Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 1597 

1See Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 74 FR 31691 (July 2, 2009) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). 

2See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice 

and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 

05.1’’), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/ 

bull05-1.pdf. 

3See Investigation Nos. 701-TA-466 and 731-TA116 (Preliminary): Wire Decking from China, 74 FR 

38229 (July 31, 2009). 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

grants authority for subzone status for 

activity related to the manufacturing 

and distribution of aluminum foil liner 

stock and aluminum foil at the facilities 

of Reynolds Packaging LLC, located in 

Louisville, Kentucky (Subzone 29J), as 

described in the application and 

Federal Register notice, subject to the 

FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations, 

including Section 400.28. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th 

day of December 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Pierre V. Duy, 

Acting Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–376 Filed 1–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XT33 

Western Pacific Crustacean Fisheries; 

2010 Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

Lobster Harvest Guideline 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of lobster harvest 

guideline. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

annual harvest guideline for the 

commercial lobster fishery in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) 

for calendar year 2010 is established at 

zero lobsters. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

Harman, NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 

808–944–2271. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NWHI 

commercial lobster fishery is managed 

under the Fishery Management Plan for 

Crustacean Fisheries of the Western 

Pacific Region. The regulations at 50 

CFR 665.50(b)(2) require NMFS to 

publish an annual harvest guideline for 

lobster Permit Area 1, comprised of 

Federal waters around the NWHI. 

Regulations governing the 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument in the NWHI prohibit the 

unpermitted removal of monument 

resources (50 CFR 404.7), and establish 

a zero annual harvest guideline for 

lobsters (50 CFR 404.10(a)). 

Accordingly, NMFS establishes the 

harvest guideline at zero lobsters for the 

NWHI commercial lobster fishery for 

calendar year 2010. Thus, no harvest of 

NWHI lobster resources is allowed. 

Furthermore, the NMFS Regional 

Administrator determined that all 15 

NWHI lobster limited entry permits held 

by vessel owners (i.e., permit holders) 

are no longer valid. This action 

complies with the final rule governing 

compensation to Federal commercial 

bottomfish and lobster fishermen due to 

fishery closures in the Monument (74 

FR 47119, September 15, 2009). During 

December 2009 and January 2010, 

eligible NWHI lobster permit holders 

voluntarily accepted and received 

monetary payments, as authorized by 

Congress under the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110– 

161). Thus, no fishing for NWHI lobster 

resources is allowed. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: January 6, 2010. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–388 Filed 1–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–949) 

Wire Decking from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) preliminarily determines 

that wire decking from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) is being, or is 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as 

provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act 

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

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

Pursuant to requests from interested 

parties, we are postponing the final 

determination and extending the 

provisional measures from a four– 

month period to not more than six 

months. Accordingly, we will make our 

final determination not later than 135 

days after publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Veith or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4295 or (202) 482– 

4852, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Initiation 

On June 5, 2009, the Department 

received an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) 

petition concerning imports of wire 

decking from the PRC filed in proper 

form by AWP Industries, Inc., ITC 

Manufacturing, Inc., J&L Wire Cloth, 

Inc., and Nashville Wire Products Mfg. 

Co., Inc., (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

See the Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 

Pursuant to Sections 701 and 731 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Petition’’), filed on June 5, 2009. On 

June 22, 2009, Petitioners submitted a 

letter stating that another domestic 

producer of the like product, Wireway 

Husky Corporation, had joined the 

petition. 

The Department initiated this 

investigation on June 25, 2009.1 In the 

Initiation Notice, the Department 

notified parties of the application 

process by which exporters and 

producers may obtain separate–rate 

status in non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

investigations. The process requires 

exporters and producers to submit a 

separate–rate status application 

(‘‘SRA’’)2 and to demonstrate an absence 

of both de jure and de facto government 

control over its export activities. The 

SRA for this investigation was posted on 

the Department’s website http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and– 

news.html on July 2, 2009. The due date 

for filing an SRA was August 31, 2009. 

On July 31, 2009, the International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) determined 

that there is a reasonable indication that 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury by reason of imports of 

wire decking from the PRC.3

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

1598 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 

4See Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of 

China: Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 74 FR 55211 (October 27, 2009). 

5 Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 31693-94. 

6See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined 

Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘China’’) - China’s status as a non-market economy 

(‘‘NME’’),’’ dated August 30, 2006. This document is 

available online at: http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/download/ 

prc-nmestatus/ prc-lined-paper-memo08302006.pdf. 

7See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 9591 ( March 5, 2009) 

(‘‘Kitchen Racks Prelim’’) unchanged in Certain 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 

24, 2009) (‘‘Kitchen Racks Final’’) and Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 4929 

(January 28, 2009) unchanged in Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 

FR 29167 (June 19, 2009). 

8See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking 

from the People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

Respondents,’’ dated August 19, 2009 (‘‘Respondent 

Selection Memo’’). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2008, through March 31, 

2009. This period corresponds to the 

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition, 

which was June 2009. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination 

On October 15, 2009, petitioners 

made a timely request pursuant to 

section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a 50–day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination. On October 27, 2009, the 

Department published a postponement 

of the preliminary antidumping duty 

determination on wire decking from the 

PRC.4

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of the investigation covers 

welded–wire rack decking, which is 

also known as, among other things, 

‘‘pallet rack decking,’’ ‘‘wire rack 

decking,’’ ‘‘wire mesh decking,’’ ‘‘bulk 

storage shelving,’’ or ‘‘welded–wire 

decking.’’ Wire decking consists of wire 

mesh that is reinforced with structural 

supports and designed to be load 

bearing. The structural supports include 

sheet metal support channels, or other 

structural supports, that reinforce the 

wire mesh and that are welded or 

otherwise affixed to the wire mesh, 

regardless of whether the wire mesh and 

supports are assembled or unassembled 

and whether shipped as a kit or 

packaged separately. Wire decking is 

produced from carbon or alloy steel 

wire that has been welded into a mesh 

pattern. The wire may be galvanized or 

plated (e.g., chrome, zinc or nickel 

coated), coated (e.g., with paint, epoxy, 

or plastic), or uncoated (‘‘raw’’). The 

wire may be drawn or rolled and may 

have a round, square or other profile. 

Wire decking is sold in a variety of wire 

gauges. The wire diameters used in the 

decking mesh are 0.105 inches or greater 

for round wire. For wire other than 

round wire, the distance between any 

two points on a cross–section of the 

wire is 0.105 inches or greater. Wire 

decking reinforced with structural 

supports is designed generally for 

industrial and other commercial storage 

rack systems. 

Wire decking is produced to various 

profiles, including, but not limited to, a 

flat (‘‘flush’’) profile, an upward curved 

back edge profile (‘‘backstop’’) or 

downward curved edge profile 

(‘‘waterfalls’’), depending on the rack 

storage system. The wire decking may or 

may not be anchored to the rack storage 

system. The scope does not cover the 

metal rack storage system, comprised of 

metal uprights and cross beams, on 

which the wire decking is ultimately 

installed. Also excluded from the scope 

is wire mesh shelving that is not 

reinforced with structural supports and 

is designed for use without structural 

supports. 

Wire decking enters the United States 

through several basket categories in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection has issued a 

ruling (NY F84777) that wire decking is 

to be classified under HTSUS 

9403.90.8040. Wire decking has also 

been entered under HTSUS 7217.10, 

7217.20, 7326.20, 7326.90, 9403.20.0020 

and 9403.20.0030. While HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

investigations is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations, we set aside a period for 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19, 1997). The Department 

encouraged all interested parties to 

submit such comments within 20 

calendar days of signature of the 

Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 

74 FR at 31692. The Department did not 

receive scope comments from any 

interested party. 

Non–Market Economy Country 

For purposes of initiation, Petitioners 

submitted an LTFV analysis for the PRC 

as an NME.5 The Department’s most 

recent examination of the PRC’s market 

status determined that NME status 

should continue for the PRC.6

Additionally, in two recent 

investigations, the Department also 

determined that the PRC is an NME 

country.7 In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the NME status 

remains in effect until revoked by the 

Department. The Department has not 

revoked the PRC’s status as an NME 

country, and we have therefore treated 

the PRC as an NME in this preliminary 

determination and applied our NME 

methodology. 

Selection of Respondents 

In accordance with section 777A(c)(2) 

of the Act, the Department selected the 

two largest exporters of wire decking 

(i.e., Dalian Huameilong Metal Products 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘DHMP’’) and Dalian 

Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Eastfound Metal’’) and its affiliate 

Dalian Eastfound Material Handling 

Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Eastfound 

Material’’) (collectively, ‘‘Eastfound’’) by 

volume as the mandatory respondents 

in this investigation based on the 

quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) information 

from exporters/producers that were 

identified in the Petition, of which eight 

firms filed timely Q&V questionnaire 

responses.8 Of the eight Q&V 

questionnaire responses, two companies 

(i.e. Eastfound Material and Eastfound 

Metal) filed a consolidated Q&V 

questionnaire response. 

The Department issued its 

antidumping questionnaire to DHMP 

and Eastfound on August 31, 2009. In its 

questionnaire, the Department requested 

that the respondents provide a response 

to section A of the Department’s 

questionnaire on September 21, 2009, 

and to sections C and D of the 

questionnaire on October 7, 2009. On 

September 16, 2009, and September 18, 

2009, the Department granted DHMP’s 

and Eastfound’s requests, respectively, 

to extend the deadline to submit 

Sections A, C, and D. As such, Section 

A was timely submitted on September 

28, 2009, by both parties. DHMP timely 

submitted its Sections C and D 

Response on October 16, 2009. On 

October 16, 2009, the Department 

granted Eastfound an extension to 

submit its Sections C and D 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 1599 

9See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process, (March 1, 

2004), (‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’) at Attachment II of 

the Department’s Surrogate Country Letter, also 

available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04- 

1.html. 

10See the Department’s Memorandum from Kelly 

Parkhill, Acting Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy 

Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, regarding, ‘‘Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries for an Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’),’’ dated September 15, 2009 (‘‘Surrogate 

Countries Memo’’). 

11See the Department’s letter regarding, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking 

from the People’s Republic of China ’’ requesting all 

interested parties to provide comments on 

surrogate-country selection and provide surrogate 

FOP values from the potential surrogate countries 

(i.e., India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, 

Colombia, and Peru), dated September 30, 2009. 

12Because the Department was unable to find 

production data, we relied on export data as a 

substitute for overall production data in this case. 

13See Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (2007) (Rev. 2), available at www.usitc.gov. 

questionnaire. Eastfound timely 

submitted its Sections C and D 

Response on October 23, 2009. The 

Department issued several supplemental 

questionnaires to both DHMP and 

Eastfound between October and 

December 2009. Both respondents 

responded timely to those supplemental 

questionnaires. 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the 

Act, between December 31, 2009, and 

January 4, 2010, Eastfound, DHMP, and 

Petitioners requested that in the event of 

an affirmative preliminary 

determination in this investigation, the 

Department postpone the final 

determination by 60 days. Eastfound, 

DHMP, and Petitioners also each 

requested that the Department extend 

the application of the provisional 

measures prescribed under 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2) from a four–month period 

to a six–month period. In accordance 

with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our 

preliminary determination is 

affirmative, (2) the requesting exporters 

account for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting the requests and 

are postponing the final determination 

until no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Suspension of liquidation will 

be extended accordingly. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act directs it to base normal 

value, in most circumstances, on the 

NME producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’) valued in a surrogate market– 

economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOPs in one or more market– 

economy countries that are at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country and are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The sources of the 

surrogate values we have used in this 

investigation are discussed under the 

‘‘Normal Value’’ section below. 

The Department’s practice with 

respect to determining economic 

comparability is explained in Policy 

Bulletin 04.1,9 which states that ‘‘OP 

{Office of Policy} determines per capita 

economic comparability on the basis of 

per capita gross national income, as 

reported in the most current annual 

issue of the World Development Report 

(The World Bank).’’ On September 15, 

2009, the Department identified six 

countries as being at a level of economic 

development comparable to the PRC for 

the specified POR: India, the 

Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, 

Thailand, and Peru.10 The Department 

considers the six countries identified in 

the Surrogate Countries Memo as 

‘‘equally comparable in terms of 

economic development.’’ See Policy 

Bulletin 04.1 at 2. Thus, we find that 

India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 

Colombia, Thailand, and Peru are all at 

an economic level of development 

equally comparable to that of the PRC. 

On September 30, 2009, the 

Department invited all interested parties 

to submit comments on the surrogate 

country selection.11 The Department did 

not receive any comments regarding the 

Department’s selection of a surrogate 

country for the preliminary 

determination. 

Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides some 

guidance on identifying comparable 

merchandise and selecting a producer of 

comparable merchandise. As noted in 

the Policy Bulletin, comparable 

merchandise is not defined in the 

statute or the regulations, since it is best 

determined on a case–by-case basis. See 

Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 2. As further 

noted in Policy Bulletin 04.1, in all 

cases, if identical merchandise is 

produced, the country qualifies as a 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

Id. 

The Department examined worldwide 

export data for comparable 

merchandise, using the six–digit level of 

the HTS numbers listed in the scope 

language for this investigation.12

Specifically, we reviewed the POI 

export data from the World Trade Atlas 

(‘‘WTA’’) for the HTS headings. The 

merchandise subject to the scope of the 

order is currently classifiable under 

subheading HTSUS 9403.90.8040. Wire 

decking has also been entered under 

HTSUS 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, 

7326.90, 9403.20.0020, and 

9403.20.0030.13 The Department found 

that, of the countries provided in the 

Surrogate Country List, using the six– 

digit level of the HTS numbers listed in 

the scope language for this investigation 

(the best data available to the 

Department for this purpose), all six 

countries were exporters of comparable 

merchandise. Thus, all countries on the 

Surrogate Country List are considered as 

appropriate surrogates because each 

exported comparable merchandise. 

Policy Bulletin 04.1 also provides 

some guidance on identifying 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise and selecting a producer of 

comparable merchandise. Further 

analysis was required to determine 

whether any of the countries which 

produce comparable merchandise are 

significant’ producers of that 

comparable merchandise. The HTS data 

is reported in either kilograms or pieces, 

depending upon the HTS category and 

country. The data we obtained shows 

that, during the POI, worldwide exports 

from these countries under the relevant 

HTS categories were as follows: (1) 

355,679 kilograms (HTS 7217.10, 

7217.20) and 11,080,755 pieces (HTS 

9403.90, 9403.20, 7326.20, 7326.90) 

from Colombia; (2) 37,994,423 kilograms 

from Indonesia; (3) 5,385,873 kilograms 

from Philippines; (4) 89,367,977 

kilograms from Thailand; (5) 1,065,699 

kilograms (HTS 7217.10, 7217.20) and 

618,727 pieces (HTS 9403.90, 9403.20, 

7326.20, 7326.90) from Peru; and (6) 

53,185,837 kilograms from India. We 

find that these exports are sufficient to 

establish that all of the potential 

surrogate countries are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

Thus, all countries on the Surrogate 

Country List are considered as 

appropriate surrogates because each 

exported significant comparable 

merchandise. Finally, we have reliable 

data from India on the record that we 

can use to value the FOPs. Petitioners, 

DHMP, and Eastfound submitted 

surrogate values using Indian sources, 

suggesting greater availability of 

appropriate surrogate value data in 

India. 

The Department is preliminarily 

selecting India as the surrogate country 

on the basis that: (1) it is at a similar 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

1600 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 

14See the Department’s memorandum to the file 

entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Investigation of Wire 

Decking from the People’s Republic of China: Factor 

Valuations for the Preliminary Determination,’’ 

dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Surrogate 

Value Memorandum’’). 

15 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for 

the final determination of this investigation, 

interested parties may submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 

submitted by an interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for 

submission of such factual information. However, 

the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) 

permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on 

the record. The Department generally will not 

accept the submission of additional, previously 

absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value 

information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 

Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

16See Letter from Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, 

regarding ‘‘Wire Decking from the People’s Republic 

of China - Eastfound Is Affiliated with Its Exclusive 

North American Importer and Distributor,’’ dated 

December 18, 2009, where they allege that 

Eastfound and its U.S. Customer are affiliated 

pursuant to sections 771(33)(B), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act. 

17Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: ‘‘while continuing 

the practice of assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the Department 

will now assign in its NME investigations will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 

however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter 

and all of the producers which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period of investigation. 

This practice applied both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an individually calculated 

separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated 

firms receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ≥combination rates≥ 

because such rates apply to specific combinations 

of exporters and one or more producers. The cashdeposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only 

to merchandise both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation.’’ See 

Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6. 

18The seven separate-rate applicants are: (1) 

Eastfound Material; (2) Eastfound Metal; (3) DHMP; 

(4) Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Riqian’’); (5) Globsea Co., Ltd. (‘‘Globsea’’); (6) 

Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo 

Xinguang’’); and (7) Dalian Xingbo Metal Products 

Co. Ltd. (‘‘Dalian Xingbo’’). 

19The non-selected respondents are as follows: 

Riqian, Globsea, Ningbo Xinguang, and Dalian 

Xingbo. 

level of economic development 

pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; 

(2) it is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise; and (3) we 

have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the FOPs. Thus, we 

have calculated normal value (‘‘NV’’) 

using Indian prices when available and 

appropriate to the respondents’ FOPs. 

See Surrogate Value Memorandum.14 In 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 

determination in an antidumping 

investigation, interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value the FOPs within 40 days after the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

determination.15

Surrogate Value Comments 

Surrogate factor valuation comments 

and surrogate value information with 

which to value the FOPs in this 

proceeding were filed on November 13, 

2009, by DHMP and Petitioners. On 

November 18, 2009, DHMP and 

Eastfound filed rebuttal surrogate factor 

valuation comments. On November 23, 

2009, Eastfound filed additional 

surrogate valuation comments. On 

November 24, 2009, Petitioners filed 

additional comments on appropriate 

surrogate values for factors of 

production reported by Eastfound and 

DHMP. For a detailed discussion of the 

surrogate values used in this LTFV 

proceeding, see the ‘‘Factor Valuation’’ 

section below and the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

Affiliation 

Based on the evidence presented in 

Eastfound’s questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that Eastfound Metal 

is affiliated with Eastfound Material, 

which also produces subject 

merchandise, pursuant to sections 

771(33)(E) and (G) of the Act. In 

addition, based on the evidence 

presented in Eastfound’s questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily find that 

Eastfound Metal and Eastfound Material 

should be collapsed for the purposes of 

this investigation. This finding is based 

on the determination that Eastfound 

Metal and Eastfound Material are 

affiliated, that Eastfound Metal and 

Eastfound Material Handling are both 

producers of identical products and no 

retooling would be necessary in order to 

restructure manufacturing priorities, 

and that there is significant potential for 

manipulation of price or production 

between the parties. See 19 C.F.R. Sec. 

351.401(f)(1) and (2). For further 

discussion, see the Department’s 

Memorandum regarding, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Wire Decking from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Affiliation and Collapsing of Dalian 

Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. and 

Dalian Eastfound Material Handling 

Products Co., Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently 

with this notice. 

In response to allegations raised by 

Petitioners,16 we reviewed Eastfound’s 

relationship with its U.S. customer and 

we preliminarily find that Eastfound 

and its U.S. customer were not affiliated 

during the POI under the meaning of 

section 771(33) of the Act. Specifically, 

based on Eastfound’s questionnaire 

responses identifying its ownership 

structure, we preliminarily find that 

Eastfound is not affiliated with its U.S. 

customer within the meaning of sections 

771(33)(B) and (E) of the Act. In 

addition, we preliminarily find that 

Eastfound is not affiliated with its U.S. 

customer within the meaning of sections 

771(33)(F) and (G) of the Act, because in 

its response, Eastfound presented 

evidence that the distributor agreement 

between Eastfound and its U.S. 

customer does not offer either party 

control over the other party to the 

agreement. Accordingly, we have used 

Eastfound’s reported export price (‘‘EP’’) 

sales to the United States for the 

preliminary determination. However, 

we intend to issue additional questions 

to Eastfound following the publication 

of the preliminary determination with 

respect to this affiliation issue. 

Separate Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department notified parties of the 

application process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate–rate 

status in NME investigations. See 

Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 31695. The 

process requires exporters and 

producers to submit an SRA. See also 

Policy Bulletin 05.1.17 The standard for 

eligibility for a separate rate is whether 

a firm can demonstrate an absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control over its export activities. In this 

instant investigation, the Department 

received timely–filed SRA’s from seven 

companies.18 The two mandatory 

respondents (i.e., Eastfound Metal and 

Eastfound Material (collectively 

Eastfound) and DHMP) and the four 

separate–rate respondents provided 

company–specific information and 

each19 stated that it meets the criteria 

for the assignment of a separate rate. 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to investigation in an NME 

country this single rate unless an 

exporter can demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can 

demonstrate this independence through 

the absence of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 1601 

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further 

developed in 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 ’’). However, if the 

Department determines that a company 

is wholly foreign–owned or located in a 

market economy, then a separate–rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether it is independent from 

government control. In this 

investigation, one company, Eastfound 

Material has provided company– 

specific information that indicates it is 

a wholly–foreign owned entity. 

Therefore, a separate rate–analysis is not 

necessary to determine whether it is 

independent from government control. 

The other remaining companies have 

all stated that they are either joint 

ventures between PRC and foreign 

companies, or are wholly PRC–owned 

companies. Thus, the Department must 

analyze whether Eastfound Metal, 

DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, Ningbo 

Xinguang, and Dalian Xingbo can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto government control over 

their export activities. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by Eastfound 

Metal, DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, Ningbo 

Xinguang, and Dalian Xingbo supports a 

preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of government control based on the 

following: (1) an absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) applicable legislative 

enactments that decentralize control of 

the companies; and (3) formal measures 

by the government decentralizing 

control of companies. See each 

company’s SRA submission, dated 

August 21, 2009, through August 31, 

2009, where each separate–rate 

respondent stated that it had no 

relationship with any level of the PRC 

government with respect to ownership, 

internal management, and business 

operations. 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically, the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

government control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

In this investigation, Eastfound Metal, 

DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, Ningbo 

Xinguang, and Dalian Xingbo each 

asserted the following: (1) that the 

export prices are not set by, and are not 

subject to, the approval of a 

governmental agency; (2) they have 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; (3) they have 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) they 

retain the proceeds of their export sales 

and make independent decisions 

regarding disposition of profits or 

financing of losses. Additionally, each 

of these companies’ SRA responses 

indicate that its pricing during the POI 

does not involve coordination among 

exporters. See each company’s SRA 

submissions dated August 21, 2009, 

through August 31, 2009. However, 

evidence placed on the record by Dalian 

Xingbo indicates that it did not export 

wire decking to the United States during 

the POI. See the ‘‘Companies Not 

Receiving a Separate Rate’’ section 

below for further details. 

Evidence placed on the record of this 

investigation by Eastfound Material, 

Eastfound Metal, DHMP, Riqian, 

Globsea, and Ningbo Xinguang 

demonstrate an absence of de jure and 

de facto government control with 

respect to their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, in 

accordance with the criteria identified 

in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 

Therefore, we are preliminary granting a 

separate rate to these entities. 

Companies Not Receiving a Separate 

Rate 

We preliminarily determine that 

Dalian Xingbo does not qualify for a 

separate rate because Dalian Xingbo did 

not export wire decking to the United 

States during the POI. Dalian Xingbo 

stated that the invoice it provided in its 

SRA, which is dated within the POI, for 

its first sale to an unaffiliated customer 

in the United States, is not its 

commercial invoice. See Dalian 

Xingbo’s SRA dated August 21, 2009, at 

Exhibit 1. The commercial invoice 

provided by Dalian Xingbo is dated 

outside the POI. See Dalian Xingbo’s 

Supplemental SRA questionnaire dated 

September 21, 2009, at Exhibit 1. 

Furthermore, evidence on the record 

(U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) entry summary form 7501) 

indicates that Dalian Xingbo exported 

the above goods from the PRC to the 

United States prior to the POI. See 

Dalian Xingbo’s SRA dated August 21, 

2009, at Exhibit 1. Nevertheless, Dalian 

Xingbo asserts that because the 

shipment entered the United States 

during the POI, this shipment represents 

Dalian Xingbo’s first sale to an 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States during the POI. See Dalian 

Xingbo’s Supplemental SRA 

questionnaire dated September 21, 

2009, at 7/16. 

In the introductory paragraph of the 

Department’s SRA, we state that the 

Department will limit its consideration 

of SRAs in the wire decking 

investigation to firms that either 

exported or sold wire decking to the 

United States during the POI. Though 

Dalian Xingbo argues that the entry date 

into the United States of its wire 

decking establishes that it either 

exported or sold wire decking to the 

United States during the POI, the 

Department normally considers the 

shipment date as establishing when a 

product is exported, and the Department 

normally considers the date of invoice 

as establishing the date of sale, unless 

record evidence demonstrates 

otherwise. The documentation provided 

by Dalian Xingbo (i.e., CBP entry 

summary form 7501 and commercial 

invoice) indicate that the goods were 

both sold and exported to the United 

States prior to the POI. Thus, we 

preliminarily determine that Dalian 

Xingbo does not qualify for a separate 

rate in this investigation. 

In addition, though we received a 

Q&V response from Brynick Enterprises 

Limited and Shanghai Hesheng 

Hardware Products Co., neither 

company submitted a separate rate 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

1602 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 

20See SAA at 870. 

21See 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). 

22See Initiation Checklist at Exhibit V. 

application, and therefore will be 

treated as part of the PRC–wide entity. 

Application of Facts Otherwise 

Available and Total Adverse Facts 

Available 

The PRC–Wide Entity and PRC–Wide 

Rate 

The Department has data that indicate 

there were more exporters of wire 

decking from the PRC than those 

indicated in the response to our request 

for Q&V information during the POI. See 

the Department’s memorandum 

regarding, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Wire Decking from the 

People’s Republic of China: Delivery of 

Quantity and Value Questionnaire and 

Separate Rate Application to Exporters/ 

Producers,’’ dated September 2, 2009 

(‘‘Q&V Delivery Memo’’). We issued our 

request for Q&V information to 83 

potential Chinese exporters of the 

subject merchandise, in addition to 

posting the Q&V questionnaire on the 

Department’s website. See Q&V Delivery 

Memo. While information on the record 

of this investigation indicates that there 

are numerous producers/exporters of 

wire decking in the PRC, we received 

only nine timely filed Q&V responses. 

Although all exporters were given an 

opportunity to provide Q&V 

information, not all exporters provided 

a response to the Department’s Q&V 

letter. Therefore, the Department has 

preliminarily determined that there 

were exporters/producers of the subject 

merchandise during the POI from the 

PRC that did not respond to the 

Department’s request for information. 

We have treated these PRC producers/ 

exporters as part of the PRC–wide entity 

because they did not apply for a 

separate rate. See, e.g., Kitchen Racks 

Prelim, unchanged in Kitchen Racks 

Final. 

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 proceeding 

under the antidumping statute, or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that the PRC– 

wide entity was non–responsive. 

Certain companies did not respond to 

our questionnaire requesting Q&V 

information. As a result, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find 

that the use of facts available (‘‘FA’’) is 

appropriate to determine the PRC–wide 

rate. See Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 

2003). 

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. See 

Statement of Administrative Action, 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep. 

No. 103–316, 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’); see 

also 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). We find that, because the PRC– 

wide entity did not respond to our 

requests for information, it has failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that, in selecting from among the 

facts available, an adverse inference is 

appropriate. 

When employing an adverse 

inference, section 776 indicates that the 

Department may rely upon information 

derived from the petition, the final 

determination from the LTFV 

investigation, a previous administrative 

review, or any other information placed 

on the record. In selecting a rate for 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), the 

Department selects a rate that is 

sufficiently adverse to ensure that the 

uncooperative party does not obtain a 

more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had fully 

cooperated. It is the Department’s 

practice to select, as AFA, the higher of 

the (a) highest margin alleged in the 

petition, or (b) the highest calculated 

rate of any respondent in the 

investigation. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Cold–Rolled Carbon Quality 

Steel Products from the People’s 

Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 

31, 2000), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Facts 

Available.’’ As AFA, we have 

preliminarily assigned to the PRC–wide 

entity a rate of 289.00 percent, the 

highest calculated rate from the petition. 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that this information is the 

most appropriate from the available 

sources to effectuate the purposes of 

AFA. The Department’s reliance on the 

petition rate to determine an AFA rate 

is subject to the requirement to 

corroborate secondary information, 

discussed in the Corroboration section 

below. 

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 FA, 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.’’20

The SAA explains that to ‘‘corroborate’’ 

means simply that the Department will 

satisfy itself that the secondary 

information to be used has probative 

value. Id. The SAA also explains that 

independent sources used to corroborate 

may include, for example, published 

price lists, official import statistics and 

CBP data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation. Id. To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information used.21

The AFA rate that the Department 

used is derived from information in the 

Petition and from the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Wire Decking from the PRC (‘‘Initiation 

Checklist’’).22 Petitioners’ methodology 

for calculating the EP and NV in the 

petition, and modified by the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 1603 

23See Initiation Checklist at Exhibit V. 

24See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). 

Department, is discussed in the 

Initiation Checklist.23

Based on our examination of 

information on the record, including 

examination of the petition export 

prices and normal values, we find that, 

for purposes of this investigation, there 

is not a sufficient basis to consider that 

certain petition margins have probative 

value. However, there is a sufficient 

basis to determine that the petition 

margin selected does have probative 

value. In this case, we have selected a 

margin that is not so much greater than 

the highest CONNUM–specific margin 

calculated for one of the mandatory 

respondents in this proceeding that it 

can be considered to not have probative 

value. This method of selecting an AFA 

dumping margin is consistent with the 

recent final determination involving 

kitchen appliance shelving and racks 

from the PRC and prestressed concrete 

steel wire strand from the PRC. See July 

20, 2009, Memorandum to the File, 

regarding Corroboration of the PRC– 

Wide Entity Rate and the Wireking Total 

AFA Rate for the Final Determination in 

the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks from the People’s Republic of 

China, see also, Prestressed Concrete 

Steel Wire Strand From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 74 FR 68232 (December 23, 

2009). 

The Department’s practice, when 

selecting an AFA rate from among the 

possible sources of information, has 

been to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the 

statutory purposes of the adverse facts 

available rule to induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 

Circumstances: Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 

55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors From 

Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 

1998). As guided by the SAA, the 

information used as AFA should ensure 

an uncooperative party does not benefit 

more by failing to cooperate than if it 

had cooperated fully. See SAA at 870. 

We conclude that using DHMP’s highest 

transaction–specific margin as a limited 

reference point, the highest petition 

margin that can be corroborated within 

the meaning of the statute is 289.00 

percent, which is sufficiently adverse so 

as to induce cooperation such that the 

uncooperative companies do not benefit 

from their failure to cooperate. See 

Memorandum to the File, regarding 

Corroboration of the PRC–Wide Entity 

Rate and for the Preliminary 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Wire Decking from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

Accordingly, we find that the rate of 

289.00 percent is corroborated within 

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Consequently, we are applying 289.00 

percent as the single antidumping rate 

to the PRC–wide entity. The PRC–wide 

rate applies to all entries of the 

merchandise under investigation except 

for entries from Eastfound Metal, 

Eastfound Material, DHMP, and the 

separate rate applicants receiving a 

separate rate (i.e., Riqian, Globsea, and 

Ningbo Xinguang). 

Margin for the Separate Rate 

Companies 

As discussed above, the Department 

received timely and complete separate 

rate applications from Riqian, Globsea, 

and Ningbo Xinguang, who are all 

exporters of wire decking from the PRC 

during the POI and who were not 

selected as mandatory respondents in 

this investigation. Through the evidence 

in their applications, these companies 

have demonstrated their eligibility for a 

separate rate, as discussed above. 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, as the separate rate, we have 

established a margin for the Riqian, 

Globsea, and Ningbo Xinguang based on 

the average of the rates we calculated for 

the mandatory respondents, Eastfound 

and DHMP, excluding any rates that 

were zero, de minimis, or based on total 

adverse facts available.24

Date of Sale 

19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, ‘‘in 

identifying the date of sale of the 

merchandise under consideration or 

foreign like product, the Secretary 

normally will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter or producer’s 

records kept in the normal course of 

business.’’ In Allied Tube, the Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) noted that a 

‘‘party seeking to establish a date of sale 

other than invoice date bears the burden 

of producing sufficient evidence to 

satisf{y}’ the Department that a different 

date better reflects the date on which 

the exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale.’’’ Allied Tube & 

Conduit Corp. v. United States 132 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1090 (CIT 2001) (quoting 19 

CFR 351.401(i)) (‘‘Allied Tube’’). 

Additionally, the Secretary may use a 

date other than the date of invoice if the 

Secretary is satisfied that a different 

date better reflects the date on which 

the exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 

351.401(i); see also Allied Tube, 132 F. 

Supp. 2d 1087, 1090–1092. The date of 

sale is generally the date on which the 

parties agree upon all substantive terms 

of the sale. This normally includes the 

price, quantity, delivery terms and 

payment terms. See Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and 

Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

62824 (November 7, 2007), and 

accompanying Issue and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1; Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled 

Flat–Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 

Products from Turkey, 65 FR 15123 

(March 21, 2000), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

Eastfound 

For the preliminary determination, we 

used the shipment date as the date of 

sale rather than Eastfound’s reported 

sale date (booking date), because based 

on the record evidence to date, we 

preliminarily find that shipment date 

best reflects the date on which the 

essential terms of sale are fixed and 

final. In our analysis of Eastfound’s 

information, we determined that the 

sale date reported in Eastfound’s sales 

database only represents the date that 

Eastfound chose to record the sale of 

merchandise under consideration in its 

books and records, not the date the 

material terms of the sale were 

established with its U.S. customer. We 

asked Eastfound to provide sales based 

on commercial invoice date or explain 

why Eastfound’s booking date better 

reflects the date on which the exporter 

established the material terms of sale 

(e.g., price, quantity, etc.). Instead, 

Eastfound explained how it uses its 

commercial invoice numbering and 

dating system to assign invoice numbers 

and dates and how it recorded its sales 

in its books and records. The 

information that Eastfound provided did 

not adequately demonstrate when the 

material terms of its sale were 

established. Because Eastfound has not 

adequately demonstrated that the 

material terms of sale for Eastfound’s 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

1604 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 

25See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China; Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

26See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of the 2007 2008 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order, 74 FR 32539 (July 8, 2009), (unchanged in 

final results) (‘‘07-08 TRBs’’). 

sales were established on its reported 

sale date (i.e., booking date) or any other 

date, we preliminarily determine 

Eastfound’s shipment date best reflects 

the date on which the essential terms 

are fixed and final. However, 

subsequent to the preliminary 

determination we will request 

additional information with respect to 

this issue. 

DHMP 

For the preliminary determination, we 

used DHMP’s shipment date as the date 

of sale, because, based on record 

evidence to date, we preliminarily find 

that it best represents the date on which 

the essential terms of sale are fixed and 

final. In DHMP’s October 16, 2009, 

questionnaire response, DHMP 

designated a date of sale other than the 

invoice date but did not produce 

sufficient evidence to establish that ‘‘a 

different date better reflects the date on 

which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale.’’ 

On November 16, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire 

and explained that the Department will 

normally use the date of invoice, unless 

DHMP demonstrates that a different 

date better reflects the date on which 

the exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale. In DHMP’s 

December 1, 2009, Supplemental 

Questionnaire Response, DHMP 

submitted an alternate database for its 

U.S. sales during the POI based on the 

shipment date. Additionally, in DHMP’s 

December 23, 2009 submission, DHMP 

stated that the material terms of sale are 

set at the time of shipment. Thus, for the 

preliminary determination, the 

Department has used the shipment date 

as the date of sale. However, subsequent 

to the preliminary determination we 

will request additional information with 

respect to this issue. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of wire 

decking to the United States by the 

respondents were made at LTFV, we 

compared EP to NV, as described in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice. 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, EP is the price at which the 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation is first sold (or agreed to be 

sold) before the date of importation by 

the producer or exporter of the 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation outside of the United 

States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States or to an unaffiliated 

purchaser for exportation to the United 

States, as adjusted under section 772(c) 

of the Act. In accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act, we used EP for 

DHMP’s and Eastfound’s U.S. sales 

because the merchandise subject to this 

investigation was sold directly to the 

unaffiliated customers in the United 

States prior to importation and because 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) was 

not otherwise indicated. See Affiliation 

Section above. 

We calculated EP based on the packed 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or 

for exportation to, the United States. We 

made deductions, as appropriate, for 

any movement expenses (e.g., foreign 

inland freight from the plant to the port 

of exportation, domestic brokerage, 

international freight to the port of 

importation, etc.) in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Where 

foreign inland freight or foreign 

brokerage and handling fees were 

provided by PRC service providers or 

paid for in renminbi, we based those 

charges on surrogate value rates from 

India. See ‘‘Factor Valuation’’ section 

below for further discussion of surrogate 

value rates. 

In determining the most appropriate 

surrogate values to use in a given case, 

the Department’s stated practice is to 

use period–wide price averages, prices 

specific to the input in question, prices 

that are net of taxes and import duties, 

prices that are contemporaneous with 

the POI, and publicly available data.25

We valued brokerage and handling 

using a simple average of the brokerage 

and handling costs that were reported in 

public submissions that were filed in 

three antidumping duty cases. 

Specifically, we averaged the public 

brokerage and handling expenses 

reported by Navneet Publications (India) 

Ltd. in the 2007–2008 administrative 

review of certain lined paper products 

from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 

2006–2007 antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot–rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India, 

and Himalya International Ltd. in the 

2005–2006 administrative review of 

certain preserved mushrooms from 

India. Because these values were not 

concurrent with the POI of this 

investigation, we adjusted these rates for 

inflation using the Wholesale Price 

Indices (‘‘WPI’’) for India as published in 

the International Monetary Fund’s 

(‘‘IMF’s’’) International Financial 

Statistics, available at http:// 

ifs.apdi.net/imf, and then calculated a 

simple average of the three companies’ 

brokerage expense data.26 See Surrogate 

Value Memo. 

To value marine insurance, the 

Department used data from RGJ 

Consultants (http:// 

www.rjgconsultants.com/). This source 

provides information regarding the per– 

value rates of marine insurance of 

imports and exports to/from various 

countries. We valued international 

freight shipping expenses using 

contemporaneous rates reported by 

Maersk Line Shipping. Where 

applicable, the Department used the 

international freight rates reported for 

each corresponding origin and 

destination port for each month of the 

POI. 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home–market 

prices, third–country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. See, e.g., Kitchen Racks 

Prelim, 71 FR at 19703 (unchanged in 

Kitchen Racks Final). 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by respondents during the 

POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per–unit factor–consumption 

rates by publicly available surrogate 

values (except as discussed below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. See, e.g., 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 

(December 4, 2002), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 6; and Final Results of First 

New Shipper Review and First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 66 

FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5. As 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 1605 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description 

of all surrogate values used for DHMP 

and Eastfound can be found in the 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

For the preliminary determination, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we used data from the Indian 

Import Statistics and other publicly 

available Indian sources in order to 

calculate surrogate values for DHMP’s 

and Eastfound’s FOPs (direct materials, 

energy, and packing materials) and 

certain movement expenses. In selecting 

the best available information for 

valuing FOPs in accordance with 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 

Department’s practice is to select, to the 

extent practicable, surrogate values 

which are non–export average values, 

most contemporaneous with the POI, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive. 

See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). The record 

shows that data in the Indian Import 

Statistics, as well as those from the 

other Indian sources, are 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive. 

See Surrogate Value Memorandum. In 

those instances where we could not 

obtain publicly available information 

contemporaneous to the POI with which 

to value factors, we adjusted the 

surrogate values using, where 

appropriate, the Indian WPI as 

published in the IMF’s International 

Financial Statistics. See, e.g., Kitchen 

Racks, 74 FR at 9600. 

Furthermore, with regard to the 

Indian import–based surrogate values, 

we have disregarded import prices that 

we have reason to believe or suspect 

may be subsidized. We have reason to 

believe or suspect that prices of inputs 

from Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non–industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries may be subsidized. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Negative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7. 

Further, guided by the legislative 

history, it is the Department’s practice 

not to conduct a formal investigation to 

ensure that such prices are not 

subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988, 

Conference Report to accompany H.R. 

Rep. 100–576 at 590 (1988) reprinted in 

1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24; see 

also Preliminary Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic 

of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) 

unchanged in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 

(October 25, 2007). Rather, the 

Department bases its decision on 

information that is available to it at the 

time it makes its determination. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 

24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged 

in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 

55039 (September 24, 2008). Therefore, 

we have not used prices from these 

countries in calculating the Indian 

import–based surrogate values. 

Additionally, we disregarded prices 

from NME countries. Finally, imports 

that were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded 

from the average value, because the 

Department could not be certain that 

they were not from either an NME 

country or a country with general export 

subsidies. See id. 

For direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression–based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s home page, 

Import Library, Expected Wages of 

Selected NME Countries, revised in 

December 2009. See 2009 Calculation of 

Expected Non–Market Economy Wages, 

74 FR 65092 (December 9, 2009), and 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. 

The source of these wage–rate data on 

the Import Administration’s web site is 

the 2006 and 2007 data in Chapter 5B 

of the International Labour 

Organization’s Yearbook of Labour 

Statistics. Because this regression–based 

wage rate does not separate the labor 

rates into different skill levels or types 

of labor, we have applied the same wage 

rate to all skill levels and types of labor 

reported by the respondents. 

We valued truck freight expenses 

using a per–unit average rate calculated 

from data on the infobanc Web site: 

http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this Web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. This value is contemporaneous 

with the POI. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India 

(‘‘CEA’’) in its publication titled 

Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average 

Rates of Electricity Supply in India, 

dated July 2006. These electricity rates 

represent actual country–wide, publicly 

available information on tax–exclusive 

electricity rates charged to industries in 

India. 

Because water is essential to the 

production process of the merchandise 

under consideration, the Department 

considers water to be a direct material 

input, not overhead, and valued water 

with a surrogate value according to our 

practice. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the 

People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 

(October 23, 2003), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 11. To value water, we used 

the revised Maharashtra Industrial 

Development Corporation water rates 

available at http://www.midcindia.com/ 

water–supply. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value low carbon steel wire rod, 

we used price data from the Indian Join 

Plant Committee (‘‘JPC’’), which is a joint 

industry/government board that 

monitors Indian steel prices. These data 

are fully contemporaneous with the POI, 

and are specific to the reported inputs 

of the respondents. See Eastfound’s 

Surrogate Value Rebuttal Comments, 

dated November 18, 2009. Further, these 

data are publicly available, represent a 

broad market average, and we are able 

to calculate them on a tax–exclusive 

basis. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). For a 

detailed discussion of all surrogate 

values used for this preliminary 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

1606 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 

27See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 28See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 31695. 

determination, see Surrogate Value 

Memo. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we used audited financial 

statements of Bansidhar Granites Private 

Limited (‘‘Bansidhar’’), Bedmutha Wire 

Com. Ltd. (‘‘Bedmutha’’), and Mekins 

Agro Products (‘‘Mekins’’), each covering 

the fiscal period April 1, 2007, through 

March 31, 2008. Each of the three 

surrogate producers makes a range of 

products including: wire decking, 

drawn and welded wire products, 

fasteners or nuts and bolts, or some 

combination thereof. These are all 

comparable merchandise to that 

produced by the respondents.27 The 

Department may consider other publicly 

available financial statements for the 

final determination, as appropriate. 

Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates 

that the Department use FA if necessary 

information is not available on the 

record of an antidumping proceeding. 

Eastfound 

In our review of Eastfound’s reported 

information, we found that Eastfound 

did not report FOPs for certain control 

numbers (‘‘CONNUMs’’) in its sales 

database. In our original questionnaire, 

we instructed Eastfound to ensure that 

its FOP database contains a separate 

record for each unique CONNUM 

contained in its U.S. sales file. 

Additionally, in a supplemental 

questionnaire, we pointed out to 

Eastfound that the FOP database did not 

contain FOPs for certain sales 

CONNUMs. We requested that 

Eastfound report consumption factors 

for all of these CONNUMs. In its 

December 7, 2009, response, Eastfound 

stated that it had no production for 

these CONNUMs during the POI and it 

provided alternate CONNUMs for the 

Department to use in its margin program 

for the missing FOPs. However, in its 

supplemental questionnaire response, 

Eastfound did not adequately explain 

why the Department should use the 

FOPs of these alternate CONNUMs in 

lieu of obtaining FOPs for the actual 

CONNUMs. Eastfound stated that the 

missing CONNUMs represent a small 

percentage of its reported sales and that 

its alternate CONNUMs are ‘‘very 

similar’’ to the CONNUMs that did not 

have production during the POI. On 

December 23, 2009, Eastfound 

submitted an update to its alternate 

CONNUM recommendation and also 

provided an explanation as to why the 

FOPs for these alternate CONNUMs 

should be used in lieu of the actual 

CONNUMs. 

Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the 

Act, Eastfound failed to provide 

information relevant to the 

Department’s analysis with respect to 

the above–mentioned missing FOPs for 

certain CONNUMs. Thus, consistent 

with section 782(d) of the Act, the 

Department has determined it necessary 

to apply facts otherwise available for 

these CONNUMs. For the preliminary 

determination, as FA, we will use the 

FOPs of the CONNUMs recommended 

by Eastfound in its December 23, 2009, 

submission because they represent a 

very small percentage of Eastfound’s 

U.S. sales, and based on a review of the 

product characteristics we find that 

Eastfound’s suggested alternate 

CONNUMs represent very similar 

products to the CONNUMs with no 

FOPs. 

In our review of Eastfound’s FOP 

database, we found that for certain 

CONNUMs the consumption of hot– 

rolled steel strip in coils and wire rods 

(collectively ‘‘steel weight’’), which is 

the amount of steel needed to produce 

Eastfound’s wire decking, is less than 

the reported ‘‘standard weight’’ of the 

finished product. See Eastfound’s 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. 

Because we did not provide Eastfound 

an opportunity to remedy the above 

weight discrepancies, we intend to issue 

a supplemental questionnaire after this 

preliminary determination. However, 

for the preliminary determination, for 

those CONNUMs where the steel weight 

in Eastfound’s FOP database is less than 

the standard weight reported in its sales 

database, we applied partial FA. 

Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, as 

FA, we applied the weighted average 

margin calculated for Eastfound to these 

transactions. See Eastfound’s Analysis 

Memorandum. 

The Department instructed Eastfound 

to provide an FOP database for the 

processing performed for Eastfound 

Metal and/or Eastfound Material by 

their galvanizing tollers during the POI. 

Eastfound stated that its unaffiliated 

galvanizing tollers refused to provide 

the requested information because the 

information is proprietary. Eastfound 

recommends that for the preliminary 

determination, the Department use the 

galvanizing costs used in the Petition, 

which were also used in Certain Steel 

Threaded Rod from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 58931 (October 8, 

2008). Petitioners recommend that we 

use an average of the galvanizing 

surrogate values from the Petition. For 

the preliminary determination, we are 

applying the average of both surrogate 

values from the Petition as a surrogate 

cost to the galvanizing performed by 

Eastfound’s unaffiliated tollers. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

from DHMP and Eastfound upon which 

we will rely in making our final 

determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.28 This 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1. 

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted–average dumping 

margin percentages are as follows: 

Exporter Producer Percent Margin 

Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. .............................. Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 50.95% 

Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. / Dalian Eastfound 

Material Handling Products Co. Ltd ......................................... Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd., or Dalian

Eastfound Material Handling Products Co. Ltd. 

42.61% 

Globsea Co., Ltd .......................................................................... Dalian Yutiein Storage Manufacturing Co. Ltd., or Dalian 

Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd. 

46.78% 

Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. ................................................. Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. 46.78% 

Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd. ........................... Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd. 46.78% 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 1607 

29Normally, where the non-individually 

examined entities receiving a separate rate in an AD 

investigation are found to have benefitted from 

export subsidies in a concurrent CVD investigation 

on the same product (either through individual 

examination or through the ‘‘All Others’’ rate), the 

Department will instruct CBP to collect a cash 

deposit or the posting of a bond equal the amount 

of the AD margin adjusted for the amount of the 

export subsidy. In this case, none of the nonindividually examined entities receiving a separate 

rate in the AD investigation were individually 

examined in the companion CVD investigation. 

Further, the export subsidy found for ‘‘All Others’’ 

in CVD Wire Decking Prelim is so small (0.005 

percent) as to have no impact on the AD margin. 

Accordingly, we will not adjust the AD margins for 

these entities in our instructions to CBP. 

Exporter Producer Percent Margin 

PRC–Wide Entity* ........................................................................ ............................................................................................ 289.00% 

* This rate also applies to Brynick Enterprises Limited, Shanghai Hesheng Hardware Products Co., and Dalian Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed to parties in this proceeding 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of merchandise 

subject to this investigation, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

The Department has determined in 

Wire Decking from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

74 FR 57629 (November 9, 2009) (‘‘CVD 

Wire Decking Prelim’’), that the product 

under investigation, exported and 

produced by Eastfound, benefitted from 

an export subsidy. Normally, where the 

product under investigation is also 

subject to a concurrent countervailing 

duty investigation, we instruct CBP to 

require an antidumping cash deposit or 

posting of a bond equal to the weighted– 

average amount by which the NV 

exceeds the EP, as indicated above, 

minus the amount determined to 

constitute an export subsidy. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 

67306, 67307 (November 17, 2007). 

Accordingly, the following cash 

deposit requirements will be effective 

upon publication of the preliminary 

determination. For merchandise under 

consideration entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date of this 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register that is exported and 

produced by Eastfound, we will instruct 

CBP to require an antidumping cash 

deposit or the posting of a bond for each 

entry equal to the weighted–average 

amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. 

price, as indicated above, adjusted for 

the export subsidy rate determined in 

CVD Wire Decking Prelim. 

For merchandise under consideration 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of this preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register 

that is exported and produced by 

DHMP, we will instruct CBP to require 

an antidumping cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond for each entry equal 

to the weighted–average amount by 

which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as 

indicated above. For the non– 

individually examined separate rate 

recipients in this investigation, we will 

instruct CBP to require an antidumping 

cash deposit or the posting of a bond for 

each entry equal to the weighted– 

average amount by which the NV 

exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above.29

For all other entries of wire decking 

from the people’s republic of china, the 

following cash deposit/bonding 

instructions apply: (1) For all PRC 

exporters of wire decking which have 

not received their own rate, the cash– 

deposit or bonding rate will be the PRC– 

wide rate; (2) for all non–PRC exporters 

of wire decking from the people’s 

republic of china which have not 

received their own rate, the cash– 

deposit or bonding rate will be the rate 

applicable to the exporter/producer 

combinations that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. This suspension of 

liquidation will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the ITC to make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

wire decking, or sales (or the likelihood 

of sales) for importation, of the 

merchandise under consideration 

within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date on 

which the final verification report is 

issued in this proceeding and rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in case 

briefs, may be submitted no later than 

five days after the deadline date for case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of 

contents, list of authorities used and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. This summary should be 

limited to five pages total, including 

footnotes. The Department also requests 

that parties provide an electronic copy 

of its case and rebuttal brief submissions 

in either a ‘‘Microsoft Word’’ or a ‘‘pdf’’ 

format. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. 

Interested parties, who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. If a request for 

a hearing is made, we intend to hold the 

hearing three days after the deadline of 

submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

location to be determined. See 19 CFR 

351.310. Parties should confirm by 

telephone the date, time, and location of 

the hearing two days before the 

scheduled date. 

We will make our final determination 

no later than 135 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary 

determination, pursuant to section 

735(a)(2) of the Act. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

1608 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 

Dated: January 4, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–372 Filed 1–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

The following notice of meeting is 

published pursuant to the provisions of 

the Government in the Sunshine Act, 

Public Law 94–409, 5 U.S.C. 552b. 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: 1 p.m., January 14, 2010. 

PLACE: Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st 

St., NW., Washington, DC, Lobby Level 

Hearing Room (Room 1000). 

STATUS: Open. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Issuance of 

a proposed rule on energy position 

limits and hedge exemptions on 

regulated futures exchanges, derivatives 

transaction execution facilities and 

electronic trading facilities. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

David A. Stawick, Secretary of the 

Commission, 202–418–5071. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–450 Filed 1–8–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, January 13, 

2010, 2 p.m.–4 p.m. 

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda 

Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

STATUS: Closed to the Public. 

Matter To Be Considered 

Compliance Weekly Report— 

Commission Briefing 

The staff will brief the Commission on 

various compliance matters. 

For a recorded message containing the 

latest agenda information, call (301) 

504–7948. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 

504–7923. 

Dated: January 5, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–305 Filed 1–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–M 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’), as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and/or 

continuing collections of information in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program 

helps to ensure that requested data can 

be provided in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized, collection 

instruments are clearly understood, and 

the impact of collection requirement on 

respondents can be properly assessed. 

Currently, the Corporation is 

soliciting comments concerning its 

proposed Stakeholder Assessment of 

Senior Corps RSVP grantees. This 

information collection is a requirement 

of the Serve America Act. The 

information collection will be used by 

the community partners of current 

Senior Corps grantees for the national 

RSVP re-competition beginning in 2013. 

Completion of the Stakeholder 

Assessment is required in order for 

RSVP grantees to receive precompetition training and technical 

assistance. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the individual and office 

listed in the ADDRESSES section by 

March 15, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the title of the information 

collection activity, by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for 

National and Community Service, 

Senior Corps; Attention Katharine Delo 

Gregg, Program Officer, Room 9408A, 

1201 New York Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20525. 

(2) By hand delivery or by courier to 

the Corporation’s mailroom at Room 

6010 at the mail address given in 

paragraph (1) above, between 9 a.m. and 

4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

(3) By fax to: (202) 606–3475, 

Attention Katharine Delo Gregg, 

Program Officer. 

(4) Electronically through the 

Corporation’s e-mail address system: 

kgregg@cns.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katharine Delo Gregg, (202) 606–6965, 

or by e-mail at kgregg@cns.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Corporation is particularly 

interested in comments that: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Corporation, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are expected to respond, including the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology 

(e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses). 

Background 

The Serve America Act requires recompetition of RSVP grants beginning 

in 2013. In preparation for the recompetition, the legislation requires a 

stakeholder assessment. Each grantee 

will receive a custom report with 

feedback, based on the results of the 

assessments. The Stakeholder 

Assessment will be completed 

electronically using Zoomerang. 

Current Action 

The information collection is 

intended to be completed by the 

Community Advisory Boards of current 

RSVP grantees. The individual 

questions have previously existed in 

grant applications, program handbooks 

and guidance, however, the format of 

the information collection is new. 

The information collection will be 

used to collect data to enhance technical 

assistance for current grantees. The 

Corporation will not use the results of 

this information collection for 

decisionmaking purposes regarding 

grant awards. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES