19064 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

described below. We intend to issue 

liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

these reviews. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties). This clarification 

will apply to entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review produced by companies selected 

for individual examination in these 

preliminary results of reviews for which 

the reviewed companies did not know 

their merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the country-specific all-others 

rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties. 

For the responsive companies which 

were not selected for individual 

examination, we will instruct CBP to 

apply the rates listed above to all entries 

of subject merchandise produced and/or 

exported by such firms. 

For companies for which we are 

relying on total AFA to establish a 

dumping margin, we will instruct CBP 

to apply the assigned AFA rate to all 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the period of review produced and/or 

exported by the companies. 

Export-Price Sales 

With respect to EP sales, for these 

preliminary results, we divided the total 

dumping margins (calculated as the 

difference between normal value and 

EP) for each exporter’s importer or 

customer 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 under the relevant order during 

the review period. 

Constructed Export-Price Sales 

For CEP sales (sampled and nonsampled), we divided the total dumping 

margins for the reviewed sales by the 

total entered value of those reviewed 

sales for each importer. We will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting percentage 

margin against the entered customs 

values for the subject merchandise on 

each of that importer’s entries under the 

relevant order during the review period. 

See 19 CFR 351.212(b). 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

In order to derive a single weightedaverage margin for each respondent, we 

weight-averaged the EP and CEP 

weighted-average deposit rates (using 

the EP and CEP, respectively, as the 

weighting factors). To accomplish this 

when we sampled CEP sales, we first 

calculated the total dumping margins 

for all CEP sales during the review 

period by multiplying the sample CEP 

margins by the ratio of total days in the 

review period to days in the sample 

weeks. We then calculated a total net 

value for all CEP sales during the review 

period by multiplying the sample CEP 

total net value by the same ratio. 

Finally, we divided the combined total 

dumping margins for both EP and CEP 

sales by the combined total value for 

both EP and CEP sales to obtain the 

deposit rate. 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

reviews for all shipments of subject 

merchandise 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) The 

cash-deposit rates for the reviewed 

companies will be the rates established 

in the final results of the reviews; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in these reviews, a 

prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 

investigations but the manufacturer is, 

the cash-deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; (4) the cash-deposit rate 

for all other manufacturers or exporters 

will continue to be the all-others rate for 

the relevant order made effective by the 

final results of reviews published on 

July 26, 1993. See Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Revocation in Part of an 

Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729 

(July 26, 1993). For ball bearings from 

Italy, see Antifriction Bearings (Other 

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 

Parts Thereof From France, et al.; Final 

Results of Antidumping Administrative 

Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 66472, 

66521 (December 17, 1996). These rates 

are the all-others rates from the relevant 

less-than-fair-value investigations. 

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) 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 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative reviews and intent to 

revoke in part are issued and published 

in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) 

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

Dated: April 21, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–9588 Filed 4–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–552–805] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation and Request for Public 

Comment on the Application of the 

Countervailing Duty Law to Imports 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun 

Jack Zhao or Gene Calvert, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1396 and (202) 

482–3586, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On March 31, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received a 

petition concerning imports of 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(Vietnam) filed in proper form by Hilex 

Poly Co., LLC and Superbag Corporation 

(collectively, the petitioners), domestic 

producers of PRCBs. On April 6, 2009, 

the Department issued requests for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petition involving 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19065 

countervailable subsidy allegations. See 

Letter from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, to the 

petitioners, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition 

of Antidumping Duties on Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags (PRCBs) from 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

PRCBs from Vietnam: Supplemental 

Questions on the Countervailing Duty 

Allegations, April 6, 2009.’’ Based on 

the Department’s request, the petitioners 

timely filed additional information 

concerning the Petition on April 8, 

2009. The petitioners submitted a 

revised exhibit concerning domestic 

company shipments on April 10, 2009, 

and a revised list of all known 

Vietnamese producers and exporters of 

PRCBs that are believed to be benefitting 

from countervailable subsidies on April 

16, 2009. During the consultations with 

the Government of Vietnam (GOV), see 

‘‘Consultations’’ section below, the GOV 

presented a written statement and 

government publications in opposition 

of the countervailing duty Petition. On 

April 17, 2009, Bin Tay Import Export 

Production Services Joint Stock 

Company, Loc Cuong Trading 

Producing Co., Ltd., Ontrue Plastics Co., 

Ltd., (Vietnam) and Alta Company 

(collectively, Vietnamese producers) 

submitted comments on the level of 

industry support expressed in the 

Petition. On April 20, 2009, the 

petitioners submitted rebuttal comments 

to the GOV and Vietnamese producers 

concerning industry support. The GOV 

submitted additional government 

publications on April 16 and April 20, 

2009. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), the petitioners allege that 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of PRCBs in Vietnam received 

countervailable subsidies within the 

meaning of section 701 of the Act, and 

that imports materially injure, or 

threaten material injury to, an industry 

in the United States. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed this Petition on behalf 

of the domestic industry because they 

are interested parties as defined in 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and the 

petitioners have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

countervailing duty investigation that 

they are requesting the Department to 

initiate (see, infra, ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’). 

Period of Investigation 

The anticipated period of 

investigation (POI) is calendar year 

2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is polyethylene retail 

carrier bags. See Attachment to this 

notice for a complete description of the 

merchandise covered by this 

investigation. 

Comments on Scope of the Investigation 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations, we are setting aside a 

period for interested parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19, 1997). The Department 

encourages all interested parties to 

submit such comments within 20 

calendar days of the publication of this 

notice. Comments should be addressed 

to Import Administration’s Central 

Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, the Department invited 

representatives of the Government of 

Vietnam (the GOV) for consultations 

with respect to the countervailing duty 

Petition. The Department held these 

consultations on April 15, 2009. See 

Memorandum to the File, Petition on 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 

(PRCBs) from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam (Vietnam): Consultations with 

the Government of Vietnam (GOV), 

April 16, 2009 (Consultations Memo), 

on file in the CRU. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by section 

702(c)(4)(A), or (ii) determine industry 

support using a statistically valid 

sampling method. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission (ITC), 

which is responsible for determining 

whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has 

been injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 

2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. 

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 

(CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this subtitle.’’ Thus, 

the reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, the petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that PRCBs 

constitute a single domestic like product 

and we have analyzed industry support 

in terms of that domestic like product. 

For a discussion of the domestic like 

product analysis in this case, see 

Countervailing Duty Investigation 

Initiation Checklist: Countervailing Duty 

Petition on Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam (Initiation Checklist), at 

Attachment II (Analysis of Industry 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19066 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

Support for the Petition), on file in the 

CRU. 

With regard to section 702(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, in determining whether the 

petitioners have standing, (i.e., those 

domestic workers and producers 

supporting the Petition account for: (1) 

at least 25 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product; 

and (2) more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition), we considered the 

industry support data contained in the 

Petition with reference to the domestic 

like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

the Investigation’’ section above. To 

establish industry support, the 

petitioners provided their shipments of 

the domestic like product for the year 

2008, and compared them to an estimate 

of shipments of the domestic like 

product for the entire industry. See 

Volume II of the Petition at Exhibit 3, 

and Supplement to the Petition, dated 

April 10, 2009. The petitioners argue 

that U.S. shipments of PRCBs are a 

reasonable proxy for U.S. production of 

PRCBs as most PRCBs are produced to 

order for specific retail customers, and 

that inventories that are maintained are 

typically small. See Volume II of the 

Petition at Exhibit 3. Based on the fact 

that total industry production data for 

the domestic like product for 2008 are 

not reasonably available, and that the 

petitioners have established that 

shipments are a reasonable proxy for 

production, we have relied upon 

shipment data for purposes of 

measuring industry support. For further 

discussion, see Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

On April 15, 2009, the GOV, an 

interested party to this proceeding as 

defined in section 771(9)(B) of the Act, 

provided the Department with a written 

statement to accompany its remarks 

during consultations with the 

Department regarding the Petition. The 

first issue raised in this statement 

addresses the GOV’s concerns that the 

petitioners may not meet the required 

threshold for standing. The Department 

placed the GOV’s written statement on 

the record of the Petition. See 

Consultations Memo. Also, on April 17, 

2009, we received submissions on 

behalf of Vietnamese producers of 

PRCBs, interested parties to this 

proceeding as defined in section 

771(9)(A) of the Act, questioning the 

industry support calculation. See 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II 

(Analysis of Industry Support for the 

Petition). On April 20, 2009, the 

petitioners filed their reply to these 

challenges. For further discussion of all 

of these submissions see Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of 

Industry Support for the Petition). 

The Department’s review of the data 

provided in the Petition, supplemental 

submissions, other information on the 

record, and other information readily 

available to the Department, indicates 

that the petitioners have established 

industry support. Because the Petition 

establishes support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling). See 

Section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

Nonetheless, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 

domestic producers (or workers) who 

support the Petition account for at least 

25 percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

702(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the 

countervailing duty investigation that 

they are requesting the Department 

initiate. See Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

Injury Test 

Because Vietnam is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from Vietnam 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The petitioners allege that imports of 

PRCBs from Vietnam are benefitting 

from countervailable subsidies and that 

such imports are causing, or threatening 

to cause, material injury to the domestic 

industries producing PRCBs. In 

addition, the petitioners allege that 

subsidized imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act, as 

required by section 701(a)(1) of the Act. 

The petitioners contend that the 

industries’ injured condition is 

illustrated by reduced market share, 

underselling and price depressing and 

suppressing effects, lost sales and 

revenue, reduced production, reduced 

shipments, reduced employment, and 

an overall decline in financial 

performance. See the Petition at pages 

13 and 17. We have assessed the 

allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 

have determined that these allegations 

are properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III 

(Injury). 

Subsidy Allegations 

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the 

Department to initiate a countervailing 

duty proceeding whenever an interested 

party files a petition on behalf of an 

industry that: (1) alleges the elements 

necessary for an imposition of a duty 

under section 701(a) of the Act, and (2) 

is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to the petitioners 

supporting the allegations. The 

Department has examined the 

countervailing duty Petition on PRCBs 

from Vietnam and finds that it complies 

with the requirements of section 702(b) 

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 702(b) of the Act, we are 

initiating a countervailing duty 

investigation to determine whether 

producers and exporters of PRCBs from 

Vietnam receive countervailable 

subsidies. For a discussion of evidence 

supporting our initiation determination, 

see Initiation Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

Petition to provide countervailable 

subsidies to producers and exporters of 

the subject merchandise: 

A. Policy Lending Programs 

1. Preferential Lending for Exporters 

2. Preferential Lending for the Plastics 

Industry 

B. Grant Programs 

1. Export Promotion Program 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 19067 

2. Export Bonus Program 

3. New Product Development Program 

C. Income Tax Programs 

1. Income Tax Preferences for 

Exporters 

2. Income Tax Preferences for Foreign 

Invested Enterprises (FIEs) 

3. Income Tax Preferences for FIEs 

Operating In Encouraged Industries 

D. Import Tax and Value Added Tax 

(VAT) Exemption Programs 

1. Import Tax Exemptions for FIEs 

Using Imported Goods to Create 

Fixed Assets 

2. Import Tax Exemptions for FIEs 

Importing Raw Materials 

3. VAT Exemptions for FIEs Using 

Imported Goods to Create Fixed 

Assets 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is investigating 

these programs, see Initiation Checklist. 

Application of the Countervailing Duty 

Law to Vietnam 

This is the first countervailing duty 

Petition filed involving Vietnam. 

Vietnam has been treated as a non– 

market economy (NME) country in all 

past antidumping duty investigations 

and administrative reviews. See, e.g., 

Memorandum from Office of Policy, to 

Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary, 

Import Administration, Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam - Determination of Market 

Economy Status, November 8, 2002 (this 

document is available online at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/download/vietnam–nmestatus/vietnam–market-status– 

determination.pdf); see also Uncovered 

Innerspring Units from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 45738, 

45739 (August, 6, 2008), unchanged in 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 73 FR 62479 (October 

21, 2008). In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and 

Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of 2001–2002 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 

(February 14, 2003), unchanged in 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 

2003). 

The petitioners contend that there is 

no statutory bar to applying 

countervailing duties to imports from 

non–market economy countries like 

Vietnam. Citing Georgetown Steel Corp. 

v. United States, 801 F.2d 1308 (Fed. 

Cir. 1986) (Georgetown Steel), the 

petitioners argue that the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed 

the Department’s discretion regarding 

application of the countervailing duty 

law to NME countries. 

Following its assessment of another 

NME country, the People’s Republic of 

China (China), the Department, in its 

final affirmative countervailing duty 

determination on coated free sheet 

paper from China, determined that the 

current nature of the Chinese economy 

does not create obstacles to applying the 

necessary criteria in the countervailing 

duty law. See Memorandum to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from the Office of 

Policy, Import Administration, 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China: Whether the 

Analytical Elements of the Georgetown 

Steel Holding are Applicable to the 

PRC’s Present-day Economy, March 29, 

2007 (Georgetown Memo); Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 

FR 60645 (October 25, 2007), and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1; see also 

Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Final 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

The petitioners argue that the 

Vietnamese economy, like China’s 

economy, is substantially different from 

the Soviet–style economy investigated 

in Georgetown Steel and that the 

Department should not have any special 

difficulties in the identification and 

valuation of subsidies involving a non– 

market economy like Vietnam. Finally, 

the petitioners contend that Vietnam’s 

economy significantly mirrors China’s 

present-day economy and is at least as 

different from the Soviet–style economy 

at issue in Georgetown Steel, as China’s 

economy was found to be in 2007. The 

petitioners also argue that Vietnam’s 

accession to the World Trade 

Organization (WTO) allows the 

Department to apply countervailing 

duties on imports from that country. 

The WTO Subsidies and Countervailing 

Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement), 

similar to U.S. law, permits the 

imposition of countervailing duties on 

subsidized imports from member 

countries and nowhere exempts non– 

market economy imports from being 

subject to the provisions of the SCM 

Agreement. As Vietnam agreed to the 

SCM Agreement and other WTO 

provisions on the use of subsidies, the 

petitioners argue Vietnam should be 

subject to the same disciplines as all 

other WTO members. 

Request for Public Comment on the 

Application of the Countervailing Duty 

Law to Imports From Vietnam 

Because the petitioners have provided 

sufficient information to support their 

allegations, meeting the statutory 

criteria for initiating a countervailing 

duty investigation of PRCBs from 

Vietnam, initiation of a countervailing 

duty investigation is warranted in this 

case. However, the Department intends 

to determine whether the countervailing 

duty law should be applied to imports 

from Vietnam. Given the complex legal 

and policy issues involved, the 

Department, therefore, invites public 

comment on this matter. 

Any person wishing to comment 

should file a signed original and eight 

copies of each set of comments which 

must be submitted no later than thirty 

days after publication of this Notice. 

Comments should be limited to thirty 

pages, double spaced. The Department 

will not accept comments accompanied 

by a request that a part or all of the 

material be treated confidentially 

because of its business proprietary 

nature or for any other reason. All 

comments responding to this notice of 

request for public comment will be a 

matter of public record and will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying at Import Administration’s 

CRU. The Department requires that 

comments be submitted in written form, 

but also recommends submission of 

comments in electronic form to 

accompany the required paper copies. 

Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted either by e–mail to 

the webmaster below, or on CD–ROM, 

as comments submitted on diskettes are 

likely to be damaged by postal radiation 

treatment. Comments received in 

electronic form will be made available 

to the public in Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

Import Administration Web site at the 

following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. 

Any questions concerning file 

formatting, document conversion, 

access on the Internet, or other 

electronic filing issues should be 

addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
19068 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices 

Administration Webmaster, at (202) 

482–0866, e–mail address: webmaster– 

support@ita.doc.gov. 

All comments and submissions 

should be submitted to Barbara E. 

Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6; Subject: Application of the 

Countervailing Duty Law to Imports 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Request for Comment; Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

intends to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) data for U.S. imports under 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) number 

3923.21.0085 during the POI (i.e., 

calendar year 2008). We intend to 

release the CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

to all parties with access to information 

protected by APO within five days of 

the announcement of the initiation of 

this investigation. Interested parties may 

submit comments regarding the CBP 

data and respondent selection within 

seven calendar days of publication of 

this notice. We intend to make our 

decision regarding respondent selection 

within 20 days of publication of this 

notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s 

website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, copies of the 

public versions of the Petition and 

amendments thereto have been 

provided to the GOV. To the extent 

practicable, we will attempt to provide 

a copy of the public version of the 

Petition to each exporter named in the 

Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

by no later than May 15, 2009, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of subsidized PRCBs from 

Vietnam materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. See 

section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative 

ITC determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated; see 

section 703(a)(1) of the Act. Otherwise, 

the investigation will proceed according 

to statutory and regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: April 20, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

ATTACHMENT 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is polyethylene retail 

carrier bags (PRCBs), which also 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 this investigation 

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. 

Imports of merchandise included 

within the scope of this investigation 

are currently classifiable under 

statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). This 

subheading may also cover products 

that are outside the scope of this 

investigation. Furthermore, although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–9565 Filed 4–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XO86 

Marine Mammals; File No. 14497 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

The Mirage Casino-Hotel, 3400 Las 

Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, Nevada 

89109, has applied in due form for a 

permit to import two bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) for the 

purposes of public display. 

DATES: Written or telefaxed comments 

must be received on or before May 27, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species (APPS) home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting 

File No. 14497 from the list of available 

applications. 

The application and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following offices: 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301) 713–2289; fax (301) 427–2521; and 

Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West 

Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, 

CA 90802–4213; phone (562)980–4001; 

fax (562)980–4018. 

Written comments or requests for a 

public hearing on this application 

should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those 

individuals requesting a hearing should 

set forth the specific reasons why a 

hearing on this particular request would 

be appropriate. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile at (301)427–2521, provided 

the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy 

submitted by mail and postmarked no 

later than the closing date of the 

comment period. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

e-mail. The mailbox address for 

providing e-mail comments is 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Include 

in the subject line of the e-mail 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES