Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 5801 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

dumping margin, as indicated in the 

chart above, as follows: (1) The rate for 

the firms listed above (except for 

Nexteel, see below) will be the rate we 

have determined in this preliminary 

determination; (2) if the exporter is not 

a firm identified in this investigation, 

but the producer is, the rate will be the 

rate established for the producer of the 

subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all 

other producers or exporters will be 

15.98 percent. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.204(e)(2), because the weightedaverage margin for Nexteel is de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP not to 

suspend liquidation of merchandise 

produced by Nexteel Co., Ltd. and 

exported by Nexteel Co., Ltd. or either 

of the two exporters named in its 

questionnaire responses. 

Commission Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Tariff Act, we have notified the 

Commission of the Department’s 

preliminary affirmative determination. 

If the Department’s final determination 

is affirmative, the Commission will 

determine before the later of 120 days 

after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after our final 

determination whether imports of lightwalled rectangular pipe and tube from 

Korea are materially injuring, or 

threaten material injury to, the U.S. 

industry. Because we have postponed 

the deadline for our final determination 

to 135 days from the date of the 

publication of this preliminary 

determination, the Commission will 

make its final determination within 45 

days of our final determination. 

Disclosure 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), the Department will disclose 

to interested parties the calculations 

performed in this preliminary 

determination within five days of the 

date of the public announcement. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs to the Department no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the issuance of the final verification 

report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, limited 

to the issues raised in the case briefs, 

must be filed within five days from the 

deadline date for the submission of case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and (2). 

A list of authorities used, a table of 

contents, and an executive summary of 

issues should accompany any briefs 

submitted to the Department. Executive 

summaries should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. Further, 

we request that parties submitting briefs 

and rebuttal briefs provide the 

Department with a copy of the public 

version of such briefs on diskette. In 

accordance with section 774 of the 

Tariff Act, the Department will hold a 

public hearing, if requested, to afford 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on arguments raised in case or 

rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 

hearing is requested by an interested 

party. If a request for a hearing is made 

in this investigation, the hearing will 

tentatively be held two days after the 

rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

place to be determined. However, 

parties should confirm by telephone, the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

48 hours before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 

if one is requested, must submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

1870, within 30 days of the 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 the issues 

to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

At the hearing, oral presentations will 

be limited to issues raised in the briefs. 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the 

Tariff Act, on January 3, 2008, Nexteel, 

which accounted for a significant 

proportion of exports of light-walled 

rectangular pipe and tube, requested 

that in the event of an affirmative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department postpone 

its final determination by 60 days. At 

the same time, Nexteel requested that 

the Department extend by 60 days the 

application of the provisional measures. 

See Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act 

and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). In accordance 

with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act and 

19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our 

preliminary determination is 

affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter 

accounts for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting Nexteel’s request 

and are postponing the final 

determination until no later than 135 

days after the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. Suspension of 

liquidation will be extended 

accordingly. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

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

Dated: January 23, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 08–415 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–916] 

Laminated Woven Sacks From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, and Postponement of 

Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 31, 2008. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that laminated woven sacks from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

We will make our final determination 

within 135 days after the publication of 

this preliminary determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Bertrand or Javier Barrientos, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–3207 or 202–482–

2243, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Initiation 

On June 28, 2007, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

petition on imports of laminated woven 

sacks from the PRC from the Laminated 

Woven Sacks Committee and its 

individual members, Bancroft Bags, Inc., 

Coating Excellence International, LLC, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
5802 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 

Hood Packaging Corporation, MidAmerica Packaging, LLC, and Polytex 

Fibers Corporation (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’). This investigation was 

initiated on July 18, 2007. See 

Laminated Woven Sacks from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 72 FR 

40833 (July 25, 2007) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). On August 14, 2007, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (‘‘ITC’’) issued its 

affirmative preliminary determination 

that there is a reasonable indication that 

the establishment of an industry in the 

United States is materially retarded by 

reason of imports from the PRC of 

laminated woven sacks. The ITC’s 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on August 17, 2007. 

See, Laminated Woven Sacks From 

China, 72 FR 46246 (August 17, 2007) 

(‘‘ITC Preliminary Determination’’). 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

our regulations, we set aside a period of 

time for parties to raise issues regarding 

product coverage and encouraged all 

parties to submit comments within 20 

calendar days of publication of the 

Initiation Notice. On August 7, 2007, 

Petitioners provided comments to the 

scope and requested that the 

Department include their suggested 

revisions and additions into the 

language of the scope. No other party 

provided scope comments or 

commented on Petitioners’ August 7, 

2007, submission. The Department has 

analyzed the comments received and 

has preliminarily determined to amend 

the scope from the Initiation Notice. We 

will afford interested parties an 

opportunity to provide comments on 

our preliminary finding on this issue in 

their case and rebuttal briefs, and, if any 

are provided, we will address these 

comments in our final determination. 

Respondent Selection 

On July 19, 2007, the Department sent 

a letter requesting quantity and value 

(‘‘Q&V’’) information to the China 

Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports & 

Exports (‘‘BOFT’’) of the Ministry of 

Commerce (‘‘MOFCOM’’) requesting 

that BOFT transmit the letter to all 

companies who manufacture and export 

subject merchandise to the United 

States, or produce the subject 

merchandise for the companies who 

were engaged in exporting the subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). The 

Department did not receive any type of 

communication from BOFT regarding its 

request for Q&V information. Also on 

July 19, 2007, we requested Q&V 

information from 41 potential exporters 

or producers of laminated woven sacks 

from the PRC. The Department received 

Q&V responses from 16 producers and/ 

or exporters that exported subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI. 

On August 16, 2007, the Department 

selected two mandatory respondents, 

Shandong Shouguang Jianyuanchun 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘SSJ’’), and Zibo Aifudi 

Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.(’’Aifudi’’), 

which were two exporters, of those 

companies that responded to the 

Department’s request for Q&V 

information, that accounted for the 

largest volume measured by total pieces 

of subject merchandise shipped to the 

United States during the POI. See 

Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, from 

Catherine Bertrand, Senior International 

Trade Analyst: Selection of Respondents 

for the Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Laminated Woven Sacks from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated 

August 16, 2007. 

Separate Rates Applications 

We received fifteen separate rate 

applications by the due date of 

September 17, 2007. However on 

September 27, 2007, we rejected two of 

these applications for filing deficiencies. 

The rejected applications were from The 

Seventh Plastic Factory of Danyang City 

and Jiangmen Jing Long Plastic Packing 

Co/Jiangmen Xinhui Sanjiang Plastic. 

We gave these two companies a 

deadline of October 11, 2007, to resubmit a corrected application. We did 

not receive an application from either 

company by the new deadline, and 

therefore we do not consider these two 

companies to be separate rate 

applicants. We also sent supplemental 

questionnaires to Jiangsu Hotson 

Plastics Co. Ltd., Shandong Qilu Plastic 

Fabric Group Stock Co., Ltd., Zibo Linzi 

Luitong Plastic Fabric Co. Ltd., Zibo 

Linzi Qitianli Plastic Fabric Co., Ltd., 

Zibo Linzi Worun Packing Product Co., 

Ltd., and, Zibo Qigao Plastic Cement Co. 

Ltd., and we received timely responses 

from all of these companies. 

Product Characteristics & 

Questionnaires 

On August 17, 2007, the Department 

received comments from Petitioners on 

product characteristics to be used in the 

designation of control numbers 

(‘‘CONNUMs’’) to be assigned to the 

subject merchandise. On August 17, 

2007, the Department issued its sections 

A, C, D, and E, questionnaire to the two 

mandatory respondents, SSJ and Aifudi. 

After receiving responses to the 

questionnaire from both companies, the 

Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to both companies and 

received timely responses. Petitioners 

submitted deficiency comments 

throughout the investigation for both 

companies. 

Surrogate Country 

On October 15, 2007, the Department 

determined that India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, 

Indonesia, and Philippines are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development. See 

Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, 

Director, Office of Policy, to Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, China/ 

NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Laminated Woven 

Sacks from the People’s Republic of 

China: Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries, dated October 15, 2007. 

On October 15, 2007, the Department 

requested comments on the surrogate 

country selection from the interested 

parties in this investigation. Petitioners 

submitted surrogate country comments 

on October 31, 2007. No other interested 

parties commented on the selection of a 

surrogate country. For a detailed 

discussion of the selection of the 

surrogate country, see the ‘‘Surrogate 

Country’’ section below. 

Surrogate Value Comments 

On December 19, 2007, Petitioners, 

SSJ, and Aifudi submitted comments on 

surrogate information with which to 

value the factors of production in this 

proceeding. On January 2, 2008, 

Petitioners, SSJ, and Aifudi filed 

rebuttal comments on the surrogate 

information. Also, on January 2, 2008, 

SSJ submitted additional surrogate 

value information. 

Critical Circumstances 

On November 2, 2007, Petitioners 

alleged that there is a reasonable basis 

to believe or suspect critical 

circumstances exist with respect to the 

antidumping investigation of laminated 

woven sacks from the PRC. On 

November 9, 2007, the Department 

issued questionnaires requesting data 

for monthly exports to the United States 

from January 2005 through October 

2007 from SSJ and Aifudi, and received 

timely responses. For a detailed 

discussion, please see the ‘‘Critical 

Circumstances’’ section below. 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination 

On November 9, 2007, Petitioners 

made a timely request, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.205(e), for a 50-day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination in this investigation, 

pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 5803 

1 ‘‘Paper suitable for high quality print graphics,’’

as used herein, means paper having an ISO 

brightness of 82 or higher and a Sheffield 

Smoothness of 250 or less. Coated free sheet is an 

example of a paper suitable for high quality print 

graphics. 

Act. The Department extended the 

preliminary determination by 50 days. 

See Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Laminated Woven Sacks 

From the People’s Republic of China, 72 

FR 65706 (November 23, 2007). 

Postponement of Final Determination 

On January 11, 2008, Aifudi requested 

that, in the event of an affirmative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department: (1) 

Postpone its final determination by 60 

days in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.210(2)(ii) and 735(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act; and (2) extend the application of 

the provisional measures prescribed 

under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 

4-month period to a 6-month period. 

Period of Investigation 

The POI is October 1, 2006, through 

March 31, 2007. This period 

corresponds to the two most recent 

fiscal quarters prior to the month of the 

filing of the petition. See 19 CFR 

*351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is laminated woven sacks. 

Laminated woven sacks are bags or 

sacks consisting of one or more plies of 

fabric consisting of woven 

polypropylene strip and/or woven 

polyethylene strip, regardless of the 

width of the strip; with or without an 

extrusion coating of polypropylene and/ 

or polyethylene on one or both sides of 

the fabric; laminated by any method 

either to an exterior ply of plastic film 

such as biaxially-oriented 

polypropylene (‘‘BOPP’’) or to an 

exterior ply of paper that is suitable for 

high quality print graphics; 1 printed 

with three colors or more in register; 

with or without lining; whether or not 

closed on one end; whether or not in 

roll form (including sheets, lay-flat 

tubing, and sleeves); with or without 

handles; with or without special closing 

features; not exceeding one kilogram in 

weight. Laminated woven sacks are 

typically used for retail packaging of 

consumer goods such as pet foods and 

bird seed. 

Effective July 1, 2007, laminated 

woven sacks are classifiable under 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings 

6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. 

Laminated woven sacks were previously 

classifiable under HTSUS subheading 

6305.33.0020. If entered with plastic 

coating on both sides of the fabric 

consisting of woven polypropylene strip 

and/or woven polyethylene strip, 

laminated woven sacks may be 

classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 

3923.21.0080, 3923.21.0095, and 

3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on 

one end or in roll form (including 

sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), 

laminated woven sacks may be 

classifiable under other HTSUS 

subheadings including 3917.39.0050, 

3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 

5903.90.2500. If the polypropylene 

strips and/or polyethylene strips making 

up the fabric measures more than 5 

millimeters in width, laminated woven 

sacks may be classifiable under other 

HTSUS subheadings including 

4601.99.0500, 4601.99.9000, and 

4602.90.000. Although HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Non-Market-Economy Country 

Treatment 

For purposes of initiation, Petitioners 

submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as 

a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’). See 

Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 40835. The 

Department considers the PRC to be an 

NME country. See, e.g., Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper 

from the People’s Republic of China, 72 

FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), 

unchanged in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 

(October 25, 2007). In accordance with 

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

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. No party has challenged the 

designation of the PRC as an NME 

country in this investigation. Therefore, 

we continue to treat the PRC as an NME 

country for purposes of this preliminary 

determination. 

Surrogate Country Selection 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act directs it to base normal 

value, in most circumstances, on the 

NME producer’s factors of production 

valued in a surrogate market-economy 

country or countries considered to be 

appropriate by the Department. In 

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

Act, in valuing the factors of 

production, the Department shall 

utilize, to the extent possible, the prices 

or costs of factors of production in one 

or more market-economy countries that 

are at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country 

and are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. The sources 

of the surrogate values we have used in 

this investigation are discussed under 

the normal value section below. 

We find that India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, 

Indonesia, and Philippines are all at an 

economic level of development equally 

comparable to that of the PRC. Based on 

the data provided by Petitioners, we 

recognize that India is a producer of 

comparable merchandise. See 

Petitioners’ Surrogate Country Letter at 

2. Petitioners provided a list of Indian 

laminated woven sacks producers. See 

id. at Exhibit 2. Additionally, the 

Department obtained worldwide export 

data for laminated woven sacks. 

Because the Department was unable to 

find production data, we are relying on 

export data as a substitute for overall 

production data in this case. Although 

India and Indonesia appear to both be 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise, no party in this 

proceeding requested that Indonesia be 

selected as the surrogate country. 

Furthermore, Petitioners and both 

mandatory respondents submitted 

recommended surrogate values using 

Indian sources, suggesting greater 

availability of appropriate surrogate 

value data in India rather than 

Indonesia. 

As noted above, the Department only 

received surrogate country comments 

from the Petitioners stating that the 

appropriate surrogate country is India, 

and the two mandatory respondents 

submitted suggested surrogate values 

from India. The Department is 

preliminarily selecting India as the 

surrogate country on the basis that: (1) 

It is at a similar level of economic 

development pursuant to 733(c)(4) of 

the Act; (2) it is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; and (3) we 

have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the factors of 

production. Thus, we have calculated 

normal value using Indian prices when 

available and appropriate to value SSJ 

and Aifudi’s factors of production. See 

Memorandum to the File from Javier 

Barrientos, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 

Laminated Woven Sacks from the 

People’s Republic of China: Surrogate 

Values for the Preliminary 

Determination, dated January 24, 2008 

(‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
5804 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 

2 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the 

final determination of this investigation, interested 

parties may submit factual information to rebut, 

clarify, or correct factual information submitted by 

an interested party less than ten days before, on, or 

after, the applicable deadline for submission of 

such factual information. 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. 

The Department generally cannot accept the 

submission of additional, previously absent-fromthe-record alternative surrogate value information 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). 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. 

3The Policy Bulletin 05.1, states: ‘‘{w}hile 

continuing the practice of assigning separate rates 

only to exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its NME 

investigations will be specific to those producers 

that supplied the exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that one rate is 

calculated for the exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject merchandise to it during 

the period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well as the 

pool of non-investigated firms receiving the 

weighted-average of the individually calculated 

rates. This practice is referred to as the application 

of ‘‘combination rates’’ because such rates apply to 

specific combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an 

exporter will apply only to merchandise both 

exported by the firm in question and produced by 

a firm that supplied the exporter during the period 

of investigation.’’ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 (emphasis 

in original) at 6. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 

determination in an antidumping 

investigation, interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value the factors of production within 

40 days after the date of publication of 

the preliminary determination.2

Affiliations 

We preliminarily find SSJ and 

Shandong Longxing Plastic Pack Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Longxing’’) to be affiliated parties 

within the meaning of section 

771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act, based on 

ownership and common control. See 

SSJ’s October 26, 2007, supplemental 

response at Exhibits SA–6, SA–8A, and 

SA–8b. Furthermore, we find that they 

should be considered as a single entity 

for purposes of this investigation. See 19 

CFR 351.401(f). In addition to being 

affiliated, they have production 

facilities for similar or identical 

products that would not require 

substantial re-tooling in order to 

restructure manufacturing priorities and 

there is a significant potential for 

manipulation of production based on 

the level of common ownership and 

control, shared management, and an 

intertwining of business operations. See 

19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2); SSJ’s 

October 26, 2007, supplemental 

response at pages SA–4, and SA–6–SA–

8. For a detailed discussion of this issue, 

please see the proprietary Memorandum 

to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, from Catherine 

Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9: Affiliation and 

Single Entity status of Shandong 

Shouguang Jianyuanchun Co., Ltd., and 

Shandong Longxing Plastic Pack Co., 

Ltd., in the Preliminary Determination 

in the Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Laminated Woven Sacks from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated 

January 24, 2008. 

Because the Department finds SSJ and 

Longxing to be a single entity, the 

Department is utilizing the integrated 

FOP database SSJ provided for purposes 

of the preliminary determination which 

includes the factors of production from 

Longxing and SSJ. Additionally, the 

Department plans to further investigate 

whether any other entities are affiliated 

with SSJ or Longxing. 

Separate Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department notified parties of the 

application process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate-rate 

status in NME investigations. See 

Initiation Notice. The process requires 

exporters and producers to submit a 

separate-rate status application. See also 

Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), 

(‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’) available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov.3 However, the 

standard for eligibility for a separate rate 

(which is whether a firm can 

demonstrate an absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

its export activities) has not changed. 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to investigation in an NME 

country this single rate unless an 

exporter can demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. As discussed 

below, SSJ and Aifudi, and all but one 

of the companies that submitted a 

separate rate application, have provided 

company-specific information to 

demonstrate that they operate 

independently of de jure and de facto 

government control, and therefore 

satisfy the standards for the assignment 

of a separate rate. 

We have considered whether each 

PRC company that submitted a complete 

application is eligible for a separate rate. 

We note that because we rejected the 

applications filed by The Seventh 

Plastic Factory of Danyang City and 

Jiangmen Jing Long Plastic Packing Co/ 

Jiangmen Xinhui Sanjiang Plastic and 

because these companies did not re-file 

an application as instructed, they do not 

qualify for a separate rate. 

The Department’s separate-rate test is 

not concerned, in general, with 

macroeconomic/border-type controls, 

e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices, particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 

(December 31, 1998). The test focuses, 

rather, on controls over the investment, 

pricing, and output decision-making 

process at the individual firm level. See 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Ukraine: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 

61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of Antidumping Administrative 

Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 

17, 1997). 

To establish whether a firm is 

sufficiently independent from 

government control of its export 

activities to be entitled to a separate 

rate, the Department analyzes each 

entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further 

developed in 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’’). In accordance with 

the separate-rates criteria, the 

Department assigns separate rates in 

NME cases only if respondents can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

export activities. Additionally, if the 

Department determines that a company 

is wholly foreign-owned or located in a 

market economy, then a separate rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether it is independent from 

government control. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 5805 

4For a list of companies to which the Department 

sent its request for Q&V information, see 

Respondent Selection Memorandum at Attachment 

1. 

Wholly Foreign-Owned Applicant 

In its separate-rate application, 

Polywell Industrial Co. (also known as 

Firstway (H.K.) Limited) (‘‘Polywell’’) 

reported that it is wholly foreign-owned. 

Polywell explained that it is a limited 

liability company incorporated in Hong 

Kong and its ultimate owners are 

citizens of a market-economy country. 

Therefore, because there is no PRC 

ownership of Polywell and because it is 

wholly foreign-owned, and we have no 

evidence indicating that it is under the 

control of the PRC, further separate rates 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether Polywell is independent from 

government control. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from 

the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 

71104, 71104 (December 20, 1999) 

(where the respondent was wholly 

foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a 

separate rate). Accordingly, we have 

preliminarily granted a separate rate to 

Polywell. 

Other Separate Rate Applicants 

Certain separate rate applicants stated 

that they are either joint ventures 

between Chinese and foreign companies 

or are wholly Chinese-owned 

companies (‘‘SR Applicants’’). 

Therefore, the Department must analyze 

whether these respondents can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

export activities. 

1. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by SSJ, Aifudi 

and the SR Applicants supports a 

preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of governmental control based on the 

following: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporters’ business and 

export licenses; (2) there are applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and (3) there 

are formal measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. 

2. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a governmental agency; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22544–45 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

governmental control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

We determine that, for SSJ, Aifudi 

and all of the SR Applicants except 

Shandong Qilu Plastic Fabric Group 

Stock Co., Ltd. (‘‘Qilu’’), the evidence on 

the record supports a preliminary 

finding of de facto absence of 

governmental control based on record 

statements and supporting 

documentation showing the following: 

(1) Each exporter sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) each exporter 

retains the proceeds from its sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) each exporter has the 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; and (4) each 

exporter has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. 

Therefore, the evidence placed on the 

record of this investigation by SSJ, 

Aifudi and the SR Applicants, with the 

exception of Qilu, demonstrate an 

absence of de jure and de facto 

government control with respect to each 

of the exporters’ exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, in 

accordance with the criteria identified 

in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a 

result, for the purposes of this 

preliminary determination, we have 

granted a separate company-specific rate 

to SSJ and Aifudi. Additionally, we 

have granted all the SR Applicants, 

except Qilu as explained below, a 

weighted-average margin, for the 

purposes of this preliminary 

determination. Finally, and as discussed 

previously, we granted Polywell a 

separate company-specific rate because 

it is wholly foreign-owned. 

Companies Not Receiving a Separate 

Rate 

The Department is not granting a 

separate rate to Qilu because it did not 

fully report all of its ultimate owners, 

and because its financial statements are 

unreliable. Qilu failed to report all of its 

ultimate owners, and without this 

information, the Department cannot 

conclude that Qilu operates 

independently of the government and 

without the approval of a government 

authority. Further, we determine that 

Qilu’s financial statements are 

unreliable, and because the financial 

statements have a direct impact on 

determining whether the respondent 

retains the proceeds of its export sales 

and makes independent decisions 

regarding disposition of profits or 

financing of losses, which is one of the 

critical elements considered in the 

analysis of de facto control, we 

conclude that Qilu is not entitled to a 

separate rate. For a detailed discussion 

of this issue, please see the proprietary 

Memorandum to James C. Doyle, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 

Separate Rate Memorandum in the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Laminated Woven Sacks from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated 

January 24, 2008. 

The PRC-Wide Entity 

The Department has data that indicate 

there were more exporters of laminated 

woven sacks from the PRC than those 

indicated in the response to our request 

for Q&V information during the POI. See 

Respondent Selection Memorandum. 

We issued our request for Q&V 

information to 41 potential Chinese 

exporters of the subject merchandise, in 

addition to BOFT and MOFCOM.4 We 

received 16 Q&V responses filed by the 

deadline. See Respondent Selection 

Memorandum at 1. We did not receive 

Q&V responses from the remaining 

companies to which we sent our request 

for Q&V information. See id. Based 

upon our knowledge of the volume of 

imports of subject merchandise from the 

PRC, the companies which responded to 

the Q&V questionnaire, SSJ, Aifudi, and 

the companies that submitted separate 

rate applications do not account for all 

imports into the United States. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
5806 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 

5Secondary information is described in the SAA 

as ‘‘information derived from the petition that gave 

rise to the investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 concerning 

the subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870. 

Although all exporters were given an 

opportunity to provide Q&V 

information, not all exporters provided 

a response to the Department’s Q&V 

letter. Further, the Government of the 

PRC did not respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire. Therefore, 

the Department determines 

preliminarily that there were PRC 

exports of the subject merchandise 

during the POI from PRC producers/ 

exporters that did not respond to the 

Department’s request for information. 

We have treated these PRC producers/ 

exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity 

because they did not qualify for a 

separate rate. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department, (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute, or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(i) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that the PRCwide entity was non-responsive. Certain 

companies did not respond to our 

request for Q&V information and did not 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire, and, as previously noted, 

the Government of the PRC did not 

respond. See Respondent Selection 

Memorandum at Attachment II for a full 

list of non-responsive companies. As a 

result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) 

of the Act, we find that the use of facts 

available is appropriate to determine the 

PRC-wide rate. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986, 4991 (January 

31, 2003), unchanged in Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products from the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); see 

also Uruguay Round Agreements Act 

Statement of Administrative Action H.R. 

Doc. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 

(‘‘SAA’’). We find that, because the PRCwide entity did not respond to our 

request for information, it has failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that, in selecting from among the 

facts available, an adverse inference is 

appropriate. 

Further, section 776(b) of the Act 

authorizes the Department to use as 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination from the LTFV 

investigation, a previous administrative 

review, or any other information placed 

on the record. In selecting a rate for 

adverse facts available, the Department 

selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse 

‘‘as to effectuate the statutory purposes 

of the adverse facts available rule to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner.’’ Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 

63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 

It is the Department’s practice to select, 

as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest 

margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the 

highest calculated rate of any 

respondent in the investigation. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Flat-Rolled 

Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 

Products from the People’s Republic of 

China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at ‘‘Facts Available.’’

In the instant investigation, as AFA, 

we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity 

a margin based on the highest calculated 

rate of the mandatory respondents, 

which in this case is Aifudi. Therefore, 

we are applying the highest calculated 

rate of the mandatory respondents 

which is 108.09 percent. Section 776(c) 

of the Act requires that, when the 

Department relies on secondary 

information rather than on information 

obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal.5

Here, we are not using secondary 

information as the basis of the PRC-wide 

rate, and therefore, corroboration is not 

necessary. 

Consequently, we are applying 108.09 

percent as the single antidumping rate 

to the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide 

rate applies to all entries of the 

merchandise under investigation except 

for entries from SSJ, Aifudi, and the 

separate rate applicants receiving a 

separate rate. 

Margin for the Separate Rate 

Applicants 

The Department received timely and 

complete separate rate applications from 

the Separate Rate Applicants, who are 

all exporters of laminated woven sacks 

from the PRC, which were not selected 

as mandatory respondents in this 

investigation. Through the evidence in 

their applications, with the exception of 

Qilu, these companies have 

demonstrated their eligibility for a 

separate rate, as discussed above. 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, as the separate rate, we have 

established a weighted-average margin 

for the Separate Rates Applicants based 

on the rates we calculated for SSJ and 

Aifudi, excluding any rates that are 

zero, de minimis, or based entirely on 

AFA. Companies receiving this rate are 

identified by name in the ‘‘Suspension 

of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that, ‘‘in identifying 

the date of sale of the subject 

merchandise or foreign like product, the 

Secretary normally will use the date of 

invoice, as recorded in the exporter or 

producer’s records kept in the normal 

course of business.’’ However, the 

Secretary may use a date other than the 

date of invoice if the Secretary is 

satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the exporter 

or producer establishes the material 

terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see 

also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 

1090–1093 (CIT 2001) (‘‘Allied Tube’’). 

The date of sale is generally the date on 

which the parties agree upon all 

substantive terms of the sale. This 

normally includes the price, quantity, 

delivery terms and payment terms. In 

order to simplify the determination of 

date of sale for both the respondent and 

the Department and in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will 

normally be the date of the invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter’s or producer’s 

records kept in the ordinary course of 

business, unless satisfactory evidence is 

presented that the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale on 

some other date. In Allied Tube, the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 5807 

Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) 

found that a ‘‘party seeking to establish 

a date of sale other than invoice date 

bears the burden of producing sufficient 

evidence to ‘satisfy’ the Department that 

a ‘different date better reflects the date 

on which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale.’ ’’

Allied Tube 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 

(quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)). In other 

words, the date of the invoice is the 

presumptive date of sale, although this 

presumption may be overcome. For 

instance, in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from 

Taiwan, 61 FR 14064, 14067 (March 29, 

1996), the Department used the date of 

the purchase order as the date of sale 

because the terms of sale were 

established at that point. 

After examining the questionnaire 

responses and the sales documentation 

that SSJ and Aifudi placed on the 

record, we preliminarily determine that 

invoice date is the most appropriate 

date of sale for all of SSJ’s sales. For 

Aifudi’s constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) sales where shipment date 

preceded invoice date, we used 

shipment date as the date of sale. For 

Aifudi’s CEP sales where shipment date 

was the same as or after the invoice 

date, we used the invoice date as the 

date of sale. See Aifudi’s December 11, 

2007, supplemental Section C response 

at Exhibit S2–2. Aifudi did not have any 

EP sales. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

laminated woven sacks to the United 

States by SSJ and Aifudi were made at 

less than fair value, we compared the 

export price (‘‘EP’’) or CEP, as 

appropriate, to normal value (‘‘NV’’), as 

described in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

U.S. Price 

A. EP 

For SSJ, in accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act, we based the U.S. 

price on EP because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated purchaser was made prior 

to importation, and the use of CEP was 

not otherwise warranted. In accordance 

with section 772(c) of the Act, we 

calculated EP by deducting, where 

applicable, foreign inland freight, 

foreign brokerage and handling, 

international freight, and rebates from 

the gross unit price. 

We based these movement expenses 

on surrogate values where a PRC 

company provided the service and was 

paid in Renminbi (‘‘RMB’’) (see ‘‘Factors 

of Production’’ section below for further 

discussion). If market-economy service 

providers, who were paid in a market 

economy currency, provided movement 

services for over 33 percent of subject 

merchandise shipments, by volume, we 

based the movement expenses on the 

actual price charged by the service 

provider. If market-economy service 

providers, who were paid in a market 

economy currency, provided movement 

services for less than 33 percent of 

subject merchandise shipments, by 

volume, we calculated the movement 

expenses by weight-averaging surrogate 

values with the actual price charged by 

the service provider. See Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 

Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 

Duty Drawback; and Request for 

Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717–18 

(October 19, 2006) (‘‘Notice for 

Antidumping Methodologies’’). For 

details regarding our EP calculation, see 

Memorandum to the File from Catherine 

Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst: 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for 

the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Laminated Woven Sacks from the 

People’s Republic of China: SSJ, dated 

January 24, 2008 (‘‘SSJ Analysis 

Memorandum’’). 

B. CEP 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, for Aifudi’s sales we based the 

U.S. price on CEP because the sale to 

the unaffiliated customer was made 

after importation. In accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we 

calculated CEP by deducting, where 

applicable, the following expenses from 

the gross unit price charged to the first 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States: marine insurance, discounts, 

rebates, inland freight from warehouse 

to the unaffiliated customer, other U.S. 

transportation expenses, U.S. customs 

duty, U.S. brokerage, credit expenses, 

advertising expenses, inventory carrying 

costs, billing adjustments, foreign 

movement expenses, and international 

freight. Further, in accordance with 

section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.402(b), where appropriate, we 

deducted from the starting price the 

following selling expenses associated 

with economic activities occurring in 

the United States: credit expenses, 

warranty expenses, other direct selling 

expenses, and indirect selling expenses. 

In addition, pursuant to section 

772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an 

adjustment to the starting price for CEP 

profit. We based movement expenses on 

either surrogate values, actual expenses, 

or an average of the two as explained 

above in the ‘‘EP’’ section of this notice. 

For details regarding our CEP 

calculations, see Memorandum to the 

File from Javier Barrientos, Senior Case 

Analyst: Program Analysis for the 

Preliminary Determination of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Laminated Woven Sacks from the 

People’s Republic of China: Aifudi, 

dated January 24, 2008 (‘‘Aifudi’s 

Analysis Memorandum’’). 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using a factors-of-production 

(‘‘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 Act. The Department bases NV on 

the FOP because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of non-market economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under the 

Department’s normal methodologies. 

Factor Valuation Methodology 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by respondents for the 

POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor-consumption 

rates by publicly available surrogate 

values (except as discussed below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to the Indian surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407–

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed 

description of all surrogate values used 

for respondents can be found in the 

Surrogate Value Memorandum and 

company-specific analysis memoranda. 

Additionally, for detailed descriptions 

of all actual values used, see the 

company-specific analysis memoranda 

dated January 24, 2008. We also made 

an adjustment to the factors of 

production for SSJ and Aifudi to 

account for the cost of the printing 

plates and engraving costs used in the 

production of laminated woven sacks. 

See SSJ’s Analysis Memorandum and 

Aifudi’s Analysis Memorandum. 

Further, we were unable to take into 

account the January 16, 2008, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
5808 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 

6A revision was submitted on November 21, 

2007. 7On November 19, 2007, the Department received 

monthly shipment data from Shandong Qilu Plastic 

Fabric Group Stock Co., Ltd (‘‘Qilu’’), a separate rate 

applicant in the instant investigation, even though 

the Department did not issue Qilu a request for 

information for monthly shipment data. Because the 

Department did not request/solicit information 

regarding monthly shipment data from Qilu, the 

Department rejected Qilu’s November 19, 2007, 

submission as unsolicited factual information 

pursuant to section 351.302(d)(1)(ii) of the 

Department’s regulations. See Letter from Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager IA, to Shandong Qilu 

Plastic Fabric Group Stock Co., Ltd, dated 

December 5, 2007. 

supplemental responses of SSJ and 

Aifudi due to the close proximity to the 

preliminary determination. We will 

consider these submissions for the final 

determination. 

For this preliminary determination, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we used data from the Indian 

Import Statistics and other publicly 

available Indian sources in order to 

calculate surrogate values for the 

mandatory respondents’ FOPs (direct 

materials, energy, and packing 

materials) and certain movement 

expenses. In selecting the best available 

information for valuing FOPs in 

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

Act, the Department’s practice is to 

select, to the extent practicable, 

surrogate values which are non-export 

average values, most contemporaneous 

with the POI, product-specific, and taxexclusive. 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). The record 

shows that data in the Indian Import 

Statistics, as well as that from the other 

Indian sources, represent data that are 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. In 

those instances where we could not 

obtain publicly available information 

contemporaneous to the POI with which 

to value factors, we adjusted the 

surrogate values using, where 

appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price 

Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund. 

Furthermore, with regard to the 

Indian import-based surrogate values, 

we have disregarded import prices that 

we have reason to believe or suspect 

may be subsidized. We have reason to 

believe or suspect that prices of inputs 

from Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries may be subsidized. 

See 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) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7. We are 

also instructed by the legislative history 

not to conduct a formal investigation to 

ensure that such prices are not 

subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988, 

Conference Report to Accompanying 

H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 590 (1988). 

Rather, Congress directed the 

Department to base its decision on 

information that is available to it at the 

time it makes its determination. 

Therefore, we have not used prices from 

these countries either in calculating the 

Indian import-based surrogate values or 

in calculating market-economy input 

values. In instances where a marketeconomy input was obtained solely 

from suppliers located in these 

countries, we used Indian import-based 

surrogate values to value the input. See 

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. 

The Department used the Indian 

Import Statistics to value the raw 

material and packing material inputs 

that SSJ and Aifudi reported were used 

to produce the subject merchandise 

during the POI, except where listed 

below. For direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

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

regression-based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s home page, 

Import Library, Expected Wages of 

Selected NME Countries, revised in 

January 2007, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages/index.html. The source of these 

wage-rate data on the Import 

Administration’s Web site is the 

Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO 

(Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in 

Manufacturing. Because this regressionbased wage rate does not separate the 

labor rates into different skill levels or 

types of labor, we have applied the same 

wage rate to all skill levels and types of 

labor reported by the respondent. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we used the 2006–2007 

audited financial statements of Mody 

Plastics Industries Ltd, an Indian 

producer of laminated woven sacks. For 

a detailed discussion of all surrogate 

values used for this preliminary 

determination, see Surrogate Values 

Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

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

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Critical Circumstances 

On November 2, 2007, Petitioners 

alleged that there is a reasonable basis 

to believe or suspect critical 

circumstances exist with respect to the 

antidumping investigation of laminated 

woven sacks from the PRC. On 

November 16, 2007, and November 19, 

2007,6 SSJ and Aifudi, respectively, 

submitted information on their exports 

of laminated woven sacks from January 

2005 through October 2007 as requested 

by the Department (collectively, 

‘‘mandatory respondents’’) (see 

mandatory respondents’ December 16, 

2007, and December 19, 2007, Critical 

Circumstances Questionnaire responses 

(‘‘CCQR’’)).7 In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.206(c)(2)(i), because Petitioners 

submitted critical circumstances 

allegations more than 20 days before the 

scheduled date of the preliminary 

determination, the Department must 

issue preliminary critical circumstances 

determinations not later than the date of 

the preliminary determination. 

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department will preliminarily 

determine that critical circumstances 

exist if there is a reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a 

history of dumping and material injury 

by reason of dumped imports in the 

United States or elsewhere of the subject 

merchandise; or (ii) the person by 

whom, or for whose account, the 

merchandise was imported knew or 

should have known that the exporter 

was selling the subject merchandise at 

less than its fair value and that there 

was likely to be material injury by 

reason of such sales; and (B) there have 

been massive imports of the subject 

merchandise over a relatively short 

period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 5809 

in determining whether imports of the 

subject merchandise have been 

‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally 

will examine: (i) The volume and value 

of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and 

(iii) the share of domestic consumption 

accounted for by the imports. In 

addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that 

an increase in imports of 15 percent 

during the ‘‘relatively short period’’ of 

time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’

Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s 

regulations defines ‘‘relatively short 

period’’ as normally being the period 

beginning on the date the proceeding 

begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) 

and ending at least three months later 

(i.e., the comparison period). The 

comparison period is normally 

compared to the three months prior to 

the filing of the petition (i.e., the base 

period). The regulations also provide, 

however, that if the Department finds 

that importers, exporters, or producers 

had reason to believe, at some time prior 

to the beginning of the proceeding, that 

a proceeding was likely, the Department 

may establish the base and comparison 

periods based on the earlier date. See 19 

CFR 351.206(i). 

In determining whether the above 

statutory criteria have been satisfied, we 

examined: (1) The evidence presented 

in Petitioners’ November 2, 2007, 

submission; (2) new evidence obtained 

since the initiation of the LTFV 

investigation (i.e., additional import 

statistics released by the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection); and (3) 

additional information obtained from 

SSJ and Aifudi (see CCQR). 

In accordance with section 

733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, to determine 

whether importers of laminated woven 

sacks from the PRC knew or should 

have known that the exporter was 

selling the subject merchandise at less 

than its fair value and that there was 

likely to be material injury by reason of 

such sales, the Department must rely on 

the facts before it at the time the 

determination is made. The Department 

generally bases its decision with respect 

to knowledge on the margins calculated 

in the preliminary antidumping duty 

determination and the ITC preliminary 

injury determination. 

The Department normally considers 

margins of 25 percent or more for export 

price EP sales and 15 percent or more 

for CEP sales sufficient to impute 

importer knowledge of sales at LTFV. 

See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod From Germany, Mexico, Moldova, 

Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 

6225 (February 11, 2002). In this 

preliminary determination, SSJ has a 

margin of 63.89 percent and Aifudi has 

a margin of 108.09 percent. The separate 

rate companies which have 

preliminarily received a separate rate 

have a margin of 87.60 percent, based 

on a weighted-average of the margins of 

the mandatory respondents. The PRCwide entity has a margin of 108.09 

percent. We find that the antidumping 

duty preliminary margins for Aifudi, 

SSJ, the separate rate companies, and 

the PRC-wide entity support a finding 

that there is a reasonable basis to believe 

or suspect that the importers knew or 

should have known that there was likely 

to be material injury by reason of sales 

at LTFV of laminated woven sacks from 

the PRC from these respondents. 

In determining whether there is a 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that an importer knew or should have 

known that there was likely to be 

material injury by reason of dumped 

imports, consistent with section 

733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 

Department also looks to the 

preliminary injury determination of the 

ITC. See, e.g., Lemon Juice from 

Argentina: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances, 72 FR 20820, 

20828 (April 26, 2007). On August 14, 

2007, the ITC issued a preliminary 

affirmative determination for laminated 

woven sacks from the PRC. See ITC. 

Preliminary Determination 

In accordance with section 

733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 

must determine whether there have 

been massive imports of the subject 

merchandise over a relatively short 

period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h), 

we will not consider imports to be 

massive unless imports in the 

comparison period have increased by at 

least 15 percent over imports in the base 

period. As discussed above, the 

Department normally determines the 

comparison period for massive imports 

based on the filing date of the petition. 

Based on the June 28, 2007, filing 

date, we have determined that July 2007 

is the month in which importers, 

exporters or producers knew or should 

have known an antidumping duty 

investigation was likely. Additionally, 

we have used a period of four months 

as the period for comparison in 

preliminarily determining whether 

imports of the subject merchandise have 

been massive. We believe that a fourmonth period is most appropriate as the 

basis for analysis because using four 

months captures all data available at 

this time, based on July 2007 as the 

beginning of the comparison period. 

Additionally, a four-month period 

properly reflects the ‘‘relatively short 

period’’ set forth in the statute for 

determining whether imports have been 

massive. See section 733(e)(1)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.206(i). It is our 

practice to base the critical 

circumstances analysis on all available 

data, using base and comparison periods 

of no less than three months. See Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India, 

69 FR 47111 (August 4, 2004) 

unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From India, 

69 FR 76916 (December 23, 2004); see 

also 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 (Apr. 16, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3. Therefore, 

we have used all available data in our 

critical-circumstances analysis for the 

preliminary determination. Therefore, 

in applying the four-month period, we 

used a comparison period of March 

2007 to June 2007, and a base period of 

July 2007 to October 2007. 

Mandatory Respondents 

The Department used the shipment 

data of Aifudi and SSJ to examine the 

relevant comparison period of four 

months before July 2007, i.e., March–

June 2007, and four months following 

that period, i.e., July–October 2007. 

When we compared these companies’

import data during the base period with 

the comparison period, Aifudi had an 

increased volume of exports over the 

base period of greater than 15 percent 

while SSJ did not and, consequently, we 

only find Aifudi’s imports to be 

massive. See Memorandum to the File 

from Javier Barrientos, Senior Case 

Analyst: Critical Circumstances Data for 

the Preliminary Determination of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Laminated Woven Sacks from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated 

January 24, 2008, at Attachment I (‘‘CC 

MTF’’) for the exact percentage changes. 

Separate Rate Companies 

For the separate rate companies, we 

did not request the monthly shipment 

information necessary to determine if 

there were massive imports. As the basis 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
5810 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 

to measure whether massive imports 

existed for purposes of critical 

circumstances, we relied on the 

experience of the mandatory 

respondents receiving a separate rate. 

When we compared the weight-averaged 

import data during the base period with 

the comparison period from the 

mandatory respondents, we found that 

the weight-averaged volume of imports 

of laminated woven sacks for the 

separate rate companies did have an 

increased volume of exports over the 

base period of greater than 15 percent. 

Therefore, we find the imports of the 

separate rate companies to be massive. 

See CC MTF at Attachment I for the 

exact percentage changes. 

PRC-Wide Entity 

Because the PRC-wide entity failed to 

respond to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire, we were 

unable to obtain shipment data from the 

PRC-wide entity for purposes of our 

critical circumstances analysis, and 

there is no information on the record 

with respect to its export volumes. We 

relied on the ITC Dataweb site (http:// 

databweb.usitc.gov) to determine 

whether there were imports of 

laminated woven sacks from the PRC 

during the base and the comparison 

periods not accounted for in the 

shipment data for the mandatory 

respondents. We found that there were 

such imports and we were able to rely 

on such data to quantify the imports 

attributed to the PRC-wide entity 

because the HTSUS article codes 

covering imported laminated woven 

sacks from the PRC contain data for 

subject merchandise, allowing us to 

segregate the mandatory respondents 

and separate rate companies’ data from 

the PRC-wide import data. 

We have deducted the mandatory 

respondents’ data from the China-wide 

import data as to avoid possibly doublecounting. When we compared the PRC 

entity import data during the adjusted 

base period with the adjusted 

comparison period, we found that the 

volume of imports of laminated woven 

sacks for the PRC-wide entity during the 

comparison period was not greater than 

15 percent over the base period. The 

total import volume difference is 

¥15.95 percent. See CC MTF at 

Attachment I. Consequently, we find 

that the PRC-wide entity did not have 

an increased volume of exports over the 

base period of greater than 15 percent, 

and therefore, we do not find their 

imports to be massive. 

In addition, as a result of the ITC’s 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in the instant LTFV investigation, the 

Department preliminarily finds there is 

a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that importers knew or should have 

known that there was likely to be 

material injury by reason of dumped 

imports, consistent with section 

733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. See ITC 

Preliminary Determination. As 

discussed above, the volume of imports 

of laminated woven sacks from the PRC 

from Aifudi and the separate rate 

companies was massive within the 

meaning of section 733(e)(1)(B) of the 

Act. The volume of imports of 

laminated woven sacks from the PRC for 

SSJ and the PRC-wide entity, however, 

were each below 15 percent, and thus 

not massive within the meaning of 

section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. As a 

result, we preliminarily find that critical 

circumstances exist for Aifudi and the 

separate rate companies, but do not 

exist for imports of laminated woven 

sacks for SSJ and the PRC-wide entity. 

We will make a final determination 

concerning critical circumstances for all 

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise from the PRC when we 

make our final dumping determination 

in this investigation. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

upon which we will rely in making our 

final determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation Notice, 72 FR 40833, 40837. 

This change in practice is described in 

Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/. 

Preliminary Determination 

The preliminary weighted-average 

dumping margins are as follows: 

Exporter Producer 

Weight-average E 

margin 

(percent) 

SHANGDONG SHOUGUANG JIANYUANCHUN CO., LTD./ 

SHANDONG LONGXING PLASTIC PACK CO. LTD.

SHANGDONG SHOUGUANG JIANYUANCHUN CO., LTD./ 

SHANDONG LONGXING PLASTIC PACK CO. LTD.

63.89 

ZIBO AIFUDI PLASTIC PACKAGING CO., LTD ................... ZIBO AIFUDI PLASTIC PACKAGING CO., LTD ................... 108.09 

POLYWELL INDUSTRIAL CO., a.k.a. FIRST WAY (H.K.) 

LIMITED.

POLYWELL PLASTIC PRODUCT FACTORY ....................... 87.60 

ZIBO LINZI WORUN PACKING PRODUCT CO., LTD ......... ZIBO LINZI WORUN PACKING PRODUCT CO., LTD ......... 87.60 

SHANDONG QIKAI PLASTICS PRODUCT CO., LTD .......... SHANDONG QIKAI PLASTICS PRODUCT CO., LTD .......... 87.60 

CHANGLE BAODU PLASTIC CO. LTD ................................. CHANGLE BAODU PLASTIC CO. LTD ................................ 87.60 

ZIBO LINZI SHUAIQIANG PLASTICS CO. LTD ................... ZIBO LINZI SHUAIQIANG PLASTICS CO. LTD ................... 87.60 

ZIBO LINZI QITIANLI PLASTIC FABRIC CO. LTD ............... ZIBO LINZI QITIANLI PLASTIC FABRIC CO. LTD ............... 87.60 

SHANDONG YOULIAN CO. LTD .......................................... SHANDONG YOULIAN CO. LTD .......................................... 87.60 

ZIBO LINZI LUITONG PLASTIC FABRIC CO. LTD .............. ZIBO LINZI LUITONG PLASTIC FABRIC CO. LTD .............. 87.60 

WENZHOU HOTSON PLASTICS CO. LTD .......................... WENZHOU HOTSON PLASTICS CO. LTD .......................... 87.60 

JIANGSU HOTSON PLASTICS CO. LTD ............................. JIANGSU HOTSON PLASTICS CO. LTD ............................. 87.60 

CANGNAN COLOR MAKE THE BAG ................................... CANGNAN COLOR MAKE THE BAG ................................... 87.60

ZIBO QIGAO PLASTIC CEMENT CO. LTD .......................... ZIBO QIGAO PLASTIC CEMENT CO. LTD .......................... 87.60 

PRC-WIDE RATE ................................................................... ................................................................................................. 108.09 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

laminated woven sacks from the PRC as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption from SSJ and the PRCwide entity on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 5811 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. 

For Aifudi, and the companies receiving 

a separate rate, we will direct CBP to 

suspend liquidation of any entries of 

laminated woven sacks from the PRC as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section, that are entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after 90 days prior 

to the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of our preliminary 

determination. The suspension of 

liquidation will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at less than fair value. Section 

735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to 

make its final determination as to 

whether the domestic industry in the 

United States is materially injured, or 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of imports of laminated woven 

sacks, or sales (or the likelihood of 

sales) for importation, of the subject 

merchandise within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date the 

final verification report is issued in this 

proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to 

issues raised in case briefs no later than 

five days after the deadline date for case 

briefs. A list of authorities used and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. This summary should be 

limited to five pages total, including 

footnotes. Parties are also requested to 

submit an electronic version of their 

case and rebuttal briefs. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, and if requested, we will hold a 

public hearing, to afford interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

arguments raised in case or rebuttal 

briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, 

we intend to hold the hearing three days 

after the deadline of submission of 

rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

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

time and location to be determined. 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

two days before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the 

Act, on January 11, 2008, Aifudi 

requested that in the event of an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in this investigation, the Department 

postpone its final determination by 60 

days. At the same time, Aifudi 

requested that the Department extend 

the application of the provisional 

measures prescribed under 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2) from a four month period 

to a six month period. In accordance 

with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our 

preliminary determination is 

affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter 

accounts for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting the request and 

are postponing the final determination 

until no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Suspension of liquidation will 

be extended accordingly. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: January 24, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–1755 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force Public 

Meeting and Public Comment 

AGENCY: National Ocean Service, 

NOAA, Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting, Notice 

of public comment. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a 

public meeting of the U.S. Coral Reef 

Task Force. The meeting will be held in 

Washington, DC. This meeting, the 19th 

bi-annual meeting of the U.S. Coral Reef 

Task Force, provides a forum for 

coordinated planning and action among 

federal agencies, state and territorial 

governments, and nongovernmental 

partners. Please register in advance by 

visiting the Web site listed below. This 

meeting has time allotted for public 

comment. All public comment must be 

submitted in written format. A written 

summary of the meeting will be posted 

on the Web site within two months of 

its occurrence. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, February 27, 2008, 8:30–

5:30. Advance public comments can be 

submitted to the e-mail, fax, or mailing 

address listed below from Wednesday, 

February 6, 2008—Wednesday, 

February 20, 2008. 

Location: The meeting will be held at 

the Smithsonian Institution’s National 

Museum of Natural History in the Baird 

Auditorium, located at 10th Street and 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20560. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth 

Dieveney, U.S. Coral Reef Task Force 

Steering Committee Co-Chair, Coral Reef 

Conservation Program, 1305 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 

20910 (Phone: 301–713–3155 ext. 129, 

Fax: 301–713–4389, e-mail: 

Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov, or visit the 

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force Web site at 

http://www.coralreef.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Established by Presidential Executive 

Order 13089 in 1998, the U.S. Coral Reef 

Task Force mission is to lead, 

coordinate, and strengthen U.S. 

government actions to better preserve 

and protect coral reef ecosystems. Cochaired by the Departments of 

Commerce and Interior, Task Force 

members include leaders of 12 federal 

agencies, seven U.S. states and 

territories, and three freely associated 

states. For more information about the 

meeting, registering, and submitting 

public comment, go to http:// 

www.coralreef.gov. 

Dated: January 10, 2008. 

David Kennedy, 

Manager, Coral Reef Conservation Program. 

[FR Doc. 08–414 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JE–M 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES