Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Notices 5567 

E.T. Proposals submitted after that date 

will not be considered. 

ADDRESSES: Applicants are strongly 

encouraged to apply online through the 

Grants.gov Web site (http:// 

www.grants.gov). Paper submissions are 

acceptable only if Internet access is not 

available. Grants.gov requires applicants 

to register with the system prior to 

submitting an application. This 

registration process can take several 

weeks, involving multiple steps. In 

order to allow sufficient time for this 

process, you should register as soon as 

you decide that you intend to apply, 

even if you are not yet ready to submit 

your proposal. If an applicant has 

problems downloading the application 

package from Grants.gov, contact 

Grants.gov Customer Support at (800) 

518–4726 or support@grants.gov. 

If a hard copy application is 

submitted, the original and two 

unbound copies of the proposal should 

be included. Paper submissions should 

be sent to: Dr. John Cortinas, NOAA/ 

OAR, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

11326, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 

telephone (301) 734–1090. No e-mail or 

facsimile e-mail or facsimile proposal 

submissions will be accepted. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

John Cortinas, 1315 East-West Highway, 

Room 11326, Silver Spring, Maryland 

20910; telephone (301) 734–1090. 

Facsimile: (301) 713–3515; e-mail: 

John.Cortinas@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OAR 

publishes this notice to announce an 

extension to the application solicitation 

period for its notice announcing funding 

availability for the NOAA Cooperative 

Institutes Program published in the 

Federal Register on November 13, 2009 

(74 FR 58603–58607). The date when 

applications must be received at NOAA 

is being extended from February 10, 

2010 until February 12, 2010. OAR 

extends the solicitation period to 

provide applicants with more time to 

prepare their applications for this 

program. 

All other requirements and 

information listed in the original notice 

remain unchanged. 

Classification: Pre-Award Notification 

Requirements for Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements. 

The Department of Commerce PreAward Notification Requirements for 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

contained in the Federal Register notice 

of February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696) are 

applicable to this solicitation. 

Limitation of Liability 

Funding for years 2–5 of the 

Cooperative Institute is contingent upon 

the availability of appropriated funds. In 

no event will NOAA or the Department 

of Commerce be responsible for 

application preparation costs if these 

programs fail to receive funding or are 

cancelled because of other agency 

priorities. Publication of this 

announcement does not oblige NOAA to 

award any specific project or to obligate 

any available funds. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This notification involves collection 

of information requirements subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use 

of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and 

SF–LLL and CD–346 has been approved 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) respectively under 

control numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044, 

0348–0040, and 0348–0046 and 0605– 

0001. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

for failure to comply with, a collection 

of information subject to the 

requirements of the PRA unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

Executive Order 12866 

It has been determined that this notice 

is not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

It has been determined that this notice 

does not contain policies with 

Federalism implications as that term is 

defined in Executive Order 13132. 

Administrative Procedure Act/ 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Prior notice and an opportunity for 

public comment are not required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other law for rules concerning public 

property, grants, benefits, and contracts 

(5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and 

opportunity for comments are not 

required pursuant to U.S.C. 553 or any 

other law, the analytical requirements of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, 

a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required and none has been prepared. 

Dated: January 28, 2010. 

Mark E. Brown, 

Chief Financial Officer/Chief Administrative 

Officer, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2314 Filed 2–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–KD–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–951] 

Certain Woven Electric Blankets From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 3, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) preliminarily 

determines that certain woven electric 

blankets (woven electric blankets) 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 dumping margins 

are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Drew Jackson or Howard Smith, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4406 or 482–5193, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 30, 2009, the Department 

received an antidumping duty petition 

concerning imports of woven electric 

blankets from the PRC filed in proper 

form by Jarden Consumer Solutions 

(Petitioner). See Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties: 

Certain Woven Electric Blankets from 

the People’s Republic of China, dated 

June 30, 2009 (Petition). The 

Department initiated an antidumping 

duty investigation of woven electric 

blankets from the PRC on July 20, 2009. 

See Certain Woven Electric Blankets 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 74 FR 37001 (July 27, 

2009) (Initiation Notice). 

On July 20, 2009, the Department 

requested quantity and value (Q&V) 

information from the 30 companies that 

are identified in the petition as potential 

producers or exporters of woven electric 

blankets from the PRC. See ‘‘Respondent 

Selection in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Woven Electric Blankets 

From the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated September 3, 2009 (Respondent 

Selection Memorandum). The 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
5568 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Notices 

1 Jifa and Jinchun submitted a combined Q&V 

response. These companies stated that they should 

be collapsed for purposes of this investigation. See 

Jifa and Jichun’s August 11, 2009, Q&V response. 

For further discussion of this issue, see the section 

entitled, ‘‘Separate Rates,’’ below. 

Department received timely responses 

to its Q&V questionnaire from the 

following companies: Hung Kuo 

Electronic (Shenzhen) Company 

Limited (Hung Kuo); Ningbo Zhonglei 

Maofangzhi Ranzheng Co., Ltd. (Ningbo 

Zhonglei); Zhejiang Hewei Knitting 

Technology Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Jifa 

Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. (Jifa); 

Ningbo Jinchun Electric Appliances Co., 

Ltd. (Jinchun); 1 Ningbo V.K. Industry & 

Trading Co., Ltd. (Ningbo V.K.); and 

Chengdu Rainbow Appliance (Group) 

Sharers Co., Ltd. The Department 

confirmed that 19 of the 30 companies 

received the Q&V questionnaire, while 

the international courier service 

shipment tracking results showed that 

DHL had arranged for delivery of the 

Department’s Q&V questionnaire to an 

additional 10 companies. See 

‘‘Respondent Selection Memorandum.’’ 

Additionally, one of the Department’s 

Q&V questionnaires was returned to the 

Department due to an incorrect address 

provided by Petitioner. Only the abovenamed companies responded to the 

Department’s Q&V questionnaire. 

On August 13, 2009, the International 

Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily 

determined that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury by 

reason of imports of woven electric 

blankets from the PRC. See Woven 

Electric Blankets From China, 

Investigation No. 731–TA–1163 

(Preliminary), 74 FR 42323 (August 21, 

2009). Also, in August 2009, Petitioner 

submitted comments to the Department 

regarding the physical characteristics of 

subject merchandise that it argued 

should be used in comparing sales 

prices with normal value (NV). 

On September 3, 2009, the 

Department selected Hung Kuo as the 

mandatory respondent and issued an 

antidumping questionnaire to the 

company. See ‘‘Respondent Selection 

Memorandum.’’ Hung Kuo submitted 

timely responses to the Department’s 

questionnaire on September 3, 2009, 

October 16, 2009, and October 27, 2009. 

On September 25, 2009, the Department 

received properly filed separate-rate 

applications from Jifa, Jinchun, and 

Ningbo V.K. 

The Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to, and received 

responses from Hung Kuo, Jifa, Jinchun, 

and Ningbo V.K. from October through 

January 2010. Petitioner submitted 

comments to the Department regarding 

Hung Kuo’s questionnaire and 

supplemental questionnaire responses 

from June 2009, through January 2010. 

On October 30, 2009, the Department 

released a memorandum to interested 

parties which listed potential surrogate 

countries and invited interested parties 

to comment on surrogate country and 

surrogate value selection. During 

November and December 2009, and 

January 2010, Petitioner and Hung Kuo 

submitted comments on the appropriate 

surrogate country and surrogate values. 

The submitted surrogate value data 

submitted by Petitioner and Hung Kuo 

are for India. 

On November 5, 2009, Petitioner 

requested postponement of the 

preliminary determination. On 

November 16, 2009, the Department 

extended this preliminary 

determination by fifty days. See Certain 

Woven Electric Blankets From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 74 FR 60236 (November 

20, 2009). On January 14, 2010, Hung 

Kuo requested that the Department 

extend the final determination in this 

case. See the ‘‘Postponement of Final 

Determination’’ section of this notice 

below. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

October 1, 2008, through March 31, 

2009. This period corresponds to the 

two most recently completed fiscal 

quarters prior to the month in which the 

petition was filed (i.e., June 2009). See 

19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

finished, semi-finished, and 

unassembled woven electric blankets, 

including woven electric blankets 

commonly referred to as throws, of all 

sizes and fabric types, whether made of 

man-made fiber, natural fiber or a blend 

of both. Semi-finished woven electric 

blankets and throws consist of shells of 

woven fabric containing wire. 

Unassembled woven electric blankets 

and throws consist of a shell of woven 

fabric and one or more of the following 

components when packaged together or 

in a kit: (1) Wire; (2) controller(s). The 

shell of woven fabric consists of two 

sheets of fabric joined together forming 

a ‘‘shell.’’ The shell of woven fabric is 

manufactured to accommodate either 

the electric blanket’s wiring or a 

subassembly containing the electric 

blanket’s wiring (e.g., wiring mounted 

on a substrate). 

A shell of woven fabric that is not 

packaged together, or in a kit, with 

either wire, controller(s), or both, is not 

covered by this investigation even 

though the shell of woven fabric may be 

dedicated solely for use as a material in 

the production of woven electric 

blankets. 

The finished, semi-finished and 

unassembled woven electric blankets 

and throws subject to this investigation 

are currently classifiable under 

subheading 6301.10.0000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, 

only the written description of the scope 

is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

the Department’s regulations, we set 

aside a period of time in our Initiation 

Notice for parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage, and 

encouraged all parties to submit 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

the signature date of that notice. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19, 1997), see also Initiation 

Notice. Before the Department initiated 

the instant investigation, interested 

parties submitted comments regarding 

the proposed scope of the investigation; 

however, the Department made no 

changes to the proposed scope of the 

investigation. See Initiation Notice. 

After initiation, the Department 

received no additional comments 

concerning the scope of the woven 

electric blankets antidumping duty 

investigation, and, therefore, the 

Department has not modified the scope. 

Non-Market Economy Treatment 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be a non-market economy (NME) 

country. 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 (TRBs), 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 

TRBs, 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 Department has not revoked 

the PRC’s status as an NME country. 

Therefore, in this preliminary 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Notices 5569 

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 will not 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. 

3See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice 

and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov, which states: ‘‘While 

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 applied 

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.’’ 

determination, we have treated the PRC 

as an NME country and applied our 

current NME methodology. 

Surrogate Country and Value 

Comments 

On October 30, 2009, the Department 

released a Policy Memorandum to 

interested parties identifying potential 

surrogate countries and provided parties 

with an opportunity to submit 

comments regarding the selection of a 

surrogate country in the instant 

investigation. See Memorandum to 

Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/ 

CVD Operations Office 4, from Kelly 

Parkhill, Acting Director for Policy, 

Office of Policy, ‘‘Request for A List of 

Surrogate Countries for an Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Certain Woven 

Electric Blankets (WEB) from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC),’’ 

dated October 28, 2009 (Office of Policy 

Surrogate Country List Memorandum). 

The countries identified in that 

memorandum as being at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

the PRC for the specified POI are India, 

Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, 

Thailand, and Peru. On November 20, 

2009, the Department received 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and surrogate value 

information from Petitioner and Hung 

Kuo. On December 4, 2009, Petitioner 

and Hung Kuo submitted rebuttal 

comments. Both Petitioner and Hung 

Kuo assert that the Department should 

select India as the appropriate surrogate 

country. 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 Country 

When the Department is investigating 

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

of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 

circumstances, on the NME producer’s 

factors of production (FOP) 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 FOP, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOP 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. 

The Department determined that 

India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 

Colombia, Thailand and Peru are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development. See 

‘‘Office of Policy Surrogate Country List 

Memorandum.’’ Once the countries that 

are economically comparable to the PRC 

have been identified, we select an 

appropriate surrogate country by 

determining whether an economically 

comparable country is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise 

and whether the data for valuing FOP is 

both available and reliable. See id. In 

their November 20, 2009, submissions, 

Hung Kuo and Petitioner stated that the 

Department should select India as a 

surrogate country because it satisfies the 

statutory requirements for the selection 

of a surrogate country since it is at a 

level of economic development that is 

comparable to the PRC, and is a 

significant producer of merchandise 

comparable to the merchandise under 

investigation. Hung Kuo and Petitioner 

also put information on the record 

demonstrating that the Department can 

value the major FOP for subject 

merchandise using reliable, publicly 

available data from Indian sources. See 

Hung Kuo’s and Petitioner’s November 

20, 2009, surrogate country and 

surrogate value comments. No other 

party provided comments on the record 

concerning the surrogate country. 

Based on evidence placed on the 

record, we have determined that it is 

appropriate to use India as a surrogate 

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

the Act based on the following: (1) It is 

at a level of economic development 

comparable to the PRC pursuant to 

section 773(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 FOP. See Hung Kuo’s and 

Petitioner’s November 20, 2009, 

surrogate country and surrogate value 

comments; see also Hung Kuo’s and 

Petitioner’s December 4, 2009, surrogate 

country and surrogate value rebuttal 

comments. Thus, to calculate NV, we 

are using Indian prices, when available 

and appropriate, to value the FOPs of 

Hung Kuo, the mandatory respondent. 

We have obtained and relied upon 

publicly available information wherever 

possible. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum, dated January 26, 2010 

(Surrogate Value Memorandum). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

determination in an antidumping duty 

investigation, interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value the FOP within 40 days after the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

determination.2

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. The 

process requires exporters and 

producers to submit a separate-rate 

status application.3

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 in an NME country this single 

rate unless an exporter can demonstrate 

that it is sufficiently independent so as 

to be entitled to a separate rate. 

Exporters can demonstrate this 

independence through the absence of 

both de jure and de facto governmental 

control over export activities. The 

Department analyzes each entity 

exporting the subject merchandise 

under a test arising from the Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
5570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Notices 

4All separate rate applicants receiving a separate 

rate are hereby referred to collectively as the ‘‘SR 

Recipients.’’ 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

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

developed in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). 

However, 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. 

A. Separate Rate Applicants 4

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned 

Hung Kuo, the mandatory respondent, 

reported that it is wholly owned by 

individuals or companies located in a 

market economy in its separate rate 

application. See Hung Kuo’s September 

29, 2009, Section A questionnaire 

response at 6. Therefore, because the 

record indicates that it is wholly 

foreign-owned, and we have no 

evidence otherwise indicating that it is 

under the control of the PRC 

government, in accordance with 

Department practice, we determined 

that further separate rates analysis is not 

necessary to determine whether this 

company is independent from 

government control. See, e.g., Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate 

From the People’s Republic of China, 64 

FR 71104–05 (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 

Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) 

Company Limited. 

2. Wholly Chinese-Owned 

One separate rate applicant, Ningbo 

V.K., stated that it is a wholly Chineseowned company. See Ningbo V.K.’s 

September 25, 2009 Separate Rate 

Application (Ningbo V.K.’s SRA) at 7– 

10. Therefore, the Department must 

analyze whether this respondent can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

export activities. 

3. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and 

Foreign Companies 

Two companies, Jifa and Jinchun, 

submitted a combined separate rate 

application. In the separate rate 

application, Jifa reported that it is a joint 

venture company invested by one 

Chinese legal person and one Hong 

Kong individual; Jinchun reported that 

it is wholly-owned by a Hong Kong 

individual. See Jifa and Jinchun’s 

September 25, 2009, separate rate 

application (Jifa/Jinchun’s SRA) at 8. 

Jifa and Jinchun also reported that they 

are affiliated through common 

ownership and that they share the same 

board members and general managers. 

See Jifa and Jinchun’s November 19, 

2009, supplemental questionnaire 

response, at 1–2. Thus, the record 

supports a preliminary finding that Jifa 

and Jichun meet the definition of 

affiliated parties pursuant to sections 

771(33)(G) of the Act. Further, pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), we 

preliminarily find that it is appropriate 

to treat Jifa and Jinchun as a single 

entity because: (1) They have 

production facilities for similar or 

identical products that would not 

require substantial retooling of either 

facility in order to restructure 

manufacturing priorities; and (2) there is 

a significant potential for the 

manipulation of price or production. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) 

we preliminarily find that a significant 

potential for the manipulation of price 

or production exists because Jifa and 

Jinchun share a high level of common 

ownership, share a general manager and 

a board member, and share production 

facilities and employees. 

Because the Jifa/Jinchun collapsed 

entity is a joint venture between a PRC 

and a foreign (i.e., Hong Kong) 

company, the Department has also 

analyzed whether the Jifa/Jinchun 

collapsed entity has demonstrated the 

absence of de jure and de facto 

governmental control over its respective 

export activities. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, at 20589. 

Ningbo V.K. and the collapsed Jifa/ 

Jinchun entity provided evidence 

demonstrating the following: (1) An 

absence of restrictive stipulations 

associated with each exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) there are 

applicable legislative enactments 

decentralizing control of each company; 

and (3) and there are formal measures 

by the government decentralizing 

control of each company. See Ningbo 

V.K.’s SRA at 7–10. See also Jifa/ 

Jinchun’s SRA at 7–10. Accordingly, 

based on this record evidence, we 

preliminarily find that Ningbo V.K. and 

the collapsed Jifa/Jinchun entity have 

demonstrated an absence of de jure 

governmental control. 

b. 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 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, 22545 

(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 have determined that the evidence 

on the record supports a preliminary 

finding of de facto absence of 

governmental control with respect to 

Ningbo V.K., and the collapsed Jifa/ 

Jinchun entity, based on record 

statements and supporting 

documentation showing that the 

companies: (1) Set their own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) retain the 

proceeds from their sales and make 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) have the authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) have autonomy 

from the government regarding the 

selection of management. See Ningbo 

V.K.’s SRA at 10–17; Jifa/Jinchun’s SRA 

at 11–18; see also Ningbo V.K’s 

November 10, 2009, supplemental 

questionnaire response. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by Hung Kuo, Ningbo 

V.K., and the collapsed Jifa/Jinchun 

entity, demonstrate an absence of 

ownership by NME residents or entities, 

and an absence of de jure and de facto 

government control with respect to the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Notices 5571 

exporters’ exports of the merchandise 

under investigation, in accordance with 

the criteria identified in Sparklers and 

Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we have 

preliminarily granted Hung Kuo, Ningbo 

V.K., and the collapsed Jifa/Jinchun 

entity, separate rate status. Consistent 

with Department practice, we calculated 

a company-specific dumping margin for 

Hung Kuo and assigned this margin to 

Ningbo V.K., and the collapsed Jifa/ 

Jinchun entity. See, e.g., Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, in Part: Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 5500 

(January 30, 2008), unchanged in Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, in Part: Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 35652 

(June 24, 2008) (LWR from the PRC). 

The PRC-Wide Entity 

The Department has data indicating 

that there were more exporters of woven 

electric blankets from the PRC than 

those responding to our request for Q&V 

information during the POI. See 

‘‘Respondent Selection Memorandum.’’ 

We issued our request for Q&V 

information to 30 potential Chinese 

exporters of the merchandise under 

investigation, in addition to posting the 

Q&V questionnaire on the Department’s 

website. While information on the 

record of this investigation indicates 

that there are other producers/exporters 

of woven electric blankets in the PRC, 

we received only seven timely filed 

Q&V responses. See id. 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. Therefore, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that there were exporters/ 

producers of the merchandise under 

investigation during the POI from the 

PRC 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. See, e.g., Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Preliminary Partial 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77128 

(December 29, 2005), unchanged in 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Final Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 

22, 2006). 

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

that the Department shall, subject to 

subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination 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. 

As noted above, the PRC-wide entity 

withheld information requested by the 

Department. As a result, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find 

it appropriate to base the PRC-wide 

dumping margin on facts otherwise 

available. 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 (January 31, 2003), 

unchanged in Notice of Final 

Antidumping Duty 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 

Statement of Administrative Action, 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 

Vol. I at 843 (1994) (SAA), reprinted in 

1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040 at 870. See also, 

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). 

Because the PRC-wide entity did not 

respond to the Department’s requests for 

information, the Department has 

concluded that the PRC-wide entity 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. 

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes 

the Department to rely upon, as adverse 

facts available (AFA): (1) Information 

derived from the petition; (2) the final 

determination from the LTFV 

investigation; (3) a previous 

administrative review; or (4) any other 

information placed on the record. In 

selecting a rate for AFA, the Department 

selects one that is sufficiently adverse 

‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 

available rule to induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 

63 FR 8909 (February 23, 1998). It is the 

Department’s practice to select, as AFA, 

the higher of: (a) The highest margin 

alleged in the petition or (b) the highest 

calculated rate for any respondent in the 

investigation, to the extent that it can be 

corroborated (assuming the rate is based 

on secondary information). See Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 

From the People’s Republic of China, 65 

FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Facts Available. In the 

instant investigation, as AFA, we have 

preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide 

entity, the highest corroborated margin 

alleged in the Petition, which is 174.85 

percent. The dumping margin for the 

PRC-wide entity applies to all entries of 

the merchandise under investigation 

except for entries of subject 

merchandise produced and exported by 

Hung Kuo, Ningbo V.K., and Jifa/ 

Jinchun. 

Companies Not Receiving a Separate 

Rate 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department requested that all 

companies wishing to qualify for 

separate rate status in this investigation 

submit a separate rate status 

application. See Initiation Notice. Two 

exporters, Zhejiang Hewei Knitting 

Technology Co., Ltd. and Ningbo 

Zhonglei Maofangzhi Ranzheng Co., 

submitted timely responses to the 

Department’s Q&V questionnaire but 

did not provide separate rate 

applications, and, therefore, have not 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate rate status in this investigation. 

As a result, the Department is treating 

these Chinese exporters as part of the 

PRC-wide entity. 

Corroboration of Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
5572 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Notices 

5See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479, 6481 

(February 4, 2008), quoting SAA at 870. 

6See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

7See Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination 75 FR 1597, 1603 (January 12, 2010). 

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. 

Secondary information is described as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning merchandise subject to this 

investigation, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation.’’ 5 To ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

simply that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value. 

Independent sources used to corroborate 

may include, for example, published 

price lists, official import statistics and 

customs data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used.6

The AFA rate that the Department 

used for the PRC-wide entity is from the 

Petition. Based on our examination of 

information on the record, including 

United States price and NV, we find that 

there is a sufficient basis to find that the 

Petition margin selected as the AFA 

rate, 174.85 percent, has probative 

value. In this case, we have selected a 

margin that is not so much greater than 

the highest CONNUM-specific margin 

calculated for Hung Kuo in this 

proceeding that it can be considered not 

to have probative value. See ‘‘Hung Kuo 

Analysis Memorandum.’’ Petitioners’ 

methodology for calculating the United 

States price and NV in the Petition is 

discussed in the Initiation Notice. 

Accordingly, we conclude that, using 

Hung Kuo’s highest CONNUM-specific 

margin as a limited reference point, the 

highest Petition margin that can be 

corroborated within the meaning of the 

statute is 174.85 percent, which is 

sufficiently adverse so as to induce 

cooperation such that an uncooperative 

party does not benefit from its failure to 

cooperate.7

Fair Value Comparisons 

In accordance with section 777(A) of 

the Act, to determine whether Hung 

Kuo, the mandatory respondent, sold 

woven electric blankets to the United 

States at LTFV, we compared the 

weighted-average constructed export 

price (CEP) of the woven electric 

blankets to the NV of the woven electric 

blankets, as described in the ‘‘U.S. 

Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. 

U.S. Price 

Constructed Export Price 

Although Hung Kuo reported that it 

made both export price (EP) and CEP 

sales to the United States during the 

POI, the Department has preliminarily 

determined that all of Hung Kuo’s 

reported sales were, in fact, CEP sales. 

See Hung Kuo’s October 16 2009, 

Section C Questionnaire Response at 8– 

9. According to section 772(a) of the 

Act, if the foreign producer or exporter 

makes a sale to the first unaffiliated U.S. 

customer prior to importation of subject 

merchandise into the United States, 

then the sale shall be classified as an EP 

sale. However, pursuant to section 

772(b) of the Act, if the subject 

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 

sold) in the United States before or after 

the date of importation by or for the 

account of the producer or exporter of 

such merchandise or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter, then the sale shall 

be classified as a CEP sale. Additionally, 

CEP sales can be made by either the 

foreign producer/exporter or the foreign 

producer/exporter’s U.S. affiliate, while 

EP sales ‘‘can only be made by the 

producer or exporter of the 

merchandise,’’ (sales ‘‘made by a U.S. 

affiliate can only be CEP’’). See AK Steel 

v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed. 

Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the primary 

focus of the analysis the Department 

undertakes to determine whether a sale 

is properly classified as EP or CEP is: (1) 

Whether the sale or transaction takes 

place inside or outside the United 

States; and (2) whether the sale or 

transaction is made by an exporter’s 

United States affiliate. See id at 1370. 

The record indicates that the first 

sales or transactions to an unaffiliated 

customer occurred in the United States. 

See Hung Kuo’s December 4, 2009, 

supplemental questionnaire response at 

Exhibit 4. Additionally, the record also 

indicates that such sales or transactions 

to unaffiliated customers were made by 

Hung Kuo’s U.S. affiliate, Biddeford 

Blankets. See id. For a discussion of the 

proprietary details of Hung Kuo’s 

reported EP transactions, see ‘‘Hung Kuo 

Analysis Memorandum,’’ dated January 

26, 2010. Accordingly, although Hung 

Kuo reported certain sales as EP 

transactions, rather than CEP 

transactions, because we determined, 

based on the record evidence, that all 

first sales to unaffiliated customers 

occurred in the United States and were 

between Biddeford Blankets and the 

unaffiliated U.S. customers, pursuant to 

section 772(b) of the Act, we classified 

all reported EP sales as CEP sales for the 

purposes of this preliminary 

determination. 

In accordance with section 

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

CEP by deducting, where applicable, the 

following expenses from the starting 

price (gross unit price) charged to the 

first unaffiliated customer in the United 

States: sales discounts, foreign inland 

freight from plant to the port of 

exportation, foreign brokerage and 

handling, ocean freight, marine 

insurance, U.S. inland freight from port 

to the warehouse, U.S. customs duty, 

other U.S. transportation costs, and U.S. 

brokerage and handling. 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, inventory carrying 

costs, warranty expenses, other direct 

selling expenses, and indirect selling 

expenses. We calculated Hung Kuo’s 

credit expenses and inventory carrying 

costs based on a short-term interest rate 

for commercial and industrial loans by 

commercial banks published by the 

Federal Reserve. We reduced movement 

expenses, where appropriate, by the 

amount of freight revenue paid by the 

customer to Hung Kuo’s U.S. affiliate, 

Biddeford Blankets. In accordance with 

our practice in the recently completed 

administrative review of polyethylene 

retail carrier bags from the PRC, we 

capped the amount of freight revenue 

deducted at no greater than the amount 

of movement expenses in the U.S. 

market. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 

(February 11, 2009). In addition, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Notices 5573 

8 In addition, we note that legislative history 

explains that the Department is not required to 

conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such 

prices are not subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conference Report to 

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

reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24. As such, 

it is the Department’s practice to base its decision 

on information that is available to it at the time it 

makes its determination. See e.g. Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 73 

FR 24552 (May 5, 2008), unchanged in Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 

(September 24, 2008). 

pursuant to sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) 

of the Act, we made an adjustment to 

the starting price for CEP profit. 

We note that Petitioner argued that 

the Department should deduct, as a 

direct selling expense, the value of 

Hung Kuo’s reported accommodation 

returns and defective returns, which 

Hung Kuo reported as quantity 

adjustments. See Petitioner’s December 

10, 2009, submission to the Department. 

Based on record evidence and in 

accordance with the Department’s 

treatment of warranty expenses, we 

have preliminarily determined that it is 

appropriate to deduct, as a direct selling 

expense, the full value of refunds issued 

to customers for Hung Kuo’s reported 

defective returns. See Hung Kuo’s 

January 20, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire response. With respect to 

Hung Kuo’s reported accommodation 

returns, however, there is no record 

evidence that Hung Kuo or its U.S. 

affiliate incurs any direct selling 

expense attributable to these returns, 

other than repacking expenses 

associated with re-entering the 

merchandise into inventory for resale. 

Therefore, the Department has only 

deducted repacking expenses from the 

starting price to account for these 

returns. See id. at 2–6. For a detailed 

description of all adjustments, see 

‘‘Hung Kuo Analysis Memo,’’ dated 

January 26, 2010. 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine NV 

using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from a NME 

country and the information does not 

permit the calculation of NV using 

home-market prices, third-country 

prices, or constructed value under 

section 773(a) of the Act. Thus, in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, because available information did 

not permit the NV to be determined 

under section 773(a) of the Act, we 

constructed NV from the FOPs 

employed by Hung Kuo to manufacture 

subject merchandise during the POI. 

Specifically, we calculated NV by 

adding together the value of the FOPs, 

general expenses, profit, and packing 

costs. We relied upon the FOPs reported 

by Hung Kuo with the exception of the 

per-unit consumption of woven textile 

reported for king size blankets. Our 

review of the record indicates that the 

per-unit consumption of woven textile 

for king size blankets has been 

misreported (i.e., the per-unit 

consumption rate of king size was less 

than that of blankets of a smaller size). 

Thus, pursuant to section 776(a) of the 

Act, as facts otherwise available, we 

replaced the per-unit consumption of 

woven textile reported by Hung Kuo for 

king size blankets with an average perunit consumption that is based on the 

per-unit consumption of woven textile 

reported by Hung Kuo for queen, twin, 

and full size blankets adjusted to 

account for differences between the 

dimensions of these products and the 

dimensions of the king size blanket. See 

‘‘Hung Kuo Analysis Memorandum’’; see 

also Hung Kuo’s January 13, 2010 

submission to the Department at Exhibit 

2. We valued the FOPs using prices and 

financial statements from the surrogate 

country, India. If market economy 

suppliers, who were paid in a market 

economy currency, supplied over 33 

percent of the total volume of a material 

input purchased from all sources during 

the POI, pursuant to Department 

practice, we based the input value on 

the actual price charged by the supplier. 

See Antidumping Methodologies: 

Market Economy Inputs, Expected NonMarket Economy Wages, Duty 

Drawback; and Request for Comments, 

71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006); see also 

‘‘Hung Kuo Analysis Memorandum.’’ In 

selecting surrogate values, we followed, 

to the extent practicable, the 

Department’s practice of choosing 

values which are non-export average 

values, contemporaneous with, or 

closest in time to, the POI, productspecific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). We also 

considered the quality of the source of 

surrogate information in selecting 

surrogate values. See, e.g., Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished or Unfinished, from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of the 2007–2008 Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 

74 FR 32539 (July 8, 2009), unchanged 

in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the 2007–2008 Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 

75 FR 844 (January 6, 2010). 

We valued material inputs and 

packing by multiplying the amount of 

the factor consumed in producing 

subject merchandise by the average unit 

value of the factor. In addition, we 

added freight costs to the surrogate costs 

that we calculated for material inputs. 

We calculated freight costs by 

multiplying surrogate freight rates by 

the shorter of the reported distance from 

the domestic supplier to the factory that 

produced the subject merchandise or 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory that produced the subject 

merchandise, as appropriate. 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). See ‘‘Hung Kuo 

Analysis Memorandum.’’ Where we 

could only obtain surrogate values that 

were not contemporaneous with the 

POI, we inflated (or deflated) the 

surrogate values using the Indian 

Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as 

published in the International Financial 

Statistics of the International Monetary 

Fund. 

Further, in calculating surrogate 

values from Indian imports, we 

disregarded imports from Indonesia, 

South Korea, and Thailand because in 

other proceedings the Department found 

that these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies. See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields From 

the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

11670 (March 15, 2002); 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 (April 16, 2004).8

Therefore, it is reasonable to infer based 

on information available that all exports 

to all markets from these countries may 

be subsidized, and we have not used 

prices from these countries in 

calculating the Indian import-based 

surrogate values. 

Consistent with Department practice, 

we valued raw materials and packing 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
5574 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Notices 

materials using Indian import statistics 

that are contemporaneous with the POI, 

except as noted below. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication entitled ‘‘Electricity 

Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of 

Electricity Supply in India’’, dated 

March 2008. These electricity rates 

represent actual countrywide, publicly 

available information on tax-exclusive 

electricity rates charged to industries in 

India. As the rates listed in this source 

became effective on a variety of different 

dates, we are not adjusting the average 

value for inflation. See ‘‘Surrogate Value 

Memorandum.’’ 

We valued fuel oil/diesel using the 

prices for petrol from Indian Oil Corp. 

Ltd. from June 2007, after inflating the 

value using the WPI for the POI. See 

‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum.’’ 

For direct labor, indirect labor, and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we valued labor using the 

PRC regression-based wage rate as 

reported on Import Administration’s 

home page, Import Library, Expected 

Wages of Selected NME Countries, 

revised in December 2009, available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. 

Since this regression-based wage rate 

does not separate the labor rates into 

different skill levels or types of labor, 

we have applied the same wage rate to 

all skill levels and types of labor 

reported by Hung Kuo. See ‘‘Surrogate 

Value Memorandum.’’ 

We valued truck freight expenses 

using a per-unit average rate calculated 

from data on the infobanc Web site: 

http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this Web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. The value is contemporaneous 

with the POI. See ‘‘Surrogate Value 

Memorandum.’’ 

We valued brokerage and handling 

using a simple average of the brokerage 

and handling costs reported in public 

submissions filed in three antidumping 

duty cases. Specifically, we averaged 

the public brokerage and handling 

expenses reported by Navneet 

Publications (India) Ltd. in the 2007– 

2008 administrative review of certain 

lined paper products from India, Essar 

Steel Limited in the 2006–2007 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 

from India, and Himalaya International 

Ltd. in the 2005–2006 administrative 

review of certain preserved mushrooms 

from India. Since the resulting value is 

not contemporaneous with the POI, we 

inflated the rate using the WPI. See 

‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum.’’ 

We valued international freight and 

marine insurance using purchase prices. 

See ‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum.’’ 

We valued factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, and profit, using the 2007– 

2008 audited financial statements 

provided by Hung Kuo for Bawa 

Woollen and Spinning Mills, Ltd. and 

Prakash Woollen Mills, Ltd., producers 

of non-electric blankets. See ‘‘Surrogate 

Value Memorandum.’’ Petitioner 

submitted the financial statement of 

Videocon Industries Ltd. (Videocon), a 

producer of consumer electronics and 

home appliances that is also involved in 

the production of crude oil and natural 

gas. See Petitioner’s November 20, 2009, 

surrogate value submission at Exhibit 9. 

Videocon’s statement indicates that, in 

addition to the production of crude oil 

and natural gas, it produces, inter alia, 

color televisions, video products, 

washing machines, refrigerators, and air 

conditioners. We have not included 

Videocon’s financial data in our 

financial expense calculation because 

we have preliminarily determined that 

the products produced by Bawa 

Woollen and Spinning Mills, Ltd., and 

Prakash Woollen Mills, Ltd., are more 

comparable products to the subject 

merchandise produced by Hung Kuo 

than the production and fossil fuel 

extraction activities of Videocon. Thus, 

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

the Act, the financial statements of 

Bawa Woollen and Spinning Mills, Ltd. 

and Prakash Woollen Mills, Ltd. 

represent the best information available 

to the Department for this preliminary 

determination. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties may 

submit publicly available information 

with which to value FOP in the final 

determination within 40 days after the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

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. This change in 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1: Separate Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations Involving 

Non-Market Economy Countries, 

available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. 

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Exporter & producer 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

percent 

Hung Kuo Electronic 

(Shenzhen) Company Limited Produced by: Hung Kuo 

Electronic (Shenzhen) Company Limited .......................... 90.32 

Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading 

Co., Ltd. Produced by: 

Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd ........................... 90.32 

Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. or Ningbo 

Jinchun Electric Appliances 

Co., Ltd. Produced by: 

Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. or Ningbo 

Jinchun Electric Appliances 

Co., Ltd ................................. 90.32 

PRC-Wide Rate ........................ 174.85 

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 CBP to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of woven 

electric blankets from the PRC as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ 

section, entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. We will instruct 

CBP to require a cash deposit or the 

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

exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

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

Act requires the ITC to make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

woven electric blankets, or sales (or the 

likelihood of sales) for importation, of 

the subject merchandise under 

investigation within 45 days of our final 

determination. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2010 / Notices 5575 

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 for 

submitting case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i) and (d)(1). 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. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. 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 in 

a room to be determined. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the date, time, and 

location of the hearing two days before 

the scheduled date. 

Interested parties that 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 14, 2010, Hung Kuo 

requested that in the event of an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in this investigation, the Department 

postpone its final determination by 60 

days. Additionally, on January 15, 2010, 

Hung Kuo requested that the 

Department 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. In 

accordance with section 733(d) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b), 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 

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. 

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 26, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2309 Filed 2–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XU14 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Navy Training Activities 

Conducted in the Gulf of Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application 

for letter of authorization; request for 

comments and information. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to military readiness training 

activities to be conducted in the Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA) Temporary Maritime 

Activities Area (TMAA) for the period 

beginning December 2010 and ending 

December 2015. Pursuant to the 

implementing regulations of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is announcing our receipt of the Navy’s 

request for the development and 

implementation of regulations 

governing the incidental taking of 

marine mammals and inviting 

information, suggestions, and comments 

on the Navy’s application and request. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than March 5, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225. The mailbox address for 

providing email comments is PR1.0648– 

XU14@noaa.gov. NMFS is not 

responsible for e-mail comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. Comments sent via e-mail, 

including all attachments, must not 

exceed a 10–megabyte file size. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie 

Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext. 166. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

A copy of the Navy’s application may 

be obtained by writing to the address 

specified above (See ADDRESSES), 

telephoning the contact listed above (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the internet at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm. The Navy’s Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

for the GOA TMAA was made available 

to the public on December 11, 2009, and 

may be viewed at http:// 

www.gulfofalaskanavyeis.com/. During 

the initial 45–day public comment 

period, the Navy hosted five public 

hearings. 

Background 

In the case of military readiness 

activities, sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) 

of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 

direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional taking of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) if certain findings 

are made and regulations are issued or, 

if the taking is limited to harassment, 

notice of a proposed authorization is 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

may be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have no more than a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, 

and that the permissible methods of 

taking and requirements pertaining to 

the mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

of such taking are set forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

in 50 CFR 216.103 as: 

an impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably expected 

to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 

affect the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

With respect to military readiness 

activities, the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as: 

(i) any act that injures or has the significant 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A 

Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or 

is likely to disturb a marine mammal or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES