Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31691 

1See the Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Pursuant 

to Sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

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

June 22, 2009, Petitioners submitted a letter stating 

that another domestic producer of the like product, 

Wireway Husky Corporation, had joined the 

petition. 

Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Pingluo Yaofu 

Activated Carbon Factory; Ningxia Taixi 

Activated Carbon; Ningxia Tianfu 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia 

Tongfu Coking Co., Ltd.; Ningxia 

Weining Active Carbon Co., Ltd.; 

Ningxia Xingsheng Coal and Active 

Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Xingsheng 

Coke and Activated Carbon; Ningxia 

Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Yirong Alloy Iron Co., 

Ltd.; Ningxia Zhengyuan Activated; 

OEC Logistic Qingdao Co., Ltd.; 

Panshan Import and Export Corporation; 

Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Activated Carbon 

Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Coking and Chemical 

Corporation; Shanghai Goldenbridge 

International; Shanghai Jiayu 

International Trading Co. Ltd.; Shanghai 

Jinhu Activated Carbon; Shanghai 

Mebao Activated Carbon; Shanhai 

Xingchang Activated Carbon; Shanxi 

Blue Sky Purification Material Co., Ltd.; 

Shanxi Qixian Hongkai Active Carbon 

Goods; Shanxi Supply and Marketing 

Cooperative; Shanxi Tianli Ruihai 

Enterprise Co.; Shanxi Xiaoyi Huanyu 

Chemicals Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Xinhua 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Shanxi 

Xinhua Chemical Co., Ltd.; Shanxi 

Xinhua Chemical Factory; Shanxi 

Xinhua Protective Equipment; Shanxi 

Xinshidai Imp. Exp. Co., Ltd.; Shanxi 

Zuoyun Yunpeng Coal Chemistry; 

Shenzhen Sihaiweilong Technology Co.; 

Sincere Carbon Industrial Co., Ltd.; 

Taining Jinhu Carbon; Tianchang 

(Tianjin) Activated Carbon; Tonghua 

Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant; 

Tonghua Xinpeng Activated Carbon 

Factory; Valqua Seal Products 

(Shanghai) Co; Wellink Chemical 

Industry; Xi Li Activated Carbon Co., 

Ltd.; Xiamen All Carbon Corporation; 

Xingan County Shenxin Activated 

Carbon Factory; Xinhua Chemical 

Company Ltd.; Xinyuan Carbon; 

Xuanzhong Chemical Industry; 

Yangyuan Hengchang Active Carbon; 

Yicheng Logistics; Yinchuan Lanqiya 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Yinyuan 

Carbon; YunGuan Chemical Factory; 

Yuanguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; 

Yuyang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; 

Zhejiang Quizhou Zhongsen Carbon; 

Zhejiang Yun He Tang Co., Ltd.; Zhuxi 

Activated Carbon; Zuoyun Bright Future 

Activated Carbon Plant. The Petitioners 

were the only party to request a review 

of these companies. 

Partial Rescission 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

who requested the review withdraws 

the request within 90 days of the date 

of publication of notice of initiation of 

the requested review. The Petitioners’ 

request was submitted within the 90- 

day period, and thus, is timely. Because 

the Petitioners’ withdrawal of requests 

for review is timely and because no 

other party requested a review of the 

aforementioned companies, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

we are rescinding this review with 

respect to the above listed companies. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. For those 

companies for which this review has 

been rescinded and which have a 

separate rate, antidumping duties shall 

be assessed at rates equal to the cash 

deposit of estimated antidumping duties 

required at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of this notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers for whom this review is 

being rescinded, as of the publication 

date of this notice, of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: June 26, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15701 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–949] 

Wire Decking From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Riggle or Andrea Staebler 

Berton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0650 and (202) 482–4037, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On June 5, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received 

an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition 

concerning imports of wire decking 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by AWP 

Industries, Inc., ITC Manufacturing, 

Inc., J&L Wire Cloth, Inc., and Nashville 

Wire Products Mfg. Co., Inc., 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’).1 On June 

11, 2009, and June 12, 2009, the 

Department issued requests for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petition. Based on 

the Department’s request, Petitioners 

filed supplements to the Petition on 

June 16, 2009, and June 17, 2009 

(respectively, ‘‘Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions and Supplement to the 

AD Petition’’). The Department 

requested further clarifications from 

Petitioners by supplemental 

questionnaire and phone on June 18, 

2009, regarding scope, export price, and 

31692 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

2See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Wire Decking 

form the People’s Republic of China: Phone Call 

with Petitioners Regarding Antidumping Petition 

Questions,’’ dated June 19, 2009; see also 

Memorandum to the File ‘‘Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties and 

Countervailing Duties on Wire Decking from the 

People’s Republic of China: Suggested Scope 

Changes,’’ dated June 22, 2009. 

3See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 

2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing 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). 

surrogate values (‘‘SV’’).2 On June 19, 

2009, Petitioners filed the information 

requested regarding export price and on 

June 22, 2009, Petitioners filed the 

information requested in the additional 

supplemental questionnaire, including a 

revised scope (respectively ‘‘Second 

Supplement to the AD Petition, and 

Second Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions’’). 

On June 23 and 24, 2009, the 

Department contacted Petitioners to 

suggest additional changes to the scope 

language. On June 24, 2009, Petitioners 

filed a final version of the scope 

language. 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports of 

wire decking from the PRC 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 Act, and 

that such imports materially injure, or 

threaten material injury to, an industry 

in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties as defined in 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they 

have demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the investigation 

that they are requesting the Department 

to initiate (see ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

below). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are wire decking from the 

PRC. For a full description of the scope 

of the investigation, please see the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ in Appendix I 

of this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with 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; 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 July 15, 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 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 

wire decking to be reported in response 

to the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaires. This information will be 

used to identify the key physical 

characteristics of the subject 

merchandise 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 any 

information or comments that they feel 

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 wire decking, 

it may be that only a select few product 

characteristics take into account 

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 July 15, 2009. Additionally, 

rebuttal comments must be received by 

July 22, 2009. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

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

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(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 732(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 to poll the 

industry. 

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 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.3

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 title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31693 

4For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Wire Decking 

from the PRC (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’) at Attachment 

II (‘‘Industry Support’’), dated concurrently with 

this notice and on file in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. 

5See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated 

June 16, 2009, at 9. 

6See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

7See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

8See id. 

9See id. 

10See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III. 

11See Initiation Checklist for further discussion. 

12See Volume II of the Petition, at 2. 

13See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, regarding The People’s Republic of 

China Status as a Non-Market Economy, dated May 

15, 2006. This document is available online at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/ 

prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf. 

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, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that wire 

decking constitutes a single domestic 

like product and we have analyzed 

industry support in terms of that 

domestic like product.4

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing under section 

732(c)(4)(A), we considered the industry 

support data contained in the Petition 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section above. To 

establish industry support, Petitioners 

provided their 2008 production of the 

domestic like product, as well as the 

2008 production of the domestic like 

product for four non-petitioning 

companies who are supporters of the 

Petition, and compared this to total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See 

Volume I of the Petition, at 4, and 

Exhibit General-1, and Supplement to 

the AD/CVD Petitions, dated June 16, 

2009, at 10, and Attachment 3, and 

Second Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions, dated June 22, 2009, at 3, and 

Attachment 1, and Petitioners’ 

Submission, dated June 22, 2009. 

Petitioners calculated total domestic 

production based on their own 

production plus data provided by the 

four non-petitioning companies that 

produce the domestic like product in 

the United States, who are supporters of 

the Petition. See Volume I of the 

Petition, at Exhibit General-1, and 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated June 16, 2009, at Attachment 3, 

and Second Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions, dated June 22, 2009, at 3, and 

Attachment 1; see also Initiation 

Checklist as Attachment II, Industry 

Support. In addition, Petitioners 

identified one other company as a 

producer of the domestic like product 

and were able to obtain its 2008 

production of the domestic like product 

in order to calculate total domestic 

production of the domestic like 

product.5

Our 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 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).6

Second, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the 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.7 Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 732(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 product 

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 

732(b)(1) of the Act.8

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

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

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

investigation that they are requesting 

the Department initiate.9

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than NV. In 

addition, Petitioners allege that subject 

imports exceed the negligibility 

threshold provided for under section 

771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, increased import 

penetration, underselling and price 

depressing and suppressing effects, lost 

sales and revenue, reduced production, 

shipments, capacity, and capacity 

utilization, 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 have 

determined that these allegations are 

properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation.10

Period of Investigation 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1), because this Petition was 

filed on June 5, 2009, the anticipated 

period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2008, through March 31, 

2009. 

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 has based 

its decision to initiate an investigation 

with respect to the PRC. The sources of 

data for the deductions and adjustments 

relating to U.S. price and NV are 

discussed in the Initiation Checklist. 

Should the need arise to use any of this 

information as facts available under 

section 776 of the Act, we may 

reexamine the information and revise 

the margin calculations, if appropriate. 

Export Price 

Petitioners calculated export prices 

(‘‘EPs’’) for wire decking based on three 

purchase orders and the corresponding 

invoices.11 The Department has not 

made any adjustments to U.S. EP. 

Normal Value 

Petitioners state that in every previous 

less-than-fair value investigation 

involving merchandise from the PRC, 

the Department has concluded that the 

PRC is a non-market economy country 

(‘‘NME’’) and, as the Department has not 

revoked this determination, its NME 

status remains in effect today.12 The 

Department has previously examined 

the PRC’s market status and determined 

that NME status should continue for the 

PRC.13 In addition, in recent 

31694 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

14See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality 

Steel Line Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value, 74 FR 14514 (March 31, 2009); Frontseating 

Service 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); 1- 

Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545 

(March 11, 2009). 

15See Volume II of the Petition, at 3. 

16See id. 

17See id. 

18See id. at 6. 

19See Volume II of the Petition, at 6–12, and 

Exhibit AD–3. See also Supplement to the AD 

Petition, dated June 17, 2009, at 5–8, and 

Attachments 6 and 7. 

20See Volume II of the Petition, at 8, and Exhibit 

AD–3. See also Supplement to the AD Petition, 

dated June 17, 2009, at 8, and Attachments 6 and 

7. For further discussions see Initiation Checklist. 

21See Volume II of the Petition, at 7–8, and 

Exhibit AD–3. 

22See Volume II of the Petition, at 10–11, and 

Exhibit AD–3. 

23See Initiation Checklist for further discussion. 

24See id. 

25See Initiation Checklist for further discussion, 

and Supplement to the AD Petition, dated June 17, 

2009, at 5–6, and Attachment 4. 

26See id. 

27See Volume II of the Petition, at 10. 

28See id. at 6–12, and Exhibit AD–3. See also 

Supplement to the AD Petition, dated June 17, 

2009, at 5–10, and Attachment 6. For further 

discussion see Initiation Checklist. 

29See Volume II of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibit 

AD–2. 

30See Volume II of the Petition, at 12, and Exhibit 

AD–3. See also Supplement to the AD Petition, 

dated June 17, 2009, at 9. 

investigations, the Department has 

continued to determine that the PRC is 

an NME country.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 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) of the product 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 this investigation, all parties will 

have the opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issues of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

Petitioners argue that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because it is at a comparable level 

of economic development and it is a 

significant producer of wire decking 

products.15 Petitioners state that the 

Department has determined in previous 

investigations and administrative 

reviews that India is at a level of 

development comparable to the PRC.16

Petitioners identified a major producer 

of wire decking in India, Mekins Agro 

Products Ltd. (‘‘Mekins’’), and assert 

that Mekins has the capacity to supply 

up to 500 metric tons of wire mesh 

products per month, indicating that 

India is a significant producer of wire 

decking products.17

Based on the information provided by 

Petitioners, the Department believes that 

the use of India as a surrogate country 

is appropriate for purposes of initiation. 

However, 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. 

Petitioners provided dumping margin 

calculations using the Department’s 

NME methodology as required by 19 

CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 

351.408. Petitioners calculated NVs for 

four wire decking products. 

Petitioners valued the factors of 

production using reasonably available, 

public surrogate country data, including 

India import data from the Monthly 

Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India 

(‘‘MSFTI’’) from the period July 2008 

through December 2008.18

Petitioners state that they valued 

drawing powder, wire, hot-rolled sheet, 

coating powder, steel scrap, metal scrap, 

and pallet using Indian import data 

from the MSFTI, under the following 

Indian HTS numbers: 7217.90.99 and 

7217.10.10 for wire; 7208.27.30, 

7208.39.30, 7208.54.30, 7211.19.10, 

7211.19.50, and 7211.19.90 for hotrolled sheet, 3907.91.20 for coating 

powder, 7204.41.00 for steel scrap, 

7208.39 for metal scrap, and 4415.20.00 

for pallet.19

Petitioners valued drawing powder 

using Indian import data from the 

MSFTI, under Indian HTS number 

3403.99.01 for the period April 2002 

through March 2003, because no 

contemporaneous data was readily 

available.20 Accordingly, the 

Department inflated April 2002 through 

March 2003 value to make it 

contemporaneous for our period. 

Petitioners valued carbon steel wire 

rod based on Indian domestic price 

statistics reported by the Joint Plant 

Committee (‘‘JPC’’). They adjusted these 

reported prices for excise and VAT 

taxes.21

Petitioners valued electricity, water 

and natural gas based on SVs used in a 

previous preliminary determination.22

In using the previous preliminary 

determination, Petitioners valued 

electricity using a rate from India’s 

Central Electricity Authority (‘‘CEA’’) 

from 2006 which was inflated.23

However, the Department has 

determined that because the rates listed 

in this source became effective on a 

variety of different dates, the average 

rate should not be adjusted for 

inflation.24 Therefore, the electricity 

value for this initiation is based on the 

reported 2006 CEA rate without any 

inflation. 

Petitioners submitted two values for 

electrogalvanization, a tolling process, 

one from JPC data and the other from 

Galrebars.25 The Department relied only 

on the value from Galrebars for 

electrogalvanization as this value was 

used previously by the Department in 

another proceeding.26

Petitioners valued labor using the 

wage rate data published on the 

Department’s Web site, at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/ 

05wages-051608.html.27

Where Petitioners were unable to find 

input prices contemporaneous with the 

POI, Petitioners adjusted for inflation 

using the wholesale price index for 

India, as published in ‘‘International 

Financial Statistics’’ by the International 

Monetary Fund.28 Petitioners used 

exchange rates, as provided on the 

Department’s Web site, to convert 

Indian Rupees to U.S. Dollars.29

Petitioners based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and profit, on the 

financial ratios of Mekins, an Indian 

producer of wire decking.30

Fair-Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of wire decking from the 

PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold 

in the United States at less than fair 

value. Based on the comparison of EP to 

NV, as noted above, the estimated 

dumping margins for the PRC range 

from 143 percent to 316 percent. 

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition concerning wire decking from 

the PRC and other information 

reasonably available to the Department, 

the Department finds that this Petition 

meets the requirements of section 732 of 

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an 

antidumping duty investigation to 

determine whether imports of wire 

decking from the PRC are being, or are 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31695 

31See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions 

Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008). 

32See id. at 74931. 

33See 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); and Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist 

Canvas From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 

21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). 

34See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality 

Steel Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 23188, 

23193 (April 29, 2008) (Certain Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC). 

35See Import Administration Policy Bulletin, 

Number: 05.1, ‘‘Separate-Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non-Market Economy 

Countries,’’ dated April 5, 2005, available on the 

Department’s Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

policy/bull05–1.pdf. 

36See also Certain Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea 

and the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 23188, 

23193 (April 29, 2008). 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value. In accordance with 

section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, 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).31 The Department stated 

that ‘‘{w}ithdrawal 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.’’ 32

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted-dumping allegation in any of 

these investigations pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such 

allegations are due no later than 45 days 

before the scheduled date of the 

preliminary determination. 

Respondent Selection 

For the PRC, 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.33

Appendix II of this notice contains the 

quantity and value questionnaire that 

must be submitted by all NME 

exporters/producers no later than July 

16, 2009. In addition, 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. The Department will send 

the quantity and value questionnaire to 

those PRC companies identified in the 

Petition, Volume I, at Exhibit General-4. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in an NME investigation, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

status application.34 The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate-rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, available on the 

Department’s Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html on the date of publication of 

this initiation notice in the Federal 

Register. The separate-rate application 

will be due sixty (60) days from the date 

of 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/Combination Rates 

Bulletin 35 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 POI. 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 cashdeposit rate assigned to an exporter will 

apply only to merchandise both 

exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the 

exporter during the POI.36

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

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

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the Petition has been provided to the 

representatives of the Government of the 

PRC. Because of the particularly 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, consistent with 

19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than July 20, 2009, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of wire decking from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative 

ITC determination covering all classes 

or kinds of merchandise covered by the 

Petition would result in the 

investigation being terminated. 

Otherwise, this 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: June 25, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of the investigation covers 

welded-wire rack decking, which is also 

known as, among other things, ‘‘pallet rack 

decking,’’ ‘‘wire rack decking,’’ ‘‘wire mesh 

decking,’’ ‘‘bulk storage shelving,’’ or 

‘‘welded-wire decking.’’ Wire decking 

consists of wire mesh that is reinforced with 

structural supports and designed to be load 

bearing. The structural supports include 

sheet metal support channels, or other 

structural supports, that reinforce the wire 

mesh and that are welded or otherwise 

affixed to the wire mesh, regardless of 

whether the wire mesh and supports are 

assembled or unassembled and whether 

shipped as a kit or packaged separately. Wire 

decking is produced from carbon or alloy 

steel wire that has been welded into a mesh 

pattern. The wire may be galvanized or 

31696 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

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

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

uncoated (‘‘raw’’). The wire may be drawn or 

rolled and may have a round, square or other 

profile. Wire decking is sold in a variety of 

wire gauges. The wire diameters used in the 

decking mesh are 0.105 inches or greater for 

round wire. For wire other than round wire, 

the distance between any two points on a 

cross-section of the wire is 0.105 inches or 

greater. Wire decking reinforced with 

structural supports is designed generally for 

industrial and other commercial storage rack 

systems. 

Wire decking is produced to various 

profiles, including, but not limited to, a flat 

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

edge profile (‘‘backstop’’) or downward 

curved edge profile (‘‘waterfalls’’), depending 

on the rack storage system. The wire decking 

may or may not be anchored to the rack 

storage system. The scope does not cover the 

metal rack storage system, comprised of 

metal uprights and cross beams, on which 

the wire decking is ultimately installed. Also 

excluded from the scope is wire mesh 

shelving that is not reinforced with structural 

supports and is designed for use without 

structural supports. 

Wire decking enters the United States 

through several basket categories in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (‘‘HTSUS’’). U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection has issued a ruling (NY F84777) 

that wire decking is to be classified under 

HTSUS 9403.90.8040. Wire decking has also 

been entered under HTSUS 7217.10, 7217.20, 

7326.20, 7326.90, 9403.20.0020 and 

9403.20.0030. While HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and Customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the investigations is dispositive. 

Appendix II 

Where it is not practicable to examine all 

known exporters/producers of subject 

merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, permits us to 

investigate (1) a sample of exporters, 

producers, or types of products that is 

statistically valid based on the information 

available at the time of selection, or (2) 

exporters and producers accounting for the 

largest volume of the subject merchandise 

that can reasonably be examined. 

In the chart below, please provide the total 

quantity and total value of all your sales of 

merchandise covered by the scope of this 

investigation (see ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ 

section of this notice), produced in the PRC, 

and exported/shipped to the United States 

during the period October 1, 2008, through 

March 31, 2009. 

Market Total quantity 

in metric tons Terms of sale Total value 

United States: 

1. Export Price Sales ................................................................................................

2. a. Exporter Name .................................................................................................

b. Address ................................................................................................................

c. Contact .................................................................................................................

d. Phone No. ............................................................................................................

e. Fax No. .................................................................................................................

3. Constructed Export Price Sales ...........................................................................

4. Further Manufactured ...........................................................................................

Total Sales ........................................................................................................

Total Quantity 

• Please report quantity on a metric ton 

basis. If any conversions were used, please 

provide the conversion formula and source. 

Terms of Sales 

• Please report all sales on the same terms 

(e.g., free on board at port of export). 

Total Value 

• All sales values should be reported in 

U.S. dollars. Please indicate any exchange 

rates used and their respective dates and 

sources. 

Export Price Sales 

• Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an 

export price sale when the first sale to an 

unaffiliated customer occurs before 

importation into the United States. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company directly to the United States. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company to a third-country market 

economy reseller where you had knowledge 

that the merchandise was destined to be 

resold to the United States. 

• If you are a producer of subject 

merchandise, please include any sales 

manufactured by your company that were 

subsequently exported by an affiliated 

exporter to the United States. 

• Please do not include any sales of subject 

merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in 

your figures. 

Constructed Export Price Sales 

• Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a 

constructed export price sale when the first 

sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs after 

importation. However, if the first sale to the 

unaffiliated customer is made by a person in 

the United States affiliated with the foreign 

exporter, constructed export price applies 

even if the sale occurs prior to importation. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company directly to the United States; 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company to a third-country market 

economy reseller where you had knowledge 

that the merchandise was destined to be 

resold to the United States. 

• If you are a producer of subject 

merchandise, please include any sales 

manufactured by your company that were 

subsequently exported by an affiliated 

exporter to the United States. 

• Please do not include any sales of subject 

merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in 

your figures. 

Further Manufactured 

• Sales of further manufactured or 

assembled (including re-packaged) 

merchandise is merchandise that undergoes 

further manufacture or assembly in the 

United States before being sold to the first 

unaffiliated customer. 

• Further manufacture or assembly costs 

include amounts incurred for direct 

materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts 

for general and administrative expense, 

interest expense, and additional packing 

expense incurred in the country of further 

manufacture, as well as all costs involved in 

moving the product from the U.S. port of 

entry to the further manufacturer. 

[FR Doc. E9–15703 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–475–818] 

Certain Pasta From Italy: Initiation and 

Preliminary Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review, and Intent To 

Revoke Order in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: July 2, 2009. 

SUMMARY: On May 26, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a request for a 

changed circumstances review and a 

request to revoke, in part, the 

antidumping duty order on certain pasta 

from Italy with respect to gluten-free 

pasta. The Department confirmed that