pens, noncased crayons (wax), pastels, charcoals, 

chalks, and pencils produced under 

U.S. patent number 6,217,242, from 

paper infused with scents by the means 

covered in the above-referenced patent, 

thereby having odors distinct from those 

that may emanate from pencils lacking 

the scent infusion. Also excluded from 

the scope of the order are pencils with 

all of the following physical 

characteristics: (1) Length: 13.5 or more 

inches; (2) sheath diameter: not less 

than one-and-one quarter inches at any 

point (before sharpening); and (3) core 

length: Not more than 15 percent of the 

length of the pencil. 

In addition, pencils with all of the 

following physical characteristics are 

excluded from the scope of the order: 

Novelty jumbo pencils that are 

octagonal in shape, approximately ten 

inches long, one inch in diameter before 

sharpening, and three-and-one eighth 

inches in circumference, composed of 

turned wood encasing one-and-one half 

inches of sharpened lead on one end 

and a rubber eraser on the other end. 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated March 1, 2011, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit in room 

7046 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) 

of the Act, we determine that revocation 

of the antidumping duty order on 

pencils from the PRC would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following weightedaverage percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/producers/exporters Margin 

(percent) 

China First Pencil Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8.60 

Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Corp 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 0.00 

Shanghai Lansheng Corp ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19.36 

Shanghai Foreign Trade Corp ................................................................................................................................................................. 11.15 

Guangdong Provincial Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & Export Corp 2 ........................................................................................ 53.65 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 12325 

1See ‘‘Partial Rescission of the Administrative 

Review’’ section below. 

2See ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section below. 

3See ‘‘The PRC–Wide Entity, PRC–Wide Rate, and 

Use of Adverse Facts Available’’ section below. 

4See ‘‘Intent to Rescind, in Part, the 

Administrative Review’’ section below. 

5See Antidumping Duty Order: Small Diameter 

Graphite Electrodes from the People’s Republic of 

China, 74 FR 8775 (February 26, 2009). 

6See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 5037 

(February 1, 2010). 

Manufacturers/producers/exporters Margin 

(percent) 

PRC–Wide Rate ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 53.65 

1 In the original order and subsequent administrative reviews, China First Pencil Co. Ltd (‘‘China First’’) and Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Three Star’’) were treated as separate entities. In the 1999–2000 administrative review, the Department determined that China 

First and Three Star should henceforth be treated as a single entity. See Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 48612 (July 25, 2002) (‘‘99–00 Pencils Final’’) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12, amended at Notice of Amended Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 59049 (September 19, 2002). The Department continued to treat China First and Three Star as a single entity in the four successive administrative reviews. In the 2006–2007 administrative review, 

the Department determined that due to new evidence regarding the relationship between China First and Three Star there was no longer a sufficient basis to combine the two companies. See Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 33406 (July 13, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1, 

amended at Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 

FR 45177 (September 1, 2009). The Department continues to view China First and Three Star as separate and distinct entities as a result of the 

2006–2007 administrative review determination. See Certain Cased Pencils From the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 38980 (July 7, 2010). 2The Department originally excluded from the order exports made by Guangdong Provincial Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & Export 

Corp. (‘‘Guangdong’’) and produced by Three Star. However, the Department determined in the 1999–2000 administrative review that the 

Guangdong/Three Star sales chain was no longer excluded from the order, and that all merchandise exported by Guangdong was subject to the 

cash deposit requirements at the PRC–Wide Rate. See 99–00 Pencils Final and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

1, amended at 67 FR 59049. 

This notice also serves as the only 

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 notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

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 the 

final results and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 1, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5123 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–929] 

Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of the First 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order; Partial 

Rescission of Administrative Review; 

and Intent To Rescind Administrative 

Review, in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce. (‘‘Department’’) is 

conducting the first administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on small diameter graphite electrodes 

(‘‘SDGE’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the period 

August 21, 2008, through January 31, 

2010. The Department has preliminarily 

determined that during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) respondents in this 

proceeding have made sales of subject 

merchandise at less than 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 POR. The Department is also 

rescinding this review for those 

exporters for which requests for review 

were timely withdrawn.1 For the 

companies for which this review is 

rescinded, 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. Furthermore, we 

determine that four companies for 

which a review was requested have not 

been responsive, and thus have not 

demonstrated entitlement to a separate 

rate.2 As a result, we have preliminarily 

determined that they are part of the 

PRC-wide entity, and continue to be 

subject to the PRC-wide entity rate.3

Further, the Department intends to 

rescind this administrative review with 

respect to UK Carbon & Graphite 

(‘‘UKCG’’) if the Department concludes 

that there were no entries, exports, or 

sales of the subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR.4

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue final results no later than 

120 days from the date of publication of 

this notice, pursuant to section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lindsey Novom or Frances Veith, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5256 or (202) 482– 

4295, respectively. 

Background 

On February 26, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on SDGE from 

the PRC.5 On February 1, 2010, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on SDGE from the PRC.6 On February 

23, February 25, and February 26, 2010, 

the Department received timely requests 

for an administrative review of this 

antidumping duty order in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(b) from Fushun 

Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd 

(‘‘Fushun Jinly’’), Xinghe County Muzi 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Muzi Carbon’’), and 

Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Beijing Fangda’’), Chengdu Rongguang 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES