32366 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

Comment 9: Income Tax Credits for 

Domestically Owned Companies 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment 

Comment 10: Provision of Electricity for 

Less than Adequate Remuneration 

Comment 11: Grant Programs 

Comment 12: Separate CVD Rate for 

Xinke 

VII. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2010–13776 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–947] 

Certain Steel Grating From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On January 6, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

certain steel grating (‘‘steel grating’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’). See Certain Steel Grating From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 75 FR 847 

(January 6, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). We invited interested 

parties to comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. Based 

on our analysis of the comments we 

received, we have made changes from 

the Preliminary Determination. We 

determine that steel grating from the 

PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in 

the United States at LTFV as provided 

in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘Act’’). The final dumping 

margins for this investigation are listed 

in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3936. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

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

October 1, 2008, through March 31, 

2009. The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on January 6, 2010. See 

Preliminary Determination. On February 

4, 2010, we postponed the final 

determination. See Certain Steel Grating 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

75 FR 5766 (February 4, 2010). 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

final determination of this investigation 

is now May 28, 2010. See Memorandum 

to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, 

DAS for Import Administration, 

regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative 

Deadlines As a Result of the 

Government Closure During the Recent 

Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010. 

Between January 11, 2010, through 

January 15, 2010, the Department 

conducted verification of Ningbo 

Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd. and Ningbo Zhenhai Jiulong 

Electronic Equipment Factory 

(collectively ‘‘Ningbo Jiulong’’). See the 

‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. On March 8, 

2010, Fisher & Ludlow and Alabama 

Metal Industries Corporation (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘Petitioners’’) filed 

comments regarding mill test certificates 

from Ningbo Jiulong’s suppliers of steel 

coils and wire rod that were included in 

the Department’s verification exhibits. 

Petitioners cited numerous aspects of 

the mill test certificates that they 

deemed irregular, and which indicated 

that the mill test certificates were not 

genuine. 

On March 8, 2010, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Ningbo Jiulong, requiring a response to 

Petitioners’ analysis and specific 

allegations, and to reconcile its 

suppliers’ mill test certificates with 

other information on the record. On 

March 9, 2010, the Department 

requested additional information from 

Petitioners, supporting the analysis in 

its March 8, 2010 submission. Also, on 

March 9, 2010, the Department 

requested U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) entry documents 

pertaining to certain Ningbo Jiulong 

shipments, specifically any mill test 

certificates filed by the importer of 

record. On March 10, 2010, the 

Department issued an additional request 

to Ningbo Jiulong to provide mill test 

certificates for its steel inputs for certain 

specific U.S. sales of steel grating that 

the Department had selected for specific 

review at verification. 

On March 16, 2010, and March 18, 

2010, the Department received from 

CBP entry documentation and certain 

mill test certificates created by Ningbo 

Jiulong for steel coils, filed with CBP by 

the importer of record. 

On March 18, 2010, Ningbo Jiulong 

responded to the Department’s March 

10, 2010, request for specific mill test 

certificates by stating that (1) Ningbo 

Jiulong could not link steel coil mill test 

certificates to the U.S. sales of steel 

grating in which the steel coil was used 

in production, and (2) in practice 

Ningbo Jiulong did not provide mill test 

certificates to its customer for most 

sales, despite the ‘‘legalistic terms in the 

small print’’ of its purchase orders. 

On March 19, 2010, Petitioners 

responded to the Department’s request 

with supporting information concerning 

the analysis in their March 8, 2010 

submission. Also, on March 19, 2010, 

Ningbo Jiulong responded to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire, stating: (1) Ningbo 

Jiulong cannot trace any of its suppliers’ 

mill test certificates to specific 

purchases of steel coil or wire rod, 

because mill test certificates are 

production records that pertain to steel 

sold to multiple customers; (2) mill test 

certificates are not accounting records 

(e.g., invoices, inventory slips, delivery 

notes), and thus Ningbo Jiulong does not 

keep mill test certificates in its records 

in the normal course of business; (3) 

Ningbo Jiulong creates its own mill test 

certificates that it admits are unreliable, 

and that it has no ability to determine 

with its own analysis the chemical 

properties of any steel that it purchases; 

and (4) irregularities in the mill test 

certificates noted by Petitioners are due 

to the carelessness of their suppliers 

and/or ‘‘estimations’’ made by its 

suppliers using the content of prior mill 

test certificates. 

On April 5, 2010, Petitioners, Ningbo 

Jiulong, and the Government of China 

submitted case briefs. On April 12, 

2010, Petitioners, Ningbo Jiulong, 

Ningbo Haitian International Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Haitian’’), and Yantai Xinke Steel 

Structure Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinke’’) submitted 

rebuttal briefs. On April 19, 2010, the 

Department held a public hearing. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32367 

1See Ningbo Jiulong AFA Memo at 10–14. 

2See Ningbo Jiulong AFA Memo at 14–17. 

3See Ningbo Jiulong AFA Memo at 17. 

‘‘Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final 

Determination,’’ (‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’), dated concurrently 

with this notice and which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues which parties raised and to 

which we respond in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is attached to 

this notice as Appendix I. The Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of the 

main Commerce building, and is 

accessible on the World Wide Web at 

http://trade.gov/ia/index.asp. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of information 

on the record of this investigation, we 

have determined that the application of 

total adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) is 

warranted in the case of Ningbo Jiulong. 

For further details, see Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comments 3; 

see also Memorandum from Thomas 

Martin to John M. Andersen, regarding: 

Application of Total Adverse Facts 

Available for Ningbo Jiulong Machinery 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated May 28, 2010 

(‘‘Ningbo Jiulong AFA Memo’’). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain steel grating, 

consisting of two or more pieces of steel, 

including load-bearing pieces and cross 

pieces, joined by any assembly process, 

regardless of: (1) Size or shape; (2) 

method of manufacture; (3) metallurgy 

(carbon, alloy, or stainless); (4) the 

profile of the bars; and (5) whether or 

not they are galvanized, painted, coated, 

clad or plated. Steel grating is also 

commonly referred to as ‘‘bar grating,’’ 

although the components may consist of 

steel other than bars, such as hot-rolled 

sheet, plate, or wire rod. 

The scope of this investigation 

excludes expanded metal grating, which 

is comprised of a single piece or coil of 

sheet or thin plate steel that has been 

slit and expanded, and does not involve 

welding or joining of multiple pieces of 

steel. The scope of this investigation 

also excludes plank type safety grating 

which is comprised of a single piece or 

coil of sheet or thin plate steel, typically 

in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, that has 

been pierced and cold formed, and does 

not involve welding or joining of 

multiple pieces of steel. 

Certain steel grating that is the subject 

of this investigation is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under subheading 

7308.90.7000. While the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

to Ningbo Jiulong 

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

that the Department may rely on facts 

otherwise available where necessary 

information is not available on the 

record, and section 776(a)(2) of the Act 

provides that if an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested, subject to subsections 

782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a determination 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from {the 

Department} for information, notifies 

{the Department} that such party is 

unable to submit the information in the 

requested form and manner, together 

with a full explanation and suggested 

alternative form in which such party is 

able to submit the information,’’ the 

Department may modify the 

requirements to avoid imposing an 

unreasonable burden on that party. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all 

or part of the original and subsequent 

responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the administering authority 

finds that an interested party has not 

acted to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information, the 

administering authority may, in 

reaching its determination, use an 

inference that is adverse to that party. 

The adverse inference may be based 

upon: (1) The petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation under 

this title, (3) any previous review under 

section 751 or determination under 

section 753, or (4) any other information 

placed on the record. 

The Department has determined that 

the information to construct an accurate 

and otherwise reliable margin is not 

available on the record with respect to 

Ningbo Jiulong because Ningbo Jiulong 

withheld information that had been 

requested, significantly impeded this 

proceeding, and provided information 

that could not be verified, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A), (C) and (D) 

of the of Act.1 As a result, the 

Department has determined to apply the 

facts otherwise available. Further, the 

Department finds that Ningbo Jiulong 

failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, and the Department has determined 

to use an adverse inference when 

applying facts available in this 

investigation.2 In addition, we have 

concluded that the nature of Ningbo 

Jiulong’s unreliable submissions calls 

into question the reliability of the 

questionnaire responses with respect to 

Ningbo Jiulong’s claim of eligibility for 

separate rate status. Thus, as an adverse 

inference, we find that Ningbo Jiulong is 

part of the PRC-wide entity for purposes 

of this investigation.3

The PRC Entity (Including Ningbo 

Jiulong) 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

an non-market-economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country are subject to government 

control and because only the companies 

listed under the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below have overcome 

that presumption, we are applying a 

single antidumping rate—the PRC-wide 

rate—to all other exporters of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32368 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

4See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 

3, 2000). 

5See Memorandum To the File from Robert 

Bolling, Thomas Martin, and Brian Soiset, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of 

Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel 

Grating from the People’s Republic of China’’ dated 

February 23, 2010. 

6See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3. 7See Amended Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Pipe From the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 22130, 22133 (April 24, 

2008); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479 (February 

4, 2008) and the accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

merchandise under consideration from 

the PRC, including Ningbo Jiulong.4 The 

PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of 

subject merchandise except for entries 

from the respondents identified as 

receiving a separate rate in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, the Department attempted to verify 

Ningbo Jiulong’s questionnaire 

responses.5 We used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by 

respondents. However, as detailed in 

the AFA section of this notice, and 

Comment 3 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, we cannot conclude that 

the information submitted is either 

accurate or reliable. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) It is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a similar level of economic development 

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

and (3) we have reliable data from India 

that we can use to value the factors of 

production. See Preliminary 

Determination. We received no 

comments on this issue after the 

Preliminary Determination, and we have 

made no changes to our findings with 

respect to the selection of a surrogate 

country for the final determination. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994), and 19 CFR 

351.107(d). 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that the separate rate applicants 

Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Sinosteel’’), Ningbo Haitian, and Xinke 

(collectively, the ‘‘Separate Rate 

Applicants’’) demonstrated their 

eligibility for, and were hence assigned, 

separate rate status. No party has 

commented on the eligibility of these 

companies for separate rate status. For 

the final determination, we continue to 

find that the evidence placed on the 

record of this investigation by these 

companies demonstrates both a de jure 

and de facto absence of government 

control with respect to their exports of 

the merchandise under investigation. 

Thus, we continue to find that they are 

eligible for separate rate status. 

Normally, the separate rate is 

determined based on the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding de 

minimis margins or margins based 

entirely on AFA. See section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department assigned to the Separate 

Rate Applicants’ exporter/producer 

combinations that qualified for a 

separate rate a weighted-average margin 

based on the experience of the 

mandatory respondent, Ningbo Jiulong. 

See Preliminary Determination. For the 

final determination, we have denied 

Ningbo Jiulong a separate rate in 

applying total AFA.6 See ‘‘Application 

of Adverse Facts Available To Ningbo 

Jiulong’’ section above. In this case, 

where there are no mandatory 

respondents receiving a calculated rate 

and the PRC-wide entity’s rate is based 

upon total AFA, we find that applying 

the simple average of the rates alleged 

in the petition, incorporating revisions 

made in Petitioners’ supplemental 

responses, is both reasonable and 

reliable for purposes of establishing a 

separate rate.7 Therefore, the 

Department will assign a separate rate 

for the Separate Rate Applicants’ 

exporter/producer combinations using 

the average of the margins alleged in the 

petition, or 136.76 percent, pursuant to 

its practice. This rate is corroborated, to 

the extent practicable, for the reasons 

stated the ‘‘Corroboration’’ section, 

below. 

The PRC-Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that the PRC-wide 

entity did not respond to our requests 

for information. In the Preliminary 

Determination, we treated PRC 

exporters/producers that did not 

respond to the Department’s request for 

information as part of the PRC-wide 

entity because they did not demonstrate 

that they operate free of government 

control. No additional information has 

been placed on the record with respect 

to these entities after the Preliminary 

Determination. The PRC-wide entity has 

not provided the Department with the 

requested information; therefore, 

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

Act, the Department continues to find 

that the use of facts available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC-wide 

rate. 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 

Notice of 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). 

See also, Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. 

Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994). 

We find that, because the PRC-wide 

entity did not respond to our request for 

information, it has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability. Therefore, the 

Department finds that, in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, an 

adverse inference is appropriate for the 

PRC-wide entity. 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

an NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate—the 

PRC-wide rate—to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. Such 

companies did not demonstrate 

entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). 

The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32369 

8See Certain Steel Grating From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 74 FR 30273. 30277 (June 25, 2009) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

9See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 30277. 

10Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd., Ningbo Zhenhai Jiulong Electronic Equipment 

Factory and Shanghai DAHE Grating Co., Ltd. are 

part of the PRC-wide entity. 

of subject merchandise except for 

entries from the Separate Rate 

Applicants, which are listed in the 

‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section 

below. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information in using the facts 

otherwise available, it must, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. We 

have interpreted ‘‘corroborate’’ to mean 

that we will, to the extent practicable, 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information submitted. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 

Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5568 

(February 4, 2000); see, e.g., 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). 

As total AFA, the Department 

preliminarily selected the rate of 145.18 

percent from the Initiation Notice,8 i.e., 

a margin from the petition as revised by 

the Department through supplemental 

questionnaires. Petitioners’ 

methodology for calculating the export 

price and normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the 

petition is discussed in the Initiation 

Notice.9 At the Preliminary 

Determination, in accordance with 

section 776(c) of the Act, we 

corroborated our AFA margin by 

comparing it to the CONNUM margins 

we found for the mandatory respondent. 

We found that the margin of 145.18 

percent had probative value because it 

was in the range of CONNUM model 

margins we found for the only 

participating mandatory respondent, 

Ningbo Jiulong. Accordingly, we found 

that the rate of 145.18 percent was 

corroborated within the meaning of 

section 776(c) of the Act. 

Because there are no cooperating 

mandatory respondents to corroborate 

the 145.18 percent margin used as AFA 

for the PRC-wide entity, to the extent 

appropriate information was available, 

we revisited our pre-initiation analysis 

of the adequacy and accuracy of the 

information in the petition. See 

Antidumping Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Certain Steel Grating from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated June 

18, 2009 (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’). We 

examined evidence supporting the 

calculations in the petition and the 

supplemental information provided by 

Petitioners prior to initiation to 

determine the probative value of the 

margins alleged in the petition. During 

our pre-initiation analysis, we examined 

the information used as the basis of 

export price and NV in the petition, and 

the calculations used to derive the 

alleged margins. Also during our preinitiation analysis, we examined 

information from various independent 

sources provided either in the petition 

or, based on our requests, in 

supplements to the petition (e.g., Global 

Trade Atlas, and Petitioners’ experience 

with selling and producing the 

merchandise under consideration), 

which corroborated key elements of the 

export price and NV calculations. See 

Initiation Checklist at 7–12. We received 

no comments as to the relevance or 

probative value of this information. 

Therefore, the Department finds that the 

margin of 145.18 percent has probative 

value for the purpose of being selected 

as the AFA rate assigned to the PRCwide entity (including Ningbo Jiulong). 

Therefore, the Department finds that 

the rates derived from the petition for 

purposes of initiation have probative 

value for the purpose of being selected 

as the AFA rate assigned to the PRCwide entity (including Ningbo Jiulong). 

Combination Rates 

In the initiation notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 

19049 (April 27, 2009). This practice is 

described in Separate Rates and 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations Involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233 (April 

5, 2005) which states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its {non-market economy} 

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. 

Final Determination Margins 

The Department determines that the 

following dumping margins exist for the 

period October 1, 2008, through March 

31, 2009: 

Manufacturer Exporter Antidumping duty 

percent margin 

Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd ................................... Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd ................................... 136.76 

Ningbo Haitian International Co., Ltd ....................................... Ningbo Lihong Steel Grating Co., Ltd ...................................... 136.76 

Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co., Ltd ...................................... Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co., Ltd ...................................... 136.76 

PRC-wide Entity10 ..................................................................... ................................................................................................... 145.18 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 

will instruct CBP to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of steel grating 

from PRC, as described in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section, above, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after January 6, 

2010, the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32370 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

Federal Register. The Department will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond equal to the 

weighted-average dumping margin 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The 

rate for the exporter/producer 

combinations listed in the chart above 

will be the rate the Department has 

determined in this final determination; 

(2) for all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide entity rate; and (3) for 

all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter/producer combination that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

suspension-of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, the Department notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of its final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As the Department’s final 

determination is affirmative, in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, within 45 days the ITC will 

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess, upon further instruction by 

the Department, antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: May 28, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Issues For Final Determination 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Whether the Department Can 

Concurrently Apply Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties to Non-Market 

Economy Producers and Exporters 

Comment 2: Whether the Department Should 

Recalculate the Petition Margins With 

Updated Surrogate Values 

Ningbo Jiulong Specific Issues 

Comment 3: Whether the Department Should 

Apply Adverse Facts Available to Ningbo 

Jiulong Based Upon Submitted False 

Information Regarding Its Steel Inputs 

Comment 4: Whether the Department Should 

Rely Upon Documents Obtained From CBP 

in the Final Determination 

Comment 5: Whether the Department Should 

Apply Adverse Facts Available to Ningbo 

Jiulong Based Upon the Failure To Report 

the Correct Customer 

Comment 6: Whether the Department Should 

Apply Adverse Facts Available to Ningbo 

Jiulong Based Upon Unreported Sales 

Comment 7: Whether the Department Should 

Apply Partial Adverse Facts Available to 

Ningbo Jiulong’s Packing Inputs 

Comment 8: Whether the Department Should 

Revise Ningbo Jiulong’s Steel Scrap Offset 

Surrogate Value Issues for Specific Factors 

of Production 

Comment 9: Whether the Department Should 

Revise the Surrogate Value for the Steel 

Coil Input 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Surrogate Value for the 

Wire Rod Input 

Comment 11: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Surrogate Value for 

Galvanizing Services 

Surrogate Financial Ratio Calculation Issues 

Comment 12: Whether the Department 

Should Use the Financial Statement of 

Greatweld Steel Grating Private Limited to 

Calculate Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 13: Whether the Department 

Should Use the Financial Statements of 

Comparable Merchandise Producers to 

Calculate Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Separate Rate Applicant Rate Issues 

Comment 14: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Rate Assigned to 

Separate Rate Applicants 

[FR Doc. 2010–13778 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–403–801] 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review: 

Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon 

from Norway 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from 

Norway 

SUMMARY: On August 5, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

initiated a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping order on 

fresh and chilled Atlantic Salmon from 

Norway and preliminarily determined 

that Nordic Group AS is the successor– 

in-interest to Nordic Group A/L for 

purposes of determining antidumping 

duty liability. We received comments 

from interested parties. Based on our 

analysis, we are now affirming our 

preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Conniff, Office of AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 12, 1991, the Department 

issued the order on fresh and chilled 

Atlantic Salmon from Norway. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh and 

Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway, 

56 FR 14920 (April 12, 1991) 

(Norwegian Salmon Order). Nordic 

Group A/L, as an exporter of subject 

fresh whole salmon from Norway to the 

U.S., requested a new shipper review 

(NSR) in 1995. The Department issued 

the final results of the NSR in which it 

calculated a de minimis margin for 

Nordic Group A/L. See Fresh and 

Chilled Salmon from Norway: Final 

Results of New Shipper Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 1430 

(January 10, 1997). On December 30, 

2005, the Department published in the 

Federal Register the final results of the 

full sunset review of the antidumping 

duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic 

Salmon from Norway. See Fresh and 

Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: 

Final Results of the Full Sunset Review 

of Antidumping Duty Order, 70 FR 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES