50304 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 

marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs). 

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large 

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–

2600 (voice and TDD). To file a 

complaint of discrimination, write to 

USDA, Director, Office of Adjudication 

andCompliance, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–

9410, or call (800) 795–3272 (voice), or 

(202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider, employer, 

and lender.’’

Dated: August 15, 2008. 

Thomas C. Dorr, 

Under Secretary,Rural Development. 

[FR Doc. E8–19703 Filed 8–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–570–942) 

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing 

Duty Investigation: Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from 

the People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 26, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Holland and Yasmin Nair, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1279 and (202) 

482–3813, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On July 31, 2008, the Department of 

Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) received 

a petition filed in proper form by 

Nashville Wire Products Inc., SSW 

Holding Company, Inc., United Steel, 

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied–

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, and the 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 

6 (Clinton, IA) (the ‘‘petitioners’’), 

domestic producers of certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks (‘‘kitchen 

shelving and racks’’). In response to the 

Department’s requests, the petitioners 

provided timely information 

supplementing the petition on August 

13 and 15, 2008. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), the petitioners allege that 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of certain kitchen appliance shelving 

and racks in the People’s Republic of 

China ( the ‘‘PRC’’), receive 

countervailable subsidies within the 

meaning of section 701 of the Act and 

that such imports are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to, an industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed the petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and the 

petitioners have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

countervailing duty investigation (see 

‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition’’ section below). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is January 

1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. 

Scope of the 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 

subject merchandise’’). 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 subject merchandise 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 subject merchandise 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 8418.99.80.50, 

7321.90.50.00, 7321.90.60.90 and 

8516.90.80.00. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Comments on the Scope of the 

Investigation 

During our review of the petition, we 

discussed the scope with the petitioners 

to ensure that it is an accurate reflection 

of the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 

27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting 

aside a period for interested parties to 

raise issues regarding product coverage. 

The Department encourages all 

interested parties to submit such 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

the publication of this notice. 

Comments should be addressed to 

Import Administration’s Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, the Department invited 

representatives of the Government of the 

PRC for consultations with respect to 

the countervailing duty petition. The 

Department held these consultations in 

Beijing, China, with representatives of 

the Government of the PRC on August 

15, 2008. See the Memorandum to The 

File, entitled, ‘‘Consultations with 

Officials from the Government of the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (August 15, 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 50305 

2008) on file in the CRU of the 

Department of Commerce, Room 1117. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for 

determining whether ‘‘the domestic 

industry’’ has been injured, must also 

determine what constitutes a domestic 

like product in order to define the 

industry. While both the Department 

and the ITC must apply the same 

statutory definition regarding the 

domestic like product (section 771(10) 

of the Act), they do so for different 

purposes and pursuant to a separate and 

distinct authority. In addition, the 

Department’s determination is subject to 

limitations of time and information. 

Although this may result in different 

definitions of the like product, such 

differences do not render the decision of 

either agency contrary to law. See 

Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United 

States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 

1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this subtitle.’’ Thus, 

the reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, the petitioners contend that 

there are two domestic like products: 

certain refrigeration shelving and 

certain oven racks. The petitioners note 

that the two like products, when 

considered together, correspond to the 

product scope description. Based on our 

analysis of the information submitted on 

the record, we have determined that 

refrigeration shelving and certain oven 

racks constitute two domestic like 

products, and we have analyzed 

industry support in terms of those 

domestic like products. For a discussion 

of the domestic like product analysis in 

this case, see ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’), Industry 

Support at Attachment II, on file in the 

CRU, Room 1117 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

With regard to section 702(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, in determining whether the 

petitioners have standing (i.e., the 

domestic workers and producers 

supporting the Petition account for (1) at 

least 25 percent of the total production 

of the domestic like product and (2) 

more than 50 percent of the production 

of the domestic like product produced 

by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition), we considered the 

industry support data contained in the 

Petition with reference to the domestic 

like products. To establish industry 

support, the petitioners provided their 

own production volume of the domestic 

like products for calendar year 2007, 

and compared that to total production 

volume of the domestic like products for 

the industry. We have relied upon data 

the petitioners provided for purposes of 

measuring industry support. For further 

discussion, see Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II (Industry Support). 

The Department’s review of the data 

provided in the petition, supplemental 

submissions, and other information 

readily available to the Department 

indicates that petitioners have 

established industry support. First, the 

petition establishes support from 

domestic producers (or workers) 

accounting for more than 50 percent of 

the total production of the domestic like 

products and, as such, the Department 

is not required to take further action in 

order to evaluate industry support (i.e., 

polling). See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the 

Act and Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II (Industry Support). 

Second, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 

domestic producers (or workers) who 

support the petition account for at least 

25 percent of the total production of the 

domestic like products. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II (Industry 

Support). Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like 

products produced by that portion of 

the industry expressing support for, or 

opposition to, the petition. Accordingly, 

the Department determines that the 

petition was filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II 

(Industry Support). 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed the petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in sections 

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the 

countervailing duty investigation that 

they are requesting the Department 

initiate. See Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II (Industry Support). 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The petitioners allege that imports of 

certain refrigeration shelving and 

certain oven racks from the PRC are 

benefitting from countervailable 

subsidies and that such imports are 

causing or threaten to cause, material 

injury to the domestic industries 

producing certain refrigeration shelving 

and certain oven racks. In addition, the 

petitioners allege that subsidized 

imports exceed the negligibility 

threshold provided for under section 

771(24)(A) of the Act. 

The petitioners contend that the 

industries’ injured condition is 

illustrated by reduced market share, 

underselling and price depressing and 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
50306 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 

suppressing effects, lost sales and 

revenue, reduced production and 

capacity utilization, reduced shipments, 

reduced employment, and an overall 

decline in financial performance. We 

have assessed the allegations and 

supporting evidence regarding material 

injury, threat of material injury, and 

causation, and we have determined that 

these allegations are properly supported 

by adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III 

(Injury). 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

petition to have provided 

countervailable subsidies to producers 

and exporters of the subject 

merchandise in the PRC: 

A. Income Tax Programs 

1. ‘‘Two Free, Three Half’’ program 

2. Income tax exemption program for 

export–oriented FIEs 

3. Income tax refund for reinvestment 

of profits in export–oriented 

enterprises 

4. Income tax subsidies for FIEs based 

on geographic location 

5. Preferential tax subsidies for 

research and development by FIEs 

6. Income tax credits on purchases of 

domestically–produced equipment 

by FIEs 

7. Income tax credits for 

domestically–owned companies 

purchasing domestically–produced 

equipment 

8. Income tax exemption for 

investment in domestic 

‘‘Technological Renovation≥ 

9. Reduction in or exemption from the 

fixed assets investment orientation 

regulatory tax 

B. Indirect Tax Programs and Import 

Tariff Programs 

10. Value Added Tax (‘‘VAT’’) rebates 

for FIEs purchasing domestically–

produced equipment 

11. Import tariff and VAT exemptions 

for FIEs and certain domestic 

enterprises using imported 

equipment in encouraged industries 

12. Import tariff exemptions for the 

‘‘encouragement of investment by 

Taiwan Compatriots≥ 

C. Provincial/Local Subsidy Programs 

13. Local income tax exemption and 

reduction program for ‘‘productive’’

FIEs 

Guangdong Province: 

14. Exemption from city construction 

tax and education tax for FIEs in 

Guangdong Province 

15. Exemption from real estate tax and 

dyke maintenance fee for FIEs in 

Guangdong Province 

16. Import tariff refunds and 

exemptions for FIEs in Guangdong 

Province 

17. Preferential loans and interest rate 

subsidies in Guangdong Province 

18. Direct grants in Guangdong 

Province 

19. Funds for ‘‘outward expansion’’ of 

industries in Guangdong Province 

20. Land–related subsidies to 

companies located in specific 

regions of Guangdong Province 

21. Government provision of 

electricity and water at less than 

adequate remuneration to 

companies located in development 

zones in Guangdong Province 

Zhejiang Province 

22. Import tariff and VAT refunds and 

exemptions for FIEs in Zhejiang 

23. Grants to promote exports from 

Zhejiang Province 

24. Land–related subsidies to 

companies located in specific 

regions of Zhejiang 

D. Provision of Goods and Services for 

Less than Adequate Remuneration by 

the GOC 

25. Wire Rod and Nickel 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is investigating 

these programs, see Initiation Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise in 

the PRC: 

A. Government Restraints on Exports 

1. Wire Rod and Nickel 

Petitioners allege the GOC restrains 

exports of wire rod and nickel by means 

of export taxes and export licenses, 

which artificially suppress the prices 

wire rod and nickel producers in China 

can charge for these products. 

Petitioners have not adequately shown 

how these particular export taxes and 

licenses constitute entrustment or 

direction of private entities by the GOC 

to provide a financial contribution to 

producers of subject merchandise. 

Moreover, the petitioners have not 

provided sufficient data regarding 

historic price trends demonstrating, e.g., 

price decreases correlated with the 

imposition of the alleged export 

restraints. Therefore, we do not plan to 

investigate this program. 

B. Preferential Lending 

1. Preferential policy loans to favored 

industries, including the electrical 

appliance industry in Guangdong 

Province 

The petitioners allege that the 

Guangdong province’s five-year plan 

stipulates that the provincial 

government will actively coordinate 

financing from the financial market. 

According to this policy, the provincial 

government will support the home 

electric appliances industry, including 

suppliers of parts or components, by 

coordinating financial institutions to 

assemble funds to stimulate investments 

in the form of bank credit or loans. 

Petitioners have not sufficiently alleged 

the elements necessary for the 

imposition of a countervailing duty and 

did not support the allegation with 

reasonably available information. For 

example, there is insufficient evidence 

that kitchen shelving and racks products 

are within the scope of the provincial 

government’s economic development 

plans. Moreover, there is no clear 

indication that any such plans include 

lending to the kitchen shelving and 

racks producers. Therefore, we do not 

plan to investigate this program. 

2. Preferential policy loans to favored 

industries, including the electrical 

appliance industry in Zhejiang 

Province 

Petitioners allege that the electrical 

appliance industry is considered a 

‘‘pillar’’ industry at both the provincial 

and local–levels in Zhejiang province. 

Petitioners assert that preferential 

lending exists to support ‘‘pillar’’

industries pursuant to five-year plans or 

other policies issued by provincial and 

local authorities in these provinces. 

Petitioners have not sufficiently alleged 

the elements necessary for the 

imposition of a countervailing duty and 

did not support the allegation with 

reasonably available information. For 

example, there is insufficient evidence 

that kitchen shelving and racks products 

are within the scope of the provincial 

government’s economic development 

plans. Moreover, there is no clear 

indication that any such plans include 

lending to the kitchen shelving and 

racks producers. Therefore, we do not 

plan to investigate this program. 

C. Income Tax Programs 

1. Tax reduction for enterprises 

making little profit 

Petitioners allege that ‘‘enterprises 

making little profit’’ pay reduced 

income taxes and that such enterprises 

comprise a de jure specific group. 

Petitioners have not established with 

reasonably available evidence that 

‘‘enterprises making little profit’’ are a 

specific group pursuant to section 

771(5A)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we do 

not plan to investigate tax reductions for 

enterprises making little profit. 

2. Tax incentives for domestic 

enterprises engaging in research 

and development 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices 50307 

According to China’s WTO subsidies 

notification, domestic industrial 

enterprises whose research and 

development expenses increased 10 

percent from the previous year may 

offset 150 percent of the research 

expenditures from their income tax 

obligation. Petitioners allege that 

domestic companies engaging in 

research and development comprise a 

de jure specific group. Petitioners have 

not established with reasonably 

available evidence that such enterprises 

are a specific group pursuant to section 

771(5A)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we do 

not plan to investigate this program. 

D. Indirect Tax Programs 

1. Import tariff and VAT refunds to 

promote the development of 

equipment manufacturing in China 

Petitioners allege that the Chinese 

government refunds import tariffs and 

VAT for equipment and raw materials 

that cannot be domestically produced. 

Petitioners have not sufficiently 

established that this import tariff and 

VAT refund program is specific. 

Therefore, we do not plan to investigate 

this program. 

2. VAT exemptions for the 

‘‘encouragement of investment by 

Taiwan Compatriots’’

Petitioners allege that the Chinese 

government offers VAT exemptions to 

encourage Taiwanese investors to 

establish export–oriented and 

technologically advanced enterprises. 

Petitioners have not sufficiently 

established that this VAT exemption 

program constitutes a countervailable 

subsidy because our regulations permit 

exemption or remission of indirect taxes 

such as the VAT, unless the exemption 

or remission is excessive in accordance 

with 19 C.F.R. 351.517(a). Therefore, 

because petitioners have not shown that 

there is an excessive exemption, 

remuneration or rebate of VAT, we do 

not plan to investigate this program. 

E. Provincial/Local Subsidy Programs 

1. VAT Refunds and Exemptions for 

FIEs in Guangdong Province 

The petitioners allege that, in 

Guangdong province, export–oriented 

FIEs are exempt from import–related 

VAT on raw materials, parts and 

components, accessories, packing 

materials, and other inputs used in 

production. Encouraged FIEs in 

Guangdong also receive VAT 

exemptions on imported equipment. 

The petitioners provided evidence that 

certain Chinese producers of kitchen 

shelving and racks are export–oriented 

FIEs that are located in Guangdong 

province. However, petitioners have not 

sufficiently established that the VAT 

exemption program for export–oriented 

FIEs in Guangdong constitutes a 

countervailable subsidy because our 

regulations permit exemption or 

remission of VAT, unless the exemption 

or remission is excessive, and 

petitioners have not provided allegation 

or information regarding excessivity in 

accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.517(a). 

Therefore, we do not plan to investigate 

this program. 

2. Provision of land at less than 

adequate remuneration in specific 

regions of Zhejiang Province 

Petitioners allege that firms in the 

Ningbo Economic and Technological 

Development Zone (‘‘ETDZ’’) are 

eligible to receive reductions or 

exemptions of the land–use fee and 

site–developing fee. We do not 

recommend plan to investigate the 

provision of land for less than adequate 

remuneration in Ningbo ETDZ or the 

reduction in or exemption from site use 

fees in Ningbo ETDZ, because the 

petitioners have not provided evidence 

that any Chinese producers of kitchen 

shelving or racks are located in Ningbo 

city, generally, or in the Ningbo EDTZ. 

F. Currency Manipulation 

Petitioners allege that the PRC 

government’s policy of maintaining an 

undervalued RMB is an export subsidy 

that provides either a direct transfer of 

funds or the provision of a good or 

service at less than adequate 

remuneration. Petitioners have not 

sufficiently alleged the elements 

necessary for the imposition of a 

countervailing duty and did not support 

the allegation with reasonably available 

information. Therefore, we do not plan 

to investigate the currency manipulation 

program. 

Respondent Selection 

To determine the total and relative 

volume and value of import data for 

each potential respondent, the 

Department normally relies on Customs 

and Border Protection import data for 

the POI. However, in the instant 

proceeding, HTSUS categories that 

include subject merchandise are very 

broad, and include products other than 

products subject to this investigation. 

Therefore, because of the unique 

circumstances of this case, the 

Department will issue ‘‘Quantity and 

Value Questionnaires’’ to potential 

respondents for the purposes of 

respondent selection. 

The Department will send the 

quantity and value questionnaire to 

those PRC companies identified in the 

July 31, 2008, petition, at Exhibit 3. The 

responses must be submitted by those 

exporters/producers that receive a 

quantity and value questionnaire no 

later than September 4, 2008. The 

Department will post the quantity and 

value questionnaire along with the filing 

instructions on the Import 

Administration’s website, at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and–

news.html. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the 

public version of the petition has been 

provided to the Government of the PRC. 

As soon as and to the extent practicable, 

we will attempt to provide a copy of the 

public version of the petition to each 

exporter named in the petition, 

consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 25 days after the date on which 

it receives notice of the initiation, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of subsidized kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks from the 

PRC are causing material injury, or 

threatening to cause material injury, to 

a U.S. industry. See section 703(a)(2) of 

the Act. A negative ITC determination 

will result in the investigation being 

terminated; otherwise, the investigation 

will proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: August 20, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–19778 Filed 8–25–08; 8:45 am] 

Billing Code: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administation 

(C–570–940) 

Certain Tow–Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 26, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene Calvert or Paul Matino, AD/CVD 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES