14772 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

1See Notice of Amendment of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China, 

64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999). 

2Based on the name by which Zhangzhou 

Gangchang identified itself in its request for new 

shipper review, the Department initiated the review 

for this company under the name Zhangzhou 

Gangchang Canned Foods Co., Ltd. See Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 57333 (October 2, 

2008). However, Zhangzhou Gangchang 

subsequently stated that its name is actually 

Zhangzhou Gangchang Canned Foods Co., Ltd., 

Fujian. See Zhangzhou Gangchang’s January 16, 

2009, submission at 8. Record evidence supports 

Zhangzhou Gangchang’s contention. See 

Zhangzhou Gangchang’s November 6, 2008, 

submission at Exhibit A-4. Therefore in this and 

subsequent notices we refer to Zhangzhou 

Gangchang by its correct name. 

which it requested the review, the 

interested party must provide an 

explanation of the attempts it made to 

locate the producer or exporter at the 

same time it files its request for review, 

in order for the Secretary to determine 

if the interested party’s attempts were 

reasonable, pursuant to section 

351.303(f)(3)(ii) of the regulations. 

As explained in Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), the Department 

has clarified its practice with respect to 

the collection of final antidumping 

duties on imports of merchandise where 

intermediate firms are involved. The 

public should be aware of this 

clarification in determining whether to 

request an administrative review of 

merchandise subject to antidumping 

findings and orders. See also the Import 

Administration web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov. 

Six copies of the request should be 

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street & 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230. The Department also asks 

parties to serve a copy of their requests 

to the Office of Antidumping/ 

Countervailing Operations, Attention: 

Sheila Forbes, in room 3065 of the main 

Commerce Building. Further, in 

accordance with section 351.303(f)(l)(i) 

of the regulations, a copy of each 

request must be served on every party 

on the Department’s service list. 

The Department will publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation 

of Administrative Review of 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation’’ for requests received by 

the last day of April 2009. If the 

Department does not receive, by the last 

day of April 2009, a request for review 

of entries covered by an order, finding, 

or suspended investigation listed in this 

notice and for the period identified 

above, the Department will instruct the 

CBP to assess antidumping or 

countervailing duties on those entries at 

a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or 

bond for) estimated antidumping or 

countervailing duties required on those 

entries at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption and to continue to collect 

the cash deposit previously ordered. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: March 19, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–7292 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–851] 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 2009. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is currently 

conducting new shipper reviews (NSRs) 

of the antidumping duty order on 

certain preserved mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC)1

covering the period of review February 

1, 2008, through July 31, 2008. We 

preliminarily determine that the sales 

made by Zhangzhou Gangchang Canned 

Foods Co., Ltd., Fujian (Zhangzhou 

Gangchang)2 and by Zhejiang Iceman 

Group Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Iceman), were 

not made below normal value (NV). If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results of this review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on entries of subject merchandise 

during the period of review (POR) for 

any importer–specific assessment rates 

that are above de minimis. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2924 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 21, 2008, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), 

and 19 CFR 351.214(c), the Department 

received a NSR request from Zhejiang 

Iceman. On August 22, 2008, we 

received a NSR request from Zhangzhou 

Gangchang, also pursuant to 

751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act the 19 

CFR 351.214(c). The Department 

determined that both of these requests 

had not been properly filed, and 

therefore returned them on August 26, 

2008. On August 29, 2008, both 

companies resubmitted their requests. 

They both certified that they are the 

producers and exporters of the subject 

merchandise upon which the requests 

were based. 

On October 2, 2008, the Department 

initiated antidumping duty NSRs on 

certain preserved mushrooms from the 

PRC covering the two companies. See 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 57333 (October 

2, 2008) (Initiation Notice). 

On October 8, 2008, the Department 

issued its standard antidumping 

questionnaire to both Zhejiang Iceman 

and Zhangzhou Gangchang. Between 

November 2008 and February 2009, 

Zhejiang Iceman and Zhangzhou 

Gangchang submitted responses to the 

original sections A, C, and D 

questionnaires and supplemental 

sections A, C, and D questionnaires. 

On November 3, 2008, the Department 

sent interested parties a letter requesting 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and information pertaining to 

valuing factors of production (FOP). On 

February 17, 2009, Zhejiang Iceman and 

Zhangzhou Gangchang submitted 

surrogate value data. No other party 

submitted surrogate country or surrogate 

value data. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain preserved mushrooms, 

whether imported whole, sliced, diced, 

or as stems and pieces. The certain 

preserved mushrooms covered under 

this order are the species Agaricus 

bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. 

‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms’’ refers 

to mushrooms that have been prepared 

or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and 

sometimes slicing or cutting. These 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 14773 

3On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that 

‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms 

containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are 

within the scope of the antidumping duty order. 

See Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling of 

Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain 

Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China,≥ 

dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit upheld this decision. See Tak Fat v. United 

States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

4See SAA, H.R. Doc. 103-316, vol. 1 at 838 

(1994). 

mushrooms are then packed and heated 

in containers including, but not limited 

to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid 

medium, including, but not limited to, 

water, brine, butter or butter sauce. 

Certain preserved mushrooms may be 

imported whole, sliced, diced, or as 

stems and pieces. Included within the 

scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’ 

mushrooms, which are presalted and 

packed in a heavy salt solution to 

provisionally preserve them for further 

processing.3

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are the following: (1) All other species 

of mushroom, including straw 

mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled 

mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or 

‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’’ (3) dried 

mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and 

(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or 

‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are 

prepared or preserved by means of 

vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain 

oil or other additives. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is classifiable under subheadings: 

2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 

2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 

2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 

0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and Customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive. 

Non–Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, we have 

treated the PRC as a non–market 

economy (NME) country. In accordance 

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

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 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 

normal value (NV) in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Tariff Act, which 

applies to NME countries. 

Affiliation 

Section 771(33) the Tariff Act 

provides that the following persons 

shall be considered to be ‘‘affiliated’’ or 

‘‘affiliated persons≥: (A) Members of a 

family, including brothers and sisters 

(whether by the whole or half blood), 

spouse, ancestors, and lineal 

descendants; (B) Any officer or director 

of an organization and such 

organization; (C) Partners; (D) Employer 

and employee; (E) Any person directly 

or indirectly owning, controlling, or 

holding with power to vote, 5 percent or 

more of the outstanding voting stock or 

shares of any organization and such 

organization; (F) Two or more persons 

directly or indirectly controlling, 

controlled by, or under common control 

with, any person; or (G) Any person 

who controls any other person and such 

other person. The Act further provides 

that ‘‘a person shall be considered to 

control another person if the person is 

legally or operationally in a position to 

exercise restraint or direction over the 

other person.’’ Id. 

The Statement of Administrative 

Action (SAA) to the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act states the following: the 

traditional focus on control through 

stock ownership fails to address 

adequately modern business 

arrangements, which often find one firm 

‘‘operationally in a position to exercise 

restraint or direction’’ over another even 

in the absence of an equity relationship. 

A company may be in a position to 

exercise restraint or direction, for 

example, through corporate or family 

groupings, franchises or joint venture 

agreements, debt financing, or close 

supplier relationships in which the 

supplier or buyer becomes reliant upon 

the other.4

Section 351.102(b)(3) of the 

Department’s regulations defines 

affiliated persons and affiliated parties 

as having the same meaning as in 

section 771(33) of the Act and states 

that: ‘‘In determining whether control 

over another person exists, within the 

meaning of section 771(33) of the Act, 

the Secretary will consider the 

following factors, among others: 

corporate or family groupings; franchise 

or joint venture agreements; debt 

financing; and close supplier 

relationships. The Secretary will not 

find that control exists on the basis of 

these factors unless the relationship has 

the potential to impact decisions 

concerning the production, pricing, or 

cost of the subject merchandise or 

foreign like product. The Secretary will 

consider the temporal aspect of a 

relationship in determining whether 

control exists; normally, temporary 

circumstances will not suffice as 

evidence of control.’’ 

To the extent that section 771(33) of 

the Tariff Act does not conflict with the 

Department’s application of separate 

rates and enforcement of the non– 

market economy provision, pursuant to 

section 773(c) of the Tariff Act, the 

Department will determine that 

exporters and/or producers are affiliated 

if the facts of the case support such a 

finding. For the reasons discussed 

below, we find that this condition has 

not prevented us from examining 

whether certain producers are affiliated 

with Zhejiang Iceman in this 

administrative review. 

The record of this NSR demonstrates 

that Zhejiang Iceman Group Co. Ltd. 

(Zhejiang Iceman) and Dangshan 

Xincheng Foods Co. Ltd. (Dangshan) are 

affiliated, pursuant to section 771(33)(E) 

of the Act. See Memorandum from 

Robert James, Program Manager, to 

Richard Weible, Office Director, entitled 

‘‘Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China: Affiliation 

and Collapsing of Zhejiang Iceman 

Group Co. Ltd. and Dangshan Xincheng 

Foods Co., Ltd.,’’ dated March 25, 2009 

(Collapsing Memorandum). Zhejiang 

Iceman directly owns greater than 5 

percent of the voting shares of 

Dangshan. See Collapsing Memorandum 

at pages 3 and 4. Also, both of Zhejiang 

Iceman’s owners, Mr. Shen Ronglu, and 

his wife, Mrs. Xiang Ping, collectively 

own 100 percent of the shares of 

Zhejiang Iceman, and directly own 

greater than 5 percent of the voting 

shares of Dangshan. Id. Record evidence 

also shows Zhejiang Iceman and 

Dangshan are under the common 

control of Mr. Shen Ronglu, and are, 

therefore affiliated under section 

771(33)(F) of the Tariff act. Id. Zhejiang 

Iceman also claims it is controlled by its 

owner, Mr. Shen Ronglu, who is also the 

general manager of Zhejiang Iceman. Id. 

Zhejiang Iceman also claims Shen 

Ronglu has sole authority to bind both 

Zhejiang Icemen and Dangshan in 

agreements. Id. Further, record evidence 

shows that both Mr. Shen Ronglu, and 

his wife, Mrs. Xiang Ping, are affiliated 

as members of a family under section 

771(33)(A) of the Tariff Act. Id. 

Based on our analysis, we 

preliminarily find that, during the POR, 

producer/exporter Zhejiang Iceman and 

Dangshan were, in fact, affiliated 

through the common ownership and 

control of Zhejiang Iceman’s and 

Dangshan’s joint owners (who are 

14774 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

affiliated as family members under 

771(33)(A)) and pursuant to sections 

771(33)(E) and (F) of the Tariff Act. For 

further discussion on this matter, see 

Collapsing Memorandum. 

Collapsing 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the 

Department will collapse producers and 

treat them as a single entity where (1) 

those producers are affiliated, (2) the 

producers have production facilities for 

producing similar or identical products 

that would not require substantial 

retooling of either facility in order to 

restructure manufacturing priorities, 

and (3) there is a significant potential 

for manipulation of price or production. 

To the extent that this provision does 

not conflict with the Department’s 

application of separate rates and 

enforcement of the NME provision, 

section 773(c) of the Tariff Act, the 

Department will collapse two or more 

affiliated entities in a case involving an 

NME country if the facts of the case 

warrant such treatment. Furthermore, 

we note the factors listed in 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(2) are not exhaustive, and in 

the context of an NME investigation or 

administrative review, other factors 

unique to the relationship of business 

entities within the NME may lead the 

Department to determine that collapsing 

is either warranted or unwarranted, 

depending on the facts of the case. See 

Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United 

States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1342 (CIT 

2003) (noting that the application of 

collapsing in the NME context may 

differ from the standard factors listed in 

the regulation). 

In summary, if there is evidence of 

significant potential for manipulation 

between or among affiliates which 

produce and/or export similar or 

identical merchandise, whether or not 

all such merchandise is exported to the 

United States, the Department may find 

such evidence sufficient to apply the 

collapsing criteria in an NME context in 

order to determine whether all or some 

of those affiliates should be treated as 

one entity (see Certain Hot–Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 

People’s Republic of China, Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001); 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot– 

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 

49632 (September 28, 2001) (Certain 

Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products); 

and Anshan Iron & Steel Co. v. United 

States, 27 C.I.T. 1234, 1246–47 (CIT 

2003) (Anshan)). 

The decision of whether to collapse 

two or more affiliated companies is 

specific to the facts presented in the 

proceeding and is based on several 

considerations, including the structure 

of the collapsed entity, the level of 

control between and among affiliates, 

and the level of participation by each 

affiliate in the proceeding. Given the 

unique relationships which arise in 

NMEs between individual companies 

and the government, a separate rate will 

be granted to the collapsed entity only 

if the facts, taken as a whole, support 

such a finding (see ‘‘Separate Rates’’ 

section below for further discussion). 

We find that the first and second 

collapsing criteria are met with respect 

to Zhejiang Icemen and Dangshan 

because these producers are (1) 

affiliated under sections 771(33)(A), 

771(33)(E), and 771(33)(F) of the Tariff 

Act, and (2) have production facilities 

for producing similar or identical 

products, such that no retooling at 

either of the three facilities would be 

required in order to restructure 

manufacturing priorities. Evidence on 

the record shows Zhejiang Iceman and 

Dangshan have production facilities 

which were suitable for producing the 

type of merchandise under 

consideration during the POR. Both 

Zhejiang Iceman and Dangshan did, in 

fact, produce the merchandise under 

consideration at these facilities during 

the POR. See Collapsing Memorandum 

at pages 4 and 5. 

We find the third collapsing criterion 

is also met with respect to Zhejiang 

Icemen and Dangshan because a 

significant potential for manipulation of 

prices or production exists. In 

identifying a significant potential for the 

manipulation of price or production, the 

factors the Secretary may consider 

include: (i) the level of common 

ownership; (ii) the extent to which 

managerial employees or board 

members of one firm sit on the board of 

directors of an affiliated firm; (iii) and 

whether operations are intertwined, 

such as through the sharing of sales 

information, involvement in production 

and pricing decisions, the sharing of 

facilities or employees, or significant 

transactions between the affiliated 

producers. See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). 

With regard to the criteria enumerated 

in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2), there is 

common ownership and control of 

Zhejiang Iceman and Dangshan by both 

Mr. Shen Ronglu and Mrs. Xiang Ping. 

Because the individuals who 

collectively own and control Zhejaing 

Iceman also collectively own and 

control Dangshan, we can preliminarily 

collapse these affiliated producers. 

Additionally, Mr. Shen Ronglu is the 

executive director and general manager 

of Zhejiang Iceman and has sole 

authority to bind both Zhejiang Iceman 

and Dangshan in agreements and, as a 

result, can manipulate prices and 

production. For these reasons, we find 

there is significant potential for 

manipulation of prices or production 

and, therefore, collapsing of Zhejiang 

Icemen and Dangshan is appropriate. 

Based on the reasons explained fully 

in the Collapsing Memorandum and 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), we have 

preliminarily collapsed Zhejiang Iceman 

and Dangshan because they are 

affiliated producers of the merchandise 

under consideration, and because there 

is a significant potential for 

manipulation of prices and production 

decisions between these parties. For all 

relevant purposes, all subsequent 

references in this notice to Zhejiang 

Iceman will be to the collapsed entity 

that includes Dangshan. 

This decision is specific to the facts 

presented in this review and is based on 

several considerations, including the 

structure of the collapsed entity, the 

level of control between and among 

affiliates, and the level of participation 

by each affiliate in the proceeding. 

Given the unique relationships which 

arise in NMEs between individual 

companies and the government, a 

separate rate will be granted to the 

collapsed entity only if the facts, taken 

as a whole, support such a finding (see 

‘‘Separate Rates’’ section below for 

further discussion). 

Separate Rates Determination 

A designation of a country as an NME 

remains in effect until it is revoked by 

the Department. See section 771(18)(C) 

of the Tariff 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 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 exports. To 

establish whether a company is 

sufficiently independent to be entitled 

to 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). 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 14775 

5For more detailed discussion of this issue, 

please see Memoranda to Richard Weible, Office 

Director, ‘‘Bona Fide Sales Analysis for Zhangzhou 

Gangchang Canned Foods Co., Ltd., Fujian’’ and 

‘‘Bona Fide Sales Analysis for Zhejiang Iceman 

Group Co., Ltd.,’’ both dated March 25, 2009. 

6See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Acting 

Director, Office of Policy, to Richard Weible, 

Director, Office 7; Subject: Request for a List of 

Surrogate Countries for a 2008 New Shipper Review 

of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China, dated October 16, 2008. 

Absence of De Jure Control 

Evidence supporting, though not 

requiring, a finding of de jure absence 

of government control over export 

activities includes: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

the individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. In this new 

shipper review, Zhejiang Iceman and 

Zhangzhou Gangchang submitted 

complete responses to the separate rates 

section of the Department’s 

questionnaire. The evidence submitted 

in the instant review by Zhejiang 

Iceman and Zhangzhou Gangchang 

includes government laws and 

regulations on corporate ownership and 

control (i.e., the Company Law and the 

Foreign Trade Law of the People’s 

Republic of China), individual business 

licenses, and narrative information 

regarding the companies’ operations and 

selection of management. The evidence 

provided by Zhejiang Iceman and 

Zhangzhou Gangchang supports a 

preliminary finding of a de jure absence 

of government control over its export 

activities because: (1) there are no 

controls on exports of subject 

merchandise, such as quotas applied to, 

or licenses required for, exports of the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States; and (2) the government of the 

PRC has passed legislation 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Zhejiang Iceman’s November 6, 2008, 

submission at pages 2–10 and Exhibit 

A–4; Zhejiang Iceman’s January 13, 

2009, submission at pages 4–5; and 

Zhangzhou Gangchang’s November 6, 

2008, submission at pages 6–10 and 

Exhibit A–2. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

The absence of de facto government 

control over exports generally is based 

on whether the respondent: (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 Silicon Carbide, 59 

FR at 22586–87; Sparklers, 56 FR at 

20589; and 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). 

In its November 6, 2008, submission, 

Zhangzhou Gangchang submitted 

evidence demonstrating an absence of 

de facto government control over its 

export activities. Specifically, this 

evidence indicates: (1) the company sets 

its own export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) the 

company retains the proceeds from its 

sales and makes independent decisions 

regarding the disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) the company has 

a general manager and a sales manager 

with the authority to negotiate and bind 

the company in an agreement; (4) the 

general manager is selected by the board 

of directors, and the general manager 

appoints the manager of each 

department; and (5) there is no 

restriction on the company’s use of 

export revenues. Therefore, we 

preliminarily find that Zhangzhou 

Gangchang has established prima facie 

that it qualifies for a separate rate under 

the criteria established by Silicon 

Carbide and Sparklers. 

Similarly, in its November 6, 2008, 

January 13, 2009, and February 17, 2009 

submissions, Zhejiang Iceman also 

submitted evidence demonstrating an 

absence of de facto government control 

over its export activities. Specifically, 

this evidence indicates: (1) the company 

sets its own export prices independent 

of the government and without the 

approval of a government authority; (2) 

the company retains the proceeds from 

its sales and makes independent 

decisions regarding the disposition of 

profits or financing of losses; (3) the 

company has an executive director who 

is also the general manager and who has 

the authority to negotiate and bind the 

company in an agreement; (4) the 

executive director and general manager 

and his wife collectively own all of the 

shares of company, and are self– 

appointed; (5) the executive director 

and general manager appoint all of the 

managers of the company; and (6) there 

is no restriction on the company’s use 

of export revenues. Therefore, we 

preliminarily find that Zhejiang Iceman 

has established prima facie that it 

qualifies for a separate rate under the 

criteria established by Silicon Carbide 

and Sparklers. 

Bona Fide Analysis 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we investigated the bona fide 

nature of the sales made by Zhejiang 

Iceman and Zhangzhou Gangchang for 

these NSRs. We found the new shipper 

sales by Zhejiang Iceman and 

Zhangzhou Gangchang were made on a 

bona fide basis. Based on our 

investigation into the bona fide nature 

of the sales and the questionnaire 

responses submitted by Zhejiang Iceman 

and Zhangzhou Gangchang, as well as 

the companies’ eligibility for separate 

rates (see ‘‘Separate Rates 

Determination’’ section (above)), we 

preliminarily determine that Zhejiang 

Iceman and Zhangzhou Gangchang have 

met the requirements to qualify as new 

shippers during this POR. Therefore, for 

purposes of these preliminary results of 

review, we are treating Zhejiang 

Iceman’s and Zhangzhou Gangchang’s 

sales of subject merchandise to the 

United States as appropriate 

transactions for these NSRs.5

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

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

base NV, in most circumstances, 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 Tariff 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. 

The Department determined that 

India, Philippines, Colombia, Thailand, 

and Indonesia are countries comparable 

to the PRC in terms of economic 

development.6 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) (Surrogate 

Country Policy Bulletin). Since the less– 

than-fair–value investigation, we have 

determined that India is comparable to 

the PRC in terms of economic 

development and has surrogate value 

data that are available and reliable. In 

this proceeding, we received no 

comments regarding surrogate country 

selection. Since no information has been 

14776 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

provided in this review that would 

warrant a change in the Department’s 

selection of India from prior segments of 

this proceeding, we continue to find 

that India is the appropriate surrogate 

country here because it is at a similar 

level of economic development 

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

Tariff Act, is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise, and has 

reliable, publicly available data 

representing a broad–market average. 

See Memorandum to the File, through 

Richard Weible, Office Director, and 

Robert James, Program manager, from 

Fred Baker, Analyst, Subject: 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated 

March 25, 2009. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in 

a new shipper review, interested parties 

may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Tariff Act, we based U.S. prices on 

the export prices (EP) of the sales to the 

United States by Zhejiang Iceman and 

Zhangzhou Gangchang because their 

first sales to an unaffiliated party were 

made before the date of importation and 

the use of constructed export price was 

not otherwise warranted. We calculated 

EP based on the free–on-board (FOB) 

price to the first unaffiliated purchaser 

in the United States. We deducted 

foreign inland freight and foreign 

brokerage and handling from the 

starting price (or gross unit price), in 

accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Tariff Act. Both of these services were 

provided by NME vendors for both 

Zhejiang Iceman’s and Zhangzhou 

Gangchang’s U.S. sales. Therefore, we 

based the deduction of these movement 

charges on surrogate values. 

We valued foreign inland freight 

(which consisted of truck freight) using 

a per–unit average rate calculated from 

data on the following website: http:// 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. Since this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the rate using the wholesale 

price index (WPI). See Memoranda to 

the File, ‘‘New Shipper Review of 

Certain Preserved Mushroom from the 

People’s Republic of China: Surrogate 

Values for the Preliminary Results’’ 

(Zhangzhou Gangchang Surrogate 

Values Memorandum) at Exhibit 7, and 

‘‘New Shipper Review of Certain 

Preserved Mushroom from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Values for 

the Preliminary Results’’ (Zhejiang 

Iceman Surrogate Values Memorandum) 

at Exhibit X. 

We valued foreign brokerage and 

handling with the publicly summarized 

brokerage and handling expense 

reported in the U.S. sales listing of 

Indian mushroom producer, Agro Dutch 

Industries, Ltd. (Agro Dutch), in the 

2004–2005 administrative review of 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 

India. See Zhangzhou Gangchang 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Exhibit 8 and Zhejiang Iceman 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Exhibit XI. 

Normal Value 

1. Methodology 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine the NV using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME 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 Tariff Act. The Department bases 

NV on FOPs 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. 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). 

We calculated NV by adding the value 

of the FOPs, general expenses, profit, 

and packing costs. The FOPs for subject 

merchandise include: (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; 

and (5) packing materials. We used the 

FOPs reported by Zhejiang Iceman and 

Zhangzhou Gangchang for materials, 

energy, labor, and packing, and valued 

those FOPs by multiplying the amount 

of the factor consumed in producing 

subject merchandise by the average unit 

surrogate value of the factor. 

In addition, we added freight costs to 

the surrogate costs that we calculated 

for material inputs. We calculated 

freight costs by multiplying surrogate 

freight rates by the shorter of the 

reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory that produced the 

subject merchandise or the distance 

from the nearest seaport to the factory 

that produced the subject merchandise, 

as appropriate. Where there were 

multiple domestic suppliers of a 

material input, we calculated a 

weighted–average distance after limiting 

each supplier’s distance to no more than 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

Zhejiang Iceman and Zhangzhou 

Gangchang. 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 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

We increased the calculated costs of the 

FOPs for surrogate general expenses and 

profit. See Zhangzhou Gangchang 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Exhibit 8 and Zhejiang Iceman 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Exhibit XII. 

2. Selection of Surrogate Values 

In selecting surrogate values, we 

followed, to the extent practicable, the 

Department’s practice of choosing 

public values which are non–export 

averages, representative of a range of 

prices in effect during the POR, or over 

a period as close as possible in time to 

the POR, product–specific, and tax– 

exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). We also 

considered the quality of the source of 

surrogate information in selecting 

surrogate values. See Manganese Metal 

From the People’s Republic of China; 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). 

Where we could obtain only surrogate 

values that were not contemporaneous 

with the POR, we inflated (or deflated) 

the surrogate values using, where 

appropriate, the Indian WPI as 

published in International Financial 

Statistics by the International Monetary 

Fund. See Zhangzhou Gangchang 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 14777 

Exhibit 2 and Zhejiang Iceman 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Exhibit III. 

In calculating surrogate values from 

import statistics, in accordance with the 

Department’s practice, we disregarded 

statistics for imports from NME 

countries and countries deemed to 

maintain broadly available, non– 

industry-specific subsidies which may 

benefit all exporters to all export 

markets (e.g., Indonesia, South Korea, 

and Thailand). See, e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields From 

The People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

6482 (February 12, 2002) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. See also 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

and Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November 

28, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). 

Additionally, we excluded from our 

calculations imports that were labeled 

as originating from an unspecified 

country because we could not determine 

whether they were from an NME 

country. 

We valued production material inputs 

of mushroom spawn, rice straw, and 

manure using the financial statements of 

Agro Dutch or Flex Foods Ltd. (Flex 

Foods), Indian producers of mushrooms 

and vegetables, as follows. To value the 

input of mushroom spawn, we used 

data from the fiscal year (FY) 2004–2005 

financial statement of Agro Dutch 

because Agro Dutch’s mushroom spawn 

value is specific to the species Agaricus 

bisporous, which is the species used to 

produce subject merchandise. To value 

the input of rice straw, we used the 

straw value from the FY 2006–2007 

financial statement of Flex Foods 

because this value is specific to the 

input. To value the input of purchased 

mushrooms, we used the FY 2006–07 

financial statement of Agro Dutch 

because the value is specific to the 

input. Similarly, to value the input of 

manure, we used the manure value from 

the FY 2004–2005 financial statement of 

Agro Dutch because this value is 

specific to the input. See Zhangzhou 

Gangchang Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibits 3 and 4 and 

Zhejiang Iceman Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit V. We valued 

super calcium phosphate (another 

production input) using weighted– 

average Indian import values derived 

from the World Trade Atlas online 

(WTA), for the period February 2008 

through July 2008. 

We valued processing and canning 

material inputs (salt, citric acid, lime, 

and cans) using weighted–average 

Indian import values derived from the 

World Trade Atlas online (WTA), for the 

period February 2008 through July 2008. 

See Zhangzhou Gangchang Surrogate 

Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4 and 

Zhejiang Iceman Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit II. In addition, 

we valued packing material inputs 

(cardboard cartons, labels, packing tape, 

and glue) using weighted–average 

Indian import values derived from the 

WTA for the period February 2008 

through July 2008. See Zhangzhou 

Gangchang Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 6 and Zhejiang 

Iceman Surrogate Values Memorandum 

at Exhibit II. The Indian import statistics 

obtained from the WTA were published 

by the Indian Directorate General of 

Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, 

Ministry of Commerce of India and are 

contemporaneous with the POR. As the 

Indian surrogate values were 

denominated in rupees, in accordance 

with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act, 

we converted them to U.S. dollars using 

the official exchange rate for India 

recorded on the date of sale of subject 

merchandise in this case. See http:// 

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

index.html. 

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. 

Since the rates are not contemporaneous 

with the POR, we inflated the values 

using the WPI. See Zhangzhou 

Gangchang Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 5 and Zhejiang 

Iceman Surrogate Values Memorandum 

at Exhibit VII. 

To value water, the Department used 

data from the Maharastra Industrial 

Development Corporation 

(www.midcindia.org) for June 2003, 

which we found to be the best available 

information since it includes a wide 

range of industrial water rates. Since the 

water rates were not contemporaneous 

with the POR, the Department adjusted 

the value for inflation. See Zhangzhou 

Gangchang Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 5 and Zhejiang 

Iceman Surrogate Values Memorandum 

at Exhibit VIII. 

We valued coal using weighted– 

average Indian import values derived 

from the WTA for the period February 

2008 through July 2008. See Zhangzhou 

Gangchang Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 5 and Zhejiang 

Iceman Surrogate Values Memorandum 

at Exhibit II. 

We valued steam as 14.52 percent of 

the value of natural gas. To value 

natural gas, we used a value reported in 

the May 2005 issue of the Indian 

publication Financial Express. Since 

this value is not contemporaneous with 

the POR, we inflated it using the WPI. 

For details of our calculation, see the 

Zhejiang Iceman Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit IX. 

We valued truck freight expenses for 

inputs using the same surrogate data we 

used for valuing domestic inland freight 

for Zhejiang Iceman and Zhangzhou 

Gangchang’s U.S. sale as described 

above (i.e., we used data from the 

website http://www.infobanc.com/ 

logistics/logtruck.htm, which contains 

inland freight truck rates between many 

large Indian cities). Since these values 

are not contemporaneous with the POR, 

we deflated the rate using the WPI. See 

Zhangzhou Gangchang Surrogate Values 

Memorandum at Exhibit 7 and Zhejiang 

Iceman Surrogate Values Memorandum 

at Exhibit X. 

The Department’s regulations require 

the use of a regression–based wage rate. 

See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). Therefore, to 

value labor, the Department used the 

regression–based wage rate for the PRC 

published on the Import Administration 

website. See the IA website: http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages– 

041608.html, and see Corrected 2007 

Calculation of Expected Non–Market 

Economy Wages, 73 FR 27795 (May 14, 

2008). 

To value the surrogate financial ratios 

for factory overhead (OH), selling, 

general & administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, and profit, the Department 

used the 2006–2007 financial statements 

of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods. The 

Department notes that Agro Dutch is a 

producer of mushrooms, and Flex Foods 

is a producer of mushrooms and 

vegetable products. Therefore, Agro 

Dutch’s and Flex Foods’ financial ratios 

for OH and SG&A are comparable to 

Zhejiang Iceman’s and Zhangzhou 

Gangchang’s financial ratios by virtue of 

their production of the merchandise 

under consideration. Moreover, an 

average of the financial statements of 

Agro Dutch and Flex Foods represents 

14778 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

a broader spectrum of the Indian 

mushroom industry than the financial 

statement of a single mushroom 

producer. See Zhangzhou Gangchang 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Exhibit 8 and Zhejiang Iceman 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 

Exhibit XII. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period February 1, 

2008, through July 31, 2008: 

CERTAIN PRESERVED MUSHROOMS

FROM THE PRC 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Zhejiang Iceman ........... 0.00 

Zhangzhou Gangchang 0.00 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose to 

parties to this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of these 

preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Interested parties may 

submit written comments (case briefs) 

within 30 days of publication of the 

preliminary results and rebuttal 

comments (rebuttal briefs) within five 

days after the time limit for filing case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 

351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be 

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs. Parties who submit arguments are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. Further, the 

Department requests that parties 

submitting written comments provide 

the Department with a diskette 

containing the public version of those 

comments. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

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 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 the 

briefs. 

Unless the deadline is extended 

pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of 

the Tariff Act, the Department will issue 

the final results of these NSRs, 

including the results of our analysis of 

the issues raised by the parties in their 

comments, within 90 days after issuance 

of these preliminary results. 

Deadline for Submission of Publicly 

Available Surrogate Value Information 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3), the deadline for 

submission of publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 

20 days after the date of publication of 

the preliminary determination. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), if 

an interested party submits factual 

information less than ten days before, 

on, or after (if the Department has 

extended the deadline), the applicable 

deadline for submission of such factual 

information, an interested party has ten 

days to submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct the factual 

information no later than ten days after 

such factual information is served on 

the interested party. However, the 

Department notes that 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1), permits new information 

only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 

corrects information recently placed on 

the record. See Glycine from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final 

Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. Furthermore, the 

Department generally will not accept 

business proprietary information in 

either the surrogate value submissions 

or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation 

regarding the submission of surrogate 

values allows only for the submission of 

publicly available information. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuing the final results of the 

review, the Department shall determine, 

and CBP shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of the final results of 

review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer–specific ad valorem duty 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of the dumping 

margins calculated for the examined 

sales to the total entered value of those 

same sales. We will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. However, the final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of these reviews and for 

future deposits of estimated duties, 

where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this new shipper review for all 

shipments of subject merchandise 

exported by Zhejiang Iceman or 

Zhangzhou Gangchang and entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) 

of the Tariff Act: (1) for subject 

merchandise manufactured and 

exported by Zhejiang Iceman or 

manufactured and exported by 

Zhangzhou Gangchang, the cash– 

deposit rate will be that established in 

the final results of this review; (2) for 

subject merchandise exported by 

Zhejiang Iceman or Zhangzhou 

Gangchang but not manufactured by 

Zhejiang Iceman or Zhangzhou 

Gangchang, respectively, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

PRC–wide rate (i.e., 198.63 percent); 

and (3) for subject merchandise 

manufactured by Zhejiang Iceman or 

Zhangzhou Gangchang, but exported by 

any other party, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate applicable to the 

exporter. If the cash deposit rates 

calculated for Zhejiang Iceman or 

Zhangzhou Gangchang in the final 

results is zero or de minimis, a zero cash 

deposit will be required for entries of 

subject merchandise both produced and 

exported by Zhejiang Iceman or 

Zhangzhou Gangchang. These cash 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

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 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This new shipper review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act 

and 19 CFR 351.214(i). 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 14779 

Dated: March 25, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–7290 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Alaska Region 

Permit Family of Forms 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before June 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 7845, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Patsy A. Bearden, 907–586– 

7008 or patsy.bearden@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

Under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 

(Section 303(b)(1) specifically 

recognizes the need for permit 

issuance), fishermen and processors 

wishing to participate in groundfish 

fisheries in the Exclusive Economic 

Zone off the coast of Alaska must obtain 

a Federal Fisheries Permit, a Federal 

Processor Permit, or an Exempted 

Fishing Permit. The application 

information is used to identify 

participants and expected activity levels 

in the fishery and to aid enforcement of 

fishery regulations. The information 

from this collection-of-information is 

used to monitor and manage groundfish 

fisheries by NMFS, Alaska Region. 

II. Method of Collection 

Respondents have a choice of either 

electronic or paper forms. Methods of 

submittal include e-mail of electronic 

forms, and mail and facsimile 

transmission of paper forms. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0206. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations, individuals or 

households, and not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

886. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 21 

minutes for Federal Fisheries Permit 

application; 21 minutes for Federal 

Processor Permit application; and 35 

hours for Exempted Fisheries Permit 

application. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 378. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $1,335. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; 

(c) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (d) ways to minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on respondents, including 

through the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: March 26, 2009. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–7219 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Evaluation of State Coastal 

Management Programs and National 

Estuarine Research Reserves 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management, National Ocean Service, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Evaluate. 

SUMMARY: The NOAA Office of Ocean 

and Coastal Resource Management 

(OCRM) announces its intent to evaluate 

the performance of the Tijuana River 

(California), North Carolina, and 

Kachemak Bay (Alaska) National 

Estuarine Research Reserves. 

The National Estuarine Research 

Reserve evaluations will be conducted 

pursuant to sections 312 and 315 of the 

CZMA and regulations at 15 CFR Part 

921, Subpart E and Part 923, Subpart L. 

Evaluation of National Estuarine 

Research Reserves requires findings 

concerning the extent to which a state 

has met the national objectives, adhered 

to its Reserve final management plan 

approved by the Secretary of Commerce, 

and adhered to the terms of financial 

assistance awards funded under the 

CZMA. 

Each evaluation will include a site 

visit, consideration of public comments, 

and consultations with interested 

Federal, state, and local agencies. A 

public meeting will be held as part of 

the site visit. Notice is hereby given of 

the dates of the site visits for the listed 

evaluations, and the dates, local times, 

and locations of the public meetings 

during the site visits. 

DATES AND TIMES: The Tijuana River 

(California) National Estuarine Research 

Reserve evaluation site visit will be held 

April 13–17, 2009. One public meeting 

will be held during the week. The 

public meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, April 15, 2009, at 7 p.m. at 

the Tijuana River National Estuarine 

Research Reserve, Tijuana Estuary 

Visitor Center, 301 Caspian Way, 

Imperial Beach, California. 

The North Carolina National 

Estuarine Research Reserve evaluation 

site visit will be held April 20–24, 2009. 

Two public meetings will be held 

during the week. The first public 

meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 

21, 2009, at 7 p.m., at the University of 

North Carolina-Wilmington, Center for 

Marine Science Auditorium, 5600 

Marvin K. Moss Lane, Wilmington, 

North Carolina. The second public