37694 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

The revised management plan 

outlines the administrative structure; 

the education, stewardship, and 

research goals of the reserve; and the 

plans for future land acquisition and 

facility development to support reserve 

operations. This management plan 

describes how the strengths of the 

reserve will focus on several areas 

relevant to the Hudson River, including 

sea level rise and other effects of climate 

change, development pressure, and 

invasive species. 

Since 1993, the reserve has added an 

estuary training program that delivers 

science-based information to key 

decision makers in New York; has 

completed a site profile that 

characterizes the reserve; and has 

expanded the monitoring, stewardship 

and education programs. A new 

headquarters building, the Norrie Point 

Environmental Center, (2007) has been 

built to support the growth of reserve 

programs. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Clark at (301) 563–1137 or Laurie 

McGilvray at (301) 563–1158 of NOAA’s 

National Ocean Service, Estuarine 

Reserves Division, 1305 East-West 

Highway, N/ORM5, 10th floor, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. For copies of the 

Hudson River Management Plan 

revision, visit: http://hrnerr.org. 

Dated: July 23, 2009. 

Donna Wieting, 

Deputy Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–18072 Filed 7–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–886 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC). The review covers Rally Plastics 

Co., Ltd. The period of review (POR) is 

August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that sales have been made at prices 

below normal value by the company 

subject to this review. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of administrative review, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit comments in this 

review are requested to submit with 

each argument (1) a statement of the 

issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 29, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1757 or (202) 482– 

1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 9, 2004, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on PRCBs from the PRC. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 

9, 2004). In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), the Department received 

requests for a review of Rally Plastics 

Co., Ltd. (Rally). In accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(g) and 19 CFR 351.221(b) 

we published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 56795 

(September 30, 2008). 

Since initiation of the review, we 

have extended the due date for 

completion of these preliminary results 

from May 3, 2009, to July 22, 2009. See 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Malaysia, Thailand, and the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 74 FR 17633 (April 16, 2009), 

and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 32884 

(July 9, 2009). 

We are conducting this review in 

accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the 

antidumping duty order is PRCBs, 

which may be referred to as t–shirt 

sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, 

or checkout bags. The subject 

merchandise is defined as non–sealable 

sacks and bags with handles (including 

drawstrings), without zippers or integral 

extruded closures, with or without 

gussets, with or without printing, of 

polyethylene film having a thickness no 

greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and 

no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), 

and with no length or width shorter 

than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 

40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the 

bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not 

longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). 

PRCBs are typically provided without 

any consumer packaging and free of 

charge by retail establishments, e.g., 

grocery, drug, convenience, department, 

specialty retail, discount stores, and 

restaurants, to their customers to 

package and carry their purchased 

products. The scope of the order 

excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are 

not printed with logos or store names 

and that are closeable with drawstrings 

made of polyethylene film and (2) 

polyethylene bags that are packed in 

consumer packaging with printing that 

refers to specific end–uses other than 

packaging and carrying merchandise 

from retail establishments, e.g., garbage 

bags, lawn bags, trash–can liners. 

As a result of changes to the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), imports of the 

subject merchandise are currently 

classifiable under statistical category 

3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. 

Furthermore, although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we have verified information 

provided by Rally using standard 

verification procedures including on– 

site inspection of the manufacturer’s 

facilities and the examination of 

relevant sales and financial records. Our 

verification results are outlined in the 

public version of the verification report 

on file in the Central Records Unit, 

Room 1117 of the main Department 

building. 

NME Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non–marketeconomy (NME) country. In accordance 

with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, 

any determination that a foreign country 

is an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. See Brake Rotors From the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37695 

1Consisting of Hilex Poly Company, LLC, and the 

Superbag Corporation (collectively, the petitioners). 

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 has contested 

such treatment. Accordingly, we have 

calculated normal value in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Act, which 

applies to NME countries. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to 

review in an NME country this single 

rate unless an exporter can demonstrate 

that it is sufficiently independent so as 

to be entitled to a separate rate. 

Exporters can demonstrate this 

independence through the absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control over export activities. The 

Department analyzes each entity 

exporting the subject merchandise 

under a test arising from 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 developed further 

in the 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). If the Department determines 

that a company is wholly foreign– 

owned or located in a market economy, 

however, then a separate–rate analysis 

is not necessary to determine whether it 

is independent from government 

control. 

Rally submitted information that 

demonstrates it is a wholly foreign– 

owned company located in Hong Kong. 

See Rally’s November 26, 2008, Section 

A Response, e.g., articles of association, 

business license, and export license. 

Therefore, we have not conducted a 

separate–rate analysis of Rally. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department analyzes 

imports from an NME country, section 

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

normal value, in most circumstances, on 

the NME producer’s factors of 

production (FOP), valued in a surrogate 

market–economy country or countries 

the Department considers to be 

appropriate. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall use, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs of 

FOPs in one or more market–economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and significant producers 

of comparable merchandise. 

On December 22, 2008, the 

Department’s Office of Policy issued a 

memorandum identifying India as being 

at a level of economic development 

comparable to the PRC for the POR. See 

Memorandum entitled ‘‘Request for a 

List of Surrogate Countries for an 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China’’ dated 

December 22, 2008. In the Department’s 

March 16, 2009, letter to interested 

parties requesting surrogate–country 

and surrogate–value comments, the 

Department indicated that India is 

among the countries comparable to the 

PRC in terms of overall economic 

development. In addition, based on 

publicly available information placed 

on the record (i.e., export data), India is 

a significant producer of the subject 

merchandise. See Memorandum entitled 

‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Selection of a Surrogate Country,’’ dated 

July 22, 2009. 

Furthermore, India has been the 

primary surrogate country in 

determinations for past segments of this 

proceeding and the Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bag Committee 1 submitted 

surrogate values based on Indian data 

that are contemporaneous with the POR, 

giving further credence to the use of 

India as a surrogate country. See, e.g., 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

52282 (September 9, 2008). The sources 

of the surrogate values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below and in the Memorandum entitled 

‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate–Values Memorandum,’’ dated 

July 22, 2009 (Surrogate–Value 

Memorandum). 

U.S. Price 

A. Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we based U.S. price on the 

export price (EP) for sales to the United 

States because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated party was made before the 

date of importation and the use of 

constructed EP was not otherwise 

warranted. We calculated EP for Rally 

based on the prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. 

In accordance with section 772(c) of 

the Act, we first added adjustments to 

the gross unit price and then deducted 

from the price to unaffiliated 

purchasers, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight, brokerage and handling, 

international freight, and marine 

insurance. See Memorandum from 

Catherine Cartsos to the File, 

‘‘Administrative Review of Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

Memorandum for Rally Plastics Co., 

Ltd.,’’ dated July 22, 2009 (Analysis 

Memorandum). Consistent with Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

46584 (August 11, 2008) (OJ Brazil 

Final), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 7, 

we have incorporated freight–related 

revenues as offsets to movement 

expenses because they relate to the 

movement and transportation of subject 

merchandise. We also incorporated 

packing–related revenue as an offset to 

packing expenses because these items 

relate to the packing of subject 

merchandise (see OJ Brazil Final). 

For certain transactions, Rally 

requested an adjustment for 

remuneration for samples. Because 

Rally has not adequately supported its 

claim, we have denied this claim for an 

adjustment to U.S. price. See Analysis 

Memorandum. 

B. Surrogate Values for Expenses 

Incurred in the PRC for U.S. Sales 

Rally reported that, for certain U.S. 

sales, foreign inland freight was 

provided by an NME vendor or it paid 

for freight using an NME currency. In 

such instances, we based the deduction 

of these charges on surrogate values. We 

valued foreign inland freight with the 

surrogate value for truck freight. For 

foreign brokerage and handling, marine 

insurance, and international freight, 

Rally reported using market–economy 

vendors and stated that it paid these 

expenses in a market–economy 

currency. Where movement services 

were provided by a market–economy 

vendor and the respondent paid in a 

market–economy currency, we deducted 

the actual cost per kilogram of the 

freight. See Surrogate–Value 

Memorandum. 

Normal Value 

A. Methodology 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine the normal value using an 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

37696 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

FOP methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME country and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of normal value using 

home–market prices, third–country 

prices, or constructed value under 

section 773(a) of the Act. The 

Department bases normal value on the 

FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NME countries renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under the 

Department’s normal methodologies. 

See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744 

(July 11, 2005) (unchanged in Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 2003–2004 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 71 FR 2517 (January 17, 2006)). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), when a producer sources 

an input from a market–economy 

country and pays for it in a market– 

economy currency, the Department will 

normally value the factor using the 

actual price paid for the input. See 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal 

Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 

1445–1446 (CAFC 1994) (affirming the 

Department’s use of market–based 

prices to value certain FOPs). Where a 

portion of the input is purchased from 

a market–economy supplier and the 

remainder from an NME supplier, the 

Department will normally use the price 

paid for the inputs sourced from 

market–economy suppliers to value all 

of the input, provided the volume of the 

market–economy inputs as a share of 

total purchases from all sources is 

‘‘meaningful.’’ See Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997), and 

Shakeproof v. United States, 268 F.3d 

1376, 1382 (CAFC 2001). See also 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(1). 

The Department has instituted a 

rebuttable presumption that market– 

economy input prices are the best 

available information for valuing an 

input when the total volume of the 

input purchased from all market– 

economy sources during the POR 

exceeds 33 percent of the total volume 

of the input purchased from all sources 

during the same period. In such cases, 

unless case–specific facts provide 

adequate grounds to rebut the 

Department’s presumption, the 

Department will use the weighted– 

average market–economy purchase price 

to value the input. 

Alternatively, when the volume of an 

NME firm’s purchases of an input from 

market–economy suppliers during the 

period is equal to or below 33 percent 

of its total volume of purchases of the 

input during the period but where these 

purchases are otherwise valid and there 

is no reason to disregard the prices, the 

Department will weight–average the 

weighted–average market–economy 

purchase price with an appropriate 

surrogate value according to their 

respective shares of the total volume of 

purchases unless case–specific facts 

provide adequate grounds to rebut the 

presumption. When a firm has made 

market–economy input purchases that 

may have been dumped or subsidized, 

are not bona fide, or are otherwise not 

acceptable for use in a dumping 

calculation, the Department will 

exclude them from the numerator of the 

ratio to ensure a fair determination of 

whether valid market–economy 

purchases meet the 33–percent 

threshold. See Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 

Expected Non–Market Economy Wages, 

Duty Drawback; and Request for 

Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717–19 

(October 19, 2006). Also, where the 

quantity of the input purchased from 

market–economy suppliers is 

insignificant, the Department will not 

rely on the price paid by an NME 

producer to a market–economy supplier 

because it cannot have confidence that 

a company could fulfill all its needs at 

that price. Id. 

We have found in other proceedings 

that Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand maintain broadly available, 

non–industry-specific export subsidies. 

Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that 

all exports to all markets from these 

countries may be subsidized and it is 

our practice to disregard input prices 

from such countries. See China Nat’l 

Mach. Import & Export Corp. v. United 

States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (CIT 

2003), aff’d 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004), and Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: 

Notice of Final Results and Final Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651 

(March 15, 2005), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 4. The legislative history 

reflects the Department’s practice that, 

in making its determination as to 

whether input values may be 

subsidized, the Department does not 

conduct a formal investigation; rather, 

the Department bases its decision on 

information that is available to it at the 

time it makes its determination. See 

H.R. Rep. 100–576, at 590 (1988), 

reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 

1623–24. 

The FOPs for PRCBs include the 

following elements: (1) quantities of raw 

materials employed; (2) hours of labor 

required; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; (4) 

representative capital and selling costs; 

(5) packing materials. We used the FOPs 

reported by the respondent for 

materials, labor, energy, by–products, 

and packing. 

B. FOP Valuation 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated normal value 

based on the FOPs reported by the 

respondent for the POR. To calculate 

normal value, we multiplied the 

reported per–unit factor–consumption 

rates by publicly available surrogate 

values. In selecting the surrogate values, 

we considered the quality, specificity, 

and contemporaneity of the data. 

During the POR, Rally purchased 

some of the inputs exclusively from 

market–economy suppliers in a market– 

economy currency. We valued these 

inputs at the weighted–average market– 

economy purchase price the respondent 

reported. Consistent with our practice as 

described above, we have disregarded 

all market–economy input prices from 

all countries that we suspect subsidize 

the input price. For further analysis, see 

Surrogate–Value Memorandum. 

During the POR, Rally purchased 

some of the inputs from market– 

economy suppliers in an market– 

economy currency and from NME 

suppliers in NME currency. 

Accordingly, we have weight–averaged 

the market–economy input price with 

the appropriate surrogate value. 

Consistent with our practice as 

described above, we have disregarded 

all market–economy input prices from 

all countries that we suspect subsidize 

the input price. For further analysis, see 

Surrogate–Value Memorandum. 

During the POR, Rally purchased 

certain inputs exclusively from NME 

suppliers in an NME currency. We have 

valued these inputs using surrogate 

values from a market–economy country 

that is at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

PRC and a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise. For further 

analysis, see Surrogate–Value 

Memorandum. 

It is the Department’s practice to 

calculate price–index adjustors to 

inflate or deflate, as appropriate, 

surrogate values that are not 

contemporaneous with the POR using 

the wholesale price index for the subject 

country. See, e.g., Certain Preserved 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37697 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

71 FR 38617, 38619 (July 7, 2006) 

(unchanged in Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

71 FR 66910 (November 17, 2006)). 

Therefore, where we could not obtain 

publicly available information 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

adjusted surrogate values using the 

Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for India as 

published in the International Financial 

Statistics of the International Monetary 

Fund. 

Except as indicated below, we valued 

raw–material inputs using the 

weighted–average unit import values 

derived from the Monthly Statistics of 

the Foreign Trade of India, as published 

by the Directorate General of 

Commercial Intelligence and Statistics 

of the Ministry of Commerce and 

Industry, Government of India in the 

World Trade Atlas (WTA), available at 

http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. 

Consistent with our practice as 

described above, for those surrogate 

values based upon Indian import 

statistics, we disregarded input prices 

from all countries that we suspect 

subsidize the input price. 

We have also disregarded Indian 

import data concerning raw materials 

from countries that we have previously 

determined to be NME countries as well 

as imports originating from 

‘‘unspecified’’ countries because we 

could not be certain that they were not 

from either an NME country or a 

country with generally available export 

subsidies. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 

(December 16, 2004), (unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates From the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 24502 (May 

10, 2005)). For a comprehensive list of 

the sources and data we used to 

determine the surrogate vales for the 

FOPs, by–products, and the surrogate 

financial ratios for factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses (SG&A), and profit, see 

Surrogate–Value Memorandum. 

Where appropriate, we adjusted the 

Indian import prices by including 

freight costs to make them delivered 

prices. Specifically, we added to the 

Indian import prices a surrogate freight 

cost using the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the production factory or the distance 

from the nearest seaport to the 

production factory where appropriate. 

This adjustment is in accordance with 

the decision by the Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407– 

1408 (CAFC 1997). Where we did not 

use Indian import data as the basis of 

the surrogate value, we calculated 

inland freight based on the reported 

distance from the supplier to the 

factory. We valued truck–freight 

expenses using a per–unit average rate 

calculated from data on the following 

Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/ 

logistics/logtruck.htm. See Surrogate– 

Value Memorandum. The logistics 

section of this Web site contains inland– 

freight truck rates between many large 

Indian cities. Because this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the rate using the WPI. See 

Surrogate–Value Memorandum. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication titled Electricity Tariff & 

Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India, dated July 2006. These 

electricity rates represent actual 

country–wide, publicly available 

information on tax–exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. 

Because the rates are not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the values using the WPI. See 

Surrogate–Value Memorandum. 

For direct labor, indirect labor, and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression–based wage rate as reported 

on the Import Administration web site. 

See Corrected 2007 Calculation of 

Expected Non–Market Economy Wages, 

73 FR 27795, 27796 (May 14, 2008) 

(available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). 

The source of these wage–rate data on 

the Import Administration website is 

the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003, 

ILO (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages 

in Manufacturing. The years of the 

reported wage rates range from 2003 

through 2004. Because this regression– 

based wage rate does not separate the 

labor rates into different skill levels or 

types of labor, we have applied the same 

wage rate to all skill levels and types of 

labor reported by the respondent. See 

Surrogate–Value Memorandum. 

To value factory overhead, SG&A, and 

profit values, we used information from 

M/S Synthetic Packers Private Ltd. for 

the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008. 

From this information, we were able to 

determine factory overhead as a 

percentage of the total raw materials, 

labor and energy (ML&E) costs, SG&A as 

a percentage of ML&E plus overhead 

(i.e., cost of manufacture), and profit as 

a percentage of the cost of manufacture 

plus SG&A. See Surrogate–Value 

Memorandum. 

For packing materials, we used the 

per–kilogram values obtained from the 

WTA and made adjustments to account 

for freight costs incurred between the 

PRC suppliers and the respondent’s 

production facilities. See Surrogate– 

Value Memorandum. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that a 

weighted–average dumping margin of 

17.95 percent exists for Rally for the 

period August 1, 2007, through July 31, 

2008. 

Comments 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties in this review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs no later than 

20 days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results of review. See 

19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii). Any interested 

party may request a hearing within 30 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310. Interested 

parties who wish to request a hearing or 

to participate in a hearing if a hearing 

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 the following: 

(1) the party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; (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 the case briefs. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from 

interested parties may be submitted not 

later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice of preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs from 

interested parties, limited to the issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be 

submitted not later than five days after 

the time limit for filing the case briefs 

or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). 

If requested, any hearing will be held 

two days after the scheduled date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument a statement of the issue, 

a summary of the arguments not 

exceeding five pages, and a table of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

37698 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs 

or at the hearing, if held, not later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 

calculated importer–specific (or 

customer–specific) assessment rates for 

merchandise subject to this review. 

For these preliminary results, we 

divided the total dumping margins 

(calculated as the difference between 

normal value and EP) for each of Rally’s 

importers or customers by the total 

number of units the exporter sold to that 

importer or customer. We will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per–unit 

dollar amount against each unit of 

merchandise in each of that importer’s/ 

customer’s entries during the review 

period. 

We intend to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of the final results of 

review. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the notice of final results 

of the administrative review for all 

shipments of PRCBs from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by section 

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for subject 

merchandise exported by Rally, the 

cash–deposit rate will be that 

established in the final results of review; 

(2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash– 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash–deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 77.57 percent; 

(4) for all non–PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise, the cash–deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter that supplied that exporter. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also 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 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: July 22, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–18086 Filed 7–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: 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 

September 28, 2009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

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

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, publishes that notice 

containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection, 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or 

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of 

the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

The Department of Education is 

especially interested in public comment 

addressing the following issues: (1) Is 

this collection necessary to the proper 

functions of the Department; (2) will 

this information be processed and used 

in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate 

of burden accurate; (4) how might the 

Department enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (5) how might the 

Department minimize the burden of this 

collection on the respondents, including 

through the use of information 

technology. 

Dated: July 23, 2009. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

Director, Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Federal Student Aid 

Type of Review: New. 

Title: William D. Ford Federal Direct 

Loan Program (DL) Regulations— 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

(SCRA). 

Frequency: On Occasion. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

household; State, Local, or Tribal Gov’t, 

SEAs or LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 4,500. 

Burden Hours: 743. 

Abstract: The William D Ford Federal 

Direct Loan Program proposed 

regulations revise current regulations in 

areas of program administration. The 

proposed regulations assure the 

Secretary that the integrity of the 

program is protected from fraud and 

misuse of program funds. The proposed 

regulations would provide that upon a 

loan holder’s receipt of a written request 

from a borrower and a copy of the 

borrower’s military orders, the 

maximum interest rate that may be 

charged on Stafford loans made prior to 

entering active military duty is six 

percent while on active duty. 

Requests for copies of the proposed 

information collection request may be 

accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, 

by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending 

Collections’’ link and by clicking on 

link number 4056. When you access the 

information collection, click on 

‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. 

Written requests for information should 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES