Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 30273 

• Form RD 1940–1, ‘‘Request for 

Obligation of Funds.’’ 

• Form RD 1942–46, ‘‘Letter of Intent 

to Meet Conditions.’’ 

• Form AD–1047, ‘‘Certification 

Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and 

Other Responsibility Matters—Primary 

Covered Transactions.’’ 

• Form AD–1048, ‘‘Certification 

Regarding Debarment, Suspension, 

Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion— 

Lower Tier Covered Transactions.’’ 

• Form AD–1049, ‘‘Certification 

Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace 

Requirements (Grants).’’ 

• Form RD 400–4, ‘‘Assurance 

Agreement.’’ 

Additional information on these 

requirements can be found at http:// 

www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/ssdpg/ 

ssdpg.htm. 

Fund Disbursement: The Agency will 

determine, based on 7 CFR parts 3015, 

3016 and 3019, as applicable, whether 

disbursement of a grant will be by 

advance or reimbursement. As needed, 

but not more frequently than once every 

30 days, an original of SF–270, ‘‘Request 

for Advance or Reimbursement,’’ may 

be submitted to Rural Development. 

Recipient’s request for advance shall not 

be made in excess of reasonable outlays 

for the month covered. 

Reporting Requirements: Grantees 

must provide Rural Development with 

an original or an electronic copy that 

includes all required signatures of the 

following reports. The reports should be 

submitted to the Agency contact listed 

on the Grant Agreement and Letter of 

Conditions. Failure to submit 

satisfactory reports on time may result 

in suspension or termination of the 

grant. Grantees will submit: 

1. Form SF–269 or SF–269A. A 

‘‘Financial Status Report,’’ listing 

expenditures according to agreed upon 

budget categories, on a semi-annual 

basis. Reporting periods end each March 

31 and September 30. Reports are due 

30 days after the reporting period ends. 

2. Semi-annual performance reports 

comparing accomplishments to the 

objectives stated in the proposal, 

identifying all tasks completed to date 

and providing documentation 

supporting the reported results. If the 

original schedule provided in the work 

plan is not being met, the report should 

discuss the problems or delays that may 

affect completion of the Project. 

Objectives for the next reporting period 

should be listed. Compliance with any 

special condition on the use of award 

funds must be discussed. Reports are 

due as provided in paragraph (1) of this 

section. Supporting documentation 

must also be submitted for completed 

tasks. The supporting documentation for 

completed tasks includes, but is not 

limited to, feasibility studies, marketing 

plans, business plans, articles of 

incorporation, and bylaws as they relate 

to the assistance provided. 

3. Final project performance reports 

comparing accomplishments to the 

objectives stated in the proposal, 

identifying all tasks completed, and 

providing documentation supporting 

the reported results. If the original 

schedule provided in the work plan was 

not met, the report must discuss the 

problems or delays that affected 

completion of the project. Compliance 

with any special condition on the use of 

award funds must be discussed. 

Supporting documentation for 

completed tasks must also be submitted. 

The supporting documentation for 

completed tasks includes, but is not 

limited to, feasibility studies, marketing 

plans, business plans, articles of 

incorporation, and bylaws as they relate 

to the assistance provided. The final 

performance report is due within 90 

days of the completion of the project. 

The report must also include a summary 

at the end of the report with the number 

of small socially disadvantaged 

agricultural producers assisted to assist 

in documenting the annual performance 

goals of the SSDPG program for 

Congress. 

VII. Agency Contacts 

For general questions about this 

announcement and for program 

technical assistance, please contact the 

appropriate State Office as indicated in 

the Addresses section of this notice. 

VIII. Non-Discrimination Statement 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large 

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720– 

2600 (voice and TDD). To file a 

complaint of discrimination, write to 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call 

(800) 795–3272 (voice) or (202) 720– 

6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 

Dated June 19, 2009. 

Judith A. Canales, 

Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–14954 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–947] 

Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 25, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Martin at (202) 482–3936 or 

Robert Bolling at (202) 482–3434, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On May 29, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received 

a petition concerning imports of certain 

steel grating (‘‘CSG’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘the PRC’’) filed in 

proper form by Fisher & Ludlow and 

Alabama Metal Industries Corporation 

(‘‘AMICO’’) (collectively ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

See the Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Certain Steel Grating from the 

PRC submitted on May 29, 2009 (‘‘the 

Petition’’). On June 4, 2009, and on June 

11, 2009, the Department issued 

requests for additional information and 

clarification involving certain areas of 

the Petition. Based on the Department’s 

requests, Petitioners filed additional 

information on June 9, 2009, and June 

15, 2009. Specifically, Petitioners filed 

two submissions on June 9, 2009, one 

regarding general issues of the petition, 

and one containing clarifications 

specific to the antidumping allegation 

(hereinafter ‘‘Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions’’ and ‘‘Supplement to the 

AD Petition’’ respectively). Petitioners 

also filed two submissions on June 15, 

2009, again one containing more 

clarifications on general issues of the 

petition, and one providing requested 

clarification pertaining to the 

antidumping allegations (hereinafter 

‘‘Second Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions’’ and ‘‘Second Supplement to 

the AD Petition’’ respectively). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
30274 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

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

Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports of 

CSG 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 are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to, an 

industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed this Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties as defined in 

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

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigation that Petitioners are 

requesting that the Department initiate 

(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support 

for the Petition’’ section below). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain steel grating 

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 within twenty calendar days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. Comments 

should be addressed to Import 

Administration’s APO/Dockets Unit, 

Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. 

The period of scope consultations is 

intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and to consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

CSG 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 CSG, 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 9, 2009. Additionally, 

we must receive rebuttal comments by 

July 16, 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. See 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). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this subtitle.’’ Thus, 

the reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ 

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

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, 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 CSG 

constitutes 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: CSG 

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. 

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing, pursuant to section 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 30275 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, 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 production of 

the domestic like product for the year 

2008, as well as the production of three 

companies who support the Petition, 

and compared this to an estimate of 

total production of the domestic like 

product for the entire domestic 

industry. See Volume I of the Petitions 

at 3–6, and Exhibits I–3, and 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at 

8–10, and Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. To 

estimate 2008 production of the 

domestic like product, Petitioners used 

their own data as well their own 

industry–specific knowledge. 

Petitioners calculated total domestic 

production based on information 

provided by companies that are 

supporters of the Petition and that 

produce the domestic like product in 

the United States, as well estimates of 

production of non–petitioning 

producers of the domestic like product 

who have not expressed an opinion 

regarding the Petition. Id.; see also 

Initiation Checklist as Attachment II, 

Industry Support. 

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). See 

Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II 

(Industry Support). Second, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

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

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product. See Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II (Industry Support). 

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. Id. 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. Id. 

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. Id. 

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 normal 

value (‘‘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, 

capacity, and capacity utilization, 

reduced shipments and increased 

inventories, reduced employment, and 

an overall decline in financial 

performance. We have assessed the 

allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 

have determined that these allegations 

are properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III. 

Period of Investigation 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.204(b), because this Petition was 

filed on May 29, 2009, the anticipated 

period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2008 through March 31, 

2009, the two most recently completed 

fiscal quarters, as of the month 

preceding the month in which the 

Petition was filed. 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegation of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate this investigation of 

imports of CSG from the PRC. The 

sources of data for the deductions and 

adjustments relating to the U.S. price, 

and the factors of production, are also 

discussed in the Initiation Checklist, 

issued concurrently with this Federal 

Register notice. See Initiation Checklist. 

Should the need arise to use any of this 

information as facts available under 

section 776 of the Act in our 

preliminary or final determinations, we 

will reexamine the information and 

revise the margin calculations, if 

appropriate. 

Export Price 

Petitioners calculated export prices 

(‘‘EPs’’) based on an offer for sale of five 

CSG products by a Chinese producer, 

sale term CIF. Petitioners presented an 

affidavit, in which they confirmed that 

the sales offer was made during the POI. 

See Initiation Checklist for further 

discussion 

To calculate the net U.S. EP, 

Petitioners deducted from the U.S. 

prices the costs associated with 

exporting and delivering the product, 

which included expenses relating to 

foreign inland freight, ocean freight, 

insurance, foreign brokerage and 

handling, and U.S. port expenses (i.e., 

fees for security, unloading, and 

wharfage). See Volume II of the Petition 

at 4–10 and Exhibit II–9; see also 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 1–3 

and Exhibits S–1, S–2, S–3, S–4, S–5, 

and S–9, and Second Supplement to the 

AD Petition, at 1–2. 

To be conservative, Petitioners did 

not make specific adjustments to the 

U.S. price for foreign port charges 

(stevedoring, wharfage and handling 

charges) and U.S. port expenses of 

unloading fee and wharfage because: (1) 

these expenses are either included in 

Petitioners’ calculated ocean freight and 

insurance expenses; or (2) the 

information regarding the length of time 

in which goods would remain within 

the limits of the export and import ports 

was unclear to Petitioners. See Volume 

II of the Petition at 9–10. Petitioners 

calculated the per–unit value of ocean 

freight and insurance using the U.S. ITC 

data, by deducting the reported customs 

value of CSG landed in a specific U.S. 

port from the reported CIF value and 

dividing the resulting amount by the 

total import quantity. See Volume II of 

the Petition at 7–8 and Exhibit II–7; 

Supplement to the AD Petition, 2–3 and 

Exhibit S–4; and Second Supplement to 

the AD Petition, at 1–2. The U.S. Census 

Bureau defines CIF data as the sum of 

import charges and customs value. See 

http://www.census.gov/foreign–trade/ 

www/sec2.htmlιvalcusimports. 

Accordingly, when customs value is 

deducted from the CIF value, the 

remaining amount represents import 

charges. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines import charges as ‘‘the aggregate 

cost of all freight, insurance, and other 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
30276 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 

charges (excluding U.S. import duties) 

incurred in bringing the merchandise 

from alongside the carrier at the port of 

exportation in the country of 

exportation and placing it alongside the 

carrier at the first port of entry in the 

United States.’’ Id. Thus it is clear that 

import charges, the basis for ocean 

freight and insurance, include expenses 

associated with loading the 

merchandise from the wharf to the 

carrier, and those expenses associated 

with unloading the merchandise from 

the vessel to wharf, (i.e., stevedoring, 

wharfage and handling). 

Petitioners calculated PRC brokerage 

and handling by using the brokerage 

and handling surrogate value used in 

the investigation of Certain Activated 

Carbon From the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Preliminary Results of 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Extension of Time Limits for 

the Final Results, 74 FR 21317 (May 7, 

2009) (‘‘Activated Carbon From China’’), 

and inflated it to the POI. See Activated 

Carbon From China 74 FR at 21328. See 

also Volume II of Petition, at 8–9, and 

Exhibit II–8, and Supplement to AD 

Petition, at 2 and Exhibit S–3. 

Normal Value 

Petitioners state that the PRC is a 

non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) country 

and no determination to the contrary 

has been made by the Department. See 

Volume II of the Petition at 11. 

Petitioners state that the Department has 

treated the PRC as an NME country in 

every administrative proceeding in 

which the PRC has been involved, and 

has continued to do so in recent 

months. Id. 

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 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, including the public, 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. 

Citing section 773(c)(4) of the Act, 

Petitioners contend 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 of CSG. See Volume II of the 

Petition at 11–13 and Exhibits II–10, II– 

11 and II–12. Based on the information 

provided by Petitioners, 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. 

Petitioners calculated the NV and 

dumping margins for the U.S. prices, 

discussed above, using the Department’s 

NME methodology as required by 19 

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

351.408. Petitioners calculated NV 

based on the consumption rates of a 

U.S. CSG producer for the period of 

October 2008 through March 2009. See 

Volume II of the Petition at 13–23, and 

Exhibit II–13, and Supplement to the 

AD Petition at 5–8. Petitioners state that 

a U.S. CSG producer has produced CSG 

for many years, using a production 

method similar to that employed by the 

PRC manufacturer from whom 

Petitioners obtained the sales offer, 

upon which they relied for calculating 

the EP, discussed above. Accordingly, 

Petitioners state that the U.S. producer’s 

production experience is representative 

of the production process used in the 

PRC. See Volume II of the Petition at 16 

and Exhibit II–13, see also Supplement 

to the AD Petition, at 4–8 and Exhibit 

S–9. 

Petitioners valued the factors of 

production based on reasonably 

available, public surrogate–country 

data, including Indian statistics from the 

Global Trade Information Services 

database known as Global Trade Atlas. 

See Volume II of the AD Petition at 18– 

20 and Exhibit II–15; see also 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 8–9 

and Exhibits S–6 and S–9 and Second 

Supplement to AD Petition, at 3 and 5 

and Exhibits S2–2 and S2–3. Petitioners 

adjusted the values for raw materials by 

the freight costs associated with the 

transportation of raw materials from 

outside suppliers. See Volume II of the 

AD Petition at 17–19 and Exhibit II–18; 

see also Supplement to AD Petition, at 

1, and Exhibit S–1. In addition, 

Petitioners made currency conversions, 

where necessary, based on the POI– 

average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate, 

as reported on the Department’s 

website. See Volume II of the Petition at 

17 and Exhibit II–4. Petitioners 

determined labor costs using the labor 

consumption, in hours, derived from a 

U.S. CSG producer. See Volume II of the 

AD Petition at 21, and Supplement to 

the AD Petition, at 6 and Exhibit S–7. 

Petitioners determined labor costs 

using the Department’s NME Wage Rate 

for the PRC at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages/05wages/05wages– 

051608.html#table2. See Volume II of 

the Petition at 21 and Exhibit II–17, and 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 2–3. 

For purposes of initiation, the 

Department determines that the 

surrogate values used by Petitioners are 

reasonably available and, thus, 

acceptable for purposes of initiation. 

Petitioners determined electricity 

costs using the electricity consumption, 

in kilowatt hours, derived from a U.S. 

producer. Petitioners valued electricity 

using the Indian electricity rate reported 

by the Central Electric Authority of the 

Government of India. See Volume II of 

the Petition, at 20–21 and Exhibit II–16; 

see also Supplement to the AD Petition, 

at 6 and Exhibit S–6. 

Petitioners based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative, and 

profit on data from Mekins Agro 

Products Limited (‘‘Mekins’’) for the 

fiscal year April 2007, through March 

2008. See Supplement to the AD 

Petition, at 10 and Exhibit S–8. 

Petitioners state that, like steel grating, 

the products manufactured by Mekins 

are steel goods which are unrolled, slit 

to or cut to the desired size and then 

welded utilizing welding machinery. 

Accordingly, Petitioners maintain that 

using Mekins’ financial ratios satisfies 

the Department’s ‘‘comparable’’ 

industry requirements, as they were 

unable to obtain industry–specific 

financial statements from India. 

Although the Mekins financial 

statement has a line item for state 

subsidy, we have insufficient evidence 

with respect to this line item to 

determine that the financial statement is 

less representative than other available 

information. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of 

the First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and First New 

Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 

(September 12, 2007) at Comment 2c. 

Therefore, for purposes of the initiation, 

the Department finds Petitioners’ use of 

Mekins’ financial ratios appropriate. 

Fair–Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of CSG from the PRC are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. 

Based on a comparison of EP and NV 

calculated in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act, the estimated 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 30277 

dumping margins for CSG from the PRC 

range from 131.51 percent to 145.18 

percent. See Initiation Checklist. 

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition on CSG from the PRC the 

Department finds that the Petition meets 

the requirements of section 732 of the 

Act. Therefore, we are initiating an 

antidumping duty investigation to 

determine whether imports of CSG from 

the PRC 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 Act and 19 CFR 

351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will 

make our preliminary determination no 

later than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Targeted–Dumping Allegation 

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 ‘‘{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.’’ Id. at 

74931. 

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted- dumping allegation in this 

investigation 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 

country–specific preliminary 

determination. 

Respondent Selection 

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. See 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 

Exhibit S–1. 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), and 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 

FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). 

Appendix II of this notice contains the 

quantity and value questionnaire that 

must be submitted by all NME 

exporters/producers no later than July 

14, 2009. In addition, the Department 

will post the quantity and value 

questionnaire along with the filing 

instructions on the Import 

Administration website at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and– 

news.html. 

Separate Rates 

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 (April 

5, 2005) (‘‘Separate Rates and 

Combination Rates Bulletin’’), available 

on the Department’s website 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 website at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme–seprate.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. 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. 

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 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). 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the 

International Trade Commission 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than July 13, 2009, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
30278 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 

1 If you believe that another date besides the 

invoice date would provide a more accurate 

representation of your company’s sales during the designated period, please provide a full 

explanation. 

imports of CSG from the PRC are 

materially injuring, or threaten material 

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

ITC determination will 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 18, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain steel grating, 

consisting of two or more pieces of steel, 

including load–bearing pieces and cross 

pieces, joined by any assembly process, 

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

method of manufacture; (3) metallurgy 

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

profile of the bars; and (5) whether or 

not they are galvanized, painted, coated, 

clad or plated. Steel grating is also 

commonly referred to as ‘‘bar grating,’’ 

although the components may consist of 

steel other than bars, such as hot–rolled 

sheet, plate, or wire rod. 

The scope of this investigation 

excludes expanded metal grating, which 

is comprised of a single piece or coil of 

sheet or thin plate steel that has been 

slit and expanded, and does not involve 

welding or joining of multiple pieces of 

steel. The scope of this investigation 

also excludes plank type safety grating 

which is comprised of a single piece or 

coil of sheet or thin plate steel, typically 

in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, that has 

been pierced and cold formed, and does 

not involve welding or joining of 

multiple pieces of steel. 

Certain steel grating that is the subject 

of this investigation is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under subheading 

7308.90.7000. While the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Appendix II 

Format for Reporting Quantity and 

Value of Sales 

In providing the information in the 

chart below, please provide the total 

quantity in both pieces and kilograms 

(kg) (net weight) and total value (in U.S. 

dollars) of all your sales to the United 

States during the period October 1, 

2008, through March 31, 2009, covered 

by the scope of this investigation (see 

Appendix I), produced in the PRC, i.e. 

CSG. 

Please provide the conversion factor 

used to convert pieces to kg (net 

weight). 

Please use the invoice date when 

determining which sales to include 

within the period noted above.1

Additionally, if you believe that you 

should be treated as a single entity along 

with other named exporters, please 

complete the chart, below, both in the 

aggregate for all named parties in your 

group and, in separate charts, 

individually for each named entity. 

Please label each chart accordingly. 

Please state whether you exported CSG 

to the United States during the POI. 

If you did export CSG to the United 

States during the POI, please state 

whether you produced 100 percent of 

the CSG that you exported to the United 

States during the POI. 

If you did produce 100 percent of the 

CSG that you exported to the United 

States during the POI, please provide 

the following: 

Market: United States Total Quantity (kg) (Net 

Weight) 

Total 

QuantityPieces Terms of Sale2 Total Value3($U.S.) 

1. Export Price4.

2. Constructed Export Price5.

3. Further Manufactured6.

Total.

2To the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB). 3Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. 

4Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an EP sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before the goods are imported into the 

United States. 5Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs after importation. 

However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person 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. Do not report the sale to the affiliated party in the United States, rather report the 

sale made by the affiliated party to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. 6 ‘‘Further manufactured’’ refers to merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before sale to the first 

unaffiliated customer. 

[FR Doc. E9–15018 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–948] 

Certain Steel Grating From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 25, 2009 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Carey or Justin Neuman, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3964 and (202) 

482–0486, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On May 29, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received 

countervailing duty (CVD) and 

antidumping (AD) petitions concerning 

imports of certain steel grating (CSG) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) filed in proper form by Alabama 

Metal Industries Corp. (AMICO) and 

Fisher and Ludlow (collectively, the 

petitioners), domestic producers of CSG. 

See ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Certain Steel Grating from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (the 

petitions). On June 4, 2009, the 

Department issued requests for 

additional information and clarification 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES