56070 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 

26We divided the total dumping margins 

(calculated as the difference between NV and EP or 

CEP) for each importer by the total quantity of 

subject merchandise sold to that importer during 

the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. 

We will direct CBP to assess importer-specific 

assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit 

(i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms 

of each entry of the subject merchandise during the 

POR. 

to determine if Anvifish JSC is the 

successor to Anvifish Co., Ltd. and if 

Anvifish JSC is entitled to use the rate 

assigned to Anvifish Co., Ltd. Until the 

Department determines otherwise, 

Anvifish JSC will remain part of the 

Vietnam-wide entity. 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose to 

parties of this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of announcement of the 

preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). An interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of the preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested 

parties may submit written comments 

(case briefs) within 30 days of 

publication of the preliminary results 

and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), 

which must be limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, within five days after 

the time limit for filing case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments are requested to submit with 

the argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

Further, the Department requests that 

parties submitting written comments 

provide the Department with a diskette 

containing the public version of those 

comments. Unless the deadline is 

extended pursuant to section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department 

will issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of our analysis of the issues 

raised by the parties in their comments, 

within 120 days of publication of the 

preliminary results. The assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by this review and 

future deposits of estimated duties shall 

be based on the final results of this 

review. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.212(b), the Department will 

calculate an assessment rate on all 

appropriate entries. For the mandatory 

respondents, Vinh Hoan and Vinh 

Quang, and new shipper, CL-Fish, we 

will calculate importer-specific duty 

assessment rates on a per-unit basis.26

Where the assessment rate is de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 

no duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer. We will 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries 

containing merchandise from the 

Vietnam-wide entity at the Vietnamwide rate we determine in the final 

results of review. We intend to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

exporters listed above, except for CLFish (see below), the cash deposit rate 

will be that established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, the cash deposit 

will be zero); (2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed Vietnam and 

non-Vietnam exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all Vietnam 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the Vietnam-wide rate of $2.11 per 

kilogram; and (4) for all non-Vietnam 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the Vietnam exporters that 

supplied that non-Vietnam exporter. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

review for all shipments of subject 

merchandise from new shipper CL-Fish 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided for by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For 

subject merchandise produced and 

exported by CL-Fish, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established in the 

final results; (2) for subject merchandise 

exported by CL-Fish but not 

manufactured by CL-Fish, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

Vietnam-wide rate (i.e., $2.11 per 

kilogram); and (3) for subject 

merchandise manufactured by CL-Fish, 

but exported by any other party, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the exporter. If the cash 

deposit rate calculated in the final 

results is zero or de minimis, no cash 

deposit will be required where CL-Fish 

is the exporter and manufacturer. These 

cash deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice 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 POR. 

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. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23001 Filed 9–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–909] 

Certain Steel Nails From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary 

Rescission, in Part, of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting the first 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain steel 

nails (‘‘nails’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) for the period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) January 23, 2008, 

through July 31, 2009. The Department 

has preliminarily determined that sales 

have been made below normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) with respect to certain exporters 

who participated fully and are entitled 

to a separate rate in this administrative 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 56071 

1The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening 

Systems Co., Ltd. and the Stanley Works/Stanley 

Fastening Systems, LP (collectively ‘‘Stanley’’). 

2Mid Continent Nail Corporation. 

3See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office 9 

Director, through Alex Villanueva, Office 9 Program 

Manager, from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case 

Analyst and Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, 

dated November 6, 2009, First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Steel Nails from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Review (‘‘First 

Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

4See Memorandum to the File, through Alex 

Villanueva, Office 9 Program Manager, from Emeka 

Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, dated December 3, 

2009, First Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Steel Nails from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): Selection of Second 

Respondent for Individual Review (‘‘Second 

Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

5The Department also rescinded the review of 

Tianjin Xiantong because Petitioner withdrew its 

request for review with respect to this company. 

See Partial Rescission Notice. 

6Memorandum to the File, through Alex 

Villanueva, Office 9 Program Manager, from Emeka 

Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, dated December 3, 

2009, First Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Steel Nails from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): Replacement of 

Respondent Selected for Individual Examination 

(‘‘Third Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR. Interested 

parties are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 15, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emeka Chukwudebe or Matthew 

Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0219 or (202) 482– 

2312, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case Timeline 

On September 22, 2009, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of nails from the 

PRC, for 158 companies. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 

48224 (September 22, 2009) 

(‘‘Initiation’’). As explained in the 

memorandum from the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, the Department has 

exercised its discretion to toll deadlines 

for the duration of the closure of the 

Federal Government from February 5, 

through February 12, 2010. See 

Memorandum to the Record regarding 

‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As 

a Result of the Government Closure 

During the Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated 

February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines 

in this segment of the proceeding have 

been extended by seven days. Also, on 

March 26, 2010, the Department 

published a notice extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results by 120 days to September 7, 

2010. See Certain Steel Nails from the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of 

Time Limit for the Preliminary Results 

of the First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 14568 

(March 26, 2010). 

On July 23, 2010, the Department 

published a notice rescinding the 

administrative review with respect to 31 

companies, due to withdrawals of 

requests for review. See Certain Steel 

Nails from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Partial Rescission of 

the First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 43149 

(July 23, 2010) (‘‘Partial Rescission 

Notice’’). 

Respondent Selection 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

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

Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter or producer of the subject 

merchandise. However, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 

Department discretion to limit its 

examination to a reasonable number of 

exporters or producers if it is not 

practicable to examine all exporters or 

producers involved in the review. 

The Department initiated a review for 

the 158 companies for which it received 

a timely request for review. See 

Initiation, 74 FR 48224. On September 

24, 2009, the Department released CBP 

data for entries of the subject 

merchandise during the POR under 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

to all interested parties with access to 

the APO, inviting comments regarding 

the CBP data and respondent selection. 

Between September 24, 2009, and 

October 26, 2009, Certified Products 

International, Inc. (‘‘CPI’’), Stanley 1 and 

Petitioner 2 submitted comments on the 

respondent selection process. 

After assessing its resources, the 

Department issued on November 6, 

2009, its respondent selection 

memorandum. In it, the Department 

determined that the number of 

companies (i.e., 158) was too large a 

number for individual reviews and that 

the Department could reasonably 

examine two exporters subject to this 

review. Pursuant to section 

777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department 

selected Stanley and CPI as mandatory 

respondents, while noting that CPI had 

submitted evidence, arguing that it had 

no shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR.3 On December 3, 2009, 

after receiving a no-shipments response 

from CPI and evaluating further 

comments submitted by CPI and 

Petitioner, the Department selected 

Tianjin Xiantong Material & Trade Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Tianjin Xiantong’’) as a mandatory 

respondent in place of CPI, noting that 

we would continue to gather additional 

information to investigate CPI’s claims 

that it had no shipments during the 

POR.4 On January 26, 2010, Tianjin 

Xiantong filed a letter stating that it 

would not be participating as an 

individually-examined respondent in 

this review.5 Also on January 26, 2010, 

Petitioner submitted additional 

comments regarding respondent 

selection. On February 4, 2010, the 

Department selected Shandong 

Minmetal Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shandong 

Minmetal’’) as a mandatory respondent 

in place of Tianjin Xiantong.6

On November 17, 2009, the 

Department issued its original 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Stanley. Between December 18, 2009, 

and July 12, 2010, Stanley submitted 

responses to the Department’s original 

and supplemental questionnaires. On 

January 28, 2010, the Department issued 

a supplemental questionnaire to CPI 

regarding its no-shipments status, and 

CPI responded on February 25, 2010. On 

February 16, 2010, the Department 

issued its original antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Shandong Minmetal. 

Between March 18, 2010, and August 

20, 2010, Shandong Minmetal submitted 

responses to the Department’s original 

and supplemental questionnaires. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we 

have preliminarily determined that the 

following companies made no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR: Besco Machinery 

Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; CPI; CYM 

(Nanjing) Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd., 

(‘‘CYM Nanjing’’); Dagang Zhitong Metal 

Products Co., Ltd.; Hebei Super Star 

Pneumatic Nails Co., Ltd.; Hong Kong 

Yu Xi Co., Ltd.; Senco-Xingya Metal 

Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd.; Shanghai 

Chengkai Hardware Product Co., Ltd.; 

Shanghai March Import & Export 

Company Ltd.; Shaoxing Chengye Metal 

Production Co., Ltd.; Suzhou Yaotian 

Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin 

Chentai International Trading Co., Ltd.; 

Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Tianjin Jurun’’); Tianjin Longxing 

(Group) Huanyu Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; 

Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Xiangtong 

Intl. Industry & Trade Corp.; Tianjin 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
56072 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 

Shenyuan Steel Production Group Co., 

Ltd.; Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Wuhu Shijie’’); and Wuxi Chengye 

Metal Products Co., Ltd., (collectively, 

the ‘‘No Shipments Respondents’’). The 

Department received no-shipment 

certifications from the aforementioned 

companies. 

The Department also issued noshipment inquiries to CBP, asking it to 

provide any information contrary to our 

preliminary findings of no entries of 

subject merchandise for merchandise 

manufactured and shipped by the 

aforementioned companies. For most 

companies, we did not receive any 

response from CBP, thus indicating that 

there were no entries of subject 

merchandise into the United States 

exported by these companies. CBP did 

indicate potential entries of nails during 

the POR for those companies, so the 

Department requested CBP entry 

packages for such instances. For a more 

detailed explanation of our preliminary 

no-shipments determinations, which 

concludes that neither CPI, CYM 

Nanjing, Tianjin Jurun, nor Wuhu Shijie 

had POR shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States, see 

Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office 

9 Director, through Alex Villanueva, 

Office 9 Program Manager, from 

Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst 

and Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, 

dated September 7, 2010, First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Steel Nails from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): 

Partial Rescission of the First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review (‘‘No Shipments Rescission 

Memo’’). Consequently, as none of the 

above companies had shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR, we are 

preliminarily rescinding the reviews 

with respect to the No Shipments 

Respondents. 

Yitian Nanjing Hardware Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Yitian Nanjing’’) also reported that it 

had no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. However, 

the Department has noted that CBP 

entry documentation indicates that 

Yitian Nanjing did in fact have POR 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States. Therefore, we are not 

preliminarily rescinding this review 

with respect to Yitian Nanjing. 

Furthermore, as Yitian Nanjing 

submitted only a no-shipments response 

and did not submit a separate rate 

application or certificate certification, 

we consider it part of the PRC-wide 

entity for these preliminary results. See 

Memorandum to the File, from Emeka 

Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, dated 

September 7, 2010, First Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Certain 

Steel Nails from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’): CBP Entry 

Documentation for Yitian Nanjing 

Hardware Co., Ltd. However, given that 

we have not yet released the CBP entry 

documentation to Yitian Nanjing, we 

will provide Yitian Nanjing with an 

opportunity to address the CBP entry 

documentation in a post-preliminary 

supplemental questionnaire. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value 

Data 

On April 1, 2010, the Department sent 

interested parties a letter inviting 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and surrogate value data. No 

parties provided comments with respect 

to selection of a surrogate country. On 

June 15, 2010, the Department received 

surrogate value information from 

Petitioner, and on June 25, 2010, certain 

separate rate respondents filed rebuttal 

comments on Petitioner’s surrogate 

value information. All the surrogate 

values placed on the record were 

obtained from sources in India. Between 

August 10, 2010, and August 24, 2010, 

parties submitted additional arguments 

and data regarding the selection and 

calculation of the surrogate values. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order includes certain steel nails having 

a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain 

steel nails include, but are not limited 

to, nails made of round wire and nails 

that are cut. Certain steel nails may be 

of one piece construction or constructed 

of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails 

may be produced from any type of steel, 

and have a variety of finishes, heads, 

shanks, point types, shaft lengths and 

shaft diameters. Finishes include, but 

are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc 

(galvanized, whether by electroplating 

or hot-dipping one or more times), 

phosphate cement, and paint. Head 

styles include, but are not limited to, 

flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, 

headless, double, countersunk, and 

sinker. Shank styles include, but are not 

limited to, smooth, barbed, screw 

threaded, ring shank and fluted shank 

styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to 

this proceeding are driven using direct 

force and not by turning the fastener 

using a tool that engages with the head. 

Point styles include, but are not limited 

to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and 

no point. Finished nails may be sold in 

bulk, or they may be collated into strips 

or coils using materials such as plastic, 

paper, or wire. Certain steel nails 

subject to this proceeding are currently 

classified under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings 7317.00.55, 

7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75. 

Excluded from the scope of this 

proceeding are roofing nails of all 

lengths and diameter, whether collated 

or in bulk, and whether or not 

galvanized. Steel roofing nails are 

specifically enumerated and identified 

in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 

revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails. Also 

excluded from the scope of this 

proceeding are corrugated nails. A 

corrugated nail is made of a small strip 

of corrugated steel with sharp points on 

one side. Also excluded from the scope 

of this proceeding are fasteners suitable 

for use in powder-actuated hand tools, 

not threaded and threaded, which are 

currently classified under HTSUS 

7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also 

excluded from the scope of this 

proceeding are thumb tacks, which are 

currently classified under HTSUS 

7317.00.10.00. Also excluded from the 

scope of this proceeding are certain 

brads and finish nails that are equal to 

or less than 0.0720 inches in shank 

diameter, round or rectangular in cross 

section, between 0.375 inches and 2.5 

inches in length, and that are collated 

with adhesive or polyester film tape 

backed with a heat seal adhesive. Also 

excluded from the scope of this 

proceeding are fasteners having a case 

hardness greater than or equal to 50 

HRC, a carbon content greater than or 

equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a 

secondary reduced-diameter raised head 

section, a centered shank, and a smooth 

symmetrical point, suitable for use in 

gas-actuated hand tools. 

While the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this investigation is dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy (‘‘NME’’) Country 

Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as an 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. See, e.g., Brake 

Rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 2004/2005 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 

Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 

2006). None of the parties to this 

proceeding have contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, the Department 

calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 56073 

7Those companies include: (1) Aironware 

(Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; (2) Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. 

Corp.; (3) China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., 

Ltd.; (4) Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., 

Ltd.; (5) Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd.; (6) 

Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., 

Ltd.; (7) Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., 

Ltd.; (8) Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products 

Co., Ltd.; (9) Jisco Corporation; (10) Koram 

Panagene Co., Ltd.; (11) Nanjing Yuechang 

Hardware Co., Ltd.; (12) Qidong Liang Chyuan 

Metal Industry Co., Ltd.; (13) Qingdao D & L Group 

Ltd.; (14) Rizhao Handuk Fasteners Co., Ltd.; (15) 

Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd.; (16) Shandong 

Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.; (17) Shanghai 

Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.; (18) 

Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd.; (19) 

Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (20) Tianjin 

Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business Co., 

Ltd.; (21) Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.; 

(22) Wintime Import & Export Corporation Limited 

of Zhongshan; (23) Wuxi Qiangye Metalwork 

Production Co., Ltd.; and (24) Zhejiang Gem-Chun 

Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department reviews 

imports from an NME country and the 

available information does not permit 

the Department to determine NV 

pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, 

then pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, the Department bases NV on an 

NME producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’) to the extent possible in one or 

more market-economy countries that (1) 

are at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country, 

and (2) are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. The 

Department has determined that India, 

Philippines, Indonesia, Ukraine, 

Thailand, and Peru are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development. See April 1, 

2010, Letter to All Interested Parties, 

regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Steel 

Nails from the People’s Republic of 

China: Surrogate Country List,’’ 

attaching February 16, 2010, 

Memorandum to Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD 

Operations, from Kelly Parkhill, Acting 

Director, Office for Policy, regarding 

‘‘Request for List of Surrogate Countries 

for an Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Steel Nails from the People’s Republic 

of China’’ (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). 

Based on publicly available 

information placed on the record, the 

Department determines India to be a 

reliable source for surrogate values 

because India is at a comparable level of 

economic development, pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, and has publicly available 

and reliable data with which to value 

FOPs. Furthermore, all the surrogate 

values placed on the record by the 

parties were obtained from sources in 

India. Accordingly, the Department has 

selected India as the surrogate country 

for purposes of valuing the FOPs 

because it meets the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate country selection. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, there is a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and thus should be assessed a 

single antidumping duty rate. See, e.g., 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 

55040 (September 24, 2008) (‘‘PET 

Film’’). Exporters can demonstrate this 

independence through the absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control over export activities. Id. The 

Department analyzes each entity 

exporting the subject merchandise 

under a test arising from the Notice of 

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, then a separate rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether it is independent from 

government control. See, e.g., PET Film. 

In addition to the two mandatory 

respondents, Stanley and Shandong 

Minmetal, the Department received 

separate rate applications (‘‘SRAs’’) or 

certifications (‘‘SRCs’’) from 26 

companies (‘‘Separate-Rate 

Applicants’’).7 Because Stanley is 

wholly foreign-owned, a separate-rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether it is independent from 

government control, so we preliminarily 

grant Stanley a separate rate. 

Additionally, because Shandong 

Minmetal and the Separate-Rate 

Applicants have all stated that they are 

either joint ventures between Chinese 

and foreign companies, or are wholly 

Chinese-owned companies, the 

Department must analyze whether these 

companies can demonstrate the absence 

of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. 

(1) Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by Shandong 

Minmetal and the Separate-Rate 

Applicants supports a preliminary 

finding of de jure absence of 

governmental control based on the 

following: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) applicable legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of the 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies, 

i.e., each company’s SRA, SRC, and/or 

Section A response, dated October 22, 

2010, through March 18, 2010, where 

each individually-reviewed or separaterate respondent stated that it had no 

relationship with any level of the PRC 

government with respect to ownership, 

internal management, and business 

operations. 

2. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a governmental agency; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

governmental control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

We determine that, for the 

individually-reviewed respondents and 

Separate-Rate Applicants, the evidence 

on the record supports a preliminary 

finding of de facto absence of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
56074 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 

governmental control based on record 

statements and supporting 

documentation showing the following: 

(1) Each exporter sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) each exporter 

retains the proceeds from its sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) each exporter has the 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; and (4) each 

exporter has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. See, e.g., each company’s 

SRA, SRC, and/or Section A response, 

dated October 22, 2010, through March 

18, 2010. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by the individuallyreviewed respondents and the Separate 

Rate Applicants demonstrates an 

absence of de jure and de facto 

government control with respect to each 

of the exporter’s exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, in 

accordance with the criteria identified 

in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a 

result, we have preliminarily 

determined that it is appropriate to 

grant the Separate Rate Applicants a 

margin based on the experience of the 

individually-reviewed respondents. In 

calculating this margin, for the purposes 

of this preliminary determination we are 

excluding any de minimis or zero rates 

or rates based on total adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’). 

Calculation of Separate Rate 

The statute and our regulations do not 

address directly how we should 

establish a rate to apply to imports from 

companies which we did not select for 

individual examination in accordance 

with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act in an 

administrative review. Generally, we 

have used section 735(c)(5) of the Act, 

which provides instructions for 

calculating the all-others rate in an 

investigation, as guidance when we 

establish the rate for respondents not 

examined individually in an 

administrative review. See Notice of 

Final Results and Partial Rescission 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the People’s Republic of 

China, 75 FR 49460 (August 13, 2010); 

Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final 

Results of the Twelfth Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 6352 (February 9, 2010), 

and the accompanying I&D Memo at 

Comment 2. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the 

Act provides that ‘‘the estimated allothers rate shall be an amount equal to 

the weighted average of the estimated 

weighted average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, * * *’’ 

Because using the weighted-average 

margin based on the calculated net U.S. 

sales values for Stanley and Shandong 

Minmetal would allow these two 

respondents to deduce each other’s 

business-proprietary information and 

thus cause an unwarranted release of 

such information, we cannot assign to 

the separate rate companies the 

weighted-average margin based on the 

calculated net U.S. sales values from 

these two respondents. 

For these preliminary results, we 

determine that using the ranged total 

U.S. sales values Stanley and Shandong 

Minmetal reported in the public 

versions of their Section A responses 

(dated August 25, 2010) to our request 

for information concerning the quantity 

and value of their exports to the United 

States, is more appropriate than 

applying a simple average. These 

publicly available figures provide the 

basis on which we can calculate a 

margin which is the best proxy for the 

weighted-average margin based on the 

calculated net U.S. sales values of 

Stanley and Shandong Minmetal. We 

find that this approach is more 

consistent with the intent of section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and our use of 

section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act as 

guidance when we establish the rate for 

respondents not examined individually 

in an administrative review. 

Because the calculated net U.S. sales 

values for Stanley and Shandong 

Minmetal are business-proprietary 

figures, we find that 13.31 percent, 

which we calculated using the publicly 

available figures of U.S. sales values for 

these two firms, is the best reasonable 

proxy for the weighted-average margin 

based on the calculated net U.S. sales 

values of Stanley and Shandong 

Minmetal. See Memorandum to the File 

from Emeka Chukwudebe, to the File: 

Calculation of Separate Rate, dated 

September 7, 2010. 

PRC-Wide Entity 

As discussed above, in this 

administrative review we limited the 

selection of respondents using CBP 

import data. See First, Second and 

Third Respondent Selection Memos at 

Attachment I. In this case, we made 

available to the companies who were 

not selected, the separate rates 

application and certification, which 

were put on the Department’s Web site. 

See Initiation. Because some parties for 

which a review was requested did not 

apply for separate rate status, the PRCWide entity is considered to be part of 

this review. The following companies 

did not apply for separate rates and will 

continue to be part of the PRC-wide 

entity: 

(1) Beijing Daruixing Global Trading 

Co., Ltd. 

(2) Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd. 

(3) Beijing Yonghongsheng Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. 

(4) Cana (Tiajin) Hardware Ind., Co., 

Ltd. 

(5) China Silk Trading & Logistics Co., 

Ltd. 

(6) Chongqing Hybest Nailery Co., Ltd. 

(7) Dingzhou Ruili Nail Production Co. 

Ltd. 

(8) Dong’e Fuqiang Metal Products Co., 

Ltd. 

(9) Haixing Hongda Hardware 

Production Co., Ltd. 

(10) Haixing Linhai Hardware Products 

Factory 

(11) Handuk Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(12) Hilti (China) Limited 

(13) Huadu Jin Chuan Manufactory Co., 

Ltd. 

(14) Huanghua Huarong Hardware 

Products Co., Ltd. 

(15) Huanghua Jinhai Metal Products 

Co., Ltd. 

(16) Huanghua Shenghua Hardware 

Manufactory Factory 

(17) Huanghua Xinda Nail Production 

Co., Ltd. 

(18) Huanghua Yufutai Hardware 

Products Co., Ltd. 

(19) Jinding Metal Products Ltd. 

(20) Joto Enterprise Co., Ltd. 

(21) Kyung Dong Corp. 

(22) Maanshan Longer Nail Product Co., 

Ltd. 

(23) Nanjing Dayu Pneumatic Gun Nails 

Co., Ltd. 

(24) Qingdao Denarius Manufacture Co. 

Limited 

(25) Qingdao International Fastening 

Systems Inc. 

(26) Qingdao Sino-Sun International 

Trading Company Limited 

(27) Qingyuan County Hongyi Hardware 

Products Factory 

(28) Qingyun Hongyi Hardware Factory 

(29) Rizhao Changxing Nail-Making Co., 

Ltd. 

(30) Rizhao Qingdong Electric 

Appliance Co., Ltd. 

(31) Shandong Minimetals Co., Ltd. 

(32) Shandong Oriental Cherry 

Hardware Group, Ltd. 

(33) Shanghai Curvet Hardware 

Products Co., Ltd. 

(34) Shanghai Nanhui Jinjun Hardware 

Factory 

(35) Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools 

Co., Ltd. 

(36) Sinochem Tianjin Imp & Exp 

Shenzhen Corp 

(37) Tianjin Baisheng Metal Products 

Co., Ltd. 

(38) Tianjin Bosai Hardware Tools Co., 

Ltd. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 56075 

(39) Tianjin City Dagang Area Jinding 

Metal Products Factory 

(40) Tianjin City Daman Port Area 

Jinding Metal Products Factory 

(41) Tianjin City Jinchi Metal Products 

Co., Ltd. 

(42) Tianjin Dagang Dongfu Metallic 

Products Co., Ltd. 

(43) Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nail 

Factory 

(44) Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nails 

Manufacture Plant. 

(45) Tianjin Dagang Huasheng Nailery 

Co., Ltd. 

(46) Tianjin Dagang Jingang Nail Factory 

(47) Tianjin Dagang Jingang Nails 

Manufacture Plant. 

(48) Tianjin Dagang Linda Metallic 

Products Co., Ltd. 

(49) Tianjin Dagang Longhua Metal 

Products Plant. 

(50) Tianjin Dagang Shenda Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. 

(51) Tianjin Dagang Yate Nail Co., Ltd. 

(52) Tianjin Foreign Trade (Group) 

Textile & Garment Co., Ltd. 

(53) Tianjin Hewang Nail Making 

Factory 

(54) Tianjin Huapeng Metal Company 

(55) Tianjin Huachang Metal Products 

Co., Ltd. 

(56) Tianjin Huasheng Nails Production 

Co., Ltd. 

(57) Tianjin Jieli Hengyuan Metallic 

Products Co., Ltd. 

(58) Tianjin Jietong Hardware Products 

Co., Ltd. 

(60) Tianjin Jin Gang Metal Products 

Co., Ltd. 

(61) Tianjin Jishili Hardware Co., Ltd. 

(62) Tianjin JLHY Metal Products Co., 

Ltd. 

(63) Tianjin Kunxin Hardware Co., Ltd. 

(64) Tianjin Kunxin Metal Products Co., 

Ltd. 

(65) Tianjin Linda Metal Company 

(66) Tianjin Qichuan Metal Products 

Co., Ltd. 

(67) Tianjin Ruiji Metal Products Co., 

Ltd. 

(68) Tianjin Shishun Metal Product Co., 

Ltd. 

(69) Tianjin Shishun Metallic Products 

Co., Ltd. 

(70) Tianjin Xiantong Fucheng Gun Nail 

Manufacture Co., Ltd. 

(71) Tianjin Xinyuansheng Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. 

(72) Tianjin Yihao Metallic Products 

Co., Ltd. 

(73) Tianjin Yongchang Metal Product 

Co., Ltd. 

(74) Tianjin Yongxu Metal Products Co., 

Ltd. 

(75) Tianjin Yongyi Standard Parts 

Production Co., Ltd. 

(76) Unicatch Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(77) Wuqiao County Huifeng Hardware 

Products Factory 

(78) Wuqiao County Xinchuang 

Hardware Products Factory 

(79) Wuqiao Huifeng Hardware 

Production Co., Ltd. 

(80) Wuxi Baolin Nail-Making 

Machinery Co., Ltd. 

(81) Zhangjiagang Longxiang Packing 

Materials Co., Ltd. 

(82) Zhongshan Junlong Nail 

Manufactures Co., Ltd. 

Date of Sale 

The date of sale is generally the date 

on which the parties agree upon all 

substantive terms of the sale, which 

normally includes the price, quantity, 

delivery terms and payment terms. See 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 62824 (November 7, 

2007) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; 

see also Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon 

Quality Steel Products from Turkey, 65 

FR 15123 (March 21, 2000) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, ‘‘{i}n 

identifying the date of sale of the 

merchandise under consideration or 

foreign like product, the Secretary 

normally will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter or producer’s 

records kept in the normal course of 

business. The Secretary may use a date 

other than the date of invoice if the 

Secretary is satisfied that a different 

date better reflects the date on which 

the exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale.’’ See 19 CFR 

351.401(i); see also Allied Tube & 

Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. 

Supp. 2d 1087, 1090–1092 (CIT 2001) 

(‘‘Allied Tube’’). However, as noted by 

the Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) 

in Allied Tube, a party seeking to 

establish a date of sale other than 

invoice date bears the burden of 

establishing that ‘‘ ‘a different date better 

reflects the date on which the exporter 

or producer establishes the material 

terms of sale.’ ’’ See Allied Tube, 132 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1090 (quoting 19 CFR 

351.401(i)). 

Shandong Minmetal reported that its 

date of sale was determined by the 

invoice issued by it to the unaffiliated 

United States customer. In this case, as 

the Department found no evidence 

contrary to Shandong Minmetal’s claims 

that invoice date was the appropriate 

date of sale upon which all substantive 

terms of sale were agreed upon, the 

Department used invoice date as the 

date of sale for these preliminary 

results. See, e.g., Shandong Minmetal’s 

August 9, 2010 submission at 1. 

Stanley reported that the earlier of 

invoice date or shipment date is the 

appropriate date of sale. See, e.g., 

Stanley’s December 18, 2009 submission 

at 23–24. As the Department found no 

evidence on the record contrary to 

Stanley’s claims, for these preliminary 

results, the Department used the invoice 

date as the date of sale. For those sales 

where shipment date preceded invoice 

date, the Department used the shipment 

date as the date of sale. 

Fair Value Comparison 

In accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, to determine 

whether sales of nails to the United 

States by Stanley or Shandong Minmetal 

were made at less than normal value, we 

compared the export price (‘‘EP’’) or 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’), as 

appropriate, to NV, as described in the 

‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice. 

U.S. Price 

A. EP 

For Shandong Minmetal, in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, we based the U.S. price for certain 

sales on EP because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States was made prior to importation, 

and the use of CEP was not otherwise 

warranted. In accordance with section 

772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by 

deducting the applicable movement 

expenses and adjustments from the 

gross unit price. We based these 

movement expenses on surrogate values 

where a PRC company provided the 

service and was paid in Renminbi 

(‘‘RMB’’) (see ‘‘Factors of Production’’ 

section below for further discussion). 

For details regarding our EP 

calculations, see Memorandum to the 

File, through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Emeka 

Chukwudebe, Analyst, ‘‘First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative of 

Certain Steel Nails from the People’s 

Republic of China: Shandong Minmetal 

Co., Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice (‘‘Shandong Minmetal Prelim 

Analysis Memo’’). 

B. CEP 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we based the U.S. price for 

Stanley’s sales on CEP because the first 

sale to an unaffiliated customer was 

made by Stanley’s U.S. affiliate. In 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting 

the applicable expenses from the gross 

unit price charged to the first 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
56076 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 

8Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 

No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA 

1988’’) at 590. 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States. Further, in accordance with 

section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.402(b), where appropriate, we 

deducted from the starting price the 

applicable selling expenses associated 

with economic activities occurring in 

the United States. In addition, pursuant 

to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made 

an adjustment to the starting price for 

CEP profit. We based movement 

expenses on either surrogate values or 

actual expenses, where appropriate. For 

details regarding our CEP calculations, 

and for a complete discussion of the 

calculation of the U.S. price for Stanley, 

see Memorandum to the File, through 

Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, 

Office 9, from Matthew Renkey, Senior 

Analyst, ‘‘First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative of Certain Steel Nails 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Stanley,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice (‘‘Stanley Prelim Analysis 

Memo’’). 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine NV 

using a 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 

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. See, e.g., Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part, and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Certain Lined Paper Products from the 

People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 

19695, 19703 (April 17, 2006) (‘‘CLPP’’) 

unchanged in 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 

(September 8, 2006). 

Factor Valuation Methodology 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by the respondents. To 

calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor-consumption 

rates by publicly available surrogate 

values. In selecting surrogate values, the 

Department is tasked with using the best 

available information on the record. See 

section 773(c) of the Act. To satisfy this 

statutory requirement, we compared the 

quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the potential 

surrogate value data. See, e.g., Fresh 

Garlic From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 

(December 4, 2002) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 6; and Final Results of First 

New Shipper Review and First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 66 

FR 31204 (June 11, 2001) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5. 

The Department’s practice is to select, 

to the extent practicable, surrogate 

values which are: publicly available; 

representative of non-export, broad 

market average values; 

contemporaneous with the POI; 

product-specific; and exclusive of taxes 

and import duties. See, e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to the surrogate values derived from 

Indian Import Statistics a surrogate 

freight cost using the shorter of the 

reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory or the distance 

from the nearest seaport to the factory 

where appropriate. This adjustment is 

in accordance with the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit’s decision in 

Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 

1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a 

detailed description of all surrogate 

values selected in this preliminary 

determination, see Memorandum to the 

File through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Tim Lord, 

Analyst, ‘‘First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Steel 

Nails from the People’s Republic of 

China: Surrogate Values for the 

Preliminary Results,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice 

(‘‘Surrogate Values Memo’’). 

For these preliminary results, we 

concluded that data from Indian Import 

Statistics and other publicly available 

Indian sources constitute the best 

available information on the record for 

the surrogate values for respondents’ 

raw materials, packing, by-products, 

energy, and the surrogate financial 

ratios. The record shows that data in the 

Indian Import Statistics, as well as those 

from the other publicly available Indian 

sources, are contemporaneous with the 

POI, product-specific, tax-exclusive, and 

represent a broad market average. See 

Surrogate Values Memo. In those 

instances where we could not obtain 

publicly available information 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

consistent with our practice, we 

adjusted the surrogate values using, 

where appropriate, the Indian 

Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as 

published in the International Financial 

Statistics of the International Monetary 

Fund. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Reviews, 69 FR 46498, 46500 

(August 3, 2004). 

As a consequence of the CAFC’s 

ruling in Dorbest Limited et. al. v. 

United States, 2009–1257, –1266, CAFC 

(May 14, 2010), the Department is no 

longer relying on the regression-based 

wage rate described in 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3). The Department is 

continuing to evaluate options for 

determining labor values in light of the 

recent CAFC decision. For these 

preliminary results, we have calculated 

an hourly wage rate to use in valuing 

respondents’ reported labor input by 

averaging earnings and/or wages in 

countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC and that are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. To calculate the hourly 

wage rate we used the International 

Labor Organization (‘‘ILO’’) wage rate 

data. Specifically, we averaged the ILO 

wage rate data from the following 

countries found to be economically 

comparable to the PRC: Albania, 

Ecuador, Egypt Arab Rep., El Salvador, 

Fiji, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, 

India, Indonesia, Jordan, Nicaragua, 

Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sri Lanka, 

Thailand, and Ukraine. For a further 

explanation of the Department’s 

calculation of the surrogate value for 

labor, see the Surrogate Values Memo. 

In accordance with the OTCA 1988 

legislative history, the Department 

continues to apply its long-standing 

practice of disregarding surrogate values 

if it has a reason to believe or suspect 

the source data may be subsidized.8 In 

this regard, the Department has 

previously found that it is appropriate 

to disregard such prices from e.g., 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 56077 

9See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 

2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at pages 4–5; Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from 

Indonesia, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

page 4; See 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 pages 17, 19– 

20; See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Thailand: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR 50410 

(October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at page 23. 

Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand, 

because we have determined that these 

countries maintain broadly available, 

non-industry specific export subsidies.9

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 POI, the 

Department finds that it is reasonable to 

infer that all exporters from Indonesia, 

South Korea and Thailand may have 

benefitted from these subsidies. 

Additionally, we disregarded prices 

from NME countries. 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. 

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. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist: 

CERTAIN STEEL NAILS FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted 

average margin 

(percent) 

(1) The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................... 6.48 

(2) Shandong Minmetal Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................. 51.25 

(3) Aironware (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................... 13.31 

(4) Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp. .................................................................................................................................................. 13.31 

(5) China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................. 13.31 

(6) Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................................... 13.31 

(7) Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................................. 13.31 

(8) Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................... 13.31 

(9) Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................................... 13.31 

(10) Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd. .............................................................................................................. 13.31 

(11) Jisco Corporation .................................................................................................................................................................. 13.31 

(12) Koram Panagene Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................... 13.31 

(13) Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................. 13.31 

(14) Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................... 13.31 

(15) Qingdao D & L Group Ltd. .................................................................................................................................................... 13.31 

(16) Rizhao Handuk Fasteners Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................................................... 13.31 

(17) Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd. ....................................................................................................................................... 13.31 

(18) Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................... 13.31 

(19) Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................ 13.31 

(20) Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd. .......................................................................................................................... 13.31 

(21) Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................. 13.31 

(22) Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................... 13.31 

(23) Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd. .............................................................................................................................. 13.31 

(24) Wintime Import & Export Corporation Limited of Zhongshan ............................................................................................... 13.31 

(25) Wuxi Qiangye Metalwork Production Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................... 13.31 

(26) Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................ 13.31 

PRC-Wide Rate ...................................................................................................................................................................... 118.04 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

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. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

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 FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these 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 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 

surrogate value information pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). 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. 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs and/or written comments no later 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
56078 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 

than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written 

comments, limited to issues raised in 

such briefs or comments may be filed no 

later than five days after the deadline for 

filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). The Department urges 

interested parties to provide an 

executive summary of each argument 

contained within the case briefs and 

rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this review excluding any 

reported sales that entered during the 

gap period. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we calculated exporter/ 

importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

subject to this review. Because we do 

not have entered values for all U.S. 

sales, we calculated an ad valorem 

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). To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

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. See 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 entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

exporter listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) 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 118.04 percent; and (3) for all nonPRC 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. 

These preliminary results are 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: September 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23002 Filed 9–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Advisory Committee; Defense 

Acquisition University Board of 

Visitors 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense, Defense. 

ACTION: Meeting notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 

1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), 

the Government in the Sunshine Act of 

1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 

41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of 

Defense announces that the Defense 

Acquisition University Board of Visitors 

will meet on September 15, 2010, in 

Huntsville, AL. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

September 15, 2010, from 9 a.m.–2 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

7115 Old Madison Pike, Huntsville, AL 

35806. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christen Goulding, Protocol Director, 

DAU, Phone: 703–805–5134, Fax: 703– 

805–5940, E-mail: 

christen.goulding@dau.mil. 

Committee’s Designated Federal 

Officer or Point of Contact: Ms. Kelley 

Berta, 703–805–5412. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to 

internal DoD difficulties, beyond the 

control of the Defense Acquisition 

University Board of Visitors or its 

Designated Federal Officer, the 

Government was unable to process the 

Federal Register notice for the 

September 15, 2010 meeting of the 

Defense Acquisition University Board of 

Visitors as required by 41 CFR 102– 

3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory 

Committee Management Officer for the 

Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 

CFR 102–3.150(b), waives the 15- 

calendar day notification requirement. 

Purpose of the Meeting 

The purpose of this meeting is to 

report back to the BoV on continuing 

items of interest. 

Agenda 

9 a.m. Welcome and approval of 

minutes. 

9:10 a.m. DAU South Region Highlights. 

9:45 a.m. Services Acquisition Training. 

10:30 a.m. Contingency Contracting 

Testimony. 

11:15 a.m. Facilities Tour of DAU South 

Region Campus. 

12:15 p.m. DAU Strategic Planning 

Discussion Open Forum. 

Public’s Accessibility to the Meeting 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 

102–3.140 through 102–3.165, and the 

availability of space, this meeting is 

open to the public. However, because of 

space limitations, allocation of seating 

will be made on a first-come, first 

served basis. Persons desiring to attend 

the meeting should call Ms. Christen 

Goulding at 703–805–5134. 

Dated: September 10, 2010. 

Mitchell S. Bryman, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23005 Filed 9–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES