21744 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

1For further explanation of this period, see 

‘‘Period of Review’’ section of this notice. 

2See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 62364 (October 7, 

2011) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

written briefs or at the hearing, if held, 

within 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. See section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Deadline for Submission of Publicly 

Available Surrogate Value Information 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), the deadline for 

submission of publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 

20 days after the date of publication of 

the preliminary determination. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), if 

an interested party submits factual 

information less than ten days before, 

on, or after (if the Department has 

extended the deadline) the applicable 

deadline for submission of such factual 

information, an interested party has ten 

days to submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct the factual 

information no later than ten days after 

such factual information is served on 

the interested party. However, the 

Department notes that 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1) permits new information 

only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 

corrects information placed on the 

record. See, e.g., 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. Furthermore, the 

Department generally will not accept 

business proprietary information in 

either the surrogate value submissions 

or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation 

regarding the submission of surrogate 

values allows only for the submission of 

publicly available information. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) shall 

assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. In accordance with 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

subject to this review. Because Baoding 

Mantong could not report the entered 

value for all U.S. sales, we calculated a 

per-unit assessment rate by aggregating 

the antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer or customer and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer or 

customer. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

Where the duty assessment rates are 

above de minimis, we will instruct CBP 

to assess duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer in 

accordance with the requirements set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). Where an 

importer- or customer-specific rate is 

zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP 

to liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 

19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

We intend to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of the final results of 

review. For those companies for which 

this review has been rescinded but for 

which we do not have a separate rate at 

this time (and which thus remain part 

of the PRC-wide entity), the Department 

will issue assessment instructions for 

the PRC-wide entity upon the 

completion of this administrative 

review. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following cash-deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of review 

for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise 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 

subject merchandise exported by 

Baoding Mantong, the cash-deposit rate 

will be that established in the final 

results of review; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies not 

listed above that have separate rates, the 

cash-deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all other 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 155.89 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 entity that supplied that 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 review and notice are in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 

751(a)(3), and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 30, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8732 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–942] 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of the 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) has completed its 

administrative review of the 

countervailable duty order on certain 

kitchen appliance shelving and racks 

(‘‘Kitchen Racks’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the 

period January 7, 2009, through 

December 31, 2009.1 On October 7, 

2011, we published the preliminary 

results of this review.2 We provided 

interested parties with an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. 

Our analysis of the comments submitted 

as well as incorporation of our postpreliminary analyses led to a change in 

the net subsidy rates. This review covers 

multiple exporters/producers, two of 

which are being individually reviewed 

as mandatory respondents. We find that 

the mandatory respondents, Guangdong 

Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Wireking’’) and New King Shan 

(Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd. (‘‘NKS’’), received 

countervailable subsidies during the 

POR. Their countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

rates have been used to calculate the 

rate applied to other firms subject to this 

review, as listed below in the section 

entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: April 11, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Meek or Nancy Decker, Office 

of AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21745 

3Entries of certain refrigeration shelving 

occurring during the period May 7, 2009, through 

September 8, 2009, were not suspended for CVD 

purposes due to the termination of provisional 

measures. Entries of certain oven racks occurring 

before September 9, 2009, were liquidated at the 

time of the CVD order because the International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) found threat of material 

injury on certain oven racks. See Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People’s 

Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 74 

FR 46973, 46974–75 (September 14, 2009) (‘‘CVD 

Order’’). 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2778 and (202) 

482–0196, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Following the Preliminary Results, the 

Department requested additional 

information from the Government of the 

PRC (‘‘GOC’’) and Wireking on certain 

subsidy programs. The Department sent 

a supplemental questionnaire to 

Wireking and two supplemental 

questionnaires to the GOC. Wireking 

submitted its timely response on 

November 21, 2011, and the GOC 

submitted timely responses on 

November 28, 2011, and January 4, 

2012. The Department released its postpreliminary analysis on March 2, 2012. 

See Memorandum from the Team to 

Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, entitled ‘‘PostPreliminary Analysis Memorandum’’ 

(March 2, 2012) (‘‘Post-Preliminary 

Analysis’’). 

In the Preliminary Results, we invited 

interested parties to submit briefs. We 

received case briefs from Nashville Wire 

Products Inc. and SSW Holding 

Company, Inc. (collectively 

‘‘Petitioners’’), Wireking, NKS, and the 

GOC on March 13, 2012. We received 

rebuttal briefs from NKS, the GOC, and 

Petitioners on March 19, 2012. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of the order consists of 

shelving and racks for refrigerators, 

freezers, combined refrigerator-freezers, 

other refrigerating or freezing 

equipment, cooking stoves, ranges, and 

ovens. Certain kitchen appliance 

shelving and racks are defined as 

shelving, baskets, racks (with or without 

extension slides, which are carbon or 

stainless steel hardware devices that are 

connected to shelving, baskets, or racks 

to enable sliding), side racks (which are 

welded wire support structures for oven 

racks that attach to the interior walls of 

an oven cavity that does not include 

support ribs as a design feature), and 

sub-frames (which are welded wire 

support structures that interface with 

formed support ribs inside an oven 

cavity to support oven rack assemblies 

utilizing extension slides) with the 

following dimensions: 

• Shelving and racks with 

dimensions ranging from 3 inches by 5 

inches by 0.10 inch to 28 inches by 34 

inches by 6 inches; or 

• Baskets with dimensions ranging 

from 2 inches by 4 inches by 3 inches 

to 28 inches by 34 inches by 16 inches; 

or 

• Side racks from 6 inches by 

8 inches by 0.10 inch to 16 inches by 

30 inches by 4 inches; or 

• Sub-frames from 6 inches by 

10 inches by 0.10 inch to 28 inches by 

34 inches by 6 inches. 

The subject merchandise is comprised 

of carbon or stainless steel wire ranging 

in thickness from 0.050 inch to 0.500 

inch and may include sheet metal of 

either carbon or stainless steel ranging 

in thickness from 0.020 inch to 0.20 

inch. The subject merchandise may be 

coated or uncoated and may be formed 

and/or welded. Excluded from the scope 

of the order is shelving in which the 

support surface is glass. 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical 

reporting numbers 8418.99.80.50, 

7321.90.50.00, 7321.90.60.40, 

7321.90.60.90, 8418.99.80.60, 

8419.90.95.20, 8516.90.80.00, and 

8516.90.80.10. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Period of Review 

We are conducting our analysis in this 

review on an annual basis, i.e., for the 

entire calendar year 2009. However, the 

duties calculated will be applied as 

follows: for refrigeration shelving duties 

will be applied to entries from January 

7, 2009, through May 6, 2009, and 

September 9, 2009, through December 

31, 2009; for oven racks duties will 

apply to entries from September 9, 2009, 

through December 31, 2009.3

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the GOC’s, 

Petitioners’, Wireking’s and NKS’ briefs 

are addressed in the Memorandum from 

Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, entitled ‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum for the 

Final Results of the Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

(April 4, 2012) (‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues raised is attached to this notice as 

Appendix I. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is a public document and 

is on file electronically via Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is 

available in the Central Records Unit, 

room 7046 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Issues 

and Decision Memorandum and the 

electronic versions of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

Adverse Inferences 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if necessary 

information is not on the record or if an 

interested party or any other person: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested; (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding; or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

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. 

For purposes of these final results, we 

have continued to rely on facts available 

and to draw an adverse inference, in 

accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) 

of the Act, for the below issues. For a 

full discussion of these issues, see the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

Adverse Inferences’’ section. 

1. Non-Cooperative Companies 

As explained in the Preliminary 

Results, two companies in this review, 

Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Asia 

Pacific CIS’’) and Jiangsu Weixi Group 

Co. (‘‘Jiangsu Weixi’’), did not provide 

a response to the Department’s quantity 

and value (‘‘Q&V’’) questionnaire issued 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21746 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

during the respondent selection process. 

See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62365. 

We continue to find that these noncooperating companies withheld 

requested information and significantly 

impeded this proceeding. Specifically, 

by not responding to requests for 

information concerning the Q&V of their 

sales, the companies impeded the 

Department’s ability to select the most 

appropriate respondents in this review. 

Thus, we are continuing to base the 

CVD rate for these non-cooperating 

companies on facts otherwise available, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) 

of the Act. 

We further determine that an adverse 

inference is warranted, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act. By failing to 

submit responses to the Department’s 

Q&V questionnaire, these companies 

did not cooperate to the best of their 

ability in this review. Accordingly, we 

continue to find that an adverse 

inference is warranted to ensure that the 

non-cooperating companies will not 

obtain a more favorable result than had 

they fully complied with our request for 

information. 

Consistent with our practice, we have 

computed the total adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) rate for these noncooperating companies using programspecific rates calculated for the 

cooperating respondents in the instant 

review or prior reviews of instant case, 

or calculated in prior CVD cases 

involving the country under review, in 

this case the PRC. See Preliminary 

Results, 76 FR at 62366. We continue to 

find this information to be corroborated 

in accordance with section 776(c) of the 

Act. To corroborate secondary 

information, the Department will, to the 

extent practicable, examine the 

reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used. As stated in the 

Preliminary Results, the rates used by 

the Department as AFA are reliable 

because they were calculated in this 

review or in a recent final CVD 

determination using information about 

the same or similar programs and are 

relevant because they are actual 

calculated subsidy rates for programs 

from which the non-cooperating 

companies could have received a 

benefit. Id. at 62366–67. In the absence 

of record evidence because of the noncooperative companies’ decision not to 

participate in the review, the 

Department has corroborated the AFA 

rates that it has selected to the extent 

practicable as required by section 776(c) 

of the Act. 

2. GOC—Wire Rod 

The Department sought information 

from the GOC about the producers of the 

wire rod purchased by Wireking and 

NKS. In particular, for any of the wire 

rod producers that are not majorityowned by the GOC, the GOC was asked, 

inter alia, to trace back the ownership 

to the ultimate individual or state 

owners. See the Department’s Original 

Questionnaire (January 28, 2011) at 

Section II/Appendix 3. The GOC 

provided information indicating that 

several wire rod producers were owned 

in whole or in part by other companies 

but failed to provide the ownership of 

those other companies. For one wire rod 

producer, the GOC failed to provide any 

ownership information. For another 

wire rod producer, the GOC did provide 

ownership information, but the 

information provided concerning the 

owners’ status as officials of the 

Communist Party of the PRC was 

incomplete. 

Consistent with our findings in the 

Post-Preliminary Analysis, we 

determine that the GOC has withheld 

necessary information that was 

requested of it and, thus, that the 

Department must rely on ‘‘facts 

available’’ pursuant sections 776(a)(1) 

and (a)(2)(A) of the Act in making our 

final determination. See PostPreliminary Analysis at 4–8. Moreover, 

we determine that the GOC has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with our request for 

information. Consequently, an adverse 

inference is warranted in the 

application of facts available under 

section 776(b) of the Act. See PostPreliminary Analysis at 7–8. In these 

final results, we continue to apply the 

adverse inference that the producers of 

the wire rod used by Wireking and NKS 

are government authorities that 

provided a financial contribution as 

described under section 771(5)(D)(iv) of 

the Act. Id. 

3. GOC—Steel Strip 

The Department sought information 

from the GOC about the producers of the 

steel strip purchased by Wireking and 

NKS to determine whether the steel 

strip suppliers are ‘‘authorities’’ within 

the meaning of section 771(5)(B) of the 

Act. The GOC stated that the producer 

from which NKS sourced steel strip is 

majority-owned by the GOC, but, 

despite multiple requests, refused to 

provide ownership information of the 

producers that supplied Wireking. See 

Post-Preliminary Analysis at 2–4. 

Consistent with our findings in the 

Post-Preliminary Analysis, we 

determine that the GOC has withheld 

necessary information that was 

requested of it and, thus, that the 

Department must rely on ‘‘facts 

available’’ pursuant sections 776(a)(1) 

and (a)(2)(A) of the Act for these final 

results. Id. at 4. Moreover, we determine 

that the GOC has failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with our request for 

information. Despite being given 

multiple opportunities, the GOC 

declined to provide the requested 

ownership information for Wireking’s 

suppliers. Id. at 4–5. Consequently, an 

adverse inference is warranted in the 

application of facts available under 

section 776(b) of the Act. In these final 

results, we continue to apply the 

adverse inference that the steel strip 

suppliers in question are ‘‘authorities’’ 

within the meaning of section 771(5)(B) 

of the Act. Id. 

