[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 121 (Thursday, June 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30273-30278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15018]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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).

[[Page 30274]]

    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

[[Page 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.htmlvalcusimports. 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

[[Page 30276]]

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

[[Page 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 targeted- dumping 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{time} 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-sep-rate.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{time} 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

[[Page 30278]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Total Quantity (kg) (Net    Total Quantity                          Total Value\3\
                       Market: United States                                 Weight)                Pieces         Terms of Sale\2\         ($U.S.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Export Price\4\................................................
2. Constructed Export Price\5\....................................
3. Further Manufactured\6\........................................
Total.............................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB).
\3\ Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources.
\4\ Generally, 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.
\5\ Generally, 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