32880 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

electric distribution lines, or 

telecommunication facilities. 

This categorical exclusion is 

supported by long-standing categorical 

exclusions and administrative records. 

In particular, the review panel 

identified the legacy categorical 

exclusions from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture and the U.S. Department of 

Energy. 

B.14: Construction of standby diesel 

electric generators (one megawatt or less 

total capacity) and associated facilities, 

for the primary purpose of providing 

emergency power, at an existing 

applicant headquarters or district office, 

telecommunications switching or 

multiplexing site, or at an industrial, 

commercial or agricultural facility 

served by the applicant. 

This categorical exclusion is 

supported by long-standing categorical 

exclusion and administrative record 

from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Rural Utilities Services. Based upon the 

extensive history of RUS application of 

these Categorical Exclusions and the 

lack of extraordinary circumstances 

associated with their application, this 

legacy Categorical Exclusion is 

determined to be applicable to BTOP 

projects. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments on both the NTIA Broadband 

Technology Opportunity Program 

Categorical Exclusions and 

Administrative Record. See the 

ADDRESSES for instructions on 

submitting comments. The 

Administrative Record for the NTIA 

BTOP CEs is available at http:// 

www.nepa.noaa.gov/procedures.html 

under ‘‘NTIA Broadband Technology 

Opportunity Program Categorical 

Exclusions and Administrative Record.’’ 

Hard copies may be obtained by 

contacting Steve Kokkinakis, as 

provided above. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This notice does not contain 

collection-of-information requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, no person is required to, nor shall 

a person be subject to a penalty 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. 

A Paperwork package for the 

associated ‘‘BTOP/BIP NEPA 

Environmental Questionnaire’’ 

referenced in Section IV of the 

Supplementary Information has been 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review and 

approval. A Notice of Action in the 

Federal Register at the conclusion of 

OMB’s review of the information 

collection. 

Environmental Impact 

This rule supplements CEQ 

regulations and Department of 

Commerce NEPA procedures and 

provides guidance to NTIA employees 

regarding procedural requirements for 

the application of NEPA provisions to 

BTOP decisions including grants and 

funding applicant actions. CEQ does not 

direct agencies to prepare a NEPA 

analysis or document before 

establishing agency procedures that 

supplement the CEQ regulations for 

implementing NEPA. Agency NEPA 

procedures are procedural guidance to 

assist agencies in the fulfillment of 

agency responsibilities under NEPA. 

The requirements for establishing 

agency NEPA procedures are set forth at 

40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3 

Dated: June 23, 2009. 

Paul N. Doremus, 

NOAA NEPA Coordinator, Office of Program 

Planning and Integration. 

[FR Doc. E9–16151 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–557–813] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Malaysia: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

an interested party, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from Malaysia. The review covers one 

manufacturer/exporter. The period of 

review is August 1, 2007, through July 

31, 2008. We have preliminarily 

determined that sales have been made 

below normal value by the company 

subject to this review. We invite 

interested parties to comment on these 

preliminary results. Parties who submit 

comments in this review are requested 

to submit with each argument a 

statement of each issue and a brief 

summary of the argument. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerrold Freeman or Yang Jin Chun, 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) 482–0180 and (202) 

482–5760, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 9, 2004, we published in 

the Federal Register the antidumping 

duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia, 69 

FR 48203 (August 9, 2004). On August 

1, 2008, we published in the Federal 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on PRCBs from 

Malaysia. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 44966 (August 1, 2008). Pursuant to 

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.213(b), the Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bag Committee and its 

individual members, Hilex Poly Co., 

LLC, and Superbag Corporation 

(collectively, the petitioners), requested 

an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on PRCBs from 

Malaysia with respect to Euro Plastics 

Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (Euro Plastics) on 

September 2, 2008. On September 30, 

2008, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice 

of initiation of administrative review of 

the order. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 56795 (September 30, 2008). 

We are conducting the administrative 

review of the order in accordance with 

section 751(a) of the Act. The period of 

review is August 1, 2007, through July 

31, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is PRCBs which may be referred to as tshirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery 

bags, or checkout bags. The subject 

merchandise is defined as non-sealable 

sacks and bags with handles (including 

drawstrings), without zippers or integral 

extruded closures, with or without 

gussets, with or without printing, of 

polyethylene film having a thickness no 

greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and 

no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), 

and with no length or width shorter 

than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 

40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the 

bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not 

longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 32881 

PRCBs are typically provided without 

any consumer packaging and free of 

charge by retail establishments, e.g., 

grocery, drug, convenience, department, 

specialty retail, discount stores, and 

restaurants, to their customers to 

package and carry their purchased 

products. The scope of the order 

excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are 

not printed with logos or store names 

and that are closeable with drawstrings 

made of polyethylene film and (2) 

polyethylene bags that are packed in 

consumer packaging with printing that 

refers to specific end-uses other than 

packaging and carrying merchandise 

from retail establishments, e.g., garbage 

bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. 

Imports of the subject merchandise 

are currently classifiable under 

statistical category 3923.21.00.85 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). This 

subheading also covers products that are 

outside the scope of the order. 

Furthermore, although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Duty-Absorption Determination 

On October 30, 2008, the petitioners 

requested that the Department 

determine whether antidumping duties 

have been absorbed by Euro Plastics 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(j). In 

making a duty-absorption 

determination, the Department will 

determine whether antidumping duties 

have been absorbed by a producer or 

exporter subject to the review if the 

subject merchandise is sold in the 

United States through an importer that 

is affiliated with such producer or 

exporter. See section 751(a)(4) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.213(j). Because we 

published the order in 2004 and this 

administrative review covers all or part 

of a period falling between the third or 

fourth anniversary of the publication of 

an antidumping duty order, under 19 

CFR 351.213(j), the petitioners may 

request the Department to determine 

whether Euro Plastics absorbed 

antidumping duties. Because Euro 

Plastics made constructed export-price 

(CEP) sales to the United States during 

the period of review, a duty-absorption 

determination is relevant with respect to 

Euro Plastics CEP sales. The Department 

presumes that a respondent under the 

allegation of duty absorption will absorb 

the duties for its U.S. sales that have 

been made at prices below normal 

value. The respondent has the burden to 

rebut the presumption of duty 

absorption. See Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Reviews, 74 

FR 11349 (March 17, 2009), and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (I&D Memo) at Comment 

5, Section C. 

The burden is on the respondent to 

demonstrate that it did not absorb 

antidumping duties because the 

respondent is the only party to the 

review able to provide such evidence. In 

this review, Euro Plastics is the party 

that possesses the information relevant 

to duty absorption. In our May 21, 2009, 

supplemental questionnaire, we asked 

Euro Plastics to respond to the 

petitioners’ allegation of duty 

absorption. Euro Plastics did not 

provide information to rebut the 

allegation. Therefore, we preliminarily 

find that Euro Plastics has absorbed 

duties for the CEP sales it made during 

the period of review. 

Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

To determine whether sales of PRCBs 

from Malaysia to the United States were 

made at prices less than normal value, 

we compared the U.S. price to the 

normal value. For the price of sales by 

Euro Plastics to the United States, we 

used export price (EP) and CEP as 

defined in sections 772(a) and (b) of the 

Act, respectively. We calculated EP and 

CEP for Euro Plastics based on the 

prices of the subject merchandise sold 

to unaffiliated customers in, or for 

exportation to, the United States. See 

section 772(c) of the Act. We made 

deductions for discounts as appropriate. 

We also made deductions for any 

movement expenses in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

Consistent with section 772(d)(1) of the 

Act, we calculated CEP by deducting 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities that occurred in the 

United States. These selling expenses 

include direct and indirect selling 

expenses. In accordance with sections 

772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act, we also 

deducted the profit allocated to 

expenses deducted under section 

772(d)(1) of the Act. In accordance with 

section 772(f) of the Act, we computed 

profit based on the total revenues 

realized on sales in both the U.S. and 

home markets, less all expenses 

associated with those sales. We then 

allocated profit to expenses incurred 

with respect to U.S. economic activity 

based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses 

to total expenses for both the U.S. and 

home markets. Finally, we made an 

adjustment for profit allocated to these 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(d)(3) of the Act. 

For certain U.S. sales, Euro Plastics 

reported shipment dates which 

preceded the date of invoice. For these 

sales, Euro Plastics reported the date of 

invoice as the date of sale. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the 

Department may use a date other than 

the date of invoice as the date of sale if 

‘‘a different date better reflects the date 

on which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale.’’ 

It is the Department’s normal practice to 

use the earlier of the shipment date or 

the date of invoice as the date of sale. 

See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 

in Coils from the Republic of Korea; 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 18074, 

18079–80 (April 10, 2006), unchanged 

in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 

Coils From the Republic of Korea; Final 

Results and Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review in Part, 72 

FR 4486 (January 31, 2007); see also 

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 

From Turkey; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Review and 

Determination To Revoke in Part, 72 FR 

62630 (November 6, 2007), and the 

accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 

2. Consistent with our normal practice, 

for all U.S. sales Euro Plastics reported, 

we used the earlier of the date of invoice 

or the shipment date as the date of sale. 

Comparison-Market Sales 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

comparison market to serve as a viable 

basis for calculating the normal value, 

we compared the volume of homemarket sales of the foreign like product 

to the volume of the U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise in accordance with 

section 773(a) of the Act. Based on this 

comparison of the aggregate quantities 

of sales in the comparison market (i.e., 

Malaysia) and United States and absent 

any information that a particular market 

situation in the exporting country did 

not permit a proper comparison, we 

determined that the quantity of the 

foreign like product sold by Euro 

Plastics in the exporting country was 

sufficient to permit a proper comparison 

with the sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States, 

pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. 

Thus, we determined that the home 

market was viable during the period of 

review. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 

normal value for the respondent on the 

prices at which the foreign like product 

was first sold for consumption in the 

exporting country in the usual 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32882 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

commercial quantities and in the 

ordinary course of trade and, to the 

extent practicable, at the same level of 

trade as the U.S. sales. 

Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b) of 

the Act, we disregarded below-cost sales 

in the last completed segment of this 

proceeding with regard to Euro Plastics. 

See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags 

from Malaysia: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 44825, 44826 (August 9, 

2007). Therefore, for this review, we 

have reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect that sales of the foreign like 

product under consideration for the 

determination of normal value may have 

been made at prices below the cost of 

production (COP) as provided by 

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, 

we conducted a COP investigation of 

sales in the home market by Euro 

Plastics. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP for Euro 

Plastics based on the sum of the costs 

of materials and fabrication employed in 

producing the foreign like product, the 

selling, general, and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and all costs and 

expenses incidental to packing the 

merchandise. In our COP analysis, we 

used the comparison-market sales and 

COP information provided by the 

respondent in its questionnaire 

responses and revised the COP data in 

several ways. 

We revised the reported direct 

material cost to reflect a single periodof-review average cost for each resin 

type identified in the physical 

characteristics we use to determine 

identical and similar merchandise (i.e., 

high-density resin, low-density resin, 

and linear low-density resin). For each 

resin type we calculated an average perunit