4. GOC—Zhuhai Farmer Training 

Subsidy Program 

The GOC provided a partial response 

to the questions regarding this program, 

which was discovered in the course of 

this administrative review. Specifically, 

the GOC did not respond to the usage 

questions included in the questionnaire. 

See the Department’s Supplemental 

Questionnaire (December 28, 2011) at 3 

(referencing the Department’s Original 

Questionnaire at questions G.1.(d) 

through G.2.(d) in Section II of 

Appendix 1). 

Consistent with our findings in the 

Post-Preliminary Analysis, we 

determine that the GOC has withheld 

necessary information that was 

requested of it and, thus, that the 

Department must rely on ‘‘facts 

available’’ for these final results 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act. See Post-Preliminary Analysis at 4. 

We further determine that an adverse 

inference is warranted, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act. By failing to 

submit usage information, the GOC did 

not cooperate to the best of its ability in 

this review. Id. at 4. We are continuing 

to apply the adverse inference that the 

program is de facto specific within the 

meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the 

Act. Id. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

The Department has made the 

following changes in its determination 

since the 

Preliminary Results 

1. In the Post-Preliminary Analysis, 

we found the Zhuhai Farmer Training 

Subsidy Program to be countervailable. 

See Post-Preliminary Analysis at 12–13. 

This program was used by NKS, and we 

added the amount we calculated for this 

program to NKS’s overall subsidy rate. 

We have continued this treatment in 

these final results. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘GOC— 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21747 

Zhuhai Farmer Training Subsidy 

Program.’’ 

2. In the Post-Preliminary Analysis, 

we found an additional supplier of wire 

rod to Wireking to be an authority 

within the meaning of section 771(5)(B) 

of the Act. Id. at 12. We have continued 

this treatment in these final results. 

Thus, we have recalculated Wireking’s 

rates under the GOC’s provision of wire 

rod for less than adequate remuneration 

(‘‘LTAR’’). See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Provision of Wire Rod 

for LTAR, and Comments 4 and 5. 

3. In the Post-Preliminary Analysis, 

we found the GOC’s provision of steel 

strip for LTAR to be countervailable. Id. 

at 9–11. This program was used by NKS 

and Wireking, and we added the 

amounts we calculated for this program 

to NKS’s and Wireking’s respective 

overall subsidy rates. We have 

continued this treatment in these final 

results. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Provision of Steel Strip 

for LTAR, and Comments 4 and 6. 

4. We have added Japanese wire rod 

export prices sourced from the World 

Bank to the calculated average of the 

wire rod prices used as the wire rod 

benchmark price in the Preliminary 

Results calculations. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Provision of 

Wire Rod for LTAR, and Comments 4 

and 5. 

For a full discussion of these changes, 

see the Post-Preliminary Analysis and 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Final Results of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(5), we calculated individual 

ad valorem subsidy rates for mandatory 

respondents, Wireking and NKS. 

For the non-selected respondents 

which responded to our requests for 

Q&V information for purposes of 

respondent selection (i.e., Leader Metal 

Industry Co., Ltd. (aka Marmon Retail 

Services Asia) (‘‘Leader Metal’’), 

Hangzhou Dunli Import and Export Co., 

Ltd./Hangzhou Dunli Industry Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Hangzhou Dunli’’) and Hengtong 

Hardware Manufacturing (Huizhou) Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Hengtong’’)), we have followed 

the Department’s practice, which is to 

base the margin on an average of the 

margins calculated for those companies 

selected for individual review, 

excluding de minimis rates or rates 

based entirely on AFA. See, e.g., Certain 

Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of 

the 13th (2008) Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 18806, 

18811 (April 13, 2010), unchanged in 

Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of 

the 13th (2008) Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 37386 

(June 29, 2010). Therefore, we have 

assigned to Leader Metal, Hangzhou 

Dunli, and Hengtong the simple average 

of the rates calculated for Wireking and 

NKS. We have used a simple average 

rather than a weighted average because 

weight averaging the rates of the 

mandatory respondents risks disclosure 

of proprietary information. 

For the non-selected respondents 

which did not respond to our requests 

for Q&V information (i.e., Jiangsu Weixi 

and Asia Pacific CIS), we are applying 

an AFA rate, as described above. 

We find the net subsidy rate for the 

producers/exporters under review to be 

as follows: 

Producer/Exporter 

Net subsidy 

rate 

(percent) 

Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................... 21.48 

New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................................... 7.85 

Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (aka Marmon Retail Services Asia) ................................................................................................. 12.35 

Hangzhou Dunli Import and Export Co., Ltd./Hangzhou Dunli Industry Co., Ltd ............................................................................... 12.35 

Hengtong Hardware Manufacturing (Huizhou) Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................... 12.35 

Jiangsu Weixi Group Co ...................................................................................................................................................................... 264.09 

Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................... 264.09 

Assessment Rates 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 15 days after 

publication of these final results of 

review. 

Oven Racks 

For certain oven racks from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse 

for consumption from September 9, 

2009, through December 31, 2009, the 

Department will instruct CBP to assess 

CVDs at the rates applicable to each 

company shown above and to liquidate 

such entries. Entries of certain oven 

racks occurring before September 9, 

2009, were already liquidated at the 

time of the CVD order due to the ITC’s 

finding of threat of material injury on 

certain oven racks. See CVD Order, 74 

FR at 46974–75. 

Refrigeration Shelving 

For certain refrigeration shelving from 

the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption from 

January 7, 2009, through May 6, 2009, 

and September 9, 2009, through 

December 31, 2009, the Department will 

instruct CBP to assess CVDs at the rates 

applicable to each company shown 

above and to liquidate such entries. 

Entries of certain refrigeration shelving 

occurring during the period May 7, 

2009, through September 8, 2009, were 

not suspended for CVD purposes due to 

the termination of provisional measures. 

See CVD Order, 74 FR at 46974–75. 

Cash Deposit Instructions 

The Department also intends to 

instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of 

estimated CVDs in the amounts shown 

above. For all non-reviewed firms, we 

will instruct CBP to continue to collect 

cash deposits of estimated CVDs at the 

most recent company-specific or allothers rate applicable to the company. 

These rates shall apply to all nonreviewed companies until a review of a 

company assigned these rates is 

requested and completed. These cash 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21748 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

1US Geological Survey. Assessment of 

Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Levant 

Basin Province. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/ 

3014/pdf/FS10-3014.pdf>. 

2 ‘‘Oil and Gas Found at Gabriella, Yitzhak 

Licenses.’’ Globes Israel Business News. 13 Mar. 

2012. <http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/ 

docview.asp?did=1000732741>. 

Dated: April 4, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix—List of Comments and 

Issues in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

General Issues 

1. Legal Authority to Apply the CVD Law 

to the PRC. 

2. Whether the Final Results Must Account 

for the Imposition of Double Remedies. 

3. Whether the Department’s Investigation 

of the Provision of Wire Rod and Steel Strip 

for LTAR Met the Initiation Standard. 

4. Whether Application of AFA for the 

Wire Rod and Steel Strip LTAR Programs Is 

Supported by the Record and Consistent with 

U.S. International Obligations. 

5. Benchmark Used for Wire Rod. 

Company-Specific Issues 

6. Whether CVDs Should Apply to 

Wireking’s Purchases of Steel Strip, Which is 

Not Consumed in the Production of the 

Subject Merchandise. 

7. Whether Cash Deposit and Liquidation 

Should Reflect Names and Translations of 

Names Used by NKS for Exportation of 

Goods to the United States. 

8. Whether the Department Should Have 

Found NKS Received a Subsidy from City 

Maintenance and Construction Taxes and 

Education Fee Surcharges/ 

[FR Doc. 2012–8727 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Oil and Gas Trade Mission to Israel 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Mission Description 

The United States Department of 

Commerce (DOC), International Trade 

Administration (ITA), U.S. and Foreign 

Commercial Service (CS), is organizing 

an Executive-led Oil and Gas Trade 

Mission to Israel, October 27–October 

31, 2012. This mission is designed to be 

led by a Senior Commerce Department 

official. The purpose of the mission is 

to introduce U.S. firms to Israel’s 

rapidly expanding oil and gas market 

and to assist U.S. companies pursuing 

export opportunities in this sector. The 

mission to Israel is intended to include 

representatives from leading U.S. 

companies that provide services to oil 

and gas facilities, from design and 

construction through to project 

implementation, maintenance of 

facilities, and environmental protection. 

The mission will visit Tel Aviv and 

Jerusalem, and will include a visit to a 

to-be-determined site (e.g., port or 

company office). Mission participants 

will attend the 2012 Israel Energy and 

Business Convention. Held for the 10th 

consecutive year, by Eco Energy and 

Tachlit Conferences, this is Israel’s 

major energy forum. The convention 

assembles representatives of companies 

and senior Israeli and foreign policy 

makers, bringing them together with the 

Israeli financial and business 

community. 

The mission will help participating 

firms gain market insights, make 

industry contacts, solidify business 

strategies, and advance specific projects, 

with the goal of increasing U.S. exports 

to Israel. The mission will include oneon-one business appointments with prescreened potential buyers, agents, 

distributors and joint venture partners; 

meetings with government officials; and 

high-level networking events. 

Participating in an official U.S. industry 

delegation, rather than traveling to Israel 

on their own, will enhance the 

companies’ ability to secure meetings in 

Israel. 

Commercial Setting 

The United States is Israel’s largest 

single country trade partner. Since the 

U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement 

entered into force in 1985, U.S.-Israel 

trade has grown nine-fold. Since 1995 

nearly all trade tariffs between the U.S. 

and Israel have been eliminated. Exports 

of U.S. goods to Israel in 2010 were $6.7 

billion. In September 2010, Israel joined 

the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 

Israel has an advanced market 

economy. As of 2010, Israel has the 24th 

largest economy in the world. 

Historically poor in natural resources, 

Israel depends on imports of petroleum, 

coal, natural gas and production inputs, 

though the country’s nearly total 

reliance on energy imports will likely 

change with recent discoveries of large 

natural gas reserves off its coast. 

In accordance with the OECD’s Green 

Growth Declaration of 2009, the 

Government of Israel formed a Green 

Growth Round Table to bring about 

regulatory, budgetary and 

environmental policy changes between 

2012 and 2020. Therefore, there may be 

sub-sector opportunities in 

environmental protection and pollution 

treatment, for onshore and offshore 

activities. 

Natural Gas 

In 2009 and 2010, the greatest natural 

gas discoveries of the decade were made 

off the coast of Israel: The Tamar and 

Leviathan fields. These fields may have 

the capacity to support Israel’s domestic 

gas consumption with reserves left for 

exports, and related platform chemicals. 

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates 

that there are 122 TCF of recoverable gas 

in the region, most of it in Israeli 

waters.1 In March 2012, another 

offshore discovery was made by Modiin 

and Adira Energy northwest of Tel Aviv, 

with an estimated 1.8 TCF of natural gas 

as well as oil.2

Israel’s offshore natural gas reserves 

are estimated around 30 trillion cubic 

feet, however further exploration is 

needed. The Ministry of Energy and 

Water Resources’ (MEWR) Petroleum 

Unit and Petroleum Council are 

responsible for issuing petroleum 

prospecting licenses in Israel. After the 

Tamar and Leviathan discoveries, 

numerous licenses to initiate petroleum 

prospecting were granted. According to 

the Petroleum Law, license owners must 

begin petroleum prospecting within 4 

months of license issuance, commence 

drilling operations no later than two 

years following license issuance, and 

the interval between the drilling of one 

well and another cannot exceed 4 

months. Consequently, it is likely that 

various drilling operations will 

commence in 2012. Because Israel does 

not yet have the physical infrastructure 

and technical workforce to support this 

fast growing industry, local companies 

are eager to team up with U.S. 

companies. Finally, Minister of Energy 

and Water Resources, Uzi Landau is 

committed to bringing foreign 

companies into Israel for continued gas 

exploration, and its eventual export. 

The Committee on Energy Policy, 

recommends setting aside 50 percent of 

the Tamar and Leviathan gas resources 

for export. Final decisions on exports 

will be made in the coming months. All 

natural gas export facilities will be 

located in areas under Israeli control. 

Opportunities exist for prospectors, 

operators, pipeline construction, 

logistical services and ship 

manufacturers. Technical training 

services are required to build a 

workforce and there are opportunities 

for academic cooperation with local 

universities and colleges. 

Oil 

In March 2010, the U.S. Geological 

Survey reported that there is an 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES