[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31700-31704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15705]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-950]


Wire Decking From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of 
Countervailing Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: July 2, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Room 4014, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2209.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    On June 5, 2009, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received a petition filed in proper form by AWP Industries, Inc., ITC 
Manufacturing, Inc., J&L Wire Cloth, Inc., Nashville Wire Products 
Mfg., Co., Inc., and Wireway Husky Corporation (collectively, 
``Petitioners''), domestic producers of wire decking. On June 11, 2009, 
and June 12, 2009, the Department issued requests for additional 
information and clarification of certain general 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

[[Page 31701]]

General Petition and Supplement to the AD Petition''). On June 18, 
2009, and June 22, 2009, the Department also requested clarification of 
Petitioners' subsidy allegations. Based on the Department's request, 
Petitioners filed supplements to the countervailing duty (``CVD'') 
petition on June 23, 2009, and June 24, 2009.
    The Department requested further clarifications from Petitioners by 
supplemental questionnaire and phone on June 18, 2009, regarding scope, 
and issue relating to the AD Petition. On June 22 and 24, 2009, 
Petitioners filed the information requested in the additional 
supplemental questionnaire, including a revised scope.
    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), Petitioners allege that manufacturers, 
producers, or exporters of wire decking in the People's Republic of 
China (``PRC'') receive countervailable subsidies within the meaning of 
section 701 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, 
or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that 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 Petitioners have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation (see 
``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' section below).

Period of Investigation

    The proposed period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 2008, 
through December 31, 2008.

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 the 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 
determination.

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department 
invited representatives of the Government of the PRC for consultations 
with respect to the CVD Petition. The Department held these 
consultations in Beijing, China on June 23, 2009. See the Memorandum 
from Sarah C. Ellerman through Melissa Skinner to the File, entitled, 
``Countervailing Duty Petition on Wire Decking from the People's 
Republic of China: Consultation with the Government of the People's 
Republic of China,'' (June 24, 2009), which is on file in the Central 
Records Unit (``CRU'') of the main Department of Commerce building, 
Room 1117.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method 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 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, 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. For a discussion of the domestic like 
product analysis in this case, see Countervailing 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 CRU.
    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 
702(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 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

[[Page 31702]]

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.
    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 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and Initiation Checklist 
at Attachment II. Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met 
the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product. See Initiation Checklist at 
Attachment II. Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met 
the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like 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 702(b)(1) 
of the Act. See 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 countervailing duty investigation 
that they are requesting the Department initiate. See id.

Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine 
whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that imports of wire decking from the PRC are 
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are 
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the domestic 
industries producing wire decking. In addition, Petitioners allege that 
subsidized 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 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 (Analysis of Allegations and 
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Petition).

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

    Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD 
proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of 
an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition 
of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by 
information reasonably available to the petitioner(s) supporting the 
allegations.
    The Department has examined the CVD Petition on wire decking from 
the PRC and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 
702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the 
Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether 
manufacturers, producers, or exporters of wire decking in the PRC 
receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence 
supporting our initiation determination, see Initiation Checklist.
    We are including in our investigation the following programs 
alleged in the Petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to 
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC:

A. Loan Programs
    1. Honorable Enterprises Program
    2. Preferential Loans for Key Projects and Technologies
    3. Preferential Loans as Part of the Northeast Revitalization
    4. Policy Loans for Firms Located in Industrial Zones in the 
City of Dalian in Liaoning Province
B. Government Provision of Goods and Services for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration (``LTAR'')
    1. Government Provision of Wire Rod for LTAR
    2. Government Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel for LTAR
    3. Government Provision of Zinc for LTAR
    4. Government Provision of Electricity for LTAR
    5. Provision of Land for LTAR for Firms Located in Designated 
Geographical Areas in the City of Dailan in Liaoning Province
    6. Provision of Water for LTAR for Firms Located in Designated 
Geographical Areas in the City of Dailan in Liaoning Province
    7. Provision of Electricity for LTAR for Firms Located in 
Designated Geographical Areas in the City of Dailan in Liaoning 
Province
C. Income and Other Direct Taxes
    1. Income Tax Credits for Domestically Owned Companies 
Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment
    2. Income Tax Exemption for Investment in Domestic 
``Technological Renovation''
    3. Preferential Income Tax Policy for Enterprises in the 
Northeast Region
    4. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for Enterprises in the Old 
Industrial Bases of Northeast China
    5. Income Tax Exemption for Investors in Designated Geographical 
Regions Within the Province of Liaoning
D. Indirect Tax and Tariff Exemption Programs
    1. Value Added Tax (VAT) Deductions on Fixed Assets
    2. Export Incentive Payments Characterized as ``VAT Rebates''
    3. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for FIEs and Certain 
Domestic Enterprises

[[Page 31703]]

Using Imported Equipment in Encouraged Industries
    4. VAT Exemptions for Newly Purchased Equipment in the Jinzhou 
District
E. Grant Programs
    1. ``Five Points, One Line'' Program
    2. Export Interest Subsidies
    3. The State Key Technology Project Fund.
    4. Subsidies for Development of Famous Export Brands and China 
World Top Brands
    5. Sub-Central Government Programs To Promote Famous Export 
Brands and China World Top Brands
    6. Exemption of Fees for Firms Located in Designated 
Geographical Areas in the City of Dailan in Liaoning Province
F. Preferential Income Tax Subsidies for Foreign Invested Entities 
(``FIEs'')
    1. ``Two Free, Three Half'' Program
    2. Income Tax Exemption Program for Export-Oriented FIEs
    3. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for 
``Productive'' Foreign-Invested Enterprises
    4. Preferential Tax Programs for Foreign-Invested Enterprises 
Recognized as High or New Technology Enterprises
    5. Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs Based on Geographic Location
    6. VAT Refunds for FIEs Purchasing Domestically Produced 
Equipment

    For further information explaining why the Department is 
investigating these programs, see the Initiation Checklist.
    We are not including in our investigation the following programs 
alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise 
in the PRC:

A. Policy Lending to Wire Decking Producers

    Petitioners allege that the GOC, through various national level 
industrial plans, directs credit to wire decking producers. Similar to 
the Department's finding in Wire Grating from the PRC Initiation, we 
find that Petitioners have not sufficiently alleged that the GOC's 
industrial plans specifically direct credit to producers of wire 
decking. See Certain Steel Grating from the People's Republic of China: 
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 30278, 30281 
(June 25, 2009) (``Steel Grating from the PRC Initiation''). 
Petitioners may re-submit this allegation to the extent the Department 
selects an integrated producer whose affiliated input suppliers are 
producing a steel input that is covered by the GOC's industrial plans.

B. Export Loans

    Petitioners allege that in Line Pipe from the PRC, the Department 
found that a number of companies benefitted from export-contingent 
loans from State owned commercial banks (``SOCBs'') and that Chinese 
wire decking producers would be eligible for such loans. See Circular 
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 70961 
(Nov. 24, 2008) (``Line Pipe from the PRC''), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum (``Line Pipe from PRC Decision Memorandum'') at 
``Export Loans.'' According to Petitioners, this program has not been 
eliminated by any reforms to the Chinese banking system. However, the 
producers investigated in Line Pipe from the PRC are not identified in 
the Petition filed on the record of this proceeding. Therefore, we find 
that the support relied on in Line Pipe from the PRC to initiate an 
investigation of the Export Loans program does not apply to the facts 
of this proceeding. Petitioners have provided insufficient evidence 
indicating that wire decking producers can benefit from this alleged 
program.

C. Export Assistance Grants

    Petitioners allege that grants are provided to exporters. However, 
Petitioners fail to identify the administering authority that is 
allegedly providing the grants (i.e., national, provincial, or local 
governments) or the program under which the alleged benefits are 
provided. Therefore, we are not initiating an investigation of this 
allegation.

D. Provision of Land for LTAR

    Petitioners allege that the GOC prohibits private land ownership in 
the PRC. According to Petitioners, private companies may purchase land-
use rights, but national and local governments do not provide the 
rights consistently with market principles. Petitioners assert that the 
government may take land from farmers, often without fair compensation, 
and transfer this land to industrial users. Further, Petitioners allege 
that commercial sales are often conducted illegally through opaque 
processes marked by widespread corruption.
    Petitioners did not provide evidence that the GOC is providing land 
for LTAR at the national level. Further, with the exception of Jiangxi 
Province and the City of Dalian in Liaoning Province, Petitioners do 
not provide any information to support their allegation that provincial 
and local governments in the PRC provide land for LTAR. Therefore, we 
are limiting our investigation of this allegation to alleged sales of 
land for LTAR to wire decking producers located in the City of Dalian.

D. Government Restraints on Exports of Wire Rod, Flat-Rolled Steel, and 
Zinc

    Petitioners allege that the GOC imposes export restrictions (such 
as export quotas, export taxes, export licensing, and restrictions on 
which enterprises are eligible to export) to intervene in markets for 
such primary raw materials as wire rod, flat-rolled steel, and zinc 
that are consumed in the production of wire decking. Petitioners 
contend that these restrictions increase the supply of wire rod, flat-
rolled steel, and zinc and thereby artificially lower the prices within 
the PRC to downstream wire decking producers.
    Petitioners have not adequately shown how these particular export 
taxes and licenses constitute entrustment or direction of private 
entities by the GOC to provide a financial contribution to producers of 
subject merchandise. Moreover, Petitioners have not provided sufficient 
data regarding historic price trends demonstrating, e.g., that price 
decreases correlated with the imposition of the alleged export 
restraints. The Department declined to initiate on this program in 
prior CVD initiations involving the PRC. See, e.g., Notice of 
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Certain Kitchen 
Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 
50304, 50306 (August 26, 2008) (Racks and Shelves from the PRC 
Initiation). Therefore, we are not investigating the government 
restraints on wire rod, flat-rolled steel, and zinc exports.

E. Tax Reduction for Enterprises Making Little Profit

    Petitioners allege that, according to China's WTO subsidies 
notification, enterprises with annual taxable incomes between RMB 
30,000 and 100,000 are eligible for a 3 percent reduction in their 
annual income tax rate.
    We find Petitioners have not established with reasonably available 
information that ``enterprises making little profit'' are a de jure 
specific group because Petitioners have provided no explanation of why 
companies with access to this program comprise an enterprise or 
industry, or group of enterprises or industries, as those terms are 
normally interpreted by the Department. See, e.g., Preamble to 
Countervailing Duty Regulations, 63 Fed. Reg. 65348, 65357 (November 
25, 1998) (``* * * because the user represented numerous and diverse 
industries, the program was found not to be specific''). Therefore, we 
are not initiating an investigation of this allegation.

[[Page 31704]]

F. China's Enforced Undervaluation of Its Currency

    Petitioners allege that the GOC-maintained exchange rate 
effectively prevents the appreciation of the Chinese currency (RMB) 
against the U.S. dollar. In addition, Petitioners allege that the GOC 
requires that foreign exchange earned from export activities be 
converted to RMB at the government prescribed rate. Therefore, when 
producers in the PRC sell their dollars at official foreign exchange 
banks, as required by law, the producers receive more RMB than they 
otherwise would if the value of the RMB were set by market mechanisms.
    Consistent with past initiations, we are not initiating on this 
allegation on the grounds that Petitioners have not sufficiently 
alleged the elements necessary for the imposition of a countervailing 
duty and did not support the allegation with reasonably available 
information. See, e.g., Racks and Shelves from the PRC Initiation, 73 
FR at 50307.

G. Reduction in or Exemption From Fixed Assets Investment Orientation 
Regulatory Tax

    The Petitioners claim that producers of wire decking are exempted 
from or receive preferential income tax rates on investments in fixed 
assets. These tax breaks apply to both new construction and upgrades in 
the encouraged industries.
    We are not initiating on this program because Petitioners have not 
provided information to demonstrate that wire decking producers would 
be covered by the relevant legislation. For example, the legislation 
includes specific aspects of the iron and steel production process that 
are eligible for tax benefits, but it does not include any processes 
related to production of wire decking. However, if one of the mandatory 
respondents chosen in this investigation is part of a vertically 
integrated steel company, or cross-owned with a primary steel producer, 
Petitioners may re-allege this program under a timely-filed new subsidy 
allegation, at which time the Department will reconsider the 
information provided.

H. Preferential Investment Policies for FIEs Located in Liaoning 
Province

    Petitioners allege that the Liaoning Province allows FIEs located 
in the province to enjoy ``preferential policies for foreign investment 
projects.'' They further allege that the relevant legislation 
specifically covers wire decking producers. Petitioners identify 
several wire decking producers located in Liaoning Province.
    The supporting documentation provided by Petitioners does not 
specifically mention any loans and the term ``preferential investment 
policies'' by itself, as indicated in the source document included in 
the Petition, does not constitute a sufficient basis for initiation. We 
are not initiating an investigation of this program.

Respondent Selection

    To determine the total and relative volume and value of import data 
for each potential respondent, the Department normally relies on U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection import data for the POI. However, in the 
instant proceeding, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') categories that include subject merchandise are very broad, 
and include products other than those subject to this investigation. 
Therefore, because of the unique circumstances of this case, the 
Department will issue ``Quantity and Value Questionnaires'' to 
potential respondents for the purposes of respondent selection. The 
Department will send the quantity and value questionnaire to PRC 
companies identified in the June 5, 2009 Petition, at Exhibit 4, Volume 
1. The Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along 
with the filing instructions on the Import Administration's Web site, 
at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of 
the public version of the Petition has been provided to the Government 
of the PRC. As soon as and to the extent practicable, we will attempt 
to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each 
exporter named in the Petition, consistent with section 351.203(c)(2) 
of the Department's regulations.

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
702(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date 
on which it receives notice of the initiation, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of subsidized wire decking from the 
PRC are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material 
injury, to a U.S. industry. See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A 
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being 
terminated; otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: 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 
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.

[FR Doc. E9-15705 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P