Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 17430-17436 [2012-7212]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17430
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices
Comment 3: Whether Oval Galvanized
Steel Wire is Outside the Scope of the
Investigation
Comment 4: Whether PVC-Coated
Galvanized Steel Wire is Outside the
Scope of the Investigation
Comment 5: Whether To Apply Adverse
Facts Available to Deacero’s Inland
Freight Expenses for Certain Home
Market Sales
Comment 6: Whether To Apply Adverse
Facts Available to Deacero’s U.S.
Repacking Expenses
Comment 7: Deacero’s Reporting of Costs
for Further Manufacturing
Comment 8: Deacero’s Reporting of Inland
Freight Charges for Certain U.S. Sales
Comment 9: Deacero’s Reporting of Cost of
Production and Constructed Value
Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. (Camesa)
Comment 10: Whether the Department
Used an Average-to-Average Comparison
Methodology
Comment 11: Whether the U.S. Inventory
Carrying Costs Were Calculated Properly
[FR Doc. 2012–7213 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–975]
Galvanized Steel Wire From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012.
SUMMARY: On November 4, 2011, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) published the
Preliminary Determination of sales at
less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the
antidumping investigation of galvanized
steel wire from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’).1 On November 29, 2011,
the Department published an Amended
Preliminary Determination.2 The period
of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is July 1, 2010,
through December 31, 2010. Based on
our analysis of the comments received,
we have made changes to our
Preliminary Determination and
Amended Preliminary Determination.
The Department continues to find that
galvanized steel wire from the PRC is
being, or is likely to be, sold in the
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
1 See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement
of Final Determination, 76 FR 68407 (November 4,
2011) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’).
2 See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People’s
Republic of China: Amended Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76
FR 73589 (November 29, 2011) (‘‘Amended
Preliminary Determination’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:32 Mar 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
United States at LTFV, as provided in
section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in
the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’
section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Gorelik, Katie Marksberry or Kabir
Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office
9, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6905,
(202) 482–7906, or 482–2593,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Department did not hold a public
hearing, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d),
as the hearing requests made by
interested parties were withdrawn.8
On March 2, 2012, at the
Department’s request, interested parties
in the companion galvanized wire
investigations involving Mexico filed on
the record of this investigation certain
scope comments that were raised in that
proceeding’s case and rebuttal briefs.
We allowed a period of time for parties
in the instant proceeding to comment on
those submissions. We received no
comments.
Background
On November 4, 2011, Shanghai Bao
Zhang Industry Co., Ltd., Anhui Bao
Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd., and
B&Z Galvanized Wire Industry
(collectively, ‘‘Baozhang’’), one of the
three respondents selected for
individual examination in this
investigation, notified the Department
that it would not participate in any the
scheduled verifications.3 On November
9, 2011, Tianjin Honbase Machinery
Manufactory Co., Ltd. (‘‘Honbase’’),
another respondent selected for
individual examination in this
investigation, also notified the
Department that it would not participate
in any scheduled verifications.4
On November 2, 2011, Qingdao Ant
Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
(‘‘AHM’’), one of the non-individually
examined exporters that received a
separate rate, placed on the record
samples of products which it believes
should be excluded from the scope of
the investigation. On November 9, 2011,
the Department notified all interested
parties that it would allow any
interested parties to physically view the
samples.5
Between December 9 and 14, 2011, we
received case and rebuttal briefs from
Petitioners,6 AHM, Tianjin Huayuan
Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Huayuan’’),7 and Baozhang. The
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
investigation are addressed in the
‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s
Republic of China: Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final
Determination’’ (‘‘Decision Memo’’),
dated concurrently with this notice and
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues which parties raised,
and to which we respond in the
Decision Memo, are attached to this
notice as Appendix I. The Decision
Memo 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
(‘‘CRU’’), room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memo can be accessed directly
on the internet at https://www.trade.gov/
ia/. The signed Decision Memo and the
electronic versions of the Decision
Memo are identical in content.
3 See Letter to the Department from Baozhang; Re:
Letter Electing Not To Participate in Verification,
dated November 4, 2011.
4 See Letter to the Department from Honbase; Re:
Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s Republic
of China, dated November 9, 2011.
5 See ‘‘Memorandum to the File from Kabir
Archuletta, re: Galvanized Steel Wire Sample
Viewing,’’ dated November 9, 2011.
6 Davis Wire Corporation, Johnstown Wire
Technologies, Inc., Mid-South Wire Company, Inc.,
National Standard, LLC and Oklahoma Steel & Wire
Company, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to
as ‘‘Petitioners’’).
7 In this case, Huayuan refers to the collective
group of affiliated companies comprised of Tianjin
Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd., Tianjin
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Analysis of Comments Received
Changes Since the Preliminary
Determination
Based on our analysis of information
on the record of this investigation, we
have made changes regarding Honbase
and Baozhang for the final
determination. Specifically, for the final
determination, we have applied total
adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) for
Honbase’s and Baozhang’s failure to
participate and their subsequent
inclusion as part of the PRC-wide entity.
Tianxin Metal Products, Co., Ltd., Tianjin Huayuan
Times Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Tianjin
Meijiahua Trade Co., Ltd.
8 See Letter to the Department from Huayuan; Re:
Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s Republic
of China: Withdrawal of Request for a Hearing,
dated December 15, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices
Scope of Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers
galvanized steel wire which is a colddrawn carbon quality steel product in
coils, of circular or approximately
circular, solid cross section with any
actual diameter of 0.5842 mm (0.0230
inch) or more, plated or coated with
zinc (whether by hot-dipping or
electroplating).
Steel products to be included in the
scope of this investigation, regardless of
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) definitions,
are products in which: (1) Iron
predominates, by weight, over each of
the other contained elements; (2) the
carbon content is two percent or less, by
weight; and (3) none of the elements
listed below exceeds the quantity, by
weight, respectively indicated:
—1.80 percent of manganese, or
—1.50 percent of silicon, or
—1.00 percent of copper, or
—0.50 percent of aluminum, or
—1.25 percent of chromium, or
—0.30 percent of cobalt, or
—0.40 percent of lead, or
—1.25 percent of nickel, or
—0.30 percent of tungsten, or
—0.02 percent of boron, or
—0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
—0.10 percent of niobium, or
—0.41 percent of titanium, or
—0.15 percent of vanadium, or
—0.15 percent of zirconium.
Separate Rates
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Specifically excluded from the scope
of this investigation is galvanized steel
wire in coils of 15 feet or less which is
pre-packed in individual retail
packages. The products subject to this
investigation are currently classified in
subheadings 7217.20.30, 7217.20.45,
and7217.90.1000 of the HTSUS which
cover galvanized wire of all diameters
and all carbon content. Galvanized wire
is reported under statistical reporting
numbers 7217.20.3000, 7217.20.4510,
7217.20.4520, 7217.20.4530,
7217.20.4540, 7217.20.4550,
7217.20.4560, 7217.20.4570,
7217.20.4580, and 7217.90.1000. These
products may also enter under HTSUS
subheadings 7229.20.0015,
7229.20.0090, 7229.90.5008,
7229.90.5016, 7229.90.5031, and
7229.90.5051. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and Customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise
is dispositive.
Scope Comments
In their case and rebuttal briefs,
interested parties provided comments
on the scope and merchandise that is to
be covered under the scope. We have
discussed these comments fully in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:32 Mar 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
Decision Memo.9 In addition, and as
referenced in the ‘‘Background’’ section
above, certain parties in the companion
galvanized wire investigation involving
Mexico provided scope comments.10 As
a result of considering these comments,
we have made a slight modification of
the scope to clarify that galvanized steel
wire of circular or approximately
circular, solid cross section is included
within the scope.11 We have also
included an additional HTSUS
subheading as part of the scope
description.12
In addition, in the Preliminary
Determination, we responded to scope
comments provided by Tree Island Wire
(USA), Inc. and Preferred Wire
Products, Inc., and we preliminarily
determined that galvanized wire with a
diameter less than one millimeter is
subject to the scope of the investigation.
No additional comments were made on
this issue in the case or rebuttal briefs.
Thus, for the final determination, we
have made no changes on this
determination from the Preliminary
Determination and continue to find,
specifically, that galvanized wire with a
diameter less than one millimeter but
equal to or greater than 0.5842
millimeters is covered by the scope.
In proceedings involving non-marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the
Department begins with a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within
the country are subject to government
control and, thus, should be assigned a
single antidumping duty deposit rate. It
is the Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to an
investigation in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate.13 In the Preliminary
Determination, we found that
Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Products
Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire
Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai
Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua
Jinhai Import & Export Trading Co.,
9 See
Decision Memo at Comment 3.
comments have been addressed in the
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico,
signed concurrently with this notice and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comments 3 and 4.
11 See id., at Comment 3.
12 See id., at Comment 4.
13 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as
amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2,
1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
10 These
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17431
Ltd.; Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated
Company; Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.;
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Fasten
Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; Qingdao
Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd.;
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; M & M
Industries Co., Ltd.; Shaanxi New Mile
International Trade Co., Ltd.; Hebei
Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade
Co., Ltd.; Dezhou Hualude Hardware
Products Co., Ltd.; Shanghai SETI
Enterprise International Co., Ltd.; and
Xi’an Metals and Minerals Import and
Export Co., Ltd., demonstrated their
eligibility for, and were hence assigned,
separate rate status.
No parties commented on the above
companies’ eligibility for separate rate
status. Consequently, for the final
determination, we continue to find that
these companies demonstrated both a de
jure and de facto absence of government
control with respect to their exports of
the merchandise under investigation,
and are eligible for separate rate status
for the final determination.
The Department received comments
from Huayuan and Petitioners regarding
the Department’s preliminary
determination with respect to
Huayuan’s separate rate status. The
Department has addressed the
arguments in Comment 1 of the
Decision Memo. For the final
determination, we continue to find that
Huayuan has not overcome the
presumption of government control
with respect to its exports of the
merchandise under investigation.14
Thus, we continue to find that Huayuan
is not eligible for a separate rate and
remains part of the PRC-wide entity.
Additionally, as discussed in the
‘‘PRC-wide Entity and Facts Available’’
section below and in Comment 2 of the
Decision Memo, Honbase and Baozhang
failed to demonstrate their eligibility for
a separate rate by preventing the
Department from verifying the accuracy
of their information and will, therefore,
be considered part of the PRC-wide
entity for this final determination.
Calculation of Separate Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, we
calculated a weighted-average separate
rate based on the margins calculated for
Honbase and Baozhang and their
submitted publicly ranged sales
quantities. However, none of the
mandatory respondents are receiving a
14 See Decision Memo at Comment 1; see also
‘‘Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik,
Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the
Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from the
People’s Republic of China: Tianjin Huayuan Metal
Wire Products Co., Ltd.,’’ dated October 27, 2011
(‘‘Huayuan Prelim Analysis Memo’’) at Exhibit 1.
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
17432
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices
separate rate for this final
determination. If the estimated
weighted-average margins for all
individually investigated respondents
are de minimis or based entirely on facts
available (‘‘FA’’), the Department may
use any reasonable method to determine
the separate rate margin.15 Therefore,
pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) and (B)
of the Act, we have, for the final
determination, determined the separate
rate margin using a reasonable method
that is consistent with our established
practice. Specifically, we have assigned
to the separate rate companies the
simple average of all of the margins
alleged in the Petition,16 as revised in
the Initiation Notice,17 which is 194.00
percent.18
The PRC-Wide Entity and Facts
Available
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department found that:
information on the record of this
investigation indicates that there were more
exporters of galvanized steel wire from the
PRC than those indicated in the response to
our request for Q&V information during the
POI * * * Although all producers/exporters
were given an opportunity to provide Q&V
information, not all producers/exporters
provided a response to the Department’s Q&V
letter.19
Furthermore, the Department did not
grant a separate rate to Tianjin Jinghai
Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Tianjin Jinghai’’) because it withdrew
its participation from this investigation
15 See
section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act.
Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Galvanized Steel Wire from
Mexico and Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s
Republic of China filed on March 31, 2011 (the
‘‘Petition’’).
17 See Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s
Republic of China and Mexico: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76 FR 23548,
23552 (April 27, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’); see
also Decision Memo at Comment 7.
18 See, e.g., Aluminum Extrusions from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 18524, 18525
(April 4, 2011) (‘‘For the final determination, we
have assigned the 29 separate rate applicants to
whom we are granting a separate rate a dumping
margin of 32.79 percent, based on the simple
average of the margins alleged in the petition
* * *’’); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China, 73 FR 31970, 31971–31972 (June
5, 2008) (‘‘* * * we have assigned to the separate
rate companies the simple average of the margins
alleged in the petition.’’); Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium
Hexametaphosphate from the People’s Republic of
China, 73 FR 6479, 6480–6481 (February 4, 2008)
(‘‘Specifically, we have assigned an average of the
margins calculated for purposes of initiation as the
separate rate for the final determination.’’).
19 See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at
68415–68416.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
16 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:32 Mar 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
as a selected mandatory respondent,
having never provided any evidence
demonstrating an absence of
government control both in law and in
fact. As such, the Department
preliminarily determined that there
were PRC producers/exporters of
galvanized steel wire during the POI
that did not respond to the Department’s
request for information. We treated
these PRC producers/exporters as part of
the PRC-wide entity because they did
not qualify for a separate rate.20
Further, as stated above, in the
Preliminary Determination, the
Department did not grant a separate rate
to Huayuan because it did not overcome
the presumption of government
control.21 The Department has
addressed this issue at length in the
Decision Memo, based on comments
received from Huayuan and
Petitioners.22 However, because the
Department begins with the
presumption that all companies within
an NME country are subject to
government control, and because only
the separate rate recipients have
overcome that presumption, because
Huayuan did not qualify for a separate
rate, the Department is applying the
PRC-wide entity rate to Huayuan and its
affiliates. Despite Huayuan’s submission
of sales and factor of production data,
because Huayuan did not receive a
separate rate and was found to be part
of the PRC-wide entity, we have not
used this data to calculate a separate
antidumping duty margin for Huayuan.
Rather, we have assigned to Huayuan
the rate assigned to the PRC-wide entity.
This is consistent with our longstanding practice of assigning a countrywide rate to NME companies that do not
qualify for a separate rate, and has been
affirmed by the court.23
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that if an interested party: (A)
Withholds information that has been
requested by the Department; (B) fails to
provide such information in a timely
manner or in the form or manner
requested, subject to subsections
782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C)
20 See
id.
id., 76 FR at 68413; see also ‘‘Memorandum
to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9,
from Irene Gorelik, Senior International Trade
Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Affiliation and
Single Entity Determinations for Tianjin Huayuan
Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd.,’’ dated October 27,
2011 (‘‘Huayuan Affiliation Memo’’); and Huayuan
Prelim Analysis Memo.
22 See Decision Memo at Comment 1A, 1B, and
1C.
23 See Transcom, Inc. v. United States, 182 F.3d
876, 883 (CAFC 1999) (citing Sigma Corp v. United
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405- 06. (CAFC 1997)).
21 See
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
significantly impedes a determination
under the antidumping statute; or (D)
provides such information but the
information cannot be verified, the
Department shall, subject to subsection
782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise
available in reaching the applicable
determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides
that if an interested party ‘‘promptly
after receiving a request from {the
Department} for information, notifies
{the Department} that such party is
unable to submit the information in the
requested form and manner, together
with a full explanation and suggested
alternative form in which such party is
able to submit the information,’’ the
Department may modify the
requirements to avoid imposing an
unreasonable burden on that party.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides
that, if the Department determines that
a response to a request for information
does not comply with the request, the
Department will inform the person
submitting the response of the nature of
the deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that person the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If that person submits
further information that continues to be
unsatisfactory, or this information is not
submitted within the applicable time
limits, the Department may, subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all
or part of the original and subsequent
responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act states that
the Department shall not decline to
consider information deemed
‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1)
The information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information
can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as
a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination; (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it
acted to the best of its ability; and (5)
the information can be used without
undue difficulties.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act
states that if the administering authority
finds that an interested party has not
acted to the best of its ability to comply
with a request for information, the
administering authority may, in
reaching its determination, use an
inference that is adverse to that party.
The adverse inference may be based
upon: (1) The Petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation under
this title, (3) any previous review under
section 751 or determination under
section 753, or (4) any other information
placed on the record.
Information on the record of this
investigation indicates that the PRC-
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
wide entity was unresponsive to the
Department’s requests for information.
Certain companies: (1) Did not respond
to our questionnaires requesting
quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’)
information; or (2) withdrew
participation from the investigation. As
a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A)
of the Act, we found that the use of facts
available is appropriate to determine the
PRC-wide rate.
Since the Preliminary Determination,
Honbase and Baozhang, the two
mandatory respondents for which we
calculated preliminary antidumping
duty margins, both withdrew their
participation from their respective,
scheduled on-site verifications. By
ceasing to participate in the verification
of their questionnaire responses,
Honbase and Baozhang prevented the
Department from verifying the accuracy
of their information as provided by
section 782(i) of the Act, and thus,
failed to demonstrate their eligibility for
a separate rate.24 Therefore, for the final
determination, the Department finds
that Honbase and Baozhang are
considered to be part of the PRC-wide
entity (along with Tianjin Jinghai, the
companies unresponsive to the Q&V
questionnaires and Huayuan). Because
the PRC-wide entity, which now also
includes Honbase and Baozhang,
significantly impeded the Department’s
proceeding pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, by failing to
provide the requested information and
by refusing to allow verification of their
data, we find that the PRC-wide entity
withheld information requested by the
Department pursuant to section
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Based on the
foregoing, we have determined that the
PRC-wide entity failed to act to the best
of its ability by not providing the
requested information and by ceasing
their participation in the proceeding.
Therefore, we continue to find that
when selecting from among the FA, an
adverse inference is warranted for the
PRC-wide entity, including Honbase
and Baozhang, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act.
The PRC-Wide Entity Rate
Because we begin with the
presumption that all companies within
a NME country are subject to
government control, and because only
the companies listed under the ‘‘Final
Determination Margins’’ section, below,
have overcome that presumption, we are
applying a single antidumping rate (i.e.,
the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters
of the merchandise under consideration.
These other companies did not
24 See
section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:32 Mar 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
demonstrate entitlement to a separate
rate.25 The PRC-wide rate applies to all
entries of the merchandise under
consideration except for entries from the
companies receiving a separate rate.26
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department determined that there were:
(1) Exporters/producers of the
merchandise subject to the investigation
during the POI from the PRC that did
not respond to the Department’s request
for information; (2) exporters that
withdrew from participation from the
review; and (3) exporters that did not
overcome the presumption of
government control (specifically
Huayuan 27). Further, we treated these
PRC producers/exporters as part of the
PRC-wide entity because they did not
qualify for a separate rate. Finally, we
found that the use of FA was
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide
rate pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of
the Act.28
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department also determined that, in
selecting from among the FA, an adverse
inference is appropriate because the
PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with requests for information.29
As AFA, we preliminarily assigned to
the PRC-wide entity a rate of 235.00
percent, the highest calculated rate from
the Petition.30
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that, if an interested party (A) withholds
information requested by the
Department, (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadline, or in the
form or manner requested, (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding, or
(D) provides information that cannot be
verified, the Department shall use,
subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the
25 See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s
Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707
(May 3, 2000).
26 These companies are: Shijiazhuang Kingway
Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire
Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Hardware
Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Import &
Export Trading Co., Ltd.; Guizhou Wire Rope
Incorporated Company; Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.;
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Fasten Group Imp.
& Exp. Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Ant Hardware
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.;
M & M Industries Co., Ltd.; Shaanxi New Mile
International Trade Co., Ltd.; Hebei Cangzhou New
Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; Dezhou Hualude
Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Shanghai SETI
Enterprise International Co., Ltd.; and Xi’an Metals
and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd.
27 See Decision Memo at Comments 1A, 1B, and
1C; see also Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at
68413.
28 See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68416.
29 See id.
30 See id.; see also Statement of Administrative
Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No.
103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17433
Act, facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Because the PRC-wide entity (now
including Honbase and Baozhang) did
not respond to our requests for
information, withheld information
requested by the Department, and did
not allow their information to be
verified, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, we
determine, as in the Preliminary
Determination, that the use of facts
otherwise available is appropriate to
determine the PRC-wide rate. The PRCwide entity has not provided the
Department with the requested
information; therefore, pursuant to
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the
Department continues to find that the
use of FA is appropriate to determine
the PRC-wide rate. As noted above,
section 776(b) of the Act provides that,
in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, the Department
may employ an adverse inference if an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information.31 We find
that, because the PRC-wide entity did
not respond to our request for
information, it has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability. Therefore, the
Department finds that, in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available, an
adverse inference is appropriate for the
PRC-wide entity.
Corroboration
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information, rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation as facts available, it must,
to the extent practicable, corroborate
that information from independent
sources reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is described in
the SAA as ‘‘information derived from
the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final
determination concerning subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under Section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.’’ 32 The SAA
provides that to ‘‘corroborate’’ means
simply that the Department will satisfy
itself that the secondary information to
be used has probative value.33 The SAA
also states that independent sources
used to corroborate may include, for
example, published price lists, official
import statistics and customs data, and
31 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the
Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4,
2000). See also SAA at 870.
32 See SAA at 870.
33 See id.
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
17434
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices
information obtained from interested
parties during the particular
investigation.34 To corroborate
secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the
information used.35
At the Preliminary Determination, as
AFA the Department selected a rate of
235.00 percent, the highest rate from the
Petition,36 as recalculated by the
Department in the Initiation Notice.37
Petitioners’ methodology for calculating
the export price and normal value
(‘‘NV’’) in the Petition is discussed in
the Initiation Notice.38 To corroborate
the AFA margin that we selected, we
compared this margin to the modelspecific margins we found for the
cooperating mandatory respondents. We
found that the margin of 235.00 percent
had probative value because it is within
the range of the non-aberrational,
model-specific margins that we
preliminarily calculated for one of the
mandatory respondents during the
POI.39 Accordingly, we found that
235.00 percent was a reliable and
relevant rate, considering the record
information, and thus, had probative
value for the Preliminary Determination.
For the final determination, because
there were no margins calculated for the
mandatory respondents, to corroborate
the 235.00 percent margin used as AFA
for the PRC-wide entity, to the extent
appropriate information was available,
we are affirming our pre-initiation
analysis of the adequacy and accuracy
of the information in the Petition.40
During our pre-initiation analysis, we
examined evidence supporting the
calculations in the Petition and the
supplemental information provided by
Petitioners prior to initiation to
determine the probative value of the
margins alleged in the Petition. During
our pre-initiation analysis, we examined
the information used as the basis of
export price and NV in the Petition, and
the calculations used to derive the
alleged margins. Also during our preinitiation analysis, we examined
information from various independent
sources provided either in the Petition
or, based on our requests, in
supplements to the Petition, which
corroborated key elements of the export
price and NV calculations.41 Therefore,
for the final determination, we have
corroborated our AFA margin by
affirming our pre-initiation analysis.
Because no parties commented on the
selection of the PRC-wide rate, we
continue to find that the margin of
235.00 percent has probative value.
Accordingly, we find that the rate of
235.00 percent is corroborated within
the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we
stated that we selected Thailand as the
appropriate surrogate country to use in
this investigation for the following
reasons: (1) It is a significant producer
of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at
a similar level of economic development
pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3)
we have reliable data from Thailand that
we can use to value the factors of
production.42 For the final
determination, we are not calculating
any margins that require surrogate
values from a surrogate country and,
therefore, there is no need to consider
comments with respect to the selection
of a surrogate country.43
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the below
percentage margins exist for the
following entities for the POI:
Weightedaverage
margin
(percent)
Exporter
Producer
Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Products Co., Ltd .......................
Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd ..............................
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................
Huanghua Jinhai Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd .................
Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated Company ............................
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd .........................................................
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd .........................................................
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd .........................................................
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd ..................................................
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd ..................................................
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd ..................................................
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd ..................................................
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd ..................................................
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd .........................................
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd .........................................
Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Products Co., Ltd .......................
Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd ..............................
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................
Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated Company ............................
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................
Huanghua Huarong Hardware Co., Ltd ...................................
Shandong Jining Lianzhong Hardware Products Co., Ltd .......
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................
Huanghua Xincheng Metal Products Co., Ltd .........................
Tianjin Shi Dagangqu Yuliang XianCaichang ..........................
Tianjin Hengfeng Metal Wire Co., Ltd ......................................
Tianjin Shi Jinghai Yicheng Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........
Jiangsu Fasten Stock Co., Ltd .................................................
Zhangjiagang Guanghua Communication Cable Materials
Co., Ltd.
Zhangjiagang Kaihua Metal Products Co., Ltd ........................
Qingdao Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd .......................
Tianjin Jinnan 4th Wire Factory ...............................................
Tianjin Yinshan Manufacture & Trade Co., Ltd .......................
Tianjin Zhaohong Metal Products Co., Ltd ..............................
Tianjin Wandai Metal Products Co., Ltd ..................................
Tianjin Dagang Wire Factory ...................................................
Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd .....................
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd .........................................
Qingdao Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd .......................
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
34 See
id.
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered
Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
35 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:32 Mar 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825
(March 13, 1997).
36 See Petition.
37 See Initiation Notice.
38 See id.
39 See ‘‘Memorandum to the File, from Irene
Gorelik, Senior Analyst, re; Corroboration of the
PRC-Wide Entity Rate for the Preliminary
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated October 27,
2011.
40 See Antidumping Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s
Republic of China, dated April 20, 2011 (‘‘Initiation
Checklist’’).
41 See id.
42 See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at
68410–68412.
43 See Decision Memo at Comment 4.
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices
Weightedaverage
margin
(percent)
Exporter
Producer
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
M & M Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
M & M Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
M & M Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
M & M Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
M & M Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................
Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd .......................
Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd .......................
Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd .......................
Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd .......................
Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd .......................
Tianjin Liquan Metal Products Co., Ltd ....................................
Tianjin Huayuan Times Metal Products Co., Ltd .....................
Tianjin Fusheng Metal Products Co., Ltd ................................
Tianjin Huayuan Times Metal Products Co., Ltd .....................
Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd ........................
Tianjin Tianxin Metal Products Co., Ltd ...................................
Tianjin Jinghai County Yongshun Metal Products Mill .............
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................
Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd ........................
Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd .....................
Tianjin Zhaohong Metal Products Co., Ltd ..............................
Tianjin Lianxing Metal Products Co., Ltd .................................
Tianjin Beichen Gangjiaoxian Metal Products Co., Ltd., Fuli
Branch.
Shenzhou Hongli Metal Products Co., Ltd ...............................
Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd ........................
Tianjin Randa Metal Products Factory .....................................
Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd .....................
Tianjin Jinghai Hongjiufeng Wire Products Co., Ltd ................
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................
Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd .....................
Tianjin Yinshan Industry and Trade Co., Ltd ...........................
Tianjin Zhenyuan Industry and Trade Co., Ltd ........................
Dingzhou Xuri Metal Products Factory ....................................
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................
Tianjin Dagang Wire Mill ..........................................................
Tianjin Huayuan Industrial Company .......................................
Hebei Yongwei Metal Products Co., Ltd ..................................
Tianjin Guanshun Metal Products Co., Ltd ..............................
Shanghai Xiaoyu Metal Products Co., Ltd ...............................
Tianjin Jinyongtai Hardware Products Co., Ltd .......................
Tianjin Hengfeng Metal Wire Co., Ltd ......................................
Shenzhou City Hongli Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd ........
Tianjin Dagang Jinding Metal Products Factory ......................
...................................................................................................
Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd .......................
Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd ...........
Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd ...........
Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd ...........
Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd ...........
Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd ...........
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd .........................
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd .........................
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd .........................
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd .........................
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd .........................
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd .........................
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd .........................
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd .........................
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd .........................
Shanghai SETI Enterprise International Co., Ltd .....................
Xi’an Metals and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd ............
Xi’an Metals and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd ............
Xi’an Metals and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd ............
Xi’an Metals and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd ............
PRC-Wide 44 .............................................................................
Disclosure
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
We will disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
44 The PRC-wide entity includes: Tianjin Honbase
Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd.; Anhui Bao Zhang
Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Bao Zhang
Industry Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire
Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Meijiahua Trade Co.,
Ltd.; Tianjin Huayuan Times Metal Products Co.,
Ltd.; Tianjin Tianxin Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Anping Shuangmai Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Anping Xinhong Wire Mesh Co., Ltd.; Beijing Catic
Industry Limited; Benxi Wasainuo Metal Packaging
Production Co., Ltd.; China National Electronics
Imp. & Exp. Ningbo Co., Ltd.; Easen Corp.; Ecms
O/B Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire; Hebei Dongfang
Hardware And Mesh Co., Ltd.; Hebei Longda Trade
Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Yufutai Hardware Products
Co., Ltd.; Maccaferri (Changsha) Enviro-Tech Co.;
Nantong Long Yang International Trade Co., Ltd.;
Shandong Hualing Hardware & Tools Co. Ltd.;
Shanghai Multi-development Enterprises; Shanghai
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jing Weida
International Trade Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Pcss Trading
Co., Ltd.; and Weifang Hecheng International Trade
Co., Ltd.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:32 Mar 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
In accordance with section
735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend
liquidation of all imports of
merchandise subject to the investigation
entered or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption for the PRC-wide entity
and the Separate Rate Recipients on or
after November 4, 2011. We will instruct
CBP to require a cash deposit or the
posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV
exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The
rate for the exporter/producer
combinations listed in the chart above
will be the rate we have determined in
this final determination; (2) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide
rate; and (3) 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 exporter/producer combination
that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17435
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
194.00
235.00
These suspension of liquidation
instructions will remain in effect until
further notice.
Additionally, the Department found
in its final determination for the
companion countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’)
investigation that Baozhang’s
merchandise benefited from export
subsidies.45 However, as noted above,
we have determined that Baozhang is
part of the PRC-wide entity in this
proceeding. With respect to the PRCwide entity, we have applied as AFA
the highest rate from the Petition.
Therefore, we will not instruct CBP to
deduct any export subsidy from the
PRC-wide entity’s cash deposit rate.46
With respect to M&M Industries Co.,
Ltd., a separate rate recipient in this
case, but a mandatory respondent in the
companion CVD case to which total
AFA was assigned, the Department
45 See Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination, dated concurrently with this
notice.
46 See, e.g., Drill Pipe From the People’s Republic
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, 76 FR 1966,
1970 (January 11, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
17436
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices
calculated the AFA rate for M&M
Industries using program-specific rates
calculated for the cooperating
respondents. Therefore, in the CVD
investigation, because there was only
one export subsidy rate calculated (for
Baozhang, a cooperative respondent in
the CVD investigation), the export
subsidy portion of the AFA-rate for
M&M Industries is equal to the export
subsidy rate calculated for Baozhang
(0.21%). In addition, Baozhang’s rate is
the basis for the all-others rate in the
CVD case. Therefore, we will instruct
CBP to require a cash deposit or posting
of a bond equal to the amount by which
normal value exceeds U.S. price for the
M&M Industries, reduced by the export
subsidy rate (0.21%) found for all
companies.
Further, with respect to the other
companies receiving a separate rate in
the instant investigation, excluding
M&M Industries Co., Ltd., these
companies are subject to the all-others
rate in the companion CVD
investigation. Moreover, as noted above,
all companies were found to have the
same amount of export subsidies, the
amount found for the cooperative
respondent in the CVD case. Therefore,
for companies receiving a separate rate,
we will instruct CBP to require a cash
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the
amount by which normal value exceeds
U.S. price for the separate rate
recipients, as indicated above, reduced
by the export subsidy rate (0.21%)
found for all companies.
(‘‘Huayuan’’)
A. Whether the Department Incorrectly
Determined Huayuan’s Eligibility for a
Separate Rate
B. Whether the Department Should Have
Applied Adverse Facts Available
(‘‘AFA’’) to Huayuan
C. Whether the Department Failed to Meet
the Statutory Obligation to Verify
Huayuan
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should
Assign AFA to Tianjin Honbase
Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Tianjin Honbase’’) and to Anhui Bao
Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Baozhang’’)
Notification Regarding APO
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012.
SUMMARY: On November 3, 2011, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) published its
preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the
antidumping investigation of certain
stilbenic optical brightening agents
(‘‘stilbenic OBAs’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 The
Department invited interested parties to
comment on the Preliminary
Determination. Based on the
Department’s analysis of the comments
received, the Department has made
changes from the Preliminary
Determination, and continues to find
that stilbenic OBAs from the PRC are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at LTFV, as provided in
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Dated: March 19, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Company-Specific Issues
Comment 1: The Department’s Preliminary
Determination With Respect to Tianjin
Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd.
19:32 Mar 23, 2012
[FR Doc. 2012–7212 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–972]
Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening
Agents From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY:
This notice also serves as a reminder
to the 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. Timely
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.
This determination and notice are
issued and published in accordance
with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
General Issues
Comment 3: Whether Hobby Wire is Within
the Scope of the Investigation
Comment 4: Surrogate Country Selection
Comment 5: Whether Double-Remedies Have
Been Applied
Comment 6: Whether the NME Separate Rate
Methodology is Contrary to Law and
Should Be Eliminated
Comment 7: Appropriate Separate Rate to
Assign to Cooperative Non-Selected
Companies
Jkt 226001
1 See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents
from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 68148
(November 3, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The final
dumping margins for this investigation
are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination’’
section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shawn Higgins or Maisha Cryor, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0679, or (202)
482–5831, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published its
Preliminary Determination of sales at
LTFV and postponement of the final
determination on November 3, 2011.
Between November 7, 2011, and
November 18, 2011, the Department
conducted verification of mandatory
respondents Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon
Chemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Transfar’’) and
Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Hongda’’).2 Clariant Corporation
(‘‘Petitioner’’), Transfar, and Hongda
submitted case briefs on January 6,
2012.3 On January 11, 2012, Petitioner
and Transfar filed rebuttal briefs. The
Department conducted a public hearing
on February 1, 2012.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
July 1, 2010, through December 31,
2010. This period corresponds to the
two most recent fiscal quarters prior to
the month of the filing of the petition,
which was March 2011.4
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
investigation are addressed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum.5 A list of
2 See
the ‘‘Verification’’ section below.
Department rejected Transfar’s original case
brief because it contained untimely information.
See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Transfar, regarding
Transfar’s submission of untimely information
(January 10, 2012). Transfar submitted a revised
version of its case brief on January 13, 2012. See
Letter from Transfar to the Secretary of Commerce,
‘‘Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from
China’’ (January 13, 2012) (‘‘Transfar’s Case Brief’’);
Letter from Transfar to the Secretary of Commerce,
‘‘Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from
China’’ (January 11, 2012) (‘‘Transfar’s Rebuttal
Brief’’).
4 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
5 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical
Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of
3 The
E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM
26MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17430-17436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7212]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-975]
Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012.
SUMMARY: On November 4, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') published the Preliminary Determination of sales at
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of
galvanized steel wire from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\
On November 29, 2011, the Department published an Amended Preliminary
Determination.\2\ The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1,
2010, through December 31, 2010. Based on our analysis of the comments
received, we have made changes to our Preliminary Determination and
Amended Preliminary Determination. The Department continues to find
that galvanized steel wire from the PRC is being, or is likely to be,
sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of
sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section
of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 68407 (November 4,
2011) (``Preliminary Determination'').
\2\ See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's Republic of
China: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 76 FR 73589 (November 29, 2011) (``Amended Preliminary
Determination'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, Katie Marksberry or
Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(202) 482-6905, (202) 482-7906, or 482-2593, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 4, 2011, Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry Co., Ltd., Anhui
Bao Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd., and B&Z Galvanized Wire Industry
(collectively, ``Baozhang''), one of the three respondents selected for
individual examination in this investigation, notified the Department
that it would not participate in any the scheduled verifications.\3\ On
November 9, 2011, Tianjin Honbase Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd.
(``Honbase''), another respondent selected for individual examination
in this investigation, also notified the Department that it would not
participate in any scheduled verifications.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Letter to the Department from Baozhang; Re: Letter
Electing Not To Participate in Verification, dated November 4, 2011.
\4\ See Letter to the Department from Honbase; Re: Galvanized
Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China, dated November 9,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 2, 2011, Qingdao Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
(``AHM''), one of the non-individually examined exporters that received
a separate rate, placed on the record samples of products which it
believes should be excluded from the scope of the investigation. On
November 9, 2011, the Department notified all interested parties that
it would allow any interested parties to physically view the
samples.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Memorandum to the File from Kabir Archuletta, re:
Galvanized Steel Wire Sample Viewing,'' dated November 9, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between December 9 and 14, 2011, we received case and rebuttal
briefs from Petitioners,\6\ AHM, Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products
Co., Ltd. (``Huayuan''),\7\ and Baozhang. The Department did not hold a
public hearing, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), as the hearing requests
made by interested parties were withdrawn.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Davis Wire Corporation, Johnstown Wire Technologies, Inc.,
Mid-South Wire Company, Inc., National Standard, LLC and Oklahoma
Steel & Wire Company, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as
``Petitioners'').
\7\ In this case, Huayuan refers to the collective group of
affiliated companies comprised of Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire
Products Co., Ltd., Tianjin Tianxin Metal Products, Co., Ltd.,
Tianjin Huayuan Times Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Tianjin
Meijiahua Trade Co., Ltd.
\8\ See Letter to the Department from Huayuan; Re: Galvanized
Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of
Request for a Hearing, dated December 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 2, 2012, at the Department's request, interested parties
in the companion galvanized wire investigations involving Mexico filed
on the record of this investigation certain scope comments that were
raised in that proceeding's case and rebuttal briefs. We allowed a
period of time for parties in the instant proceeding to comment on
those submissions. We received no comments.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this investigation are addressed in the ``Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of
China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination''
(``Decision Memo''), dated concurrently with this notice and which is
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties
raised, and to which we respond in the Decision Memo, are attached to
this notice as Appendix I. The Decision Memo 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
(``CRU''), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed
directly on the internet at https://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed
Decision Memo and the electronic versions of the Decision Memo are
identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on our analysis of information on the record of this
investigation, we have made changes regarding Honbase and Baozhang for
the final determination. Specifically, for the final determination, we
have applied total adverse facts available (``AFA'') for Honbase's and
Baozhang's failure to participate and their subsequent inclusion as
part of the PRC-wide entity.
[[Page 17431]]
Scope of Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers galvanized steel wire which
is a cold-drawn carbon quality steel product in coils, of circular or
approximately circular, solid cross section with any actual diameter of
0.5842 mm (0.0230 inch) or more, plated or coated with zinc (whether by
hot-dipping or electroplating).
Steel products to be included in the scope of this investigation,
regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates,
by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon
content is two percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements
listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
--1.80 percent of manganese, or
--1.50 percent of silicon, or
--1.00 percent of copper, or
--0.50 percent of aluminum, or
--1.25 percent of chromium, or
--0.30 percent of cobalt, or
--0.40 percent of lead, or
--1.25 percent of nickel, or
--0.30 percent of tungsten, or
--0.02 percent of boron, or
--0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
--0.10 percent of niobium, or
--0.41 percent of titanium, or
--0.15 percent of vanadium, or
--0.15 percent of zirconium.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation is
galvanized steel wire in coils of 15 feet or less which is pre-packed
in individual retail packages. The products subject to this
investigation are currently classified in subheadings 7217.20.30,
7217.20.45, and7217.90.1000 of the HTSUS which cover galvanized wire of
all diameters and all carbon content. Galvanized wire is reported under
statistical reporting numbers 7217.20.3000, 7217.20.4510, 7217.20.4520,
7217.20.4530, 7217.20.4540, 7217.20.4550, 7217.20.4560, 7217.20.4570,
7217.20.4580, and 7217.90.1000. These products may also enter under
HTSUS subheadings 7229.20.0015, 7229.20.0090, 7229.90.5008,
7229.90.5016, 7229.90.5031, and 7229.90.5051. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Scope Comments
In their case and rebuttal briefs, interested parties provided
comments on the scope and merchandise that is to be covered under the
scope. We have discussed these comments fully in the Decision Memo.\9\
In addition, and as referenced in the ``Background'' section above,
certain parties in the companion galvanized wire investigation
involving Mexico provided scope comments.\10\ As a result of
considering these comments, we have made a slight modification of the
scope to clarify that galvanized steel wire of circular or
approximately circular, solid cross section is included within the
scope.\11\ We have also included an additional HTSUS subheading as part
of the scope description.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Decision Memo at Comment 3.
\10\ These comments have been addressed in the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Galvanized Steel
Wire from Mexico, signed concurrently with this notice and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 3 and 4.
\11\ See id., at Comment 3.
\12\ See id., at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in the Preliminary Determination, we responded to
scope comments provided by Tree Island Wire (USA), Inc. and Preferred
Wire Products, Inc., and we preliminarily determined that galvanized
wire with a diameter less than one millimeter is subject to the scope
of the investigation. No additional comments were made on this issue in
the case or rebuttal briefs. Thus, for the final determination, we have
made no changes on this determination from the Preliminary
Determination and continue to find, specifically, that galvanized wire
with a diameter less than one millimeter but equal to or greater than
0.5842 millimeters is covered by the scope.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries,
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter
can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate.\13\ In the Preliminary Determination, we
found that Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci
Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co.,
Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd.; Guizhou Wire
Rope Incorporated Company; Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Shandong
Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Ant
Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; M & M
Industries Co., Ltd.; Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd.;
Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; Dezhou Hualude
Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Shanghai SETI Enterprise International
Co., Ltd.; and Xi'an Metals and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd.,
demonstrated their eligibility for, and were hence assigned, separate
rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''),
and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No parties commented on the above companies' eligibility for
separate rate status. Consequently, for the final determination, we
continue to find that these companies demonstrated both a de jure and
de facto absence of government control with respect to their exports of
the merchandise under investigation, and are eligible for separate rate
status for the final determination.
The Department received comments from Huayuan and Petitioners
regarding the Department's preliminary determination with respect to
Huayuan's separate rate status. The Department has addressed the
arguments in Comment 1 of the Decision Memo. For the final
determination, we continue to find that Huayuan has not overcome the
presumption of government control with respect to its exports of the
merchandise under investigation.\14\ Thus, we continue to find that
Huayuan is not eligible for a separate rate and remains part of the
PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Decision Memo at Comment 1; see also ``Memorandum to
the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis
for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China:
Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd.,'' dated October 27,
2011 (``Huayuan Prelim Analysis Memo'') at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, as discussed in the ``PRC-wide Entity and Facts
Available'' section below and in Comment 2 of the Decision Memo,
Honbase and Baozhang failed to demonstrate their eligibility for a
separate rate by preventing the Department from verifying the accuracy
of their information and will, therefore, be considered part of the
PRC-wide entity for this final determination.
Calculation of Separate Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, we calculated a weighted-average
separate rate based on the margins calculated for Honbase and Baozhang
and their submitted publicly ranged sales quantities. However, none of
the mandatory respondents are receiving a
[[Page 17432]]
separate rate for this final determination. If the estimated weighted-
average margins for all individually investigated respondents are de
minimis or based entirely on facts available (``FA''), the Department
may use any reasonable method to determine the separate rate
margin.\15\ Therefore, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) and (B) of the
Act, we have, for the final determination, determined the separate rate
margin using a reasonable method that is consistent with our
established practice. Specifically, we have assigned to the separate
rate companies the simple average of all of the margins alleged in the
Petition,\16\ as revised in the Initiation Notice,\17\ which is 194.00
percent.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act.
\16\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico and Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China
filed on March 31, 2011 (the ``Petition'').
\17\ See Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of
China and Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76
FR 23548, 23552 (April 27, 2011) (``Initiation Notice''); see also
Decision Memo at Comment 7.
\18\ See, e.g., Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76
FR 18524, 18525 (April 4, 2011) (``For the final determination, we
have assigned the 29 separate rate applicants to whom we are
granting a separate rate a dumping margin of 32.79 percent, based on
the simple average of the margins alleged in the petition * * *'');
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of
China, 73 FR 31970, 31971-31972 (June 5, 2008) (``* * * we have
assigned to the separate rate companies the simple average of the
margins alleged in the petition.''); Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's
Republic of China, 73 FR 6479, 6480-6481 (February 4, 2008)
(``Specifically, we have assigned an average of the margins
calculated for purposes of initiation as the separate rate for the
final determination.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity and Facts Available
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that:
information on the record of this investigation indicates that there
were more exporters of galvanized steel wire from the PRC than those
indicated in the response to our request for Q&V information during
the POI * * * Although all producers/exporters were given an
opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all producers/exporters
provided a response to the Department's Q&V letter.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68415-68416.
Furthermore, the Department did not grant a separate rate to Tianjin
Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Tianjin Jinghai'') because
it withdrew its participation from this investigation as a selected
mandatory respondent, having never provided any evidence demonstrating
an absence of government control both in law and in fact. As such, the
Department preliminarily determined that there were PRC producers/
exporters of galvanized steel wire during the POI that did not respond
to the Department's request for information. We treated these PRC
producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not
qualify for a separate rate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, as stated above, in the Preliminary Determination, the
Department did not grant a separate rate to Huayuan because it did not
overcome the presumption of government control.\21\ The Department has
addressed this issue at length in the Decision Memo, based on comments
received from Huayuan and Petitioners.\22\ However, because the
Department begins with the presumption that all companies within an NME
country are subject to government control, and because only the
separate rate recipients have overcome that presumption, because
Huayuan did not qualify for a separate rate, the Department is applying
the PRC-wide entity rate to Huayuan and its affiliates. Despite
Huayuan's submission of sales and factor of production data, because
Huayuan did not receive a separate rate and was found to be part of the
PRC-wide entity, we have not used this data to calculate a separate
antidumping duty margin for Huayuan. Rather, we have assigned to
Huayuan the rate assigned to the PRC-wide entity. This is consistent
with our long-standing practice of assigning a country-wide rate to NME
companies that do not qualify for a separate rate, and has been
affirmed by the court.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See id., 76 FR at 68413; see also ``Memorandum to Catherine
Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Irene Gorelik, Senior
International Trade Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Affiliation and Single Entity Determinations for
Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd.,'' dated October 27,
2011 (``Huayuan Affiliation Memo''); and Huayuan Prelim Analysis
Memo.
\22\ See Decision Memo at Comment 1A, 1B, and 1C.
\23\ See Transcom, Inc. v. United States, 182 F.3d 876, 883
(CAFC 1999) (citing Sigma Corp v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401,
1405- 06. (CAFC 1997)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party:
(A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the
Act; (C) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping
statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time} for
information, notifies {the Department{time} that such party is unable
to submit the information in the requested form and manner, together
with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in which such
party is able to submit the information,'' the Department may modify
the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that
party.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can
be used without undue difficulties.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the
administering authority finds that an interested party has not acted to
the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the
administering authority may, in reaching its determination, use an
inference that is adverse to that party. The adverse inference may be
based upon: (1) The Petition, (2) a final determination in the
investigation under this title, (3) any previous review under section
751 or determination under section 753, or (4) any other information
placed on the record.
Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the
PRC-
[[Page 17433]]
wide entity was unresponsive to the Department's requests for
information. Certain companies: (1) Did not respond to our
questionnaires requesting quantity and value (``Q&V'') information; or
(2) withdrew participation from the investigation. As a result,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we found that the use of
facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate.
Since the Preliminary Determination, Honbase and Baozhang, the two
mandatory respondents for which we calculated preliminary antidumping
duty margins, both withdrew their participation from their respective,
scheduled on-site verifications. By ceasing to participate in the
verification of their questionnaire responses, Honbase and Baozhang
prevented the Department from verifying the accuracy of their
information as provided by section 782(i) of the Act, and thus, failed
to demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate.\24\ Therefore,
for the final determination, the Department finds that Honbase and
Baozhang are considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity (along with
Tianjin Jinghai, the companies unresponsive to the Q&V questionnaires
and Huayuan). Because the PRC-wide entity, which now also includes
Honbase and Baozhang, significantly impeded the Department's proceeding
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, by failing to provide the
requested information and by refusing to allow verification of their
data, we find that the PRC-wide entity withheld information requested
by the Department pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Based on
the foregoing, we have determined that the PRC-wide entity failed to
act to the best of its ability by not providing the requested
information and by ceasing their participation in the proceeding.
Therefore, we continue to find that when selecting from among the FA,
an adverse inference is warranted for the PRC-wide entity, including
Honbase and Baozhang, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity Rate
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a
NME country are subject to government control, and because only the
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section,
below, have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single
antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters of
the merchandise under consideration. These other companies did not
demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate.\25\ The PRC-wide rate
applies to all entries of the merchandise under consideration except
for entries from the companies receiving a separate rate.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of
China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).
\26\ These companies are: Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Products
Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua
Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Import & Export
Trading Co., Ltd.; Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated Company; Hebei
Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Fasten Group Imp.
& Exp. Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd.;
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; M & M Industries Co., Ltd.; Shaanxi New
Mile International Trade Co., Ltd.; Hebei Cangzhou New Century
Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai SETI Enterprise International Co., Ltd.; and Xi'an Metals
and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that
there were: (1) Exporters/producers of the merchandise subject to the
investigation during the POI from the PRC that did not respond to the
Department's request for information; (2) exporters that withdrew from
participation from the review; and (3) exporters that did not overcome
the presumption of government control (specifically Huayuan \27\).
Further, we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-
wide entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate. Finally,
we found that the use of FA was appropriate to determine the PRC-wide
rate pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Decision Memo at Comments 1A, 1B, and 1C; see also
Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68413.
\28\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department also determined
that, in selecting from among the FA, an adverse inference is
appropriate because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for
information.\29\ As AFA, we preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide
entity a rate of 235.00 percent, the highest calculated rate from the
Petition.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See id.
\30\ See id.; see also Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994)
(``SAA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject
to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination. Because the PRC-wide entity (now
including Honbase and Baozhang) did not respond to our requests for
information, withheld information requested by the Department, and did
not allow their information to be verified, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in the
Preliminary Determination, that the use of facts otherwise available is
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. The PRC-wide entity has not
provided the Department with the requested information; therefore,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department continues
to find that the use of FA is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide
rate. As noted above, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may
employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for
information.\31\ We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not
respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department finds that, in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse
inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel
Products from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4,
2000). See also SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information, rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the
SAA as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject
merchandise, or any previous review under Section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.'' \32\ The SAA provides that to ``corroborate''
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative value.\33\ The SAA also states
that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example,
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
[[Page 17434]]
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation.\34\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance
of the information used.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See SAA at 870.
\33\ See id.
\34\ See id.
\35\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Preliminary Determination, as AFA the Department selected a
rate of 235.00 percent, the highest rate from the Petition,\36\ as
recalculated by the Department in the Initiation Notice.\37\
Petitioners' methodology for calculating the export price and normal
value (``NV'') in the Petition is discussed in the Initiation
Notice.\38\ To corroborate the AFA margin that we selected, we compared
this margin to the model-specific margins we found for the cooperating
mandatory respondents. We found that the margin of 235.00 percent had
probative value because it is within the range of the non-aberrational,
model-specific margins that we preliminarily calculated for one of the
mandatory respondents during the POI.\39\ Accordingly, we found that
235.00 percent was a reliable and relevant rate, considering the record
information, and thus, had probative value for the Preliminary
Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Petition.
\37\ See Initiation Notice.
\38\ See id.
\39\ See ``Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik, Senior
Analyst, re; Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Entity Rate for the
Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China,'' dated
October 27, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the final determination, because there were no margins
calculated for the mandatory respondents, to corroborate the 235.00
percent margin used as AFA for the PRC-wide entity, to the extent
appropriate information was available, we are affirming our pre-
initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in
the Petition.\40\ During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined
evidence supporting the calculations in the Petition and the
supplemental information provided by Petitioners prior to initiation to
determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the Petition.
During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the information used as
the basis of export price and NV in the Petition, and the calculations
used to derive the alleged margins. Also during our pre-initiation
analysis, we examined information from various independent sources
provided either in the Petition or, based on our requests, in
supplements to the Petition, which corroborated key elements of the
export price and NV calculations.\41\ Therefore, for the final
determination, we have corroborated our AFA margin by affirming our
pre-initiation analysis. Because no parties commented on the selection
of the PRC-wide rate, we continue to find that the margin of 235.00
percent has probative value. Accordingly, we find that the rate of
235.00 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China, dated
April 20, 2011 (``Initiation Checklist'').
\41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we selected
Thailand as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this
investigation for the following reasons: (1) It is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a similar level of
economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have
reliable data from Thailand that we can use to value the factors of
production.\42\ For the final determination, we are not calculating any
margins that require surrogate values from a surrogate country and,
therefore, there is no need to consider comments with respect to the
selection of a surrogate country.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68410-68412.
\43\ See Decision Memo at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the below percentage margins exist for the
following entities for the POI:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter Producer average margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Shijiazhuang 194.00
Products Co., Ltd. Kingway Metal
Products Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Shanxi Yuci Broad 194.00
Co., Ltd. Wire Products Co.,
Ltd.
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Huanghua Jinhai 194.00
Co., Ltd. Hardware Products
Co., Ltd.
Huanghua Jinhai Import & Export Huanghua Jinhai 194.00
Trading Co., Ltd. Hardware Products
Co., Ltd.
Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated Guizhou Wire Rope 194.00
Company. Incorporated
Company.
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd......... Huanghua Jinhai 194.00
Hardware Products
Co., Ltd.
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd......... Huanghua Huarong 194.00
Hardware Co., Ltd.
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd......... Shandong Jining 194.00
Lianzhong Hardware
Products Co., Ltd.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd...... Huanghua Jinhai 194.00
Hardware Products
Co., Ltd.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd...... Huanghua Xincheng 194.00
Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd...... Tianjin Shi 194.00
Dagangqu Yuliang
XianCaichang.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd...... Tianjin Hengfeng 194.00
Metal Wire Co.,
Ltd.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd...... Tianjin Shi Jinghai 194.00
Yicheng Hardware
Products Co., Ltd.
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd Jiangsu Fasten 194.00
Stock Co., Ltd.
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd Zhangjiagang 194.00
Guanghua
Communication
Cable Materials
Co., Ltd.
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd Zhangjiagang Kaihua 194.00
Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Ant Hardware Qingdao Ant 194.00
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Hardware
Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd....... Tianjin Jinnan 4th 194.00
Wire Factory.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd....... Tianjin Yinshan 194.00
Manufacture &
Trade Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd....... Tianjin Zhaohong 194.00
Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd....... Tianjin Wandai 194.00
Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd....... Tianjin Dagang Wire 194.00
Factory.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd....... Tianjin Jinghai 194.00
Yicheng Metal
Products Co., Ltd.
[[Page 17435]]
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd....... Tianjin Liquan 194.00
Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd....... Tianjin Huayuan 194.00
Times Metal
Products Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd....... Tianjin Fusheng 194.00
Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd........ Tianjin Huayuan 194.00
Times Metal
Products Co., Ltd.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd........ Tianjin Huayuan 194.00
Metal Wire
Products Co., Ltd.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd........ Tianjin Tianxin 194.00
Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd........ Tianjin Jinghai 194.00
County Yongshun
Metal Products
Mill.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd........ Huanghua Jinhai 194.00
Hardware Products
Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International Tianjin Huayuan 194.00
Trade Co., Ltd. Metal Wire
Products Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International Tianjin Jinghai 194.00
Trade Co., Ltd. Yicheng Metal
Products Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International Tianjin Zhaohong 194.00
Trade Co., Ltd. Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International Tianjin Lianxing 194.00
Trade Co., Ltd. Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International Tianjin Beichen 194.00
Trade Co., Ltd. Gangjiaoxian Metal
Products Co.,
Ltd., Fuli Branch.
Shaanxi New Mile International Shenzhou Hongli 194.00
Trade Co., Ltd. Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century Tianjin Huayuan 194.00
Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Metal Wire
Products Co., Ltd.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century Tianjin Randa Metal 194.00
Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Products Factory.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century Tianjin Jinghai 194.00
Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Yicheng Metal
Products Co., Ltd.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century Tianjin Jinghai 194.00
Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Hongjiufeng Wire
Products Co., Ltd.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century Huanghua Jinhai 194.00
Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Hardware Products
Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Tianjin Jinghai 194.00
Co., Ltd. Yicheng Metal
Products Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Tianjin Yinshan 194.00
Co., Ltd. Industry and Trade
Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Tianjin Zhenyuan 194.00
Co., Ltd. Industry and Trade
Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Dingzhou Xuri Metal 194.00
Co., Ltd. Products Factory.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Huanghua Jinhai 194.00
Co., Ltd. Hardware Products
Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Tianjin Dagang Wire 194.00
Co., Ltd. Mill.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Tianjin Huayuan 194.00
Co., Ltd. Industrial Company.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Hebei Yongwei Metal 194.00
Co., Ltd. Products Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Tianjin Guanshun 194.00
Co., Ltd. Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
Shanghai SETI Enterprise Shanghai Xiaoyu 194.00
International Co., Ltd. Metal Products
Co., Ltd.
Xi'an Metals and Minerals Import Tianjin Jinyongtai 194.00
and Export Co., Ltd. Hardware Products
Co., Ltd.
Xi'an Metals and Minerals Import Tianjin Hengfeng 194.00
and Export Co., Ltd. Metal Wire Co.,
Ltd.
Xi'an Metals and Minerals Import Shenzhou City 194.00
and Export Co., Ltd. Hongli Hardware
Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd.
Xi'an Metals and Minerals Import Tianjin Dagang 194.00
and Export Co., Ltd. Jinding Metal
Products Factory.
PRC-Wide 44...................... ................... 235.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The PRC-wide entity includes: Tianjin Honbase Machinery
Manufactory Co., Ltd.; Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire
Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Meijiahua Trade Co., Ltd.; Tianjin
Huayuan Times Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Tianxin Metal
Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co.,
Ltd.; Anping Shuangmai Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Anping Xinhong Wire
Mesh Co., Ltd.; Beijing Catic Industry Limited; Benxi Wasainuo Metal
Packaging Production Co., Ltd.; China National Electronics Imp. &
Exp. Ningbo Co., Ltd.; Easen Corp.; Ecms O/B Tianjin Huayuan Metal
Wire; Hebei Dongfang Hardware And Mesh Co., Ltd.; Hebei Longda Trade
Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Yufutai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Maccaferri
(Changsha) Enviro-Tech Co.; Nantong Long Yang International Trade
Co., Ltd.; Shandong Hualing Hardware & Tools Co. Ltd.; Shanghai
Multi-development Enterprises; Shanghai Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Jing Weida International Trade Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Pcss
Trading Co., Ltd.; and Weifang Hecheng International Trade Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to
suspend liquidation of all imports of merchandise subject to the
investigation entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption for
the PRC-wide entity and the Separate Rate Recipients on or after
November 4, 2011. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the
posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV
exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer
combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate we have
determined in this final determination; (2) for all PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) 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
exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect
until further notice.
Additionally, the Department found in its final determination for
the companion countervailing duty (``CVD'') investigation that
Baozhang's merchandise benefited from export subsidies.\45\ However, as
noted above, we have determined that Baozhang is part of the PRC-wide
entity in this proceeding. With respect to the PRC-wide entity, we have
applied as AFA the highest rate from the Petition. Therefore, we will
not instruct CBP to deduct any export subsidy from the PRC-wide
entity's cash deposit rate.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, dated
concurrently with this notice.
\46\ See, e.g., Drill Pipe From the People's Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical
Circumstances, 76 FR 1966, 1970 (January 11, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to M&M Industries Co., Ltd., a separate rate recipient
in this case, but a mandatory respondent in the companion CVD case to
which total AFA was assigned, the Department
[[Page 17436]]
calculated the AFA rate for M&M Industries using program-specific rates
calculated for the cooperating respondents. Therefore, in the CVD
investigation, because there was only one export subsidy rate
calculated (for Baozhang, a cooperative respondent in the CVD
investigation), the export subsidy portion of the AFA-rate for M&M
Industries is equal to the export subsidy rate calculated for Baozhang
(0.21%). In addition, Baozhang's rate is the basis for the all-others
rate in the CVD case. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to require a cash
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by which normal value
exceeds U.S. price for the M&M Industries, reduced by the export
subsidy rate (0.21%) found for all companies.
Further, with respect to the other companies receiving a separate
rate in the instant investigation, excluding M&M Industries Co., Ltd.,
these companies are subject to the all-others rate in the companion CVD
investigation. Moreover, as noted above, all companies were found to
have the same amount of export subsidies, the amount found for the
cooperative respondent in the CVD case. Therefore, for companies
receiving a separate rate, we will instruct CBP to require a cash
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by which normal value
exceeds U.S. price for the separate rate recipients, as indicated
above, reduced by the export subsidy rate (0.21%) found for all
companies.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to the 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. Timely 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.
This determination and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 19, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Company-Specific Issues
Comment 1: The Department's Preliminary Determination With Respect
to Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd. (``Huayuan'')
A. Whether the Department Incorrectly Determined Huayuan's
Eligibility for a Separate Rate
B. Whether the Department Should Have Applied Adverse Facts
Available (``AFA'') to Huayuan
C. Whether the Department Failed to Meet the Statutory
Obligation to Verify Huayuan
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Assign AFA to Tianjin
Honbase Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. (``Tianjin Honbase'') and to
Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Baozhang'')
General Issues
Comment 3: Whether Hobby Wire is Within the Scope of the
Investigation
Comment 4: Surrogate Country Selection
Comment 5: Whether Double-Remedies Have Been Applied
Comment 6: Whether the NME Separate Rate Methodology is Contrary to
Law and Should Be Eliminated
Comment 7: Appropriate Separate Rate to Assign to Cooperative Non-
Selected Companies
[FR Doc. 2012-7212 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
