Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27109 

during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a per– 

unit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Further, the following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for Jiheng, the 

cash deposit rate will be the company– 

specific rate established in the final 

results of review (except, if the rate is 

zero or de minimis, a zero cash deposit 

will be required); (2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed PRC and non– 

PRC exporters not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the exporter–specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

for all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise that have not been found 

to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 

deposit rate will be the PRC–wide rate 

of 285.63 percent; and (4) for all non– 

PRC exporters of subject merchandise 

which have not received their own rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporters that 

supplied that non–PRC exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: June 1, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–13340 Filed 6–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–848] 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Intent 

to Rescind Review in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely 

requests, the Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on freshwater 

crawfish tail meat from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). The period of 

review (POR) is September 1, 2007, 

through August 31, 2008. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that sales have not been made below 

normal value by the exporter covered by 

the administrative review. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of this review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to liquidate entries of 

merchandise exported by Xiping Opeck 

Food Co., Ltd., during the POR without 

regard to antidumping duties. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit comments in this 

review are requested to submit with 

each argument (1) a statement of the 

issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0665 and (202) 

482–1690, respectively. 

Background 

On September 15, 1997, the 

Department published an amended final 

determination and antidumping duty 

order on freshwater crawfish tail meat 

from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment 

to Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

From the People’s Republic of China, 62 

FR 48218 (September 15, 1997). On 

September 2, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 51272 (September 2, 2008). 

On September 17, 2008, Xiping Opeck 

Food Co., Ltd. (Xiping Opeck), a 

producer and exporter of crawfish tail 

meat from the PRC, requested an 

administrative review. On September 

30, 2008, the petitioner, the Crawfish 

Processors Alliance, requested an 

administrative review of Shanghai Now 

Again International Trading Co., Ltd. 

(Shanghai Now Again), Xiping Opeck, 

and Yancheng Hi–King Agriculture 

Developing Co., Ltd. (Hi–King). 

On October 29, 2008, based on timely 

requests for an administrative review, 

the Department published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

freshwater crawfish tail meat from the 

PRC. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Deferral of Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 64305 (October 29, 2008). 

The review was initiated with respect to 

Xiping Opeck, Shanghai Now Again, 

and Hi–King. 

The POR is September 1, 2007, 

through August 31, 2008. We are 

conducting this review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the 

antidumping duty order is freshwater 

crawfish tail meat, in all its forms 

(whether washed or with fat on, 

whether purged or unpurged), grades, 

and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or 

chilled; and regardless of how it is 

packed, preserved, or prepared. 

Excluded from the scope of the order are 

live crawfish and other whole crawfish, 

whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. 

Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of 

any type and parts thereof. Freshwater 

crawfish tail meat is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 

1605.40.10.90, which are the HTSUS 

numbers for prepared foodstuffs, 

indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and 

other, as introduced by CBP in 2000, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
27110 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

1See Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting 

Director, Office of Policy, to Laurie Parkhill, Office 

Director, AD/CVD Enforcement 5, ‘‘Request for a 

List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat (‘‘FCTM’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)’’ (January 15, 

2009). 

2See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Office 

Director, AD/CVD Enforcement 5, entitled 

‘‘Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate 

Country,’’ dated June 1, 2009 (Surrogate-Country 

Memorandum). 

3See the March 10, 2009, submission by the 

petitioner entitled ‘‘Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

from the People’s Republic of China: Surrogate 

Value Data.’’ See also Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 

2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Preliminary Intent to Rescind 2005- 

2006 New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 57288 (October 

9, 2007) (unchanged in Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Rescission of 2005-2006 New Shipper Reviews, 73 

FR 20249 (April 15, 2008)). For an example of a 

previous segment of the proceeding where this 

source was used, see Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Intent to Rescind Review in Part, 73 FR 

58115 (October 6, 2008) (unchanged in Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Rescission of Review in 

Part, 74 FR 6571 (February 10, 2009)). 

4See Surrogate-Country Memorandum. 

5See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman from 

Christian Hughes and Adina Teodorescu through 

Maureen Flannery re: Surrogate Valuation of Shell 

Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China, Administrative Review 

9/1/00-8/31/01 and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00- 

8/31/01 and 9/1/00-10/15/01 (August 5, 2002), 

which was placed on the record of this review. 

and HTSUS numbers 0306.19.00.10 and 

0306.29.00.00, which are reserved for 

fish and crustaceans in general. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes 

only. The written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Intent to Rescind Review in Part 

Record evidence indicates that 

Shanghai Now Again and Hi–King did 

not have any exports of subject 

merchandise during the POR. See the 

November 19, 2008, submissions of 

Shanghai Now Again and Hi–King. 

Moreover, we have reviewed the CBP 

entry data for the POR and found no 

evidence of exports from these two 

entities. See Memorandum to File 

entitled ‘‘Placement of Certain Import 

Data from the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection Automated Commercial 

System on the Record of the 

Administrative Review,’’ dated April 6, 

2009. Additionally, on April 8, 2009, we 

made a no–shipments inquiry to CBP, 

requesting that, if any CBP import office 

has contrary information, appraising 

officers should report this information 

within 10 days of receipt of the message. 

To date, we have not received any 

evidence that these two entities had any 

shipments to the United States of 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3), the Department intends to 

rescind this review in part with respect 

to Shanghai Now Again and Hi–King. 

Non–Market-Economy Country Status 

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 Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 

Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 

2006). None of the parties to this 

proceeding has contested NME 

treatment for the PRC. Therefore, for 

these preliminary results of review we 

have treated the PRC as an NME country 

and applied our current NME 

methodology in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act. 

In antidumping proceedings involving 

NME countries, pursuant to section 

773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 

generally bases normal value on the 

value of the NME producer’s factors of 

production (FOP). In accordance with 

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

the FOP the Department uses, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs of the 

FOP in one or more market–economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country which are significant 

producers of merchandise comparable 

to the subject merchandise. The 

Department has determined that India, 

Indonesia, the Philippines, Peru, 

Colombia, and Thailand are countries 

that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

PRC.1 While none of these countries is 

a significant producer of freshwater 

crawfish tail meat,2 India has a seafood– 

processing industry that is comparable 

to the crawfish industry with respect to 

factory overhead, selling, general, and 

administrative (SG&A) expenses, and 

profit. Therefore, we have selected India 

as the primary surrogate country in 

which to value all inputs with the 

exception of live crawfish, the primary 

input, and the by–product, crawfish– 

shell scrap. 

Because India does not have a fresh– 

crawfish industry (although it has a sea– 

crawfish industry) and we have 

determined that other forms of seafood 

are not sufficiently comparable to 

crawfish to serve as surrogates for live 

crawfish, we have valued live crawfish 

using the data submitted by the 

petitioner, which was obtained from the 

same source that was used to value live 

crawfish in several previous segments of 

this proceeding.3 The petitioner 

submitted data on imports of live 

crawfish from Portugal into Spain as 

reported by Agencia Tributaria, the 

Spanish government agency responsible 

for trade statistics. Spain is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise, 

i.e., whole processed crawfish,4 and 

there are publicly available import 

statistics for Spain that are 

contemporaneous with the POR. 

We have selected Indonesia as a 

secondary surrogate country for 

purposes of valuing the crawfish shell 

by–product because there are no 

appropriate Indian surrogate values for 

crawfish shell by–product on the record 

of this review. We find that Indonesia is 

at a level of economic development 

comparable to the PRC, it produced wet 

crab and shrimp shells, merchandise 

comparable to the shell by–product, and 

has publicly available data, i.e., a public 

price quote from an Indonesian 

company that has been used in prior 

segments of this proceeding.5 No other 

parties commented on the selection of 

surrogate values. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to a proceeding involving 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. The 

Department assigns separate rates in 

NME proceedings only if respondents 

can demonstrate the absence of both de 

jure and de facto government control 

over export activities under a test 

developed by the Department and 

described in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

From the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), and 

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). 

The Department’s separate–rate test is 

used to determine whether an exporter 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27111 

and/or producer is independent from 

government control and does not 

consider, in general, 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) (Mushrooms). The 

test focuses, rather, on controls over the 

investment, pricing, and output 

decision–making process at the 

individual firm level. See Mushrooms, 

63 FR at 72256 (citing Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon 

Steel Plate From Ukraine, 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)). 

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; (3) other formal measures by 

the government decentralizing control 

of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 

20589. 

Xiping Opeck demonstrated that it is 

an independent legal entity and 

provided copies of its business license 

(wherein it is stated that the operational 

scope of the company allows it to 

engage in the exportation of freshwater 

crawfish tail meat) and its foreign–trade 

operator registration. See Xiping 

Opeck’s November 19, 2008, submission 

at pages 1–4 and Exhibit SR–1, and 

December 24, 2008, submission at pages 

A–1 through A–8 and Exhibit A–3. 

Xiping Opeck also reported that no 

export quotas apply to crawfish and that 

no export license is required to export 

freshwater crawfish tail meat to the 

United States. See Xiping Opeck’s 

December 24, 2008, submission at page 

A–5. Prior verifications have confirmed 

that there are no commodity–specific 

export licenses required and no quotas 

for the seafood category ‘‘Other,’’ which 

includes crawfish, in China’s Tariff and 

Non–Tariff Handbook for 1996. See 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From 

The People’s Republic of China; 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Review, 64 FR 8543 (February 22, 1999) 

(unchanged in Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat From the People’s Republic of 

China; Final Results of New Shipper 

Review, 64 FR 27961 (May 24, 1999)). 

In addition, we have confirmed 

previously that freshwater crawfish tail 

meat is not on the list of commodities 

with planned quotas in the 1992 PRC 

Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic 

Cooperation document entitled 

Temporary Provisions for 

Administration of Export Commodities. 

See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

From The People’s Republic of China; 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Review, 64 FR at 8544 (unchanged in 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 

People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of New Shipper Review). We 

found no evidence of de jure 

governmental control over Xiping 

Opeck’s exportation of freshwater 

crawfish tail meat. 

In Exhibit A–2 of its December 24, 

2008, submission Xiping Opeck 

provided the Company Law of the 

People’s Republic of China. The 

Department has found previously that 

the Company Law of the People’s 

Republic of China, made effective on 

July 1, 1994, with the amended version 

promulgated on August 28, 2004, states 

that a company is an enterprise legal 

person, that shareholders shall assume 

liability towards the company to the 

extent of their shareholdings, and that 

the company shall be liable for its debts 

to the extent of all its assets. See 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

2005–2006 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Preliminary 

Intent to Rescind 2005–2006 New 

Shipper Reviews (unchanged in 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

2005–2006 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Rescission 

of the 2005–2006 New Shipper Reviews). 

Additionally, the Foreign Trade Law 

of the People’s Republic of China which 

Xiping Opeck placed on the record of 

this review also indicates a lack of de 

jure government control. Specifically, 

this document identifies the rights and 

responsibilities of organizations engaged 

in foreign trade, grants autonomy to 

foreign–trade operators in management 

decisions, and establishes the foreign– 

trade operator’s accountability for 

profits and losses. See Xiping Opeck’s 

December 24, 2008, submission at 

Exhibit A–2. Based on the foregoing, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that there is an absence of 

de jure governmental control over the 

export activities of Xiping Opeck. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

the following 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; (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, 22545 (May 8, 

1995). The Department considers an 

analysis of de facto control to be critical 

in determining whether a respondent is, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

governmental control that would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

the respondent a separate rate. 

Xiping Opeck has asserted the 

following: (1) it establishes its own 

export prices through direct 

negotiations with its customers; (2) it 

negotiates contracts not subject to 

review or guidance from any 

governmental entities or organizations; 

(3) its shareholders elect managers and 

make personnel decisions independent 

of the PRC government’s approval or 

review; (4) it is not required to sell any 

portion of the foreign currency it earns 

to the government, it retains the 

proceeds of its export sales, and uses 

profits according to its business needs. 

See Xiping Opeck’s December 24, 2008, 

submission at pages A–6 through A–8. 

Based upon the record information, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that there is an absence of 

de facto governmental control over the 

export activities of Xiping Opeck. Given 

that the Department has found that 

Xiping Opeck operates free of de jure 

and de facto governmental control, it 

has preliminarily determined that 

Xiping Opeck has satisfied the criteria 

for a separate rate. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we based Xiping Opeck’s U.S. 

price on export price (EP) because the 

first sales to unaffiliated purchasers 

were made prior to importation and 

constructed export price was not 

otherwise warranted by the facts on the 

record. We calculated EP based on the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
27112 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

6We based the values of the FOPs on surrogate 

values (see ‘‘Surrogate Values’’ section below). 

free–on-board packed price to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

772(c) of the Act, we calculated net EP 

by deducting, where applicable, foreign 

inland–freight expenses, foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses, 

ocean–freight expenses, and credit 

expenses from the starting price (gross 

unit price) charged to the first 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States. We based all movement expenses 

on surrogate values because a PRC 

company provided the movement 

services (see the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section of this notice for further details). 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine 

normal value using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME country and the 

available information does not permit 

the calculation of normal value using 

home–market prices, third–country 

prices, or constructed value under 

section 773(a) of the Act. The 

Department uses an FOP methodology 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of NMEs 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under its normal methodologies. See 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 

39744, 39754 (July 11, 2005) 

(unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of 2003–2004 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 

(January 17, 2006)). 

We calculated normal value by adding 

together the value of the FOP, general 

expenses, profit, and packing costs.6

Specifically, we valued material, labor, 

energy, and packing by multiplying the 

amount of the factor consumed in 

producing the subject merchandise by 

the average unit surrogate value of the 

factor. In addition, we added freight 

costs to the surrogate costs that we 

calculated for material inputs. We 

calculated freight costs by multiplying 

surrogate freight rates by the shorter of 

the reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory that produced the 

subject merchandise or the distance 

from the nearest seaport to the factory 

that produced the subject merchandise, 

as appropriate. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United 

States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997). We increased the calculated 

costs of the FOP for surrogate general 

expenses and profit. See Memorandum 

to the File entitled ‘‘Fresh Crawfish Tail 

Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China: Surrogate–Value Memorandum,’’ 

dated June 1, 2009 (Surrogate–Value 

Memo). 

Surrogate Values 

In selecting surrogate values, to the 

extent practicable we followed our 

practice of choosing publicly available 

values which are non–export averages, 

representative of a range of prices in 

effect during the POR or over a period 

as close as possible in time to the POR, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive. 

See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004) 

(unchanged in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 

69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004)). We 

also considered the quality of the source 

of surrogate information in selecting 

surrogate values. See Manganese Metal 

From the People’s Republic of China; 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

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

Where we could only obtain surrogate 

values that were not contemporaneous 

with the POR, we inflated the surrogate 

values using, where appropriate, the 

Indian Wholesale Price Index (Indian 

WPI) and the Indonesian Wholesale 

Price Index (Indonesian WPI) as 

published in the International Financial 

Statistics of the International Monetary 

Fund. See Surrogate–Value Memo. 

In calculating surrogate values from 

import statistics and in accordance with 

our practice, we disregarded statistics 

for imports from NME countries and 

countries deemed to maintain broadly 

available, non–industry-specific 

subsidies which may benefit all 

exporters to all export markets (i.e., 

Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and 

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

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 

Windshields From The People’s 

Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 

(February 12, 2002), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. See also Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November 

28, 2003) (unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

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

Additionally, we excluded from our 

calculations imports that were labeled 

as originating from an unspecified 

country because we could not determine 

whether they were from an NME 

country. 

We used the following surrogate 

values in our margin calculations for 

these preliminary results of review. We 

valued coal and packing materials using 

September 2007–August 2008 

weighted–average Indian import values 

derived from the World Trade Atlas 

online (WTA). The Indian import 

statistics that we obtained from the 

WTA were published by the Directorate 

General of Commercial Intelligence & 

Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of 

India, and are contemporaneous with 

the POR. We valued whole live crawfish 

using the publicly available data for 

Spanish imports of whole live crawfish 

from Portugal during the POR submitted 

by the petitioner. We valued the 

crawfish shell by–product using a 2001 

price quote from Indonesia for wet crab 

and shrimp shells and inflated this 

value using the Indonesian WPI to make 

it contemporaneous with the POR. 

We valued water using data from the 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation (www.midcindia.org) 

because this source includes a wide 

range of industrial water tariffs. 

Specifically, this source provides 386 

industrial water rates within the 

Maharashtra province for June 2003 

(193 for the ‘‘inside industrial areas’’ 

usage category and 193 for the ‘‘outside 

industrial areas’’ usage category). We 

inflated the surrogate value for water 

using the Indian WPI to make it 

contemporaneous with the POR. 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 July 2006. These 

electricity rates represent actual 

country–wide, publicly available 

information on tax–exclusive electricity 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 27113 

rates charged to industries in India. 

Because the electricity rates are not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

inflated the values using the Indian WPI 

to make it contemporaneous with the 

POR. 

We valued non–refrigerated truck– 

freight expenses using a per–unit 

average rate for September 2008, which 

we calculated from data at 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this website contains rates for inland– 

freight trucking between many large 

Indian cities. We deflated the per–unit 

average truck–freight rate using the 

Indian WPI to make it contemporaneous 

with the POR. We valued refrigerated– 

truck freight expenses based on price 

quotations for April 2004 from CTC 

Freight Carriers of Delhi, India, placed 

on the record of the antidumping 

investigation of certain frozen 

warmwater shrimp from the PRC. We 

inflated this surrogate value using the 

Indian WPI. 

To value brokerage and handling, we 

used the average of the publicly 

summarized versions of values for 

brokerage and handling expenses 

reported in the following sources: 

Navneet Publications (India) Ltd.’s 

March 20, 2009, Section C submission 

(taken from the 2007–2008 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain lined 

paper products from India); Essar Steel 

Limited’s (Essar’s) October 15, 2008, 

Section C submission (taken from the 

2006–2007 administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on hot–rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India); 

Himalaya International Ltd.’s 

(Himalaya’s) May 26, 2006, Section C 

submission (taken from 2005–2006 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from India). 

Because data reported by Essar and 

Himalaya were not contemporaneous 

with the POR, we inflated the surrogate 

values for domestic brokerage and 

handling expenses for these companies 

using the Indian WPI. See Surrogate– 

Value Memo for further details on the 

surrogate values we used for these 

preliminary results. 

We valued ocean–freight expenses 

using publicly available data we 

collected from Maersk Line’s website at 

http://www.maerskline.com. We 

obtained a price quote in effect during 

the month of the POR in which Xiping 

Opeck made shipments of frozen 

freshwater crawfish tail meat to the 

United States. This price quote is for a 

reefer–high cube 40–foot container for 

the points of origin and destination 

reported by Xipng Opeck. See 

Surrogate–Value Memo. 

The Department’s regulations require 

the use of a regression–based wage rate. 

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

value labor, we used the regression– 

based wage rate for the PRC published 

on the Import Administration (IA) 

website. See the IA website at http:// 

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

041608.html. See also Corrected 2007 

Calculation of Expected Non–Market 

Economy Wages, 73 FR 27795 (May 14, 

2008). We applied the same wage rate to 

all skill levels and types of labor (i.e., 

direct production, indirect, packing) 

reported by Xiping Opeck because this 

regression–based wage rate does not 

separate the labor rates into different 

skill levels or types of labor. 

We valued SG&A expenses, factory– 

overhead costs, and profit using the 

2002–2003 financial statements of 

Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd., an Indian 

seafood processor. See Surrogate–Value 

Memo. 

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. These exchange rates are 

available on the IA web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

weighted–average dumping margin for 

merchandise exported by Xiping Opeck 

is 0.00 percent for the period September 

1, 2007, through August 31, 2008. 

Comments 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to interested parties in 

this review within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value factors no 

later than 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii). 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.310. Interested parties who wish to 

request a hearing or to participate in a 

hearing if one is requested must submit 

a written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain 

the following: (1) the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; (3) a list of 

issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in the case briefs. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from 

interested parties may be submitted not 

later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice of preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

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

interested parties, limited to the issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be 

submitted not later than five days after 

the time limit for filing the case briefs 

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

If requested, any hearing will be held 

two days after the scheduled date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument a statement of the issue, 

a summary of the arguments not 

exceeding five pages, and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised by parties in their 

comments, within 120 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. See 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

because we calculated a margin of zero 

percent for Xiping Opeck, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate the entries of 

merchandise exported by Xiping Opeck 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

review for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for 

subject merchandise exported by Xiping 

Opeck, the cash–deposit rate will be 

that established in the final results of 

review; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash– 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
27114 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Notices 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash–deposit rate will 

be PRC–wide rate of 223.01 percent; (4) 

for all non–PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise the cash–deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC entity 

that supplied that exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: June 1, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–13345 Filed 6–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DOD–2009–OS–0075] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: National Security Agency/ 

Central Security Service, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice to Alter a System of 

Records. 

SUMMARY: The National Security 

Agency/Central Security Service is 

proposing to alter an exempt system of 

records to its existing inventory of 

record systems subject to the Privacy 

Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 

amended. 

DATES: This proposed action would be 

effective without further notice on July 

8, 2009 unless comments are received 

which result in a contrary 

determination. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the 

National Security Agency/Central 

Security Service, Office of Policy, 9800 

Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. 

Meade, MD 20755–6248. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Anne Hill at (301) 688–6527. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Security Agency’s record 

system notices for records systems 

subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 

U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been 

published in the Federal Register and 

are available from the address above. 

The proposed system report, as 

required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was 

submitted on June 1, 2009, to the House 

Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, the Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I 

to OMB Circular No. A–130, ‘Federal 

Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining 

Records About Individuals,’ dated 

February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 

FR 6427). 

Dated: June 1, 2009. 

Morgan E. Frazier, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

GNSA 08 

SYSTEM NAME: 

NSA/CSS Payroll and Claims (June 7, 

1995, 60 FR 30074). 

CHANGES: 

* * * * * 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Delete entry and replace with ‘‘NSA/ 

CSS Payroll Processing Records’’. 

SYSTEM LOCATION: 

Delete entry and replace with 

‘‘Primary location: National Security 

Agency/Central Security Service, Ft. 

George G. Meade, MD 20755–6000. 

DECENTRALIZED SEGMENTS: 

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) 

Headquarters and DIA field elements, 

DoD activities supported by DIA, and 

NSA field elements as authorized and 

appropriate. For official mailing 

addresses for any of the decentralized 

system locations, write to the National 

Security Agency/Central Security 

Service, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. George 

G. Meade, MD 20755–6000’’. 

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED IN THE

SYSTEM: 

Delete entry and replace with ‘‘NSA/ 

CSS and DIA Civilian employees, 

reemployed annuitants, personnel 

under contract and other DoD activities 

supported by DIA’’. 

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

Delete entry and replace with ‘‘File 

may consist of timesheets; work 

schedule changes; locator cards and 

other correspondence or revisions 

related to actions concerning time and 

attendance, absence, annual leave, sick 

leave, leave without pay, advanced 

leave, administrative leave, exemplary 

use of leave, unauthorized leave and 

absence and other related matters; 

payroll deductions, allotments and 

allowances; pay adjustment 

authorizations (DD Form 139); direct 

deposit; taxes; government life 

insurance; health insurance; savings 

bonds; retirement records; flexible 

spending account; long term care; thrift 

savings plan; dental/vision; electronic 

fund transfer; combined Federal 

campaign; and W2 record. Records may 

consist of name, Social Security Number 

(SSN), home address and phone 

number, emergency point of contact 

name and phone number and financial 

information’’. 

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF SYSTEM: 

Delete entry and replace with ‘‘The 

National Security Agency Act of 1959, 

Public Law No. 86–36 (50 U.S.C. 

402note); Title 5, Part III, of the United 

States Code (Employees); Title 31, 

Chapter 35, of the United States Code 

(Accounting and Collection); Title 5, 

Chapter 1, of the United States Code of 

Federal Regulations (Office of Personnel 

Management) and E.O. 9397 (SSN)’’. 

PURPOSE(S): 

Delete entry and replace with ‘‘To 

provide a means of accounting for all 

time and attendance of the NSA/CSS 

civilian employees, DIA civilian 

employees, and certain contract 

employees; to maintain effective control 

and accountability for all relevant 

appropriated funds; to provide 

accounting data to support budget 

requests and control the execution of 

budgets; to provide financial 

information required by the Office of 

Management and Budget; and for agency 

management and payroll activities’’. 

ROUTINE USE OF THE RECORDS MAINTAINED IN

THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS

AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES: 

Delete entry and replace with ‘‘In 

addition to those disclosures generally 

permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the 

Privacy Act of 1974, these records 

contained therein may specifically be 

disclosed outside the DoD as a routine 

use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as 

follows: 

To contractor employees to assist 

government personnel in processing the 

payroll. 

To other government entities in 

connection with Social Security 

deductions, unemployment 

compensation claims, job-related injury 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES