Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69415 

Exporter Producer 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium Industry Engineering Co. Ltd ..... Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory Company Limited; Guang 

Ya Aluminum Industries Co., Ltd.

59.31 

Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd ......................................... Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd ........................................ 59.31 

Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission Technology Co., Ltd Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission Technology Co., Ltd 59.31 

USA Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd.; Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co.USA Worldwide Door Components (Pinghu) Co., Ltd .............. 59.31 

Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd ............. Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd ............ 59.31 

Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium Factory Ltd .................... Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminium Factory Ltd ................... 59.31 

PRC-wide Entity* ........................................................................ .................................................................................................... 59.31 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed to parties in this proceeding 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

aluminum extrusions from the PRC as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ 

section, entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. We will instruct 

CBP to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the normal 

value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) 

The rate for the exporter/producer 

combinations listed in the chart above 

will be the rate we have determined in 

this preliminary determination; (2) for 

all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all 

non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter/producer combination that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

suspension-of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

Additionally, as the Department has 

determined in its Aluminum Extrusions 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, 75 FR 54302 

(September 7, 2010) (‘‘CVD Prelim’’) that 

the merchandise under investigation 

exported by Guang Ya Group, and that 

exported by New Zhongya, benefitted 

from export subsidies, we will instruct 

CBP to require an antidumping cash 

deposit or posting of a bond equal to the 

amount by which the NV exceeds the 

U.S. price for Guang Ya Group/New 

Zhongya/Xinya, as indicated above, 

minus the amount determined to 

constitute an export subsidy. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 

67306, 67307 (November 17, 2007). 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the ITC to make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

aluminum extrusions, or sales (or the 

likelihood of sales) for importation, of 

the merchandise under consideration 

within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date on 

which the final verification report is 

issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in case 

briefs, may be submitted no later than 

five days after the deadline date for case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of 

contents, list of authorities used and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. This summary should be 

limited to five pages total, including 

footnotes. The Department also requests 

that parties provide an electronic copy 

of its case and rebuttal brief submissions 

in either a ‘‘Microsoft Word’’ or a ‘‘pdf’’ 

format. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. 

Interested parties, who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. If a request for 

a hearing is made, we intend to hold the 

hearing at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a 

time and location to be determined. See 

19 CFR 351.310. Parties should confirm 

by telephone the date, time, and 

location of the hearing two days before 

the scheduled date. 

We will make our final determination 

no later than 135 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary 

determination, pursuant to section 

735(a)(2) of the Act. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: October 27, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28539 Filed 11–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of New Shipper Reviews and 

Preliminary Rescission, in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting new shipper 

reviews (NSRs) of Jinxiang Chengda Imp 

& Exp Co., Ltd. (Chengda), Jinxiang 

Yuanxin Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. (Yuanxin), 

and Zhengzhou Huachao Industrial Co., 

Ltd. (Huachao) under the antidumping 

duty order on fresh garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC) 

covering the period of review (POR) of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

69416 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 

November 1, 2008 through October 31, 

2009. As discussed below, we 

preliminarily determine that Yuanxin’s 

and Huachao’s sales are bona fide and 

that these sales have been made in the 

United States at prices below normal 

value (NV). Yuanxin and Huachao have 

also demonstrated their eligibility for a 

separate rate in these NSRs. In addition, 

we find Chengda’s sales to be not bona 

fide. As such, we are preliminarily 

rescinding the NSR for Chengda. The 

dumping margins are set forth in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of the Review’’ 

section below. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

importer-specific assessment rates are 

above de minimis. We invite interested 

parties to comment on these preliminary 

results. See ‘‘Comments’’ section below. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 12, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay, Toni Page, and Lingjun 

Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0780, 

(202) 482–1398, and (202) 482–2316, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 27, 2009, the 

Department received timely requests for 

a NSR from Chengda and Yuanxin, and 

on December 1, 2009, the Department 

received a timely request from Huachao 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c). 

On December 29, 2009, the Department 

determined that the requests submitted 

by Chengda, Yuanxin, and Huachao met 

the threshold requirements for initiation 

of a NSR and initiated the NSRs. See 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic 

of China: Initiation of New Shipper 

Reviews, 75 FR 343 (January 5, 2010). 

Since the initiation of these reviews, 

the Department has issued original and 

supplemental questionnaires to 

Chengda, Yuanxin, and Huachao, to 

which each has responded in a timely 

manner. As explained in the 

memorandum from the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary (DAS) for Import 

Administration, the Department 

exercised its discretion to toll deadlines 

for the duration of the closure of the 

Federal Government from February 5 

through February 12, 2010. Thus, all 

deadlines in this segment of the 

proceeding were extended by seven 

days. See Memorandum to the Record 

from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, Re: Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines as a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm (February 12, 2010). 

On March 10, 2010, the Department 

placed copies of CBP documents on the 

record of this review pertaining to 

Chengda’s, Yuanxin’s, and Huachao’s 

shipments of garlic from the PRC 

exported to the United States during the 

POR. See Memorandum to the File, from 

Scott Lindsay, Senior Case Analyst, Re: 

New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Customs Entry Packages (March 10, 

2010). 

On June 8, 2010, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of these NSRs to no 

later than November 1, 2010. See Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the New Shipper 

Reviews, 75 FR 32362 (June 8, 2010). On 

July 20, 2010, the Department sent 

interested parties a letter requesting 

comments on the surrogate country 

selection and information pertaining to 

valuing factors of production. See Letter 

to Interested Parties, from the 

Department, Re: New Shipper Review of 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’) (July 20, 2010). On 

September 10, 2010, Huachao submitted 

comments on the surrogate country 

selection and information pertaining to 

valuing factors of production. See Letter 

to the Department, from Huachao, Re: 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China—Surrogate Value Information 

for 16th New Shipper Review 

(September 10, 2010) (Huachao’s 

Surrogate Value Submission). The Fresh 

Garlic Producers Association (FGPA) 

and its individual members 

(Christopher Ranch L.L.C., the Garlic 

Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and 

Company, Inc.) (collectively, 

Petitioners) also submitted comments 

regarding surrogate values for this NSR. 

See Letter to the Department, from 

Petitioners, Re: 16th New Shipper 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China (September 10, 2010) 

(Petitioners’ Surrogate Value Data). No 

other party has submitted surrogate 

values or surrogate country comments 

on the record of this proceeding. 

On October 6, 2010, the Department 

placed a copy of the CBP data run on 

the record of this review, which 

contains all entries of subject 

merchandise exported from the PRC to 

the United States during the POR. See 

Memorandum to the File, from The 

Team, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Re: 

New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Customs Entries from November 1, 2008 

through October 31, 2009 (October 6, 

2010). On October 18, 2010, Petitioners 

placed on the record comments 

regarding the bona fides of sales made 

by Yuanxin, Chengda, and Huachao. See 

Petitioners’ October 18, 2010 Bona Fides 

Comments. 

Period of Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g), the 

POR covered by these NSRs is 

November 1, 2008 through October 31, 

2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are all grades of garlic, whole or 

separated into constituent cloves, 

whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, 

frozen, provisionally preserved, or 

packed in water or other neutral 

substance, but not prepared or 

preserved by the addition of other 

ingredients or heat processing. The 

differences between grades are based on 

color, size, sheathing, and level of 

decay. The scope of this order does not 

include the following: (a) Garlic that has 

been mechanically harvested and that is 

primarily, but not exclusively, destined 

for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has 

been specially prepared and cultivated 

prior to planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed. The 

subject merchandise is used principally 

as a food product and for seasoning. The 

subject garlic is currently classifiable 

under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 

0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 

0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 

0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. In order to be 

excluded from the order, garlic entered 

under the HTSUS subheadings listed 

above that is (1) mechanically harvested 

and primarily, but not exclusively, 

destined for non-fresh use or (2) 

specially prepared and cultivated prior 

to planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed must 

be accompanied by declarations to CBP 

to that effect. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (NME) country. In accordance 

with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), any 

determination that a foreign country is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69417 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. See, e.g., Brake Rotors From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

2004/2005 Administrative Review and 

Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 

(November 14, 2006). None of the 

parties to this proceeding have 

contested such treatment. Accordingly, 

we calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Bona Fides Analysis 

Consistent with Department practice, 

we examined the bona fides of each new 

shipper sale at issue. In evaluating 

whether or not a sale in a NSR is 

commercially reasonable, and therefore 

bona fide, the Department considers, 

inter alia, such factors as: (1) The timing 

of the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) 

the expenses arising from the 

transaction; (4) whether the goods were 

resold at a profit; and (5) whether the 

transaction was made on an arm’slength basis. See Tianjin Tiancheng 

Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2005) (TTPC). Accordingly, 

the Department considers a number of 

factors in its bona fides analysis, ‘‘all of 

which may speak to the commercial 

realities surrounding an alleged sale of 

subject merchandise.’’ See Hebei New 

Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2005) (New Donghua) (citing 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review and Rescission 

of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283 

(March 13, 2002), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum: New 

Shipper Review of Clipper 

Manufacturing Ltd.). In TTPC, the court 

also affirmed the Department’s decision 

that ‘‘any factor which indicates that the 

sale under consideration is not likely to 

be typical of those which the producer 

will make in the future is relevant,’’ 

(TTPC, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1250), and 

found that ‘‘the weight given to each 

factor investigated will depend on the 

circumstances surrounding the sale.’’ 

TTPC, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1263. Finally, 

in New Donghua, the Court of 

International Trade affirmed the 

Department’s practice of evaluating the 

circumstances surrounding a NSR sale, 

so that a respondent does not unfairly 

benefit from an a typical sale and obtain 

a lower dumping margin than the 

producer’s usual commercial practice 

would dictate. 

Chengda: We preliminarily find that 

the sales made by Chengda during the 

POR were not bona fide commercial 

transactions. Chengda’s POR sales’ price 

and quantities were both atypical and 

aberrational. Since much of the factual 

information used in our analysis of the 

bona fides of the transactions involves 

business proprietary information, a full 

discussion of the bases for our decision 

to rescind is set forth in the 

Memorandum to: Barbara E. Tillman, 

Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, from 

Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration: Bona Fide Nature of the 

Sale in the Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC): 

Jinxiang Chengda Import & Export Co., 

Ltd. (November 1, 2010) (Chengda Bona 

Fides Memorandum). Because we have 

found Chengda’s sales to not be bona 

fide, we cannot rely on them to calculate 

a dumping margin and are therefore 

preliminarily rescinding Chengda’s 

NSR. See TTPC and New Donghua. 

Yuanxin: Based on the totality of 

circumstances, we preliminarily find 

that the sale made by Yuanxin during 

the POR was a bona fide commercial 

transaction. The facts that led us to this 

preliminary conclusion include the 

following: (1) Neither Yuanxin nor its 

customers incurred any extraordinary 

expenses arising from this transaction; 

(2) the sale was made between 

unaffiliated parties at arm’s length; and 

(3) the timing of the sale does not 

indicate that the sale was not bona fide. 

Since much of the factual information 

used in our analysis of the bona fides of 

the transaction involves business 

proprietary information, a full 

discussion of the bases for our decision 

to rescind is set forth in the 

Memorandum to: Barbara E. Tillman, 

Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, from 

Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration: Bona Fide Nature of the 

Sale in the Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC): 

Jinxiang Yuanxin Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. 

(November 1, 2010) (Yuanxin Bona 

Fides Memorandum). We will continue 

to examine the bona fides of Yuanxin’s 

sale after the preliminary results. 

Huachao: Based on the totality of 

circumstances, we preliminarily find 

that the sale made by Huachao during 

the POR was a bona fide commercial 

transaction. The facts that led us to this 

preliminary conclusion include the 

following: (1) Neither Huachao nor its 

customer incurred any extraordinary 

expenses arising from the transaction; 

(2) the sale was made between 

unaffiliated parties at arm’s length; and 

(3) the timing of the sale does not 

indicate that this sale was not bona fide. 

However, we note that certain evidence 

on the record suggests that the bona 

fides of Huachao’s sale is not definitive. 

Since much of our analysis regarding 

the evidence of the bona fides of the 

transaction involves business 

proprietary information, a full 

discussion of the bases for our 

preliminary decision is set forth in the 

Memorandum to: Barbara E. Tillman, 

Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, from 

Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration: Bona Fide Nature of the 

Sale in the Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC): 

Zhengzhou Huachao Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(November 1, 2010) (Huachao’s Bona 

Fides Memorandum). Accordingly, we 

will continue to examine the bona fides 

of Huachao’s sale after the preliminary 

results. 

Separate Rates 

As noted above, designation of a 

country as an NME remains in effect 

until it is revoked by the Department. 

See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. 

Accordingly, there is a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the PRC are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assessed a 

single antidumping duty rate. 

It is the Department’s standard policy 

to assign all exporters of the 

merchandise subject to review in NME 

countries a single rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 

with respect to its exports. To establish 

whether a company is sufficiently 

independent to be eligible for a separate, 

company-specific rate, the Department 

analyzes each exporting entity in an 

NME country under the test established 

in the Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified 

by the Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 

Carbide from the People’s Republic of 

China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) 

(Silicon Carbide). 

The Department’s separate-rate status 

test to determine whether the exporter 

is independent from government control 

does not consider, in general, 

macroeconomic/border-type controls 

(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices), particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

69418 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 

1See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 

Steel Plate from Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 

(November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China, Final Results of 

Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 

61279 (November 17, 1997) 

2Since we have preliminarily determined that 

Chengda’s NSR sales are not bona fide, there is no 

reason to conduct an analysis of whether Chengda 

has demonstrated an absence of government control 

over its operations. 

controls over the investment, pricing, 

and output decision-making process at 

the individual firm level.1

A. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. 

Throughout the course of this 

proceeding, Yuanxin and Huachao have 

each placed documentation on the 

record to demonstrate absence of de jure 

control including business licenses, 

financial statements, and narrative 

information regarding government laws 

and regulations on corporate ownership 

and the companies’ operations and 

selection of management.2 In addition, 

Yuanxin and Huachao have each placed 

on the record copies of certain laws and 

regulations, including the ‘‘Company 

Law of the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

the ‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the PRC,’’ and 

‘‘Regulations of the PRC on the 

Administration of Company 

Registration.’’ The Department has 

analyzed these PRC laws and found that 

they establish an absence of de jure 

control. See, e.g., Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 102, 105 (January 3, 

2007), unchanged in Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 37715, 37716 (July 11, 

2007). We have no information in this 

proceeding that would cause us to 

reconsider this determination. Thus, we 

determine that the evidence on the 

record supports a preliminary finding of 

an absence of de jure government 

control of Yuanxin and Huachao based 

on: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

exporter’s business license; (2) the 

existence of legislative enactments legal 

authority on the record decentralizing 

control over the respondent; and (3) 

other formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

companies. 

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

evidence that certain enactments of the 

PRC central government have not been 

implemented uniformly among different 

sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. 

See, e.g., Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87. Therefore, the Department 

has determined that an analysis of de 

facto control is critical in determining 

whether Yuanxin and Huachao are, in 

fact, subject to a degree of government 

control which would preclude the 

Department from assigning separate 

rates. 

The absence of de facto governmental 

control over exports is based on whether 

a company: (1) Sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and other exporters; (2) retains the 

proceeds from its export sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

the disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) has autonomy from 

the government regarding the selection 

of management. See, e.g., Silicon 

Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 

56 FR at 20589; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). 

The Department conducted a 

separate-rates analysis for each new 

shipper. In their questionnaire 

responses, Yuanxin and Huachao each 

submitted evidence indicating an 

absence of de facto governmental 

control over its export activities. 

Specifically, this evidence indicates 

that: (1) Each new shipper sets its own 

export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) each new 

shipper retains the proceeds from its 

sales and makes independent decisions 

regarding the disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) each new shipper 

has an executive director and general 

manager with the authority to negotiate 

and bind the company in an agreement; 

(4) the general manager is selected by 

the owners of the company, and the 

general manager appoints the manager 

of each department; and (5) there is no 

restriction on each new shipper’s use of 

export revenues. The questionnaire 

responses of the new shippers do not 

suggest that pricing is coordinated 

among exporters. During our analysis of 

the information on the record, we found 

no information indicating the existence 

of de facto government control. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Yuanxin and Huachao have 

established, prima facie, that each 

qualifies for separate rate status under 

the criteria established by Silicon 

Carbide and Sparklers. Accordingly, the 

Department has preliminarily granted 

Yuanxin and Huachao separate rate 

status. 

Preliminary Determination of New 

Shipper Status 

We preliminarily determine that 

Yuanxin and Huachao have met the 

requirements to qualify as new shippers 

during the POR. Both companies have 

preliminarily established that they have: 

(1) Not previously shipped subject 

merchandise to the United States, (2) 

made sales to the United States we have 

preliminarily found to be bona fide; (3) 

demonstrated eligibility for a separate 

rate, and (4) provided adequate 

questionnaire responses. Therefore, for 

purposes of these preliminary results, 

we are treating Yuanxin’s and 

Huachao’s respective new shipper sales 

of subject merchandise to the United 

States as appropriate transactions for 

review. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV 

on the NME producer’s factors of 

production (FOPs), valued in a surrogate 

market economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in 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. Moreover, it is the 

Department’s practice to select an 

appropriate surrogate country based on 

the availability and reliability of data 

from the countries. See Department 

Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market 

Economy Surrogate Country Selection 

Process (March 1, 2004). 

As discussed in the ‘‘Non-Market 

Economy Country Status’’ section above, 

the Department considers the PRC to be 

an NME country. Pursuant to section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department 

determined that India, Indonesia, Peru, 

the Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine 

are countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development. See 

Memorandum to Thomas Gilgunn, 

Program Manager, from Carole Showers, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69419 

3See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Eleventh Administrative Review 

and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 

2007) (11th AR and NSRs); Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 12th Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 34251 (June 17, 2008) (12th AR); 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results and Rescission, In Part, of Twelfth 

New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 56550 (September 29, 

2008); and Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

13th Antidumping Duty Administrative and New 

Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 29174 (June 19, 2009). 

4Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Partial Rescission and Preliminary Results of 

the Eleventh Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 71510, 71520 (December 

11, 2006). 

Director, Office of Policy, Subject: 

Request for a List of Surrogate Countries 

for a New Shipper Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China (July 20, 2010). Also in 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, the Department has found that 

India is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise. Moreover, 

pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, 

the Department finds India to be a 

reliable source for surrogate values 

because India is at a similar level of 

economic development, is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise, 

and has publicly available and reliable 

data. Furthermore, the Department notes 

that India has been the primary 

surrogate country in past segments of 

this proceeding, and the only surrogate 

value data submitted on the record are 

from Indian sources. Given the above 

facts, the Department has selected India 

as the primary surrogate country for this 

review. The sources of the surrogate 

factor values are discussed under the 

‘‘Normal Value’’ section below and in 

the Memorandum from Scott Lindsay, 

Re: Preliminary Results of the 2008– 

2009 New Shipper Reviews of Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Surrogate Values (November 1, 

2010) (Surrogate Values Memorandum). 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated an export price 

for sales to the Unites States for 

Yuanxin and Huachao because each 

company made its sale to an unaffiliated 

party before the date of importation and 

the use of constructed export prices was 

not otherwise warranted. We calculated 

each company’s export price based on 

its price to unaffiliated purchasers in 

the United States. In accordance with 

section 772(c) of the Act, where 

appropriate, we deducted from the 

starting price to unaffiliated purchasers 

the expenses for foreign inland freight, 

international freight, brokerage and 

handling, marine insurance, 

warehousing, and U.S. customs duties. 

For the expenses that were either 

provided by an NME vendor or paid for 

using an NME currency, we used 

surrogate values as appropriate. See the 

‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section below for 

details regarding the surrogate values for 

movement expenses. See also 

Memorandum To: The File, From: 

Lingjun Wang, Case Analyst, Office 6, 

Import Administration: Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Calculation Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Results of Jinxian Yuanxin 

Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; and Memorandum 

To: The File, From: Summer Avery, 

Case Analyst, Office 6, Import 

Administration: Antidumping Duty 

New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Calculation Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Results of Zhengzhou 

Huachao Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Normal Value 

A. Methodology 

Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act 

provides that the Department shall 

determine NV using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME country and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department calculates 

NV using each of the FOPs that a 

respondent consumes in the production 

of a unit of the subject merchandise 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of NMEs 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. However, there are 

circumstances in which the Department 

will modify its standard FOP 

methodology, choosing to apply a 

surrogate value to an intermediate input 

instead of the individual FOPs used to 

produce that intermediate input. See, 

e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl 

Alcohol from the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 47538 (August 11, 2003), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1 (PVA) 

(citing to Final Results of First New 

Shipper Review and First Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 

11, 2001)). 

For the final results of several recent 

prior administrative reviews (ARs) and 

NSRs,3 the Department found that garlic 

industry producers in the PRC do not 

generally track actual labor hours 

incurred for growing, tending, and 

harvesting activities and, thus, do not 

maintain appropriate records which 

would allow most, if not all, 

respondents to quantify, report, and 

substantiate this information. In the 

preliminary results of the 11th AR and 

NSRs, the Department also stated that 

‘‘should a respondent be able to provide 

sufficient factual evidence that it 

maintains the necessary information in 

its internal books and records that 

would allow us to establish the 

completeness and accuracy of the 

reported FOPs, we will revisit this issue 

and consider whether to use its reported 

FOPs in the calculation of NV.’’ 4 In the 

course of this review, none of the garlic 

producers reported FOPs related to 

growing whole garlic bulbs. As such, for 

the reasons outlined in the 

Memorandum from Scott Lindsay, Re: 

2008–2009 New Shipper Review of 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China: Intermediate Input 

Methodology (November 1, 2010) 

(Intermediate Input Methodology 

Memorandum), the Department is 

applying an ‘‘intermediate-product 

valuation methodology’’ to the NSR 

respondents for which we are 

calculating an antidumping duty margin 

in these preliminary results. Using this 

methodology, the Department calculated 

NV by starting with a surrogate value for 

the garlic bulb (i.e., the ‘‘intermediate 

product’’), adjusting for yield losses 

during the processing stages, and adding 

the respondents’ processing costs, 

which were calculated using their 

reported usage rates for processing fresh 

garlic. See Intermediate Input 

Methodology Memorandum. 

B. Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOP data reported by Yuanxin and 

Huachao for the POR. We relied on the 

factor-specific data submitted by 

Yuanxin and Huachao for the 

production inputs in their questionnaire 

responses, where applicable, for 

purposes of selecting surrogate values 

(SVs). To calculate NV, we multiplied 

the reported per-unit factor 

consumption rates by publicly-available 

Indian SVs. 

In selecting the SVs, consistent with 

our past practice, we considered the 

quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. See, e.g., 

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

69420 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 

5Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act states that * * * 

‘‘the valuation of the factors of production shall be 

based on the best available information regarding 

the values of such factors in a market economy 

country or countries considered to be appropriate 

by the administering authority.’’ 

6See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 

50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009) (unchanged in 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 (December 

10, 2009)). 

7See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Final 

Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 

(April 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 

(December 11, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 9. As appropriate, we 

adjusted input prices by including 

freight costs to make them delivered 

prices. Specifically, we added to Indian 

import SVs a surrogate freight cost using 

the shorter of the reported distance from 

the domestic supplier to the factory or 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory, where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (CAFC). See Sigma 

Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where necessary, 

we adjusted the SVs for inflation/ 

deflation using the Wholesale Price 

Index (WPI) as published in the 

International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics, 

available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf. For 

more information regarding the 

Department’s valuation for the various 

FOPs, see Surrogate Values 

Memorandum. 

Garlic Bulb Valuation for Huachao 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting the ‘‘best available 

information’’ for valuing FOPs, in 

accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the 

Act,5 is to select, to the extent 

practicable, surrogate values which are 

publicly available, product-specific, 

representative of a broad market 

average, tax-exclusive, and 

contemporaneous with the POR. See, 

e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas 

from the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 16116 (March 30, 2006), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

As discussed above, the Department is 

applying an intermediate input 

methodology for Huachao. Therefore, 

we sought to identify the best available 

SV for the garlic bulb input for 

production. See Petitioners’ Surrogate 

Value Data and Huachao’s Surrogate 

Value Submission; see also Surrogate 

Values Memorandum. For the 

preliminary results of this review, we 

find that data from the Azadpur APMC’s 

‘‘Market Information Bulletin’’ are the 

most appropriate information available 

to value Huachao’s garlic bulb input. 

In its FOP database, Huachao reported 

garlic bulb input size for the garlic 

produced and sold to the United States 

during the POR. Consistent with our 

findings in the 12th AR, the Department 

continues to find that garlic bulb sizes 

that range from 55 mm and above are 

Grade Super-A, and garlic bulb sizes 

that range between 40 mm and 55 mm 

are Grade A and Grade Super-A. See 

Surrogate Values Memorandum. 

Because the Grade Super-A prices 

reported by the APMC which are on the 

record of this review are from 2007– 

2008, we inflated them to make them 

contemporaneous to our POR. See 

Surrogate Values Memorandum. 

Garlic Bulb Valuation for Yuanxin 

Yuanxin has submitted information 

on the record indicating that it sold 

single clove garlic. When examining 

single clove garlic in a prior segment of 

this proceeding, the Department 

determined that single clove garlic 

possessed physical characteristics 

which significantly distinguish it from 

the Grade A and Grade Super-A garlic 

on which we normally rely to value 

garlic bulb inputs. See Fresh Garlic from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of 

New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 50952 

(October 2, 2009). As such, neither 

Grade A nor Grade Super-A garlic is an 

appropriate basis from which to derive 

a SV for the bulb input used by 

Yuanxin. Petitioners have placed on the 

record an FOB sales offer, which is 

contemporaneous with the POR, from 

Sundaram Overseas Operations (SOO), 

an Indian trading company, as the basis 

for deriving NV. SOO’s sales offer is an 

Indian export price for a whole garlic 

product that is physically similar to the 

product sold by Yuanxin. For these 

preliminary results, the Department is 

using the SOO sales offer of single clove 

garlic as the NV for Yuanxin. See 

Surrogate Values Memorandum. 

However, the Department requests 

comments and factual information 

regarding the appropriate SV to use in 

calculating the single clove garlic input 

for Yuanxin for purposes of the final 

results of review. Since much of our 

analysis regarding Yuanxin’s garlic and 

the garlic bulb input thereof has been 

treated as business proprietary 

information, a full discussion of the 

basis for calculating an appropriate 

surrogate value for Yuanxin’s garlic bulb 

input is set forth in the Surrogate Values 

Memorandum. 

Other Factors of Production 

In past cases, it has been the 

Department’s practice to value various 

FOPs using import statistics of the 

primary selected surrogate country from 

World Trade Atlas (WTA), as published 

by Global Trade Information Services 

(GTIS).6 However, in October 2009, the 

Department learned that Indian import 

data obtained from the WTA, as 

published by GTIS, began identifying 

the original reporting currency for India 

as the U.S. Dollar. The Department then 

contacted GTIS about the change in the 

original reporting currency for India 

from the Indian Rupee to the U.S. 

Dollar. Officials at GTIS explained that 

while GTIS obtains data on imports into 

India directly from the Ministry of 

Commerce, Government of India, as 

denominated and published in Indian 

Rupees, the WTA software is limited 

with regard to the number of significant 

digits it can manage. Therefore, GTIS 

made a decision to change the original 

reporting currency for Indian data from 

the Indian Rupee to the U.S. Dollar in 

order to reduce the loss of significant 

digits when obtaining data through the 

WTA software. GTIS explained that it 

converts the Indian Rupee to the U.S. 

Dollar using the monthly Federal 

Reserve exchange rate applicable to the 

relevant month of the data being 

downloaded and converted.7

However, the data reported in the 

Global Trade Atlas (GTA) software 

published by GTIS reports import 

statistics, such as from India, in the 

original reporting currency and, thus, 

these data correspond to the original 

currency value reported by each 

country. Additionally, the data reported 

in the GTA software are reported to the 

nearest digit and, thus, there is not a 

loss of data by rounding, as there is with 

the data reported by the WTA software. 

Consequently, the Department will now 

obtain import statistics from GTA for 

valuing various FOPs because the GTA 

import statistics are in the original 

reporting currency of the country from 

which the data are obtained, and have 

the same level of accuracy as the 

original data released. 

Furthermore, with regard to the GTA 

Indian import-based SVs, in accordance 

with the Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988 legislative 

history, the Department continues to 

apply its long-standing practice of 

disregarding SVs if it has a reason to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69421 

8Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 

No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) at 590. 9See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 

2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at pages 4–5; Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from 

Indonesia, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

page 4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 

FR 2512 (January 15, 2009), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 17, 19– 

20; and Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Thailand: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR 50410 

(October 3, 2001), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at page 23. 

10The NME countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, 

Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, North 

Korea, the People’s Republic of China, Tajikistan, 

Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. 

11See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Sixth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Results of the 

Ninth New Shipper Review, 69 FR 42039 (July 13, 

2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2; see also Final Results 

of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China, 66 

FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues 

and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 3, and 

Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the 

Continued 

believe or suspect the source data may 

be subsidized.8 In this regard, the 

Department has previously found that it 

is appropriate to disregard such prices 

from India, Indonesia, South Korea and 

Thailand, because we have determined 

that these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry specific export 

subsidies.9 Based on the existence of 

these subsidy programs that were 

generally available to all exporters and 

producers in Indonesia, South Korea, 

and Thailand at the time of the POR, the 

Department finds that it is reasonable to 

infer that all exporters from these 

countries may have benefitted from 

these subsidies. We also disregarded 

prices from NME countries 10 and those 

imports that were labeled as originating 

from an ‘‘unspecified’’ country from the 

average Indian import values, because 

we could not be certain that they were 

not from either an NME or a country 

with general export subsidies. 

We valued the packing material 

inputs using weighted-average unit 

import values derived from the Monthly 

Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India 

(MSFTI), as published by the Directorate 

General of Commercial Intelligence and 

Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce 

and Industry, Government of India, and 

compiled by the GTA. 

The Department valued surrogate 

truck freight cost by using a per-unit 

average rate calculated from April 2009 

data on the following Web site: http:// 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. See Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 52282, 52286 (September 

9, 2008) (and unchanged in 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 

(February 11, 2009)); and Surrogate 

Values Memorandum at Attachment 9. 

To value electricity, the Department 

used March 2008 electricity price rates 

from Electricity Tariff & Duty and 

Average Rates of Electricity Supply in 

India, published by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India. Because these data are not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

inflated March 2008 prices to make 

them contemporaneous to our POR. See 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Attachment 4. 

We valued brokerage and handling 

expenses using a price list of export 

procedures necessary to export a 

standardized cargo of goods in India. 

The price list is compiled based on a 

survey case study of the procedural 

requirements for trading a standard 

shipment of goods by ocean transport in 

India that is published in Doing 

Business 2010: India, published by the 

World Bank. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Attachment 4. 

For direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, pursuant to a recent decision by 

the Court CAFC, we are no longer using 

the regression-based methodology to 

value labor. See Dorbest Ltd. v. United 

States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 

2010). The Department is continuing to 

evaluate options for determining labor 

values in light of the recent CAFC 

decision. For these preliminary results, 

we have calculated an hourly wage rate 

to use in valuing respondents’ reported 

labor input by averaging industryspecific earnings and/or wages in 

countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC and that are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. 

For the preliminary results of this AR, 

the Department is valuing labor using a 

simple average industry-specific wage 

rate using earnings or wage data 

reported under Chapter 5B by the 

International Labor Organization (ILO). 

To achieve an industry-specific labor 

value, we relied on industry-specific 

labor data from the countries we 

determined to be both economically 

comparable to the PRC, and significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

A full description of the industryspecific wage rate calculation 

methodology is provided in the 

Surrogate Values Memorandum. The 

Department calculated a simple average 

industry-specific wage rate of $1.20 for 

these preliminary results. Specifically, 

for this review, the Department has 

calculated the wage rate using a simple 

average of the data provided to the ILO 

under Sub-Classification 15 of the ISIC– 

Revision 3 standard by countries 

determined to be both economically 

comparable to the PRC and significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

The Department finds the two-digit 

description under ISIC–Revision 3 

(‘‘Manufacture of Food Products and 

Beverages’’) to be the best available wage 

rate SV on the record because it is 

specific and derived from industries 

that produce merchandise comparable 

to the subject merchandise. 

Consequently, we averaged the ILO 

industry-specific wage rate data or 

earnings data available from the 

following countries found to be 

economically comparable to the PRC 

and to be significant producers of 

comparable merchandise: Ecuador, 

Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, 

Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine. 

Further information on the calculation 

of the wage rate can be found in the 

Surrogate Values Memorandum. 

Financial Ratios 

Petitioners and Huachao submitted 

factual information regarding surrogate 

financial ratios. See Petitioners’ 

Surrogate Value Data and Huachao’s 

Surrogate Value Submission. After 

analyzing these comments and factual 

information, the Department has 

determined that it is appropriate to 

calculate a single set of surrogate 

financial ratios applicable to the 

production and sales of all subject 

merchandise (both whole and peeled 

garlic) for these preliminary results 

using both Tata Tea’s and Limtex’s 

financial data. Since the 2002–2003 

administrative review, the Department 

has considered tea processing to be 

sufficiently similar to garlic processing 

in that neither product is highly 

processed or preserved prior to sale. See 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

34082 (June 13, 2005) (9th AR Final 

Results), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at 34–35. 

Moreover, we note that it is the 

Department’s preference to use financial 

data from more than one surrogate 

producer to reflect the broader 

experience of the surrogate industry.11

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

69422 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final 

Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 

(April 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 13. 

12See Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of New Shipper Review, 75 FR 

61130 (October 4, 2010), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Issue 4. 

We find that calculating an average of 

these two Indian tea processors’ data 

provides financial ratios that best reflect 

the broader experience of the garlic 

industry and that are consistent with 

our practice during previous reviews.12

The Department finds that both Tata 

Tea’s and Limtex’s non-integrated 

production process is similar to that of 

the garlic industry. We find that the 

resulting financial ratios from the 

average of Tata Tea’s and Limtex’s 

financial data provide the best surrogate 

for the garlic industry in the PRC as a 

whole, based on the information on the 

record of this review. See Surrogate 

Values Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the date of 

the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. See http:// 

www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html. 

Preliminary Results of the Reviews 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily find that the following 

margins exist for Yuanxin and Huachao 

during the period November 1, 2008 

through October 31, 2009: 

FRESH GARLIC FROM THE PRC 

Exporter/manufacturer 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(dollars per 

kilogram) 

Manufactured and Exported 

by Jinxiang Yuanxin Imp & 

Exp Co .............................. $0.75 

Manufactured and Exported 

by Zhengzhou Huachao 

Industrial Co., Ltd .............. 0.03 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. Consistent with the 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 13th Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 29174 (June 19, 

2009) (Final Results Garlic Thirteenth 

Review), we will direct CBP to assess 

importer-specific assessment rates based 

on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per 

kilogram) amount on each entry of the 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

See Final Results Garlic Thirteenth 

Review. Specifically, we will divide the 

total dumping margins for each importer 

by the total quantity of subject 

merchandise sold to that importer 

during the POR to calculate a per-unit 

assessment amount. If the Department 

issues a final rescission determination 

for Chengda, it will be assessed at the 

PRC-entity rate of $4.71 per kilogram. 

We will direct CBP to assess importerspecific assessment rates based on the 

resulting per-unit (i.e., per kilogram) 

amount on each entry of the subject 

merchandise during the POR if any 

importer-specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis. The 

Department will issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after publication of the final 

results of this review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Consistent with the final results of the 

Final Results Garlic Thirteenth Review, 

we will establish and collect a perkilogram cash-deposit amount which 

will be equivalent to the companyspecific dumping margin published in 

the final results of this review. 

Specifically, the following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

review for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date of the final 

results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) 

of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise 

produced and exported by Yuanxin or 

Huachao, the cash deposit rate will be 

the per-unit rate determined in the final 

results of this new shipper review and; 

(2) for subject merchandise exported by 

Yuanxin, but not produced by Yuanxin, 

the cash deposit rate will be the per-unit 

PRC-wide rate (i.e., $4.71 per kilogram); 

(3) for subject merchandise exported by 

Huachao, but not produced by Huachao, 

the cash deposit rate will be the per-unit 

PRC-wide rate; (4) For subject 

merchandise produced and exported by 

Chengda, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the PRC-wide rate; (5) for 

subject merchandise exported Chengda 

but not manufactured by Chengda, the 

cash deposit rate will continue to be the 

PRC-wide rate; and (6) for subject 

merchandise manufactured by Chengda, 

but exported by any other party, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the exporter. These 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding not later than ten days after 

the date of public announcement, or if 

there is no public announcement within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Comments 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results 

and may submit case briefs and/or 

written comments within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice, unless 

otherwise notified by the Department. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, will be due five days later, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 

these proceedings are requested to 

submit with each argument: (1) A 

statement of the issue; and (2) a brief 

summary of the argument. Parties are 

requested to provide a summary of the 

arguments not to exceed five pages and 

a table of statutes, regulations, and cases 

cited. Additionally, parties are 

requested to provide their case and 

rebuttal briefs in electronic format (e.g., 

preferably in Microsoft Word). 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in case and rebuttal briefs. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this review, including the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any such 

written briefs not later than 90 days 

after these preliminary results are 

issued, unless the final results are 

extended. See 19 CFR 351.214(i). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2010 / Notices 69423 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: November 1, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28571 Filed 11–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

Information Collection Requirements; 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Small 

Business Programs (OMB Control 

Number 0704–0386) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments regarding a proposed 

extension of an approved information 

collection requirement. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with section 

3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), DoD announces the 

proposed extension of a public 

information collection requirement and 

seeks public comment on the provisions 

thereof. DoD invites comments on: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of DoD, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 

the estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the information collection on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has approved this information 

collection requirement for use through 

April 30, 2011. DoD proposes that OMB 

extend its approval for use for three 

additional years. 

DATES: DoD will consider all comments 

received by January 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by OMB Control Number 

0704–0386, using any of the following 

methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

inputting ‘‘OMB Control Number 0704– 

0386’’ under the heading ‘‘Enter 

keyword or ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ 

Select the link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘OMB Control 

Number 0704–0386’’. Follow the 

instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a 

Comment’’ screen. Please include your 

name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘OMB Control Number 0704–0386’’ on 

your attached document. 

Æ E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include 

OMB Control Number 0704–0386 in the 

subject line of the message. 

Æ Fax: (703) 602–0350. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Jennifer 

Abi-Najm, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), 

Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

confirm receipt of your comment(s), 

please check http://www.regulations.gov 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Jennifer Abi-Najm, 703–602–0131. The 

information collection requirements 

addressed in this notice are available 

electronically via the Internet at: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Paper 

copies are available from Ms. Jennifer 

Abi-Najm, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), 

Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title and OMB Number: Defense 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS) part 219, Small 

Business Programs, and the clause at 

DFARS 252.219–7003; OMB Control 

Number 0704–0386. 

Needs and Uses: DoD uses this 

information in assessing contractor 

compliance with small business 

subcontracting plans in accordance with 

10 U.S.C. 2323(h). 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. 

Annual Burden Hours: 41. 

Number of Respondents: 41. 

Responses per Respondent: 1. 

Annual Responses: 41. 

Average Burden per Response: 1 hour. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Summary of Information Collection 

DFARS 219.704 and paragraph (g) of 

the clause at DFARS 252.219–7003, 

Small Business Subcontracting Plan 

(DoD Contracts), require prime 

contractors to notify the administrative 

contracting officer of any substitutions 

of firms that are not small business 

firms for the firms listed in those 

subcontracting plans that specifically 

identify small businesses. Notifications 

must be in writing and may be 

submitted in a contractor-specified 

format. 

Ynette R. Shelkin, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28495 Filed 11–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Comment request. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(the Department), in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), 

provides the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and continuing 

collections of information. This helps 

the Department assess the impact of its 

information collection requirements and 

minimize the reporting burden on the 

public and helps the public understand 

the Department’s information collection 

requirements and provide the requested 

data in the desired format. The Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, invites comments on the 

proposed information collection 

requests as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before January 

11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding burden 

and/or the collection activity 

requirements should be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or 

mailed to U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, 

Washington, DC 20202–4537. Please 

note that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that Federal agencies provide interested 

parties an early opportunity to comment 

on information collection requests. The 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES