Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 37001-37007 [E9-17871]

Download as PDF jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 37001 (‘‘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). 1 See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the People’s Republic of China, dated June 30, 2009 (‘‘Petition’’). 2 See 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. E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 37002 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 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. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 3 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). E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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 4 For 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. 5 See Petition, at 2–3, Exhibit 2, and Supplement to the Petition, at 3–4, and Exhibit S1. 6 See id; see also Initiation Checklist at Attachment II, Industry Support. 7 See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 8 See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 id. id. 11 See Petition, at 11–12, 15–26, Exhibits 2, 18, 20–24, and Supplement to the Petition, at 11, and Exhibits S12–S15. 12 See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III. PO 00000 9 See 10 See Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 37003 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 13 See Initiation Checklist at 6 for details. 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. 15 See Initiation Checklist for further discussion. 16 See Petition, at 8, and Exhibit 2. 17 See Petition, at 7. 18 See 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. 14 See E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 37004 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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 19 See Petition, at 8, and Supplement to the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit S5. 20 See Petition, at 8. 21 See Supplement to the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit S5. 22 See Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit S4; see also Second Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit S2–3. 23 See Petition, at 9, and Exhibit 8, and Supplement to the Petition, at 9, and Exhibit S1. 24 See Petition, at 8. VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 217001 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. 25 See 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. 26 See Petition, at 9, and Supplement to the Petition, at 7, and Exhibit S8. 27 See Petition, at 9, and Exhibits 9 and 10; see also Supplement to the Petition, at 5–7, and Exhibit S6. 28 See Petition, at 10, and Exhibit 12. 29 See Petition, at 10, and Exhibits 14 and 15; see also Supplement to the Petition, at 7–8, and Exhibits S4 and S7. 30 See Petition, at 10, and Exhibit 13, and Second Supplement to the Petition, at 2–3, and Exhibit S2– 4. 31 See Supplement to the Petition, at 9–10, and Exhibit S11. 32 See Petition, at 10–11 and Exhibit 16, and Supplement to Petition, at 9–10, and Second Supplement to the Petition, at 3. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 33 See Second Supplement to Petition, at S2–3. Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008). 35 See id. at 74931. 34 See E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 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 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. The 36 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). 37 See 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’’). VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 217001 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). 37005 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 ITC Notification Quantity and Value Questionnaire We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. 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) 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. 38 See Policy Bulletin, Number: 05.1; see also Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC, 73 FR at 23193. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 37006 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 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 Total quantity in terms of number of blankets and/or throws 41 Market: United States Total quantity 42 (in kilograms) 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. 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. any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source. the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB). 44 Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. 45 Generally, 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. 46 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. 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. 42 If jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 43 To 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. VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 217001 40 Please 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 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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. E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices [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: jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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 1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 36561 (June 24, 2005). VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:02 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 217001 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, 2 See Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Review, 74 FR 5639 (January 30, 2009). 3 See 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). 4 See 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’’). PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 37007 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 5 See, 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). E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 142 (Monday, July 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37001-37007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17871]


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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: 
Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the People's Republic of China, 
dated June 30, 2009 (``Petition'').
    \2\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).

[[Page 37002]]

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 above-referenced 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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, 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

[[Page 37003]]

and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like 
product.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \5\ See Petition, at 2-3, Exhibit 2, and Supplement to the 
Petition, at 3-4, and Exhibit S1.
    \6\ See id; see also Initiation Checklist at Attachment II, 
Industry Support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \7\ See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment II.
    \8\ See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \11\ See Petition, at 11-12, 15-26, Exhibits 2, 18, 20-24, and 
Supplement to the Petition, at 11, and Exhibits S12-S15.
    \12\ See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \13\ See Initiation Checklist at 6 for details.
    \14\ See 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.
    \15\ See Initiation Checklist for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Petition, at 8, and Exhibit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Petition, at 7.
    \18\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 37004]]

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

    \19\ See Petition, at 8, and Supplement to the Petition, at 5 
and Exhibit S5.
    \20\ See Petition, at 8.
    \21\ See Supplement to the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit S5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \22\ See Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit S4; see also 
Second Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit S2-3.
    \23\ See Petition, at 9, and Exhibit 8, and Supplement to the 
Petition, at 9, and Exhibit S1.
    \24\ See Petition, at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \25\ See 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.
    \26\ See Petition, at 9, and Supplement to the Petition, at 7, 
and Exhibit S8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \27\ See Petition, at 9, and Exhibits 9 and 10; see also 
Supplement to the Petition, at 5-7, and Exhibit S6.
    \28\ See Petition, at 10, and Exhibit 12.
    \29\ See Petition, at 10, and Exhibits 14 and 15; see also 
Supplement to the Petition, at 7-8, and Exhibits S4 and S7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \30\ See Petition, at 10, and Exhibit 13, and Second Supplement 
to the Petition, at 2-3, and Exhibit S2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Supplement to the Petition, at 9-10, and Exhibit S11.
    \32\ See Petition, at 10-11 and Exhibit 16, and Supplement to 
Petition, at 9-10, and Second Supplement to the Petition, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \33\ See Second Supplement to Petition, at S2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 targeted- dumping 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{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.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing 
Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 
(December 10, 2008).
    \35\ See id. at 74931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 37005]]

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-and-news.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-highlights-and-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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{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.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Policy Bulletin, Number: 05.1; see also Certain 
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC, 73 FR 
at 23193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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{time} :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{company address{time} 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{contact name and title{time} 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{contact telephone number{time} 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{contact fax number{time} 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{contact e-mail address{time} 
    Representation: {insert name of counsel and law firm and contact 
info{time} 
    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{time} .

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)

[[Page 37006]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 separate-rate 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Please 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Total quantity in
                                  terms of number of    Total quantity                         Total value \44\
      Market: United States         blankets and/or        \42\ (in       Terms of sale \43\        ($U.S.)
                                      throws \41\         kilograms)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
\43\ To the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB).
\44\ Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and
  sources.
\45\ Generally, 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.
\46\ 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. 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.


[[Page 37007]]

[FR Doc. E9-17871 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P