Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54537 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Commodity Matchbooks from India.’’ 

See also the October 15, 2009, 

memorandum from LaVonne Clark, 

Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, 

‘‘Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Final Determination 

- Triveni Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd.’’ 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the sales and cost 

information submitted by Triveni for 

use in our final determination. We used 

standard verification procedures 

including an examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, and 

original source documents provided by 

Triveni. Our sales and cost verification 

results are outlined in separate 

verification reports. See the June 24, 

2009, memorandum from Holly Phelps, 

Analyst, to James P. Maeder, Director, 

Office 2, entitled, ‘‘Verification of the 

Sales Response of Triveni Safety 

Matches Pvt. Ltd. (Triveni) in the Less– 

Than-Fair–Value Investigation on 

Commodity Matchbooks from India.’’ 

See also the July 16, 2009, 

memorandum from LaVonne Clark, 

Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of 

Triveni Safety Matches Pvt., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Commodity Matchbooks from India.’’ 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

merchandise from India, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after June 2, 2009, 

the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. CBP shall require a 

cash deposit or the posting of a bond 

equal to the estimated amount by which 

the normal value exceeds the U.S. price 

as shown below, adjusted for export 

subsidies found in the final 

determination of the companion 

countervailing duty investigation of this 

merchandise. Specifically, consistent 

with our practice, where the product 

under investigation is also subject to a 

concurrent countervailing duty 

investigation, we instruct CBP to require 

a cash deposit or posting of a bond 

equal to the amount by which the 

normal value exceeds the export price 

or constructed export price, as indicated 

below, less the amount of the 

countervailing duty 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 (Nov. 17, 2004). 

Accordingly, for cash deposit 

purposes, we are subtracting from the 

applicable cash deposit rate that portion 

of the rate attributable to the export 

subsidies found in the affirmative 

countervailing duty determination for 

each respondent (i.e., 9.88 percent for 

Triveni, and 9.88 percent for ‘‘All 

Others’’). After the adjustment for the 

cash deposit rates attributed to export 

subsidies, the resulting cash deposit 

rates will be 56.19 percent for Triveni 

and 56.19 percent for ‘‘All Others.’’ 

These instructions suspending 

liquidation will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted–average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Producer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (percent) 

Triveni Safety Matches 

Pvt. Ltd. ..................... 66.07 

All Others ...................... 66.07 

‘‘All Others’’ Rate 

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

provides that the estimated ‘‘All Others’’ 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. Triveni is the 

only respondent in this investigation. 

Therefore, for purposes of determining 

the ‘‘All Others’’ rate and pursuant to 

section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are 

using the weighted–average dumping 

margin calculated for Triveni, as 

referenced above. See, e.g., Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 

30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999); and Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 72 FR 30753, 

30757 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 

60636 (Oct. 25, 2007). 

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). 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our final determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

imports of the subject merchandise are 

causing material injury, or threat of 

material injury, to an industry in the 

United States. If the ITC determines that 

material injury or threat of 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 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. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

This notice will serve as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

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. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act. 

Dated: October 15, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–25446 Filed 10–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–960, A–583–845] 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners From 

the People’s Republic of China and 

Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations 

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations Office 7, (202) 482–6312 or 

(202) 482–0649, respectively (Taiwan); 

Susan Pulongbarit or Jerry Huang, AD/ 

CVD Operations Office 9, (202) 482– 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 

4031 or (202) 482–4047, respectively 

(People’s Republic of China); Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 23, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received 

petitions concerning imports of certain 

standard steel fasteners (fasteners) from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC) 

and Taiwan filed in proper form by 

Nucor Fastener (Petitioner). See 

Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Certain Standard Steel Fasteners 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

Taiwan, dated September 23, 2009 

(Petition). On September 30, 2009, the 

Department issued additional requests 

for information and clarification of 

certain areas of the Petition. Petitioner 

timely filed additional information 

pertaining to Taiwan and the PRC on 

October 5, 2009. See Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

Taiwan: Response to Deficiency 

Questionnaire, dated October 5, 2009 

(Taiwan Deficiency Response); see also 

Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from the 

People’s Republic of China: Response to 

Deficiency Questionnaire, dated October 

5, 2009 (PRC Deficiency Response). 

Petitioner further timely filed additional 

information pertaining to general issues 

in the Petition on October 6, 2009 (see 

Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 

on Certain Standard Steel Fasteners 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

Taiwan: Response to General Issues 

Deficiency Questionnaire, dated October 

6, 2009 (Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions)), on October 8, 2009 (see 

Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 

on Certain Standard Steel Fasteners 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

Antidumping Duties on Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from Taiwan: 

Submission of Additional Information 

Related to The Calculation of Industry 

Standing, dated October 8, 2009 

(Industry Support Supplement)), also on 

October 8, 2009, (see Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from the 

People’s Republic of China and Taiwan: 

Response to General Issues Deficiency 

Questionnaire, dated October 8, 2009 

(Second Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions)), also on October 8, 2009, (see 

Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 

on Certain Standard Steel Fasteners 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

Antidumping Duties on Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from Taiwan: 

Confirmation of Simultaneous Filing at 

DOC and ITC, dated October 8, 2009 

(Simultaneous Filing Supplement)), on 

October 9, 2009 (see Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from the 

People’s Republic of China and 

Antidumping Duties on Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from Taiwan: 

Revised Description of Scope and Uses 

and Technical Characteristics/U.S. 

Producers List, dated October 9, 2009 

(Third Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions)), and on October 13, 2009 (see 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

the People’s Republic of China and 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

Taiwan). 

The period of investigation (POI) for 

the PRC is January 1, 2009, through June 

30, 2009. The POI for Taiwan is July 1, 

2008, through June 30, 2009. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Tariff Act), Petitioner alleges that 

imports of certain standard steel 

fasteners from the PRC and Taiwan are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Tariff Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds Petitioner filed 

the Petition on behalf of the domestic 

industry because Petitioner is an 

interested party, as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Tariff Act, and has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigations that Petitioner is 

requesting the Department to initiate 

(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support 

for the Petitions’’ section below). 

Scope of the Investigations 

The products covered by these 

investigations are fasteners from the 

PRC and Taiwan. For a full description 

of the scope of the investigations, please 

see ‘‘Scope of Investigations,’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. The 

Department, after consulting with 

Petitioner, made minor changes to the 

scope language submitted by Petitioner 

in the Third Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions. See Memorandum to the file 

from Steve Bezirganian, Analyst, 

entitled ‘‘Certain Standard Steel 

Fasteners from the People’s Republic of 

China (A–570–960 and C–570–961) and 

Taiwan (A–583–845): Revisions to 

Petitioner’s Proposed October 9, 2009, 

Scope Language,’’ dated October 13, 

2009. 

Comments on Scope of Investigations 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioner 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; Final Rule, 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 by Monday, November 2, 

2009, which is twenty calendar days 

from the signature date of this notice. 

Comments should be addressed to 

Import Administration’s APO/Dockets 

Unit, Room 1870, 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 

determinations. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

fasteners to be reported in response to 

the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaires. This information will be 

used to identify the key physical 

characteristics of the merchandise under 

consideration in order to more 

accurately report the relevant factors 

and costs of production, as well as to 

develop appropriate product 

comparison criteria. 

Interested parties may provide 

information or comments that they 

believe are relevant to the development 

of an accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as: 

(1) General product characteristics; and 

(2) the product comparison criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product comparison criteria. We base 

product comparison criteria on 

meaningful commercial differences 

among products. In other words, while 

there may be some physical product 

characteristics utilized by 

manufacturers to describe fasteners, it 

may be that only a select few product 

characteristics take into account 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54539 

commercially meaningful physical 

characteristics. In addition, interested 

parties may comment on the order in 

which the physical characteristics 

should be used in product matching. 

Generally, the Department attempts to 

list the most important physical 

characteristics first and the least 

important characteristics last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping duty 

questionnaires, we must receive 

comments at the above-referenced 

address by October 27, 2009. 

Additionally, rebuttal comments must 

be received by November 3, 2009. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Tariff Act 

requires that a petition be filed on 

behalf of the domestic industry. Section 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Tariff 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 

732(c)(4)(D) of the Tariff 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 to 

poll the industry. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff 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 International 

Trade Commission (the Commission), 

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 Commission 

must apply the same statutory definition 

regarding the domestic like product (see 

section 771(10) of the Tariff 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 USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel 

Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), 

aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. 

denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Tariff 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 title.’’ 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, Petitioner does not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that 

fasteners constitute a single domestic 

like product and we have analyzed 

industry support in terms of that 

domestic like product. For a discussion 

of the domestic like product analysis in 

this case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC 

Checklist), at Attachment II, Industry 

Support, and Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

Taiwan (Taiwan Checklist), at 

Attachment II, Industry Support, on file 

in the Central Records Unit (CRU), 

Room 1117 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. 

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of 

the Tariff Act, we considered the 

industry support data contained in the 

Petitions with reference to the domestic 

like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigations’’ section above. To 

establish industry support, Petitioner 

provided its production of the domestic 

like product for the year 2008, and 

compared this to the estimated total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See 

Volume I of the Petition, at 2–3, Exhibit 

I–10; see also Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions, at 17–18, Exhibit I– 

Supp-6, and Industry Support 

Supplement, at Attachment 1. To 

estimate 2008 production of the 

domestic like product, Petitioner used 

its own data and industry specific 

knowledge. See Industry Support 

Supplement, at Attachment I; see also 

PRC Checklist at Attachment II, Taiwan 

Checklist at Attachment II. Petitioner 

calculated total domestic production 

based on its own production plus 

estimates regarding the other producers 

of the domestic like product in the 

United States. Id. We have relied upon 

data Petitioner provided for purposes of 

measuring industry support. For further 

discussion, see Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petitions, supplemental submissions, 

and other information readily available 

to the Department indicates that 

Petitioner has established industry 

support. First, the Petitions established 

support from domestic producers (or 

workers) accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and, as such, the 

Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling). See 

section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Tariff Act; see 

also PRC Checklist at Attachment II, and 

Taiwan Checklist at Attachment II. 

Second, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act because 

the domestic producers (or workers) 

who support the Petitions account for at 

least 25 percent of the total production 

of the domestic like product. See PRC 

Checklist at Attachment II, and Taiwan 

Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Tariff Act because the domestic 

producers (or workers) who support the 

Petitions account for 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 

Petitions. Accordingly, the Department 

determines that the Petitions were filed 

on behalf of the domestic industry 

within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act. Id. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Tariff Act and it has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigations that it is requesting 

the Department initiate. Id. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleges that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (NV). In addition, Petitioner 

alleges that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Tariff 

Act. 

Petitioner contends that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, underselling and 

price depressing and suppressing 

effects, increased import penetration, 

declining sales, reduced production, 

reduced capacity, increased raw 

material cost, abandoned product lines, 

reduced shipments, reduced wages and 

hours worked, 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 

PRC Checklist at Attachment III, Injury, 

and Taiwan Checklist at Attachment III, 

Injury. 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate these investigations 

of imports of fasteners from the PRC and 

Taiwan. The sources of data for the 

deductions and adjustments relating to 

the U.S. price, the factors of production 

(for the PRC), and price-based NV (for 

Taiwan) are also discussed in the 

country-specific initiation checklists. 

See PRC Checklist and Taiwan 

Checklist. 

U.S. Price 

The PRC 

For the PRC, Petitioner calculated 

export price (EP) based on 

documentation of offers for sale 

obtained from a confidential source. See 

PRC Initiation Checklist; see also 

Petition Vol. II at 3 and Exhibit II–2. 

Based on the terms of sale, Petitioner 

adjusted the export price for brokerage 

and handling, ocean freight, insurance 

and port expenses, as well as U.S. 

inland freight expenses. See PRC 

Initiation Checklist; see also Petition 

Vol. II at 5–13 and Exhibit II–5. 

Taiwan 

For Taiwan, Petitioner based U.S. 

price on EP because, it maintains, 

Taiwanese producers typically sell the 

subject merchandise either directly to 

unaffiliated U.S. customers or via an 

unaffiliated trading company to the U.S. 

customer. Petitioner obtained POI prices 

of fasteners produced by the Taiwanese 

manufacturer Jinn Her Enterprise Co., 

Ltd. (Jinn Her). Petitioner substantiated 

the U.S. prices used with affidavits from 

persons who obtained the information. 

Petitioner deducted, where appropriate, 

movement expenses (foreign inland 

freight, foreign port, brokerage and 

handling charges, ocean freight, and 

U.S. inland freight). Petitioners also 

deducted an amount for imputed credit 

expenses, based upon the presumed 

terms of payment. See Taiwan 

Checklist; see also Petition Vol. IV at 2– 

8 and Exhibits IV–1 to IV–15, and 

Taiwan Deficiency Response at Exhibits 

IV–Supp-1 to IV–Supp-5. 

Normal Value 

The PRC 

Petitioner claims the PRC is a nonmarket economy (NME) country and 

that no determination to the contrary 

has been made by the Department. See 

Petition Vol. II at 14. In accordance with 

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

presumption of NME status remains in 

effect until revoked by the Department. 

The presumption of NME status for the 

PRC has not been revoked by the 

Department and, therefore, remains in 

effect for purposes of the initiation of 

this investigation. Accordingly, the NV 

of the product for the PRC investigation 

is appropriately based on factors of 

production valued in a surrogate 

market-economy country in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Act. In the 

course of the PRC investigation, all 

parties, including the public, will have 

the opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issue of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

Petitioner contends that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because: (1) it is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC and (2) it is a significant 

producer and exporter of comparable 

merchandise. See Petition Vol. II at 14– 

16. Based on the information provided 

by Petitioner, we believe that it is 

appropriate to use India as a surrogate 

country for initiation purposes. After 

initiation of the investigation, interested 

parties will have the opportunity to 

submit comments regarding surrogate 

country selection and, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided 

an opportunity to submit publicly 

available information to value factors of 

production within 40 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Petitioner calculated the NV and 

dumping margins using the 

Department’s NME methodology as 

required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) 

and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner 

calculated NV based on consumption 

rates of the factors of production on the 

average consumption rates of a fasteners 

producer in the United States (Surrogate 

Domestic Producer) for identical or 

similar merchandise. See Petition Vol. II 

at 2 and 16–17 and Exhibit II–16. In 

calculating NV, Petitioner based the 

quantity of each of the inputs used to 

manufacture and pack fasteners in the 

PRC on product-specific production 

costs and/or consumption rates of the 

Surrogate Domestic Producer during the 

POI. See Petition Vol. II at 16–17 and 

Exhibit II–16. Petitioner states that the 

actual usage rates of the foreign 

manufacturers of fasteners, Autocraft 

Industrial (Autocraft) and Shanghai 

Prime Machinery Co., Ltd. (Shanghai 

Prime), are not reasonably available; 

however, Petitioner notes that according 

to the information available to 

Petitioner, the production of fasteners 

by Autocraft and Shanghai Prime relies 

on similar production methods to the 

Surrogate Domestic Producer. See 

Petition Vol. II at 16 and 19 and and 16– 

17 and Exhibit II–16. 

Petitioner determined the 

consumption quantities of all raw 

materials and packing materials based 

on the production experience of the 

Surrogate Domestic Producer. See 

Petition Vol. II at 2 and 19–20. 

Petitioner valued the factors of 

production based on reasonably 

available, public surrogate country data, 

specifically, Indian import statistics 

from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA). See 

the PRC Deficiency Response at 1 and 

Exhibits II–Supp-1 and 2. Petitioner 

excluded from these import statistics 

imports from countries previously 

determined by the Department to be 

NME countries. Petitioner also excluded 

import statistics from Indonesia, the 

Republic of Korea, and Thailand, as the 

Department has previously excluded 

prices from these countries because they 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies. Id., 

at 1 and Exhibits II–Supp-1 and 2. In 

addition, the Petitioner made currency 

conversions, where necessary, based on 

the POI-average rupee/U.S. dollar 

exchange rate, as reported on the 

Department’s Web site. See Petition Vol. 

II at 21 and Exhibit II–8. Petitioner 

determined labor costs using the labor 

consumption, in hours, derived from the 

Surrogate Domestic Producer’s 

experience. See Exhibit II–16 and PRC 

Deficiency Response at Exhibit II–Supp2. Petitioner valued labor costs using the 

Department’s NME Wage Rate for the 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54541 

PRC at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/ 

05wages/05wages-051608.html. See 

Petition Vol. II at 26. For purposes of 

initiation, the Department determines 

that the surrogate values used by 

Petitioner are reasonably available and, 

thus, acceptable for purposes of 

initiation. 

Petitioner determined electricity costs 

using the electricity consumption, in 

kilowatt hours, derived from the 

Surrogate Domestic Producer’s 

experience. See Petition Vol. II at 26 and 

Exhibit II–16. Petitioner valued 

electricity using the Indian electricity 

rate reported by the Central Electric 

Authority of the Government of India. 

See PRC Deficiency Response at 3 and 

Exhibits II–Supp-2 and II–Supp-5. 

Petitioner determined natural gas 

costs using the natural gas consumption 

derived from the Surrogate Domestic 

Producer’s experience. See Volume II of 

the Petition at Exhibit II–16. Petitioner 

valued natural gas using the CRISIL 

natural gas rate that the Department 

replied upon in several recent 

investigations. See, e.g., Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations: LightWalled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

Republic of Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and 

the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 

40274 (July 24, 2007). Petitioner 

converted the amounts denominated in 

Indian rupees to USD using the 

Department’s published exchange rates 

for the time period for the prospective 

POI. See Volume II of the Petition at 25– 

26 and Exhibit II–22. 

Petitioner determined nitrogen costs 

using a price quote from Bhoruka Gases 

Ltd, which was previously relied upon 

in Frontseating Valves from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Final Negative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 13, 

2009) and Petition Vol. II at 25 and 

Exhibit II–20, and the Supplement to 

the Petition Vol. II at 2. 

Petitioner determined the 

consumption of all packing materials 

based on the Surrogate Domestic 

Producer’s experience. See Volume II of 

the Petition at 28 and Exhibit II–16. 

Petitioner valued packing materials 

based on Indian import statistics from 

GTA, and as noted above, excluded 

NME countries as well as countries with 

general export subsidies. See the 

Supplement to the AD PRC Petition at 

Exhibit II–Supp-1. In addition, 

Petitioner made currency conversions, 

where necessary, based on the POIaverage rupee/USD exchange rate, as 

reported on the Department’s Web site. 

See the Supplement to the AD PRC 

Petition at Exhibit II–Supp-3. 

Petitioner based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A), and profit on data from 

Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. (SFL), a 

producer of similar merchandise, for the 

2007–2008 fiscal year. See Petition Vol. 

II at 27–28 and Exhibit II–24. For 

purposes of the initiation, the 

Department finds Petitioner’s use of 

SFL’s unconsolidated financial ratios 

appropriate. 

Taiwan 

Petitioner based NV on price quotes 

for fasteners offered for sale in Taiwan 

by Jinn Her. These price and adjustment 

data were obtained through market 

research commissioned by petitioner. 

The price and adjustment data involve 

merchandise that is both commonly 

sold in the home market, and is 

substantially identical to the 

merchandise sold in the United States. 

Since the prices quoted were on an ‘‘exworks’’ basis, Petitioner made no 

adjustments for movement expenses. 

Petitioner adjusted NV for imputed 

credit expenses. For comparison to EP, 

petitioner then added U.S. credit 

expenses. See Taiwan Checklist. 

Fair-Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioner, there is reason to believe that 

imports of fasteners from the PRC and 

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. Based on a comparison of U.S. 

prices and NV calculated in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Tariff Act, the 

estimated dumping margins for 

fasteners from the PRC range from 66.87 

percent to 205.97 percent. See PRC 

Checklist and PRC Deficiency Response 

at Exhibit II–Supp-4. Based on a 

comparison of U.S. price and NV, the 

estimated dumping margins for 

fasteners from Taiwan range from 51.39 

percent to 114.14 percent. See Taiwan 

Checklist; see also Petition Vol. IV at 

18–19 and Exhibit IV–20, and Taiwan 

Deficiency Response at 11 and Exhibit 

IV–Supp-8. 

Initiation of Antidumping 

Investigations 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition on fasteners from the PRC and 

Taiwan, the Department finds the 

Petition meets the requirements of 

section 732 of the Tariff Act. Therefore, 

we are initiating antidumping duty 

investigations to determine whether 

imports of fasteners from the PRC and 

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. In accordance with section 

733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act and 19 

CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, 

we will make our preliminary 

determinations no later than 140 days 

after the date of this initiation. 

Targeted-Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeteddumping analysis in antidumping duty 

investigations, and the corresponding 

regulation governing the deadline for 

targeted-dumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the 

Regulatory Provisions Governing 

Targeted Dumping in Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 

(December 10, 2008). The Department 

stated that ‘‘withdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ Id., 73 FR 

at 74931. 

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted-dumping allegation in either 

of these investigations pursuant to 

section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, 

such allegations are due no later than 45 

days before the scheduled date of the 

country-specific preliminary 

determination. 

Respondent Selection 

The PRC 

For this investigation, the Department 

will request quantity and value 

information from all known exporters 

and producers identified with complete 

contact information in the Petition. The 

quantity and value data received from 

NME exporters/producers will be used 

as the basis to select the mandatory 

respondents. 

The Department requires that the 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate-rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

See Circular Welded Austenitic 

Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 

FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). The 

Department will post the quantity and 

value questionnaire along with the filing 

instructions on the Import 

Administration Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html, and a response to the 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 

quantity and value questionnaire is due 

no later than November 3, 2009. Also, 

the Department will send the quantity 

and value questionnaire to those PRC 

companies identified in the Petition at 

Exhibit I–4 and in the General Issues 

Deficiency Response at Exhibit I–Supp1. 

Taiwan 

For this investigation, the Department 

intends to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) data for U.S. imports under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) numbers 

7318.15.2030, 7318.15.2055, 

7318.15.2065, 7318.15.8065, 

7318.15.8085, and 7318.16.0085, the six 

HTSUS categories most specific to the 

subject merchandise, during the POI. 

We intend to release the CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

to all parties with access to information 

protected by APO within five days of 

publication of this Federal Register 

notice. We note that Petitioner has 

stated that five of the six HTS categories 

covering subject merchandise ‘‘are 

broad basket categories that also cover 

products outside the scope of this 

investigation.’’ See Petition at 9 and 

Exhibit I–5. Accordingly, the 

Department invites additional 

comments regarding the CBP data and 

respondent selection, including the 

propriety of basing respondent selection 

upon CBP data in this investigation, 

within ten days of publication of this 

Federal Register notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s Web 

site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Separate Rates Application 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in NME investigations, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

status application. See Policy Bulletin 

05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving 

Non-Market Economy Countries, dated 

April 5, 2005 (Separate Rates and 

Combination Rates Bulletin), available 

on the Department’s Web site at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. Based 

on our experience in processing the 

separate-rate applications in previous 

antidumping duty investigations, we 

have modified the application for this 

investigation to make it more 

administrable and easier for applicants 

to complete. See, e.g., Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation: 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 43591, 43594–95 (August 

6, 2007). The specific requirements for 

submitting the separate-rate application 

in this investigation are outlined in 

detail in the application itself, which 

will be available on the Department’s 

Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/iahighlights-and-news.html on the date of 

publication of this initiation notice in 

the Federal Register. The separate-rate 

application will be due 60 days after 

publication of this initiation notice. For 

exporters and producers who submit a 

separate-rate status application and 

subsequently are selected as mandatory 

respondents, these exporters and 

producers will no longer be eligible for 

consideration for separate rate status 

unless they respond to all parts of the 

questionnaire as mandatory 

respondents. As noted in the 

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section above, 

the Department requires that 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

The quantity and value questionnaire 

will be available on the Department’s 

Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/iahighlights-and-news.html on the date of 

the publication of this initiation notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Use of Combination Rates in an NME 

Investigation 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

Separate Rates and Combination Rates 

Bulletin 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 Separate Rates and Combination 

Rates Bulletin at 6 (emphasis added). 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act and 19 

CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public 

versions of the Petition have been 

provided to the representatives of the 

Governments of the PRC and Taiwan. 

Because of the large number of 

producers/exporters identified in the 

Petition, the Department considers the 

service of the public version of the 

Petition to the foreign producers/ 

exporters satisfied by the delivery of the 

public version to the Government of the 

PRC and the Government of Taiwan, 

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

Commission Notification 

We have notified the Commission of 

our initiations, as required by section 

732(d) of the Tariff Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the 

Commission 

The Commission will preliminarily 

determine, no later than November 7, 

2009, whether there is a reasonable 

indication that imports of fasteners from 

the PRC and Taiwan are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC 

determination with respect to any 

country will result in the investigation 

being terminated for that country; 

otherwise, these investigations will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Tariff 

Act. 

Dated: October 13, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigations 

The merchandise covered by the 

investigations consists of certain standard 

nuts, standard bolts, and standard cap 

screws, of steel other than stainless steel. 

Standard nuts, standard bolts, and standard 

cap screws covered by the investigations may 

have a variety of finishes, including but not 

limited to coating in paint, phosphates, and 

zinc. Standard bolts and standard cap screws 

covered by the investigations have a shank or 

thread with an actual and/or nominal 

diameter between 6 millimeters and 32 

millimeters (inclusive). Standard bolts and 

standard cap screws covered by the 

investigations also possess a circular or 

hexagonal head, the surface of which may be 

flat or rounded (also known as ‘‘domeshaped’’ or ‘‘button-headed’’). Standard bolts 

covered by the investigations may have an 

attached washer face or the equivalent (e.g., 

a flanged head or chamfered corners on the 

underside of a fastener with a hexagonalshaped head). Standard cap screws covered 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54543 

1See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 

and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended: 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated September 23, 2009 

(‘‘Petition’’). 

by the investigations have a permanentlyattached washer face. Standard nuts are 

covered by the investigations if they are 

suitable for attachment to bolts and/or cap 

screws covered by the investigations. 

Standard bolts, standard cap screws, and 

standard nuts are covered by the 

investigations whether imported alone, 

attached to other subject and/or non-subject 

merchandise (e.g., tension control 

assemblies), or unattached and in 

combination with other subject merchandise 

and/or non-subject merchandise. 

Standard nuts, standard bolts, and 

standard cap screws meet the requirements of 

one or more nationally recognized consensus 

industry standard specifications (including 

but not limited to those referenced below). 

Subject merchandise is typically certified to 

the specifications published by one or more 

consensus standards organizations such as 

the following: the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE), the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), and the Industrial 

Fasteners Institute. Common specifications to 

which subject merchandise is certified 

include, but are not limited to: ASTM A194, 

ASTM A307, ASTM A325, ASTM A325M, 

ASTM A354, ASTM A449, ASTM A490, 

ASTM A563, ASTM F568M, ASTM F1852, 

ASTM F2280, SAE J429, SAE J1199, ISO 

898–1, ISO 898–2, ISO 4759–1, ISO 8992, 

and comparable foreign and domestic 

specifications (including, but not limited to, 

metric versions of specifications such as 

those listed above). 

Excluded from the scope of the 

investigations are bolts, cap screws, and nuts 

produced for an original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) part number specific to 

any ‘‘automobile’’ as defined in 49 U.S.C. 

Section 32901(a)(3), any ‘‘work truck’’ as 

defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 32901(a)(19), or 

any ‘‘medium-duty passenger vehicle’’ as 

defined in 40 CFR Section 86.1803–01 

(2009). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

investigations are bolts, cap screws, and nuts 

produced for an OEM part number specific 

to any ‘‘aircraft’’ as defined in 14 CFR 

Section 1.1 (2009). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

investigations are track bolts. Track bolts 

have a circular, rounded head and a shank 

which, immediately beneath the head, 

possesses an oval or elliptical shape, such 

that the non-round shape would restrict 

rotational movement of the bolt. Also 

excluded from the scope of the investigations 

are carriage bolts. Carriage bolts have a 

circular, rounded head and a shank which, 

immediately beneath the head, possesses a 

non-round shape (e.g., square, finned), such 

that the non-round shape would restrict 

rotational movement of the bolt. Also 

excluded from the scope of the investigations 

are socket screws. Socket screws have a head 

with a recessed cavity into which a shaped 

bit may be inserted to turn and drive the 

fastener. 

Unless explicitly excluded from the scope 

of the investigations, bolts, cap screws, and 

nuts meeting the description of subject 

merchandise are covered by the 

investigations. 

Merchandise covered by the investigations 

is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under 

subheadings: 7318.15.2030, 7318.15.2055, 

7318.15.2065, 7318.15.8065, 7318.15.8085, 

and 7318.16.0085. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the merchandise under the 

investigations is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–25194 Filed 10–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–961] 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yasmin Nair and Joseph Shuler, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3813 and (202) 

482–1293, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On September 23, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a 

countervailing duty petition concerning 

imports of certain standard steel 

fasteners (‘‘fasteners’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The petition 

was filed in proper form by Nucor 

Fastener (‘‘Petitioner’’), a domestic 

producer of fasteners.1 In response to 

the Department’s requests, Petitioner 

provided timely information 

supplementing the Petition on October 

6, 7, 8, and 9, 2009. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), Petitioner alleges that 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of standard steel fasteners in the PRC 

receive countervailable subsidies within 

the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) 

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 Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, and Petitioner has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

investigation (see ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

section below). 

Period of Investigation 

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

January 1, 2008, through December 31, 

2008. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by the 

investigation are fasteners from the PRC 

and Taiwan. For a full description of the 

scope of the investigation, please see 

‘‘Scope of Investigation,’’ in Appendix I 

of this notice. The Department, after 

consulting with Petitioner, made minor 

changes to the scope language submitted 

by Petitioner in the Third Supplement 

to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated October 

9, 2009, at Attachment 1. See 

Memorandum to the file from Steve 

Bezirganian, Analyst, entitled ‘‘Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from the 

People’s Republic of China (A–570–960 

and C–570–961) and Taiwan (A–583– 

845): Revisions to Petitioner’s Proposed 

October 9, 2009, Scope Language,’’ 

dated October 13, 2009. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioner 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 

Department’s regulations (Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 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 by 

November 2, 2009, twenty calendar days 

from the signature date of this notice. 

Comments should be addressed to 

Import Administration’s APO/Dockets 

Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

The period for 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. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES