Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 9591 

1An extension of an additional 30 days would 

result in a new deadline of April 5, 2009. As April 

5, 2009, falls on a Sunday, the final results will now 

be due no later than April 6, 2009, the next business 

day. 

Review, 74 FR 430, (January 6, 2009). 

The final results are currently due on 

March 6, 2009. 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff 

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

and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the 

Department to issue the final results of 

a new shipper review within 90 days 

after the date on which the preliminary 

results were issued. The Department 

may, however, extend the 90-day period 

for completion of the final results of a 

new shipper review to 150 days if it 

determines that the case is 

extraordinarily complicated. See section 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(i)(2). 

As a result of the complex issues 

raised in this new shipper review, 

including by-product offsets and 

separate rate eligibility, the Department 

determines that this new shipper review 

is extraordinarily complicated and it 

cannot complete this new shipper 

review within the current time limit. 

Accordingly, the Department is 

extending the time limit for the 

completion of the final results by an 

additional 30 days until April 6, 2009,1

in accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(i)(2). 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 26, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–4742 Filed 3–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–941] 

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 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 5, 2009. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that certain kitchen appliance shelving 

and racks from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or are 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 (‘‘Act’’). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ 

section of this notice. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on this 

preliminary determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

Hancock or Katie Marksberry, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1394 or (202) 482– 

7906, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Initiation 

On July 31, 2008, Nashville Wire 

Products Inc., SSW Holding Company, 

Inc., United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, AlliedIndustrial and Service Workers 

International Union, and the 

International Association of Machinists 

& Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 6 

(Clinton IA) (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Petitioners’’) filed a antidumping duty 

petition on PRC imports of kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks. See 

Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties: Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks From the 

People’s Republic of China (in two 

volumes), dated July 31, 2008 

(‘‘Petition’’). The Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) initiated this 

investigation on August 20, 2008. See 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks From the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 73 FR 50596 (August 27, 

2008) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On September 22, 2008, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’) issued its affirmative 

preliminary determination that there is 

a reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured by reason of imports from the 

PRC of certain kitchen appliance 

shelving and racks. The ITC’s 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on September 24, 2008. 

See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From China, 73 FR 55132 

(September 24, 2008); see also Certain 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 

From China: Investigation No. 731–TA– 

458 and 731–TA–1154 (Preliminary), 

USITC Publication 4035 (September 

2008). 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

our regulations, we set aside a period of 

time for parties to raise issues regarding 

product coverage and encouraged all 

parties to submit comments within 20 

calendar days of publication of the 

Initiation Notice. See Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997). See also Initiation Notice, 73 FR 

at 50596. We received no comments 

from interested parties on issues related 

to the scope. However, on February 5, 

2009, we placed a memorandum to the 

file on the record of this investigation 

stating that the companion 

countervailing duty investigation team 

at the Department spoke with the 

National Import Specialist at U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

who indicated the Department should 

include the additional Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘USHTS’’) number 8418.99.80.60 to the 

scope of the investigation. See 

Memorandum to the File from Katie 

Marksberry dated February 5, 2009. 

Therefore, we are adding the HTS 

number 8418.99.80.60 to the scope of 

this investigation for this preliminary 

determination. The Department did not 

receive any comments on the change to 

the scope of this investigation. See 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section below. 

Period of Investigation 

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

January 1, 2008, through June 30, 2008. 

This period corresponds to the two most 

recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 

of the filing of the petition (July 31, 

2008). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Respondent Selection 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it intended to 

select respondents based on quantity 

and value (‘‘Q&V’’) questionnaires. See 

Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 50598–50599. 

On September 8, 2008, the Department 

requested Q&V information from the 12 

companies that Petitioners identified as 

potential exporters or producers of 

certain kitchen appliance shelving and 

racks from the PRC. See Petition at Vol 

1., Exhibit 3. Additionally, the 

Department also posted the Q&V 

questionnaire for this investigation on 

its Web site at www.trade.gov/ia. 

The Department received timely Q&V 

responses from six exporters that 

shipped merchandise under 

investigation to the United States during 

the POI, and from one company who 

stated it had no shipments of 

merchandise under investigation to the 

United States during the POI. On 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
9592 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 

October 8, 2008, the Department 

selected Guandong Wireking 

Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Wireking’’) and Asber Enterprise Co., 

Ltd. (China) (‘‘Asber’’) as mandatory 

respondents in this investigation. See 

October 8, 2008, Memorandum to the 

File, from Julia Hancock, Senior 

International Trade Analyst, through 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

and James C. Doyle, Director, to Stephen 

J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

regarding Selection of Respondents for 

the Antidumping Investigation of 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

The Department sent its antidumping 

duty questionnaire to Asber and 

Wireking on October 8, 2008. On 

October 23, 2008, Asber filed a letter 

stating that it will not participate as a 

mandatory respondent in this 

investigation. See Letter to the 

Department from Asber dated October 

23, 2008. On November 19, 2008, the 

Department selected New King Shan 

(Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd. (‘‘New King Shan’’) 

as an additional mandatory respondent 

because it was the next largest 

producer/exporter of those companies 

that submitted Q&V responses. See 

November 19, 2008, Memorandum to 

the File, from Julia Hancock, Senior 

International Trade Analyst and Blaine 

Wiltse, International Trade Analyst, 

through Catherine Bertrand, Program 

Manager, and James C. Doyle, Director, 

to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, regarding Selection of an 

Additional Mandatory Respondent. 

(‘‘Additional Respondent Selection 

Memo’’). 

Separate Rates Applications 

Between October 23, 2008, and 

October 29, 2008, we received timely 

filed separate-rate applications (‘‘SRA’’) 

from three companies: Jiangsu Weixi 

Group Co., Marmon Retail Services 

Asia, and Hangzhou Dunli Import & 

Export Co., Ltd. 

Product Characteristics & 

Questionnaires 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department asked all parties in this 

investigation for comments on the 

appropriate product characteristics for 

defining individual products. On 

September 29, 2008, we received 

comments from Petitioners regarding 

product characteristics. On October 8, 

2008 the Department issued its 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Asber and Wireking, and on November 

21, 2008, the Department issued its 

antidumping duty questionnaire to New 

King Shan. Wireking and New King 

Shan submitted responses to the 

Department’s questionnaire. As stated 

above, Asber did not submit 

questionnaire responses. 

Surrogate Country Comments 

On September 29, 2008, the 

Department determined that India, 

Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, 

and Thailand are countries comparable 

to the PRC in terms of economic 

development. See Letter to All 

Interested Parties, from Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, 

AD/CVD Operations, regarding 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 

From the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

(‘‘Surrogate Country Letter’’), attaching 

September 29, 2008, Memorandum to 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from 

Carole Showers, Acting Director, Office 

of Policy, regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Kitchen Appliance 

Shelving and Racks from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC): Request for 

List of Surrogate Countries.’’ 

On September 29, 2008, the 

Department requested comments on 

surrogate country selection from the 

interested parties in this investigation. 

On January 26, 2009, Petitioners 

submitted surrogate country comments. 

No other interested parties commented 

on the selection of a surrogate country. 

For a detailed discussion of the 

selection of the surrogate country, see 

‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section below. 

Surrogate Value Comments 

On December 4, 2008, December 17, 

2008, and January 21, 2009, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

interested parties to submit surrogate 

information with which to value the 

factors of production in this proceeding. 

On January 26, 2009, Petitioners and 

Wireking submitted surrogate value 

comments. On February 2, 2009, 

Petitioners and Wireking submitted 

clarifying surrogate value comments. 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination 

Pursuant to section 733(c) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1), the 

Department extended the preliminary 

determination by 50 days. The 

Department published a postponement 

of the preliminary determination on 

December 23, 2008. See Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination of the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 73 FR 78721 (December 

23, 2008). 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

consists of shelving and racks for 

refrigerators, freezers, combined 

refrigerator-freezers, other refrigerating 

or freezing equipment, cooking stoves, 

ranges, and ovens (‘‘certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks’’ or ‘‘the 

merchandise under investigation’’). 

Certain kitchen appliance shelving and 

racks are defined as shelving, baskets, 

racks (with or without extension slides, 

which are carbon or stainless steel 

hardware devices that are connected to 

shelving, baskets, or racks to enable 

sliding), side racks (which are welded 

wire support structures for oven racks 

that attach to the interior walls of an 

oven cavity that does not include 

support ribs as a design feature), and 

subframes (which are welded wire 

support structures that interface with 

formed support ribs inside an oven 

cavity to support oven rack assemblies 

utilizing extension slides) with the 

following dimensions: 

— Shelving and racks with 

dimensions ranging from 3 inches by 5 

inches by 0.10 inch to 28 inches by 34 

inches by 6 inches; or 

— Baskets with dimensions ranging 

from 2 inches by 4 inches by 3 inches 

to 28 inches by 34 inches by 16 inches; 

or 

— Side racks from 6 inches by 8 

inches by 0.1 inch to 16 inches by 30 

inches by 4 inches; or 

— Subframes from 6 inches by 10 

inches by 0.1 inch to 28 inches by 34 

inches by 6 inches. 

The merchandise under investigation 

is comprised of carbon or stainless steel 

wire ranging in thickness from 0.050 

inch to 0.500 inch and may include 

sheet metal of either carbon or stainless 

steel ranging in thickness from 0.020 

inch to 0.2 inch. The merchandise 

under investigation may be coated or 

uncoated and may be formed and/or 

welded. Excluded from the scope of this 

investigation is shelving in which the 

support surface is glass. 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is currently classifiable in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical 

reporting numbers 8418.99.8050, 

8418.99.8060, 7321.90.5000, 

7321.90.6090, and 8516.90.8000. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this investigation is dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy Country 

For purposes of initiation, Petitioners 

submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as 

a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’). See 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 9593 

1See 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 

2Because the Department was unable to find 

production data, we relied on export data as a 

substitute for overall production data in this case. 

3 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-fromthe-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. 

Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 50598. The 

Department considers the PRC to be a 

NME country. See Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper 

From the People’s Republic of China, 72 

FR 30758, 30760 (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). In accordance with 

section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. No party has challenged the 

designation of the PRC as an NME 

country in this investigation. Therefore, 

we continue to treat the PRC as an NME 

country for purposes of this preliminary 

determination. 

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 

(‘‘FOP’’) valued in a surrogate marketeconomy 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 04.1,1 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).’’ The Department 

considers the five countries identified in 

its Surrogate Country List as ‘‘equally 

comparable in terms of economic 

development.’’ See Policy Bulletin 04.1 

at 2. Thus, we find that India, Indonesia, 

the Philippines, Colombia, and 

Thailand are all at an economic level of 

development equally comparable to that 

of the PRC. 

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.2

Specifically, we reviewed the POI 

export data from the World Trade Atlas 

(‘‘WTA’’) for the HTS headings 7321.09, 

8516.90, 8418.99. The Department 

found that, of the countries provided in 

the Surrogate Country List, all five 

countries were exporters of comparable 

merchandise. Thus, all countries on the 

Surrogate Country List are considered as 

appropriate surrogates because each 

exported comparable merchandise. 

The 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 data we 

obtained shows that, during the POI, 

worldwide exports for these HTS 

numbers were: 2,396,007 kilograms 

from Colombia; 1,758,325 kilograms 

from India; 6,615,309 kilograms from 

Indonesia; 450,110 kilograms from 

Philippines; and 8,833,547 kilograms 

from Thailand. 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 and Wireking 

submitted surrogate values using Indian 

sources, suggesting greater availability 

of appropriate surrogate value data in 

India. 

As noted above, the Department only 

received surrogate country comments 

from Petitioners, which favored 

selection of India. The Department is 

preliminarily selecting India as the 

surrogate country on the basis that: (1) 

It is at a similar 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 NV using Indian 

prices when available and appropriate 

to the respondents’ FOPs. See 

Memorandum to the File from Julia 

Hancock, through Catherine Bertrand, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Certain 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 

Determination, (February 26, 2009) 

(‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 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.3

Affiliations 

Section 771(33) of the Act, provides 

that: 

The following persons shall be 

considered to be ‘‘affiliated’’ or 

‘‘affiliated persons’’: 

(A) Members of a family, including 

brothers and sisters (whether by the 

whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, 

and lineal descendants. 

(B) Any officer or director of an 

organization and such organization. 

(C) Partners. 

(D) Employer and employee. 

(E) Any person directly or indirectly 

owning, controlling, or holding with 

power to vote, 5 percent or more of the 

outstanding voting stock or shares of 

any organization and such organization. 

(F) Two or more persons directly or 

indirectly controlling, controlled by, or 

under common control with, any 

person. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
9594 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 

4The identity of this company is business 

proprietary information; for further discussion of 

this company, see Memorandum to Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks from the People’s Republic of China: 

Affiliation Memorandum of Wireking, (February 26, 

2009)(’’Wireking Affiliation Memo’’). 

5The identites of these companies are business 

proprietary; for further discussion of these 

companies, see Memorandum to the File from Katie 

Marksberry, Case Analyst: Preliminary 

Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 

from the People’s Republic of China: Affiliation 

Memorandum of New King Shan (Zhuhai) Co., Ltd., 

(February 26, 2009) (‘‘New King Shan Affiliation 

Memo’’). 

6The Policy Bulletin 05.1, states: ‘‘{w}hile 

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 applies 

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 cash-deposit 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. 

(G) Any person who controls any 

other person and such other person. 

Additionally, section 771(33) of the 

Act stipulates that: ‘‘For purposes of this 

paragraph, a person shall be considered 

to control another person if the person 

is legally or operationally in a position 

to exercise restraint or direction over the 

other person.’’ 

Wireking 

Based on the evidence on the record 

in this investigation and based on the 

evidence presented in Wireking’s 

questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that Wireking is 

affiliated with Company G,4 which was 

involved in Wireking’s sales process, 

and other companies, pursuant to 

sections 771(33)(E), (F) and (G) of the 

Act, based on ownership and common 

control. In addition to being affiliated, 

there is a significant potential for price 

manipulation based on the level of 

common ownership and control, shared 

management, shared offices, and an 

intertwining of business operations. See 

19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, we find that Wireking and 

Company G should be considered as a 

single entity for purposes of this 

investigation. See 19 CFR 351.401(f). 

For a detailed discussion of this issue, 

see Wireking Affiliation Memo. 

New King Shan 

Based on the evidence on the record 

in this investigation and based on the 

evidence presented in New King Shan’s 

questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that New King Shan 

is affiliated with Company A, Company 

B, Company C, and Company D,5

pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (E), (F), 

and (G) of the Act, based on ownership 

and common control. For a detailed 

discussion of this issue, see New King 

Shan Affiliation Memo. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, there is a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and thus should be assessed a 

single antidumping duty rate. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 

55040 (Sept. 24, 2008) (PET Film LTFV 

Final). 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. See Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 

1991); see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994), and section 19 CFR 

351.107(d) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

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, 73 FR at 17321. The 

process requires exporters and 

producers to submit a separate-rate 

status application. The Department’s 

practice is discussed further in 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.6

Jiangsu Weixi Group Co., Marmon 

Retail Services Asia, Hangzhou Dunli 

Import & Export Co., Ltd. (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘Separate Rate 

Companies’’), and Wireking and New 

King Shan, the mandatory respondents, 

have provided company-specific 

information to demonstrate that they 

operate independently of de jure and de 

facto government control or are wholly 

foreign owned, and therefore satisfy the 

standards for the assignment of a 

separate rate. 

We have considered whether each 

PRC company that submitted a complete 

application or complete Section A 

Response as a mandatory respondent is 

eligible for a separate rate. The 

Department’s separate rate test is not 

concerned, in general, with 

macroeconomic/border-type controls, 

e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices, particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 

(December 31, 1998). The test focuses, 

rather, on controls over the investment, 

pricing, and output decision-making 

process at the individual firm level. See 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Ukraine: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 

61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 

61279 (November 17, 1997). 

To establish whether a firm is 

sufficiently independent from 

government control of its export 

activities to be entitled to a separate 

rate, the Department analyzes each 

entity exporting the merchandise under 

investigation under a test arising from 

the Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 

as further developed in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). In 

accordance with the separate rate 

criteria, the Department assigns separate 

rates in NME cases only if respondents 

can demonstrate the absence of both de 

jure and de facto governmental control 

over export activities. 

1. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 9595 

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 the 

Separate Rate Companies, Wireking, and 

New King Shan supports a preliminary 

finding of de jure absence of 

governmental control based on the 

following: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) the applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and (3) any 

other formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

companies. See, e.g., Jiangsu Weixi 

Group Co.’s October 23, 2008, SRA at 5– 

8; Jiangsu Weixi Group Co.’s December 

19, 2008, SRA at 4; Hangzhou Dunli 

Import & Export Co., Ltd.’s October 29, 

2009, SRA at 12–17; New King Shan’s 

October 27, 2008, SRA at 12–16; and 

Wireking’s November 12, 2008 Section 

A Response at 4–7. 

2. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a governmental agency; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

governmental control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

We determine that, for the Separate 

Rate Companies, Wireking, and New 

King Shan, the evidence on the record 

supports a preliminary finding of de 

facto absence of governmental control 

based on record statements and 

supporting documentation showing the 

following: (1) Each exporter sets its own 

export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) each 

exporter retains the proceeds from its 

sales and makes independent decisions 

regarding disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) each exporter has 

the authority to negotiate and sign 

contracts and other agreements; and 4) 

each exporter has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. See, e.g., Jiangsu Weixi 

Group Co.’s October 23, 2008, SRA at 9– 

15; Jiangsu Weixi Group Co.’s December 

19, 2008, SRA at 5; Hangzhou Dunli 

Import & Export Co., Ltd.’s October 29, 

2009, SRA at 21–25; New King Shan’s 

October 27, 2008, SRA at 16–19; and 

Wireking’s November 12, 2008 Section 

A Response at 7–11. 

3. Wholly Foreign-Owned 

In its separate-rate application, one 

separate rate company, Marmon Retail 

Services Asia, reported that it is wholly 

owned by individuals or companies 

located in a market economy country. 

Therefore, because it is wholly foreignowned, and we have no evidence 

indicating that it is under the control of 

the PRC, a separate rate analysis is not 

necessary to determine whether this 

company is independent from 

government control. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From 

the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 

71104–71105 (December 20, 1999) 

(where the respondent was wholly 

foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a 

separate rate). Accordingly, we have 

preliminarily granted a separate rate to 

this company. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by the Separate Rate 

Companies, Wireking, and New King 

Shan demonstrates an absence of de jure 

and de facto government control with 

respect to each of the exporter’s exports 

of the merchandise under investigation, 

in accordance with the criteria 

identified in Sparklers and Silicon 

Carbide. As a result, we have granted 

the Separate Rate Companies a 

weighted-average margin based on the 

experience of mandatory respondents 

and excluding any de minimis or zero 

rates or rates based on total adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) for the purposes of 

this preliminary determination. In 

addition, for the reasons outlined above, 

we have preliminarily granted Wireking 

and New King Shan separate rate status. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available, 

the PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-Wide 

Rate 

The Department has data that indicate 

there were more exporters of certain 

kitchen appliance shelving and racks 

from the PRC than those indicated in 

the response to our request for Q&V 

information during the POI. See 

Respondent Selection Memorandum. 

We issued our request for Q&V 

information to 12 potential Chinese 

exporters of the merchandise under 

investigation, in addition to posting the 

Q&V questionnaire on the Department’s 

Web site. While information on the 

record of this investigation indicates 

that there are other producers/exporters 

of certain kitchen appliance shelving 

and racks in the PRC, we received only 

seven 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. Furthermore, Asber, which did 

respond to the Department’s Q&V 

questionnaire and reported shipments 

during the POI, did not respond to the 

Department’s full anti-dumping duty 

questionnaire. Therefore, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that there were exporters/ 

producers of the merchandise under 

investigation during the POI from the 

PRC that did not respond to the 

Department’s request for information. 

We have treated these PRC producers/ 

exporters, including Asber, as part of 

the PRC-wide entity because they did 

not qualify for a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Preliminary 

Partial Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77128 

(December 29, 2005), and unchanged in 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Final Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 

22, 2006). 

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 PRCwide entity was non-responsive. Certain 

companies did not respond to our 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
9596 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 

7See SAA at 870. 

8See 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). 

9See Petition, at Volume II, Exhibit 14. 

10See, 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) 

(‘‘PSF’’), 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). 

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 Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled 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 

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 

21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1. 

As AFA, we have preliminarily assigned 

to the PRC-wide entity a rate of 96.45 

percent, the average of all margins. 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 

rates to determine an AFA rate is subject 

to the requirement to corroborate 

secondary information. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. The 

SAA provides guidance as to what 

constitutes secondary information. One 

of the suggested sources of secondary 

information is ‘‘information derived 

from the petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning the subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’ 7 The SAA 

further suggests that to ‘‘corroborate’’ 

means that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value. Id. 

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.8

The AFA rate selected by the 

Department is from the petition.9

Petitioners’ methodology for calculating 

the export price (‘‘EP’’) and NV in the 

petition is discussed in the Initiation 

Notice at 73 FR 50598 and 50599. To 

corroborate the AFA margin that we 

selected, we compared the U.S. prices 

and normal values of the two mandatory 

respondents to the U.S. prices and 

normal values of the margins contained 

in the petition. All of the U.S. prices 

and normal values in the margins 

calculated in the petition are within the 

range of the U.S. prices and normal 

values of the mandatory respondents. 

Therefore, we took the simple average of 

all seven of the petition margins, which 

results in a margin of 96.45 percent. We 

find that the margin of 96.45 percent has 

probative value because it is the average 

of all petition margins which were 

based on the corroborated U.S. price 

and normal values in the petition which 

were corroborated by comparison of the 

U.S. price and normal values of the two 

mandatory respondents. Accordingly, 

we find that the rate of 96.45 percent is 

corroborated within the meaning of 

section 776(c) of the Act. Accordingly, 

we determine that 96.45 percent is the 

single antidumping rate for the PRCwide entity. The PRC-wide rate applies 

to all entries of the merchandise under 

investigation except for entries from 

Wireking, New King Shan, and the 

Separate Rate Companies. 

Margin for the Separate Rate 

Companies 

The Department received timely and 

complete separate rate applications from 

the Separate Rate Companies, who are 

all exporters of certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks from the 

PRC, which 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, see the ‘‘Separate Rates’’ 

section and in the Memorandum to the 

File, from Katie Marksberry, Case 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks from the People’s Republic of 

China: Calculation of the Separate Rate 

Weighted-Average Margin, (February 26, 

2009). Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, as the separate rate, we have 

established a average margin for the 

Separate Rate Companies based on the 

rates we calculated for Wireking and 

New King Shan, excluding any rates 

that are zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on AFA.10 Jiangsu Weixi Group 

Co., Marmon Retail Services Asia, and 

Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., 

Ltd. are the companies receiving this 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 9597 

11The description of this document is business 

proprietary; for further discussion of this document, 

see Wireking’s Section C Supp, at 14 and Wireking 

Analysis Memo. 

12Although Wireking’s affiliate, Company G, 

receives payment for the sale from the U.S. 

customer and records the date of sale of document 

X in its accounting records, because Wireking and 

Company G have been found to be a single entity 

(‘‘Wireking’’), the Department preliminarily 

determines that the single entity, Wireking, records 

document X as the date of sale in its accounting 

records. See Wireking’s Section C Supp, 

13Because the Department has used the total 

shipments/purchases to Company G as Wireking’s 

total shipments to the U.S. customer during the POI 

and Wireking has reported that there is a difference 

in the total value of these shipment/purchases to 

the total value of Wireking’s shipments to the U.S. 

customer, the Department has increased the total 

value by this difference. See Wireking’s Section C 

Supp, at 17, for further discussion of this difference, 

which is business proprietary information. See also 

Wireking’s Analysis Memo 

rate and are listed in the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

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 FlatRolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 

from Turkey, 65 FR 15123 (March 21, 

2000) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

New King Shan reported that the date 

of sale was determined by the invoice 

issued by the affiliated importer to the 

unaffiliated United States customer. In 

this case, as the Department found no 

evidence contrary to New King Shan’s 

claims that invoice date was the 

appropriate date of sale, the Department 

used invoice date as the date of sale for 

this preliminary determination. 

Wireking reported its U.S. sales as 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) sales 

because the sales are not made until 

after importation to the United States. 

Wireking reported that while it issues a 

commercial invoice to the U.S. customer 

for the quantities of merchandise subject 

to the investigation that it shipped, the 

quantity of each sale is not fixed when 

it issues the commercial invoice to the 

U.S. customer. See Wireking’s 

Supplemental Section C, (February 18, 

2009) at 20. According to Wireking, the 

U.S. customer does not agree to 

purchase the final quantity for each of 

Wireking’s reported sales until the U.S. 

customer issues document X 11 to 

Wireking, upon which payment and the 

total value of each sale is based. See id., 

at 17 and 20. 

Wireking stated that it is not reporting 

the date of the commercial/shipment 

invoice issued to the U.S. customer as 

the date of sale because this is not when 

all the material terms of sale, i.e., final 

quantity and total value/payment of 

each sale, are fixed. See id., at 17. 

According to Wireking, the U.S. 

customer is not contractually obligated 

to purchase the quantity shipped by 

Wireking and thus Wireking’s 

commercial/shipment invoice is a fair 

retail value of the merchandise but not 

a document establishing all material 

terms of sale. See id., at 17. Instead, 

Wireking stated that it has reported the 

date of document X issued by the U.S. 

customer as the date of sale because all 

the material terms of sale, i.e., final 

quantity, and total value and payment of 

the sale, were not finalized until this 

document was issued by the U.S. 

customer. Moreover, Wireking has 

reported that it does not record the 

commercial/shipment invoice issued to 

the U.S. customer in its accounting 

records. See id., at 14. Wireking has 

reported that it records the date of 

document X in its accounting records, 

as well as the payment received 

pursuant to the sale.12 Accordingly, 

based on the record evidence, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that Wireking’s date of sale is the date 

on which document X is issued because 

all the material terms of sale, i.e., final 

quantity, value, and payment, are not 

fixed until the U.S. customer issues 

document X to Wireking. Therefore, the 

Department will calculate Wireking’s 

price for its U.S. sales using the date of 

document X as the date of sale. 

However, based on the documents 

currently on the record of this 

proceeding, Wireking has not shown 

that it will be able to reconcile its total 

quantity of shipments to the total final 

quantity of merchandise purchased by 

the U.S. customer. See Wireking’s 

February 18, 2009, Letter, at 4. While 

Wireking reported that it will be able to 

support its reported U.S. sales by 

reconciling the reported U.S. quantity 

and value to document X, Wireking has 

stated that it will be unable to tie its 

total shipments to its total reported U.S. 

sales database quantity because 

Wireking does not have access to the 

U.S. customer’s records, including 

inventory records, that establish 

whether Wireking’s reported U.S. sales 

database is complete. The Department 

preliminarily finds that there is a 

difference between Wireking’s reported 

total shipments to the U.S. customer 

during the POI and its total reported 

U.S. sales during the POI. See id., at 3; 

Wireking’s Section C and D Response, 

(December 2, 2009), at Exhibit R1; 

Wireking Analysis Memo. Because 

Wireking has not shown that the 

reported total quantity and value of its 

U.S. sales is complete, i.e., there are 

unreported U.S. sales, we must 

conclude that the application of facts 

otherwise available is warranted for 

Wireking’s unreported sales, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act because 

Wireking is unable to reconcile the 

reported total quantity of sales to a 

verifiable source document. Because 

Wireking has claimed that it has 

provided all the information it can 

regarding the unusual sales arrangement 

with the U.S. customer, where the U.S. 

customer dictates the final quantity and 

value of the sale, and the Department 

currently has no information on the 

record to the contrary, the Department 

preliminarily determines that the 

application of AFA is not warranted, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. 

Accordingly, as FA, the Department 

preliminarily determines that it will 

apply the weighted-average margin of 

Wireking’s reported U.S. sales to the 

unreported quantity and value13 of 

Wireking’s unreported sales. 

Furthermore, after the preliminary 

determination, the Department intends 

to issue additional supplemental 

questionnaires to Wireking to determine 

whether Wireking’s reported quantity 

and value can be verified. The 

Department notes that all information 

relied upon must be verifiable. See Final 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
9598 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 

14The identity of these companies is business 

proprietary; for further discussion of these 

companies, see New King Shan Analysis Memo. 

15New King Shan reported these sales as CEP 

sales. The Department finds that these sales are CEP 

sales because New King Shan reported that its 

affiliate in the United States performed sales 

functions such as: sales negotiation, issuance of 

invoices and receipt of payment from the ultimate 

U.S. customer during the POI. Moreover, New King 

Shan reported expenses incurred in the United 

States that are normally deducted from the gross 

unit price. See New King Shan’s Section C 

Questionnaire Response, (January 12, 2009); see 

also Glycine From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission, 

in Part, 72 FR 18457 (April 12, 2007) unchanged in 

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) (where the Department stated 

that ‘‘we based U.S. price for certain sales on CEP 

in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, 

because sales were made by Nantong Donchang’s 

U.S. affiliate, Wavort, Inc. {‘‘Wavort’’} to 

unaffiliated purchasers.’’); AK Steel Corp., et al v. 

United States, 226 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed.Cir. 2000) 

(where the court stated that ‘‘the purpose of these 

additional deductions in the CEP methodology is to 

prevent foreign producers from competing unfairly 

in the U.S. market by inflating the U.S. price with 

amounts spent by the U.S. affiliate on marketing 

and selling the products in the United States’’). 

16The identity of this company is business 

proprietary information; for further discussion of 

this company, see Memorandum to Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, from Katie Marksberry, Case Analyst, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks from the People’s Republic of China: 

Analysis Memorandum of New King Shan, 

(February 26, 2008) (‘‘New King Shan Memo’’). 

17The details of sales term X and sales term Y 

are business proprietary; for further discussion of 

sales term X and sales term Y, see Wire King 

Analysis Memo. 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Small Diameter 

Graphite Electrodes from the People’s 

Republic of China, 74 FR 2049 (January 

14, 2009) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Therefore, based on these supplemental 

responses, the Department will make a 

determination as to whether Wireking’s 

reported U.S. sales are verifiable. 

Fair Value Comparison 

To determine whether sales of certain 

kitchen appliance shelving and racks to 

the United States by Wireking and New 

King Shan were made at less than fair 

value, we compared CEP to NV, as 

described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

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

King Shan’s sales on CEP because these 

sales were made by New King Shan’s 

U.S. affiliate, which purchased the 

merchandise under investigation 

produced and sold by New King Shan 

through two other affiliates,14 Company 

A and Company B.15 In accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we 

calculated CEP by deducting, where 

applicable, the following expenses from 

the gross unit price charged to the first 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States, foreign movement expenses, and 

U.S. movement expenses, including 

U.S. duties, U.S. warehousing, and 

inventory carrying cost. Further, in 

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), where 

appropriate, we deducted from the 

starting price the following selling 

expenses associated with economic 

activities occurring in the United States: 

credit expenses and other direct selling 

expenses. In addition, pursuant to 

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

adjustment to the starting price for CEP 

profit. We based movement expenses on 

either surrogate values or actual 

expenses. For details regarding our CEP 

calculations, and for a complete 

discussion of the calculation of the U.S. 

price for New King Shan, see New King 

Shan Analysis Memo.16

Additionally, in accordance with 

section 772(b) of the Act, we based the 

U.S. price for Wireking’s sales on CEP 

because these sales were sold (or agreed 

to be sold) after the date of importation 

into the United States by Wireking. In 

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

the Act, we calculated CEP by 

deducting, where applicable, the 

following expenses from the gross unit 

price charged to the first unaffiliated 

customer in the United States, foreign 

movement expenses, and U.S. 

movement expenses, including U.S. 

inland freight from port to warehouse, 

U.S. inland insurance, U.S. duties, and 

inventory carrying cost. Additionally, in 

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), where 

appropriate, we deducted from the 

starting price the following selling 

expenses associated with economic 

activities occurring in the United States: 

credit expenses. We have based 

Wireking’s imputed credit expenses on 

the difference between the date of 

shipment, which is when the 

merchandise was withdrawn from the 

U.S. warehouse, and the date that 

Wireking received payment. See Certain 

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from India: Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 31961 (June 5, 2008) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 23. 

Moreover, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) 

of the Act, we made an adjustment to 

the starting price for CEP profit. For 

discussion of our valuation of 

Wireking’s movement expenses, see the 

section of this notice entitled ‘‘Use of 

AFA for Wireking’s Movement 

Expenses.’’ For a complete discussion of 

the calculation of the U.S. price for 

Wireking, see Wireking Analysis Memo. 

Use of AFA for Wireking’s Movement 

Expenses 

In this investigation, Wireking 

reported that it incurred certain freight 

expenses for sales made under sales 

term X and sales term Y 17 that were 

purchased from a market economy 

carrier and paid for in market economy 

currency. See Wireking’s Section C 

Supp, at 29–30 and Exhibit 17 at pages 

26–33. However, for these freight 

expenses, after twice being requested by 

the Department to report these as market 

economy purchases, Wireking 

continued to report these freight 

expenses as non-market economy 

purchases because the market economy 

carrier has a PRC branch office that 

arranged these shipments. See id., at 30. 

Because it is the Department’s practice 

to treat expenses purchased from a 

market economy supplier and paid for 

in a market economy currency as market 

economy purchases, and there is record 

evidence showing that Wireking was 

charged and paid the market economy 

supplier of these expenses in market 

economy currency under sales term X, 

the Department preliminarily 

determines to value these expenses as 

market economy purchases under sales 

term X. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); 

Certain Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Affirmative Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 35. 

However, for freight expenses incurred 

under sales term Y, the Department 

preliminarily determines to value these 

expenses as non-market economy 

purchases because there is record 

evidence showing that Wireking paid 

the market economy supplier of these 

expenses in non-market economy 

currency. See Wireking’s Section C 

Supp, at Exhibit 17 at pages 19–25. 

Because Wireking was twice 

requested by the Department to report 

the price of its market economy freight 

expenses but failed to provide such 

information after being requested, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that the application of facts otherwise 

available to Wireking’s market economy 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 9599 

18The identity of Wireking’s Affiliate E is 

business proprietary. See Wireking’s Section A 

Questionnaire Response, (November 12, 2008) at 

Exhibit 5; Wireking’s January 21, 2009, letter, at 2. 

freight expenses incurred under sales 

term X is warranted, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

Where the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, 

section 782(d) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall promptly inform 

the party submitting the response of the 

nature of the deficiency and shall, to the 

extent practicable, provide that party 

with an opportunity to remedy or 

explain the deficiency. After receipt of 

Wireking’s response to Section C of the 

Department’s initial questionnaire, 

which clearly directed Wireking to 

report the market economy price of any 

freight expense that it incurred using a 

market economy carrier and paid for in 

market economy currency, the 

Department issued Wireking a 

supplemental Section C questionnaire. 

This supplemental Section C 

questionnaire granted Wireking an 

additional opportunity to report the 

price of its market economy freight 

expenses. See the Department’s 

Supplemental Section C Questionnaire 

to Wireking (January 28, 2009) at 

Questions 44, 46, 50, 51, and 56. 

However, Wireking refused to comply 

with the Department’s request and 

instead argued that it was appropriate to 

treat this market economy carrier as an 

‘‘NME service provider’’ and did not 

provide the requested information. See 

Wireking’s Section C Supp, at 30. 

Accordingly, section 782(d) of the Act 

does not prevent application of partial 

AFA under these circumstances. See 

Reiner Brach GmbH & Co. KG v. United 

States, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1332–38 

(CIT 2002). 

For these reasons, the Department has 

preliminarily determined to apply 

partial AFA to Wireking’s market 

economy freight expenses incurred 

under sales term X, as specified under 

sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

As stated above, Wireking had multiple 

opportunities to report the price of these 

market economy freight expenses to the 

Department. Despite Wireking’s 

categorization of these freight expenses 

as non-market economy purchases, the 

Department’s request for this 

information was unambiguous. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, 

the Department finds that, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Wireking has 

failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability with regard to its unreported 

market economy freight expenses 

incurred under sales term X. Because 

Wireking failed to fully cooperate with 

the Department in this matter, we find 

it appropriate to use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of Wireking in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available. See section 776(b) 

of the Act. By doing so, we ensure that 

Wireking will not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than had it cooperated fully in this 

investigation. See SAA at 870, reprinted 

at 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199. 

Consequently, as facts otherwise 

available, the Department will use the 

market economy price from one freight 

invoice submitted by Wireking as the 

basis for freight expenses for all 

shipments made under sales term X. 

Furthermore, because the freight invoice 

is Wireking’s own information, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that it is not secondary information and 

does not need to be corroborated, 

pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. 

See Wireking Analysis Memo. 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine NV 

using a FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the FOP because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of non-market economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under the 

Department’s normal methodologies. 

See e.g., Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In 

Part, and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Lined Paper 

Products From the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 19695 (April 17, 2006) 

(‘‘CLPP’’) unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined 

Paper Products From the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 

(September 8, 2006). 

As the basis for NV, both Wireking 

and New King Shan provided FOPs 

used in each stage for processing 

kitchen appliance shelving and racks, 

i.e., from the drawing of the steel wire 

rod to completion of the final product. 

Additionally, both Wireking and New 

King Shan reported that they are 

integrated producers because both 

respondents draw the steel wire from 

the steel wire rod and provided the FOP 

information used in this production 

stage. 

Consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of 

the Act, it is the Department’s practice 

to value the FOPs that a respondent uses 

to produce the merchandise under 

consideration. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater 

Shrimp From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 2004) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 9(E). If the 

NME respondent is an integrated 

producer, we take into account the 

factors utilized in each stage of the 

production process. See id. In this case, 

we are valuing those inputs reported by 

Wireking and New King Shan that were 

used to produce the main input to the 

processing stage (steel wire) when 

calculating NV, regardless of whether 

the FOPs were produced or purchased 

by the respondents. 

A portion of Wireking’s corrugated 

packing FOP was produced by 

Wireking’s Affiliate E.18 We are not, 

however, valuing these inputs as selfproduced because Wireking and 

Affiliate E operate independently of 

each other, do not share business 

transactions, do not share facilities, do 

not share management/employees, and 

do not share production and pricing 

decisions. See Letter to Adams Lee, 

counsel for Wireking, from Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, 

Import Administration, (January 29, 

2009); Wireking’s Supplemental Section 

D, (February 5, 2009) at Exhibit 24; 

Wireking’s 2nd Supplemental Section A 

Questionnaire Response, (January 23, 

2009) at 20–23; Sinopec Sichuan 

Vinylon Works v. United States, Slip 

Op. 06–191 (December 28, 2007), at 5– 

7. Additionally, Wireking’s Affiliate E is 

not a producer of similar or identical 

merchandise to that produced by 

Wireking, and could not produce this 

merchandise without substantial 

retooling. Moreover, Wireking’s Affiliate 

E is not involved in the export or sale 

of merchandise under investigation and 

thus, we find that the initial regulatory 

criteria for treating affiliated producers 

as a single entity are not met, nor are 

circumstances similar to that under 

which the Department has treated 

affiliated exporters as a single entity 

present in this case. See Lightweight 

Thermal Paper From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 

57329 (October 2, 2008) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 8 (‘‘Thermal 

Paper from PRC Final’’). Accordingly, 

even though Wireking and its affiliated 

supplier of a portion of this packing 

factor are affiliated through indirect 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
9600 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 

19Person F’s identity is business proprietary 

information. See Wireking’s Section A 

Questionnaire Response, (November 12, 2008) at 

Exhibit 5. 

common control of person F,19 absent a 

significant potential for manipulation, 

we find it unnecessary to value 

upstream inputs that were not used by 

the actual producer of merchandise 

under investigation in NV calculations 

because such valuation would not 

reflect the producer’s, i.e., Wireking’s, 

own production experience. See 

Thermal Paper from the PRC Final, at 

Comment 8; Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission, 73 FR 15479 (March 24, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 5C. 

Factor Valuation Methodology 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by Wireking and New 

King Shan. To calculate NV, we 

multiplied the reported per-unit factorconsumption 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 

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 Wireking 

and New King Shan can be found in the 

Surrogate Value Memorandum 

(February 26, 2009). 

For this 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 Wireking 

and New King Shan’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 taxexclusive. 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 Wholesale Price 

Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund. See, e.g., 

PSF 71 FR, at 77380 and CLPP 71 FR, 

at 19704. 

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. 

Additionally, during the POI, New 

King Shan reported that it purchased 

certain inputs from a market economy 

supplier and paid for the inputs in a 

market economy currency. The 

Department has a rebuttable 

presumption that market economy input 

prices are the best available information 

for valuing an input when the total 

volume of the input purchased from all 

market economy sources during the 

period of investigation or review 

exceeds 33 percent of the total volume 

of the input purchased from all sources 

during the period. In these cases, unless 

case-specific facts provide adequate 

grounds to rebut the Department’s 

presumption, the Department will use 

the weighted-average market economy 

purchase price to value the input. 

Alternatively, when the volume of an 

NME firm’s purchases of an input from 

market economy suppliers during the 

period is below 33 percent of its total 

volume of purchases of the input during 

the period, but where these purchases 

are otherwise valid and there is no 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 9601 

reason to disregard the prices, the 

Department will weight-average the 

market economy purchase price with an 

appropriate surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) 

according to their respective shares of 

the total volume of purchases, unless 

case-specific facts provide adequate 

grounds to rebut the presumption. 

When a firm has made market economy 

input purchases that may have been 

dumped or subsidized, are not bona 

fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for 

use in a dumping calculation, the 

Department will exclude them from the 

numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair 

determination of whether valid market 

economy purchases meet the 33-percent 

threshold. See Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 

Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 

Duty Drawback; and Request for 

Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717–18 

(October 19, 2006). 

The Department has determined that 

although New King Shan reported 

purchasing certain inputs from market 

economy sellers during the POI and 

paying for the inputs in a market 

economy currency, New King Shan did 

not provide sufficient supporting 

documentation to demonstrate that 

these purchases were in fact market 

economy purchases, and therefore the 

Department is not valuing these inputs 

using New King Shan’s reported market 

economy prices for each of these inputs 

for this preliminary determination. See 

New King Shan’s Questionnaire 

Responses, (January 12, 2009), (February 

9, 2009) and (February 13, 2009) and 

New King Shan’s Analysis 

Memorandum. The Department used the 

Indian Import Statistics to value the raw 

material and packing material inputs 

that Wireking and New King Shan used 

to produce the merchandise under 

investigation during the POI, except 

where listed below. 

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 May 

2008, see Corrected 2007 Calculation of 

Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 

73 FR 27795 (May 14, 2008), 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 Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2005, 

ILO (Geneva: 2007), Chapter 5B: Wages 

in Manufacturing. 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. Since this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

deflated the rate using WPI. 

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. Since the rates are not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

inflated the values using the WPI. 

Parties have suggested that the 

Department rely on June 2008 CEA data 

and International Energy Agency 

(‘‘IEA’’) data, however, we preliminarily 

find that we cannot rely on them 

because we are unable to separate duty 

rates from the June 2008 CEA data, and 

the IEA data are less contemporaneous 

than the July 2006 CEA data. 

Additionally, petitioners have 

recommended that we not use CEA data 

because of a May 2007 TERI report that 

indicated that the rates include 

subsidies and are below production; 

however, the Department was unable to 

find sufficient evidence of subsidies to 

demonstrate that the electricity rates 

used in the CEA data were unreliable. 

Moreover, the Department was also 

unable to find sufficient evidence to 

demonstrate that the electricity rates 

used in the CEA data were below cost. 

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. The Department valued 

water using data from the Maharashtra 

Industrial Development Corporation 

(http:// 

www.midindia.orgwww.midcindia.org) 

since it includes a wide range of 

industrial water tariffs. This source 

provides 386 industrial water rates 

within the Maharashtra province from 

June 2003: 193 of the water rates were 

for the ‘‘inside industrial areas’’ usage 

category and 193 of the water rates were 

for the ‘‘outside industrial areas’’ usage 

category. Because the value was not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we used 

WPI data to inflate the rate to be 

contemporaneous to the POI. 

We continued our recent practice to 

value 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 Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. 

in the antidumping duty administrative 

review of certain preserved mushrooms 

from India, Kejirwal Paper Ltd. in the 

LTFV investigation of certain lined 

paper products from India, and Essar 

Steel in the antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot-rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India. 

See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

India: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

10646 (March 2, 2006); see also Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined 

Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 

(April 17, 2006), unchanged in Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, and Negative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India, 71 FR 45012 

(August 8, 2006); Certain Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

2018,2021 (January 12, 2006) unchanged 

in Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From India: Final Results of 

Antidumping Administrative Review, 71 

FR 40694 (July 18, 2006). Since the 

resulting value is not contemporaneous 

with the POI, we inflated the rate using 

the WPI. 

To value marine insurance, the 

Department used data from RGJ 

Consultants (http:// 

www.rjgconsultants.com/). This source 

provides information regarding the pervalue rates of marine insurance of 

imports and exports to/from various 

countries. 

To value U.S. inland insurance, the 

Department used data from P.A.F. Cargo 

Insurance (http:// 

www.pafinsurance.com/). This source 

provides information regarding the pervalue rate of basic and all risk coverage 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
9602 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 

insurance rates of commodities 

transported within the United States. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we used the average of the 

audited financial statements of three 

Indian fastener companies, Nasco Steel 

07/08, Sterling Tools Limited 07/08, and 

Lakshmi Precision Screw, Ltd. 06/07. 

While all three of these companies 

produce comparable rather than 

identical merchandise, each of these 

companies use an integrated wiredrawing production process with wire 

rod as one of its primary inputs, which 

closely mirrors that of the mandatory 

respondents. Although Petitioners 

argued that the production process of 

fastener products is not as complex and 

high value-added as the production 

process of certain kitchen appliance 

shelving and racks, we find that there is 

no evidence on the record 

demonstrating that the financial 

experience of these three fastener 

companies is not comparable to the 

experience of the mandatory 

respondents. 

Additionally, while Petitioners have 

also provided an additional source for 

surrogate financial ratios using the 

financial statements of Usha Martin Ltd. 

(‘‘Usha’’), which is an Indian producer 

of steel wire and wire rope, we find that 

the financial statements of producers of 

wire and wire rope should not be used 

for purposes of calculating surrogate 

financial ratios because certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks are a 

downstream product of wire requiring 

additional manufacturing processes and 

wire and wire rope do not undergo 

comparable additional fabrication. 

Using wire producers to calculate the 

surrogate financial ratios would not 

capture all the costs beyond wire 

reported by the respondents in the 

production of kitchen appliance 

shelving and racks, such as painting, 

powder coating, degreasing, etc. 

Therefore, we find that a company 

which produces fasteners would better 

reflect the production experience of 

kitchen appliance shelving and racks 

because fasteners, like kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks, undergoes 

further processing. As such, we 

averaged financial ratios from the 

financial statements of Lakshmi, Nasco, 

and Sterling, all of which are integrated 

wire fastener producers, to calculate the 

surrogate financial ratios. 

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 Wireking’s 

Section D Supp; New King Shan’s 

Section D Supp. 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 determination, see 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

Wireking stated that we should use 

the WTA data for valuing all inputs 

even though the WTA data available for 

wire rod represents a basket category 

consisting of wire rod 14mm or less in 

diameter. This data, however, is less 

specific to the reported inputs than the 

JPC price data. Wireking argued that the 

Department reject the use of the JPC 

price data because it includes 

information from steel companies that 

have received domestic subsidies as 

indicated on their financial statements 

which Wireking has placed on the 

record of this proceeding. Wireking 

asserts that the JPC data are affected by 

these subsidies and therefore we should 

not use the JPC data to value low carbon 

steel wire rod. 

On the one hand, the advantage of the 

JPC data are that they are from an 

official government source and are far 

more specific to the input in question. 

However, we are mindful of the 

concerns of Wireking. Bearing those 

concerns in mind, in selecting between 

the two datasets we are selecting the 

dataset more specific to the input in 

question. We will consider this issue for 

the final determination, and we invite 

all parties to comment on the proper 

balancing of these considerations. 

Use of Facts Available for Wireking’s 

Unit Weights 

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

that the Department use facts available 

if necessary information is not available 

on the record of an antidumping 

proceeding. In this investigation, 

Wireking reported that does not 

maintain production records that 

reports per-unit consumption of each 

FOP to specific products. See Wireking 

Section D Supplemental Questionnaire 

Response, (February 5, 2009) at 2. 

Accordingly, Wireking reported that it 

has calculated its FOPs by dividing, at 

each production stage, the total POI 

volume of each FOP consumed by the 

total volume of all products, subject and 

non-subject, generated at that stage. 

Then, Wireking reported that it then 

multiplied the FOP ratio by the unit 

weight of the finished product. See id., 

at 3 and Exhibit D–7. 

In their February 17, 2009, 

submission, Petitioners submitted data 

gathered from Wireking’s submitted 

packing lists and Petitioners’ own 

production experience of certain 

products that allegedly demonstrated 

that Wireking’s reported unit weights 

were understated. After comparing 

Petitioners’ production experience of 

certain products and the unit weight of 

products reported in Wireking’s packing 

lists to Wireking’s reported unit 

weights, we find that Wireking has 

understated the unit weights of its 

finished products. See Wireking’s 

Analysis Memo, at Attachment 4, 

Petitioners’ February 17, 2009, 

Submission on Underreported Steel 

Weights, at 6 and Attachment 3. 

Additionally, because Wireking 

reported that it multiplied its FOP ratios 

by the unit weight of the finished 

product to obtain the per-unit 

consumption ratio of finished product, 

we also find that Wireking has 

understated its FOP ratios. Therefore, 

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

Act, Wireking has not provided accurate 

information relevant to the 

Department’s analysis. Thus, consistent 

with section 782(d) of the Act, the 

Department has determined it is 

necessary to apply facts otherwise 

available to Wireking’s unit weight of 

each finished product to calculate 

Wireking’s NV based on its reported 

FOP data. To account for the correct 

per-unit consumption ratio of each of 

Wireking’s finished product, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined to increase Wireking’s 

reported FOP data by the difference in 

Wireking’s reported unit weight and the 

unit weight reported in Wireking’s 

packing list. Additionally, where there 

was no packing list on the record of the 

unit weight for various finished 

products, the Department has 

preliminarily determined to increase 

Wireking’s reported FOP data for these 

finished products by the weightedaverage difference of the unit weights 

for the finished products that are on the 

record. Moreover, to account for the 

correct weight of finished product to 

convert certain surrogate values to 

Wireking’s reported U.S. price per 

piece, the Department has also 

preliminarily determined to increase 

Wireking’s reported unit weight of each 

finished product by the weight 

difference, as discussed above. See 

Wireking’s Analysis Memo. 

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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 9603 

Verification 

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

Act, we intend to verify the information 

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. See 

Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 60806. This 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

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

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Exporter Producer 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

Guandong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. (a/k/a 

Foshan Shunde Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., 

Ltd.).

Guandong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. ........... 25.66 

New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd. ............................................ New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd. ........................................... 17.15 

Separate Rates Entities Producer ................................................................................. Margin 

Marmon Retail Services Asia ..................................................... Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Marmon Retail Services 

Asia).

21.41 

Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................................. Hangzhou Dunli Industry Co., Ltd. ............................................ 21.41 

Jiangsu Weixi Group Co. ............................................................ Jiangsu Weixi Group Co. ........................................................... 21.41 

PRC-wide Entity (including Asber Enterprise Co., Ltd. (China)) .................................................................................................... 96.45 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

certain kitchen appliance shelving and 

racks from the PRC as described in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption from Wireking, New 

King Shan, Marmon Retail Services 

Asia, Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export 

Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Weixi Group Co., and 

the PRC-wide entity on or after the date 

of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to require a cash deposit or the posting 

of a bond equal to the weighted-average 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. 

Additionally, as the Department has 

determined in its Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks 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 683 (January 7, 2009) (‘‘CVD 

Prelim’’) that the product under 

investigation, exported and produced by 

Wireking, benefitted from an export 

subsidy we will we instruct CBP to 

require an antidumping cash deposit or 

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage 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). 

Therefore, for merchandise under 

consideration exported and produced by 

Wireking entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

publication date of this preliminary 

determination, we will instruct CBP to 

require an antidumping duty cash 

deposit or the posting of a bond for each 

entry equal to the weighted-average 

margin indicated above adjusted for the 

export subsidy rate determined in the 

CVD Prelim (i.e., Income Tax reduction 

for Export Oriented FIEs: 

countervailable subsidy of 0.94 percent; 

and Local Income Tax Reduction for 

‘‘Productive’’ FIEs: countervailable 

subsidy of 0.23 percent). The adjusted 

cash deposit rate for Wireking is 24.49 

percent. 

Furthermore, in the CVD Prelim, 

Wireking’s rate was assigned to the allothers rate as it was the only rate that 

was not zero, de minimis or based on 

total facts available. See CVD Prelim, 74 

FR at 693. Accordingly, as the 

countervailing duty rate for New King 

Shan, Marmon Retail Services Asia, 

Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., 

Ltd., Jiangsu Weixi Group Co. is the all 

others rate, which includes the two 

countervailable export subsides listed 

above, we will also instruct CBP to 

require an antidumping duty cash 

deposit or the posting of a bond for each 

entry equal to the weighted-average 

margin indicated above for these 

companies adjusted for the export 

subsidies determined in the CVD 

Prelim. The adjusted cash deposit rate 

for New King Shan is 15.98 percent and 

the adjusted cash deposit rate for 

Marmon Retail Services Asia, Hangzhou 

Dunli Import & Export Co., Ltd., Jiangsu 

Weixi Group Co. is 20.24 percent. 

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 less than fair value. 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 certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks, or sales 

(or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation, of the merchandise under 

investigation 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 and must be received no later 

than five days after the deadline date for 

case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) and 

(d). A 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. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, and if requested, we will hold a 

public hearing, to afford interested 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
9604 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 42 / Thursday, March 5, 2009 / Notices 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

arguments raised in case or rebuttal 

briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, 

we intend to hold the hearing shortly 

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. 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

two days before the scheduled date. 

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. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

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

Act, on February 23, 2009, Wireking 

requested that in the event of an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in this investigation, the Department 

postpone its final determination by 60 

days. Wireking also requested that the 

Department extend the application of 

the provisional measures prescribed 

under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 4- 

month period to a 6-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 exporter 

accounts for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting the request 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. 

This determination is issued and published 

in accordance with sections 733(f) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 26, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–4612 Filed 3–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Director, Information 

Collection Clearance Division, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management invites 

comments on the submission for OMB 

review as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before April 6, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Education Desk Officer, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395–6974. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Director, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management, 

publishes that notice containing 

proposed information collection 

requests prior to submission of these 

requests to OMB. Each proposed 

information collection, grouped by 

office, contains the following: (1) Type 

of review requested, e.g. new, revision, 

extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) 

Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) 

Description of the need for, and 

proposed use of, the information; (5) 

Respondents and frequency of 

collection; and (6) Reporting and/or 

recordkeeping burden. OMB invites 

public comment. 

Dated: February 17, 2009. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

Director, Information Collections Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education 

Type of Review: Revision. 

Title: Local Flexibility Demonstration 

Program (Local-Flex) Application 

Package. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit; State, Local, or Tribal Gov’t, 

SEAs or LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 50. 

Burden Hours: 4,000. 

Abstract: The Local Flexibility 

Demonstration (Local-Flex) program 

provides participating local educational 

agencies (LEAs) with unprecedented 

flexibility to consolidate certain Federal 

education funds and to use those funds 

for any educational purpose under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) in order to meet the State’s 

definition of adequate yearly progress 

and attain specific measurable goals for 

improving student achievement and 

narrowing achievement gaps. The 

application package contains 

information applicants will need to 

prepare and submit their Local-Flex 

proposals. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 

may be accessed from http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 3923. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to the Internet address 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202– 

401–0920. Please specify the complete 

title of the information collection when 

making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339. 

[FR Doc. E9–4741 Filed 3–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Notice 

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearing agenda. 

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, March 17, 

2009, 1–3 p.m. 

PLACE: U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission, 1225 New York Ave, NW., 

Suite 150, Washington, DC 20005 

(Metro Stop: Metro Center). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES