Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37001 

1See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 

Duties: Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated June 30, 2009 

(‘‘Petition’’). 

2See Memorandum from Dana Griffies to the File, 

regarding Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Certain Woven Electric 

Blankets from the People’s Republic of China: 

Suggested Scope Changes, dated July 16, 2009, and 

Memorandum from Howard Smith to the File, 

regarding Telephone Conversations with Petitioner, 

dated July 16, 2009, and Memorandum from Drew 

Jackson to the File, regarding Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Certain 

Woven Electric Blankets from the People’s Republic 

of China: Suggested Scope Changes, dated July 17, 

2009. 

may count toward the actual amount of 

extension that the Commissioner of 

Patents and Trademarks may award, 

APHIS’ determination of the length of a 

regulatory review period for a veterinary 

biologic will include all of the testing 

phase and approval phase as specified 

in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(5)(B). 

APHIS recently licensed for 

production and marketing the veterinary 

biologic NAHVAX® Marek’s Disease 

Vaccine. Subsequent to this approval, 

the Patent and Trademark Office 

received a patent term restoration 

application for NAHVAX® Marek’s 

Disease Vaccine (U.S. Patent No. 5, 965, 

138) from Schering Plough Animal 

Health Corporation, and the Patent and 

Trademark Office requested APHIS’ 

assistance in determining this patent’s 

eligibility for patent term restoration. In 

a letter dated February 2, 2009, APHIS 

advised the Patent and Trademark 

Office that this veterinary biologic had 

undergone a regulatory review period 

and that the approval of NAHVAX®

Marek’s Disease Vaccine (Marek’s 

Disease Vaccine, Serotypes 1 & 3, Live 

Herpesvirus Chimera) represented the 

first permitted commercial licensing or 

use of the product. Subsequently, the 

Patent and Trademark Office requested 

that APHIS determine the product’s 

regulatory review period. 

APHIS has determined that the 

applicable regulatory review period for 

NAHVAX® Marek’s Disease Vaccine is 

1,539 days. Of this time, 0 days 

occurred during the testing phase of the 

regulatory review period, and 1,539 

days occurred during the approval 

phase. These periods were derived from 

the following dates: 

1. The date the application for a 

license was initially submitted for 

approval under the Virus-Serum-Toxin 

Act: July 14, 2004. APHIS has verified 

the applicant’s claim that the 

application was initially submitted on 

July 14, 2004. 

2. The date the license was issued: 

September 29, 2008. APHIS has verified 

the applicant’s claim that the license for 

the commercial marketing of the vaccine 

was issued on September 29, 2008. 

This determination of the regulatory 

review period establishes the maximum 

potential length of a patent extension. 

However, the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office applies several 

statutory limitations in its calculations 

of the actual period for patent extension. 

In its application for patent extension, 

this applicant seeks 1,539 days of patent 

term extension. 

Section 124.22 of the regulations 

provides that any interested person may 

request a revision of the regulatory 

review period determination within 30 

days of the date of this notice (see DATES

above). The request must specify the 

following: 

• The identity of the product; 

• The identity of the applicant for 

patent term restoration; 

• The docket number of this notice; 

and 

• The basis for the request for 

revision, including any documentary 

evidence. 

Further, under § 124.30 of the 

regulations, any interested person may 

file a petition with APHIS, no later than 

180 days after the date of this notice (see 

DATES above), alleging that a license 

applicant did not act with due diligence 

in seeking APHIS approval of the 

product during the regulatory review 

period. The filing, format, and content 

of a petition must be as described in the 

regulations in ‘‘Subpart D–Due 

Diligence Petitions’’ (§§ 124.30 through 

124.33). 

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 156. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of 

July 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–17795 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–951] 

Certain Woven Electric Blankets 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 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Drew Jackson at (202) 482–4406 or 

Rebecca Pandolph at (202) 482–3627, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On June 30, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received an 

antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition 

concerning imports of certain woven 

electric blankets (‘‘woven electric 

blankets’’) from the People’s Republic of 

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

Jarden Consumer Solutions 

(‘‘Petitioner’’).1 On July 2, 2009, the 

Department issued a request to 

Petitioner for additional information 

and for clarification of certain areas of 

the Petition. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioner filed a supplement to 

the Petition on July 8, 2009 

(‘‘Supplement to the Petition’’). On July 

10, 2009, the Department requested 

further information from Petitioner, 

including suggested refinements to the 

scope. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioner filed a second 

supplement to the Petition on July 14, 

2009 (‘‘Second Supplement to the 

Petition’’). Based on conversations with 

Petitioner regarding scope and certain 

other clarifications, Petitioner filed a 

supplement to the Petition on July 15, 

2009 (‘‘Third Supplement to the 

Petition’’).2 On July 17, 2009, we 

received a submission on behalf of a 

U.S. importer of woven electric blankets 

and its affiliated Chinese producer and 

exporter, both interested parties to this 

proceeding as defined in section 

771(9)(A) of the Act. This submission 

challenged the definition of the 

domestic like product. Petitioner filed 

its reply to this challenge on July 20, 

2009. 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

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

of woven electric blankets 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, and threaten further material 

injury to, an industry in the United 

States. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioner is 

an interested party, as defined in section 

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

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the investigation 

that it requests the Department to 

initiate (see ‘‘Determination of Industry 

Support for the Petition’’ below). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
37002 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

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). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are woven electric 

blankets 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 the Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope of the investigation 

with Petitioner to ensure that it is an 

accurate reflection of the products for 

which the domestic industry is seeking 

relief. Moreover, as discussed in the 

preamble to the Department’s 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding the 

product coverage of the scope. The 

Department encourages all interested 

parties to submit such comments by 

August 10, 2009, the first business day 

after twenty calendar days from the 

signature date of this notice. Comments 

should be addressed to Import 

Administration’s APO/Dockets Unit, 

Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

The period for scope consultations is 

intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and to consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination in this investigation. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for the Antidumping Duty 

Questionnaire 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

woven electric blankets to be reported 

in response to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire. This 

information will be used to identify the 

key physical characteristics of the 

subject merchandise in order to more 

accurately report the relevant factors of 

production, as well as to develop 

appropriate product reporting criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they 

believe are relevant to the development 

of an accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as 

(1) general product characteristics and 

(2) the product reporting criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product reporting criteria. We base 

product reporting criteria on meaningful 

commercial differences among products. 

In other words, while there may be 

some physical product characteristics 

utilized by manufacturers to describe 

woven electric blankets, it may be that 

only a select few product characteristics 

take into account commercially 

meaningful physical characteristics. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing the 

product characteristics for the 

antidumping duty questionnaire, we 

must receive comments at the abovereferenced address by August 10, 2009. 

Additionally, rebuttal comments must 

be received by August 17, 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 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ 

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

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioner did not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. On July 17, 2009, 

Biddeford Blankets, LLC (‘‘Biddeford’’) 

a U.S. importer of woven electric 

blankets, and Hung Kuo Electronics 

(Shenzhen) Company Limited (Hung 

Kuo), Biddeford’s affiliated PRC 

producer and exporter of woven electric 

blankets, submitted a letter challenging 

the definition of the domestic like 

product, and requesting that the 

Department delay its initiation. 

Specifically, Biddeford and Hung Kuo 

argue that the domestic like product, as 

defined in the Petition, is overly narrow 

and should include, at a minimum, 

electric mattress pads. In addition, 

Biddeford and Hung Kuo state that 

Westpoint Stevens, a U.S. manufacturer 

and seller of electric mattress pads 

should be polled to determine whether 

it supports or opposes the Petition. 

Further, Biddeford and Hung Kuo 

request that the Department confirm 

Petitioner’s claim that while non-woven 

electric blankets could be an acceptable 

substitute for woven electric blankets, 

non-woven electric blankets are not 

produced in the United States. Both 

Biddeford and Hung Kuo are interested 

parties to this proceeding as defined in 

section 771(9)(A) of the Act. On July 20, 

2009, Petitioner filed its reply to this 

challenge, stating that Biddeford and 

Hung Kuo failed to provide any specific 

evidence supporting their claim, and 

limited their discussion to only a 

cursory analysis of the factors used to 

make a like product determination. We 

have analyzed these comments, and 

based on our analysis of the information 

submitted on the record, we have 

determined that woven electric blankets 

constitute a single domestic like product 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37003 

4For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Woven 

Electric Blankets 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 Petition, at 2–3, Exhibit 2, and Supplement 

to the Petition, at 3–4, and Exhibit S1. 

6See id; see also Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II, Industry Support. 

7See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

8See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

9See id. 

10See id. 

11See Petition, at 11–12, 15–26, Exhibits 2, 18, 

20–24, and Supplement to the Petition, at 11, and 

Exhibits S12–S15. 

12See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III. 

13See Initiation Checklist at 6 for details. 

14See Petition, at 8, and Exhibit 2, and 

Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit S1, and Third 

Supplement to the Petition, at 2, and Exhibits S3– 

1 and S3–2. 

15See Initiation Checklist for further discussion. 

16See Petition, at 8, and Exhibit 2. 

17See Petition, at 7. 

18See Petition, at 7; see also 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. 

and we have analyzed industry support 

in terms of that domestic like product.4

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing under section 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 and 

Appendix I of this notice. To establish 

industry support, Petitioner provided its 

2008 production of the domestic like 

product and compared this to the 

estimated total production of the 

domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry.5 Petitioner 

calculated total domestic production 

based on its own production plus data 

estimates for two non-petitioning 

companies that may have been 

producing the domestic like product in 

the United States in 2008.6

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department, including a search of 

the Internet, indicates that Petitioner 

has 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).7 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.8 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.9

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioner is 

an interested party (e.g., domestic 

producer) as defined in section 

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

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

investigation that it is requesting that 

the Department initiate.10

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleged 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, Petitioner 

alleged that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioner contended 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.11 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.12

Period of Investigation 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

filed on June 30, 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 

allegation of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department has based 

its decision to initiate an investigation 

of woven electric blankets from 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. 

U.S. Price 

Petitioner obtained constructed export 

prices (‘‘CEP’’) 13 for woven electric 

blankets in four standard sizes: Twin, 

full, queen, and king. These prices were 

based on U.S. offers for sale of woven 

electric blankets manufactured in the 

PRC.14 Petitioner presented an affidavit 

attesting that the offers were made 

during the POI.15

To calculate the net U.S. price, 

Petitioner did not deduct from the 

starting U.S. prices any CEP selling 

expenses or movement expenses other 

than the U.S. customs duty of 11.40 

percent that is imposed on woven 

electric blankets upon importation into 

the United States.16 This approach is 

conservative in that it does not 

understate the net U.S. price. 

Normal Value 

According to Petitioner, since the PRC 

is a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country, it based NV on factors of 

production and surrogate values.17 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.18

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 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. 

Petitioner used India as the surrogate 

country because it claimed India is at a 

level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC and is a 

significant producer of woven electric 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
37004 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

19See Petition, at 8, and Supplement to the 

Petition, at 5 and Exhibit S5. 

20See Petition, at 8. 

21See Supplement to the Petition, at 5 and 

Exhibit S5. 

22See Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit S4; 

see also Second Supplement to the Petition, at 

Exhibit S2–3. 

23See Petition, at 9, and Exhibit 8, and 

Supplement to the Petition, at 9, and Exhibit S1. 

24See Petition, at 8. 

25See Petition, at 9–10, and Exhibit 10, and 

Supplement to the Petition, at 5–7, and Exhibit S7, 

and Second Supplement to the Petition, at 2, and 

Exhibits S2–1 and S2–3. 

26See Petition, at 9, and Supplement to the 

Petition, at 7, and Exhibit S8. 

27See Petition, at 9, and Exhibits 9 and 10; see 

also Supplement to the Petition, at 5–7, and Exhibit 

S6. 

28See Petition, at 10, and Exhibit 12. 

29See Petition, at 10, and Exhibits 14 and 15; see 

also Supplement to the Petition, at 7–8, and 

Exhibits S4 and S7. 

30See Petition, at 10, and Exhibit 13, and Second 

Supplement to the Petition, at 2–3, and Exhibit S2– 

4. 

31See Supplement to the Petition, at 9–10, and 

Exhibit S11. 

32See Petition, at 10–11 and Exhibit 16, and 

Supplement to Petition, at 9–10, and Second 

Supplement to the Petition, at 3. 

33See Second Supplement to Petition, at S2–3. 

34See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions 

Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty 

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

35See id. at 74931. 

blankets.19 In support of this claim, 

Petitioner referenced the Department’s 

previous findings that India is at a level 

of development comparable to the 

PRC,20 and provided the names of a 

number of Indian manufacturers/ 

suppliers of electric blankets, and U.N. 

data showing that India exported 53.197 

metric tons of electric blankets during 

2007.21

After examining the information 

provided by Petitioner, the Department 

has determined 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. 

Petitioner calculated NVs and 

dumping margins using the 

Department’s NME methodology as 

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

and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner 

calculated NVs for woven electric 

blankets of four standard sizes: Twin, 

full, queen, and king.22 Petitioner 

asserted that the production process and 

consumption quantities it used in 

manufacturing woven electric blankets 

are similar to those used by the PRC 

manufacturer of the woven electric 

blankets for which it obtained the U.S. 

price quotes noted above.23 Petitioner 

stated that it employed a conservative 

methodology in calculating NV by only 

valuing the major components of woven 

electric blankets, namely the shell of 

woven fabric, binding, wire, and 

controller.24

Petitioner valued the factors of 

production using reasonably available, 

public surrogate country data, including 

Indian import data from the Indian 

Ministry of Commerce, published in the 

Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of 

India as compiled by the Global Trade 

Atlas (‘‘GTA’’), the internet version of 

the Word Trade Atlas, available at 

http://www.gtis.com/gta. Petitioner used 

GTA data for the period August 2008, 

through January 2009, the most recent 

six months of data available at the time 

of the filing of the Petition.25 In 

addition, Petitioner used exchange rates, 

as reported by the Federal Reserve, to 

convert Indian Rupees to U.S. Dollars.26

Petitioner valued shells of woven 

fabric, binding, wire, controllers, and 

packing cartons using GTA data.27

Petitioner valued direct labor and 

packing labor using the wage rate data 

published on the Department’s Web site, 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/ 

05wages-051608.html#table1.28

Petitioner valued electricity using 

Indian electricity rates from the Central 

Electricity Authority in India for 2006.29

Petitioner valued brokerage and 

handling costs using an average of costs 

incurred by Essar Steel Limited, Agro 

Dutch Industries Limited, and Kerjiwal 

Paper Ltd., three Indian companies that 

participated in antidumping duty 

proceedings before the Department. 

Petitioner adjusted these values for 

inflation using wholesale price index 

data published by the International 

Monetary Fund, which is available 

online at http://www.imfstatistics.org/ 

imf/.30

Petitioner based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses, and profit, on financial data 

for large public limited companies as 

reported by the Reserve Bank of India 

(‘‘RBI’’).31 Although Petitioner searched 

the internet, fee-based databases (e.g., 

Dun and Bradstreet, Hoovers) and 

records of the Indian Ministry of 

Company Affairs, Petitioner was unable 

to locate company-specific financial 

data for, or aggregate industry financial 

data that specifically include, Indian 

producers of woven electric blankets.32

Given that the only financial data 

reasonably available to Petitioner at this 

time are the RBI data, the Department 

has accepted the use of RBI data for the 

purposes of initiation. See Section 732 

(b)(1) of the Act. 

Fair-Value Comparisons 

The data provided by Petitioner 

provide a reason to believe that imports 

of woven electric blankets from the PRC 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. 

Based on comparisons of net U.S. prices 

to NVs, Petitioner calculated estimated 

dumping margins ranging from 128.32 

percent to 394.55 percent.33

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon our examination of the 

Petition concerning woven electric 

blankets from the PRC and other 

information reasonably available to the 

Department, 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 woven electric blankets 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, unless 

postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determination 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).34 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.’’ 35

In order to accomplish this objective, 

interested parties that wish to make a 

targeted-dumping allegation in this 

investigation pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, should submit 

such an allegation to the Department no 

later than 45 days before the scheduled 

date of the preliminary determination. 

Respondent Selection 

The Department will request quantity 

and value information from the 

exporters and producers listed with 

complete contact information in the 

Petition. The quantity and value data 

received from NME exporters/producers 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37005 

36See 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). 

37See 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 website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/ 

bull05-1.pdf (‘‘Policy Bulletin, Number: 05.1’’); see 

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) (‘‘Certain Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC’’). 

38See Policy Bulletin, Number: 05.1; see also 

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line 

Pipe from the PRC, 73 FR at 23193. 

will be used to select mandatory 

respondents. 

The Department requires respondents 

to 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.36

Appendix II of this notice contains the 

quantity and value questionnaire that 

must be submitted by all NME 

exporters/producers no later than 

August 11, 2009. In addition, the 

Department will post the quantity and 

value questionnaire along with filing 

instructions on its website, at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in an NME investigation, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

status application.37 The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate-rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, which will be 

available on the Department’s Web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlightsand-news.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. 

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/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.38

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 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 August 14, 2009, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of woven electric blankets 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: July 20, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

finished, semi-finished, and unassembled 

woven electric blankets, including woven 

electric blankets commonly referred to as 

throws, of all sizes and fabric types, whether 

made of man-made fiber, natural fiber or a 

blend of both. Semi-finished woven electric 

blankets and throws consist of shells of 

woven fabric containing wire. Unassembled 

woven electric blankets and throws consist of 

a shell of woven fabric and one or more of 

the following components when packaged 

together or in a kit: (1) Wire; (2) controller(s). 

The shell of woven fabric consists of two 

sheets of fabric joined together forming a 

‘‘shell.’’ The shell of woven fabric is 

manufactured to accommodate either the 

electric blanket’s wiring or a subassembly 

containing the electric blanket’s wiring (e.g., 

wiring mounted on a substrate). 

A shell of woven fabric that is not 

packaged together, or in a kit, with either 

wire, controller(s), or both, is not covered by 

this investigation even though the shell of 

woven fabric may be dedicated solely for use 

as a material in the production of woven 

electric blankets. 

The finished, semi-finished and 

unassembled woven electric blankets and 

throws subject to this investigation are 

currently classifiable under subheading 

6301.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). 

Although the HTSUS subheading is provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, only 

the written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

Appendix II—Office of AD/CVD 

Enforcement 

Quantity and Value Questionnaire 

Requester(s): {insert name of company}: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

{company address} 

lllllllllllllllllllll

{contact name and title} 

lllllllllllllllllllll

{contact telephone number} 

lllllllllllllllllllll

{contact fax number} 

lllllllllllllllllllll

{contact e-mail address} 

Representation: {insert name of counsel 

and law firm and contact info} 

Case: Certain Woven Electric Blankets from 

the People’s Republic of China. 

Period of Investigation: October 1, 2008 

through March 31, 2009. 

Publication Date of Initiation: {insert 

publication date}. 

Officials in Charge: 

Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Telephone: (202) 

482–5193, Fax: (202) 482–5105, E-mail 

Address: Howard_Smith@ita.doc.gov. 

Drew Jackson, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Telephone: (202) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
37006 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

39 If your company did not produce the 

merchandise under investigation, we request that 

these questions be immediately forwarded to the 

company that produces the merchandise and 

supplies it to you or your customers. 

40Please use the invoice date when determining 

which sales to include within the period noted 

above. Generally, the Department uses invoice date 

as the date of sale, as that is when the essential 

terms of sale are set. 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 report sales 

based on that date and provide a full explanation. 

482–4406, Fax: (202) 482–5105, E-mail 

Address: Drew_Jackson@ita.doc.gov. 

Rebecca Pandolph, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Telephone: 202– 

482–3627, Fax: (202) 482–5105, E-mail 

Address: 

Rebecca.Pandolph@mail.doc.gov. 

Filing Address: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, International Trade 

Administration, Import Administration, 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20230, Attn: Drew Jackson, Rebecca 

Pandolph. 

On July 21, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) announced its 

decision to initiate an antidumping duty 

investigation to determine whether certain 

woven electric blankets from the PRC are 

being sold in the United States at less than 

fair value during the period of investigation 

of October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009. 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), directs the 

Department to calculate individual dumping 

margins for each known exporter and 

producer of the subject merchandise. Where 

it is not practicable to examine all known 

producers/exporters of subject merchandise, 

as is the case in investigation, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department 

to examine either (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 

from the exporting country that can be 

reasonably examined. 

In advance of the issuance of the full 

antidumping questionnaire, we ask that you 

respond to Attachments I of this Quantity 

and Value Questionnaire requesting 

information on production and the quantity 

and U.S. dollar sales value of all your sales 

to the United States during the period 1, 2008 

through March 31, 2009, covered by the 

scope of this investigation (see Attachment 

II), produced in the PRC.39 A full and 

accurate response to the Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire from all participating 

respondents is necessary to ensure that the 

Department has the requisite information to 

appropriately select mandatory respondents. 

The Department is also requiring all firms 

that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in 

this investigation to complete a separate-rate 

status application as described in the Notice 

of Initiation. In other words, the Department 

will not give consideration to any separaterate status application made by parties that 

fail to timely respond to the Quality and 

Value Questionnaire or fail to timely submit 

the requisite separate-rate status application. 

To allow for the possibility of sampling 

and to complete this segment within the 

statutory time frame, the Department will be 

limited in its ability to extend the deadline 

for the response to the Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire. 

A definition of the scope of the 

merchandise subject to this review is 

included in Attachment II, and general 

instructions for responding to this Quantity 

and Value Questionnaire are contained in 

Attachment III. Your response to this 

questionnaire may be subject to on-site 

verification by Department officials. 

Format for Reporting Quantity and Value of 

Sales 

In providing the information in the chart 

below, please provide the total quantity in 

pieces/units, and kilograms, and total value 

(in U.S. dollars) of all your sales to the 

United States during the period 1, 2008 

through March 31, 2009, covered by the 

scope of this investigation (see Attachment 

II), produced in the PRC.40

• Please include only sales exported by 

your company directly to the United States. 

• Please do not include any sales of subject 

merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in 

your figures. 

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. 

Market: United States 

Total quantity in terms 

of number of blankets 

and/or throws 41

Total quantity 42

(in kilograms) Terms of sale 43 Total value 44($U.S.) 

1. Export Price 45 ............................................

2. Constructed Export Price 46 .......................

3. Further Manufactured 47 .............................

Total ........................................................

41 If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source. 42 If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source. 43To the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB). 44Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. 45Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before the goods are imported 

into the United States. 46Generally, 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. If you have further manufactured sales, please report them 

under Item 3, rather than under Item 2. 47 ‘‘Further manufactured’’ refers to merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before sale to the first 

unaffiliated customer. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37007 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 36561 (June 24, 2005). 

2See Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of New 

Shipper Review, 74 FR 5639 (January 30, 2009). 

3See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Request for 

Surrogate Country Selection: 06/2008 - 11/2008 

New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (February 11, 2009). 

4See the Memorandum regarding ‘‘Request for a 

List of Surrogate Countries for a New Shipper 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (February 12, 2009) (‘‘Surrogate 

Country List’’). 

5See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

27104, 27105 (June 8, 2009) (unchanged in the final 

results); and Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

32118, 32120 (July 7, 2009) (unchanged in the final 

results). 

[FR Doc. E9–17871 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–898 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of June 2008 

through November 2008 Semi–Annual 

New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 30, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated a new shipper 

review (‘‘NSR’’) of the antidumping 

duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates 

(‘‘chlorinated isos’’) from the People’s 

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

of review (‘‘POR’’) for this NSR is June 

1, 2008, through November 30, 2008. 

This NSR covers one producer/exporter 

of the subject merchandise, Juancheng 

Kangtai Chemical Company, Ltd. 

(‘‘Kangtai’’). We preliminarily determine 

that Kangtai did not make sales in the 

United States at prices below normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

liquidate entries of merchandise 

exported by Kangtai, during the POR 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

We invite interested parties to comment 

on these preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit 

Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6412 or (202) 482– 

0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 24, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on chlorinated 

isos from the PRC.1 On December 22, 

2008, Kangtai, a foreign producer/ 

exporter of subject merchandise, 

requested that the Department conduct 

an NSR of sales of its subject 

merchandise during the POR. On 

January 30, 2009, the Department 

initiated an NSR of Kangtai.2

On February 2, 2009, the Department 

issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Kangtai. On February 

11, 2009, the Department requested that 

the Office of Policy provide a list of 

surrogate countries for this NSR.3 On 

February 12, 2009, the Office of Policy 

issued its list of surrogate countries.4

On April 24, 2009, the Department 

issued a letter to interested parties 

seeking comments on surrogate country 

selection and surrogate values. On May 

15, 2009, Kangtai submitted comments 

regarding the selection of a surrogate 

country. 

On February 20, 2009, Kangtai 

submitted its section A questionnaire 

response (‘‘AQR’’). On March 11, 2009, 

Kangtai submitted its sections C and D 

questionnaire responses (‘‘CQR and 

DQR’’). On March 27, 2009, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Kangtai. On April 14, 

2009, Kangtai submitted its 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

On May 29, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Kangtai. On June 12, 2009, Kangtai 

submitted its supplemental 

questionnaire response. On June 9, 

2009, the Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Kangtai. 

On June 22, 2009, Kangtai submitted its 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

On June 26, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Kangtai. On July 6, 2009, Kangtai 

submitted its supplemental 

questionnaire response. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

chlorinated isos, as described below: 

Chlorinated isos are derivatives of 

cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated 

s–triazine triones. There are three 

primary chemical compositions of 

chlorinated isos: (1) 

trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3), 

(2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

(dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3(2H2O), and (3) 

sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

(anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated 

isos are available in powder, granular, 

and tableted forms. The order covers all 

chlorinated isos. Chlorinated isos are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, 

2933.69.6050, 3808.40.50, 3808.50.40 

and 3808.94.50.00 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). The tariff classification 

2933.69.6015 covers sodium 

dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and 

dihydrate forms) and 

trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff 

classifications 2933.69.6021 and 

2933.69.6050 represent basket categories 

that include chlorinated isos and other 

compounds including an unfused 

triazine ring. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Non–Market Economy Country 

The Department has treated the PRC 

as a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country in all past antidumping duty 

investigations and administrative 

reviews and continues to do so in this 

case.5 No interested party in this case 

has argued that we should do otherwise. 

Designation as an NME country remains 

in effect until it is revoked by the 

Department. See Section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’). 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is reviewing 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it, in most 

instances, to base NV on the NME 

producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’). The Act further instructs that 

valuation of the FOPs shall be based on 

the best available information in the 

surrogate market economy country or 

countries considered to be appropriate 

by the Department. See section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act. When valuing the FOPs, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in 

one or more market economy countries 

that are: (1) at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country; and (2) significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

See section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Further, 

the Department normally values all 

FOPs in a single surrogate country. See 

19 CFR 351.408(c)(2). The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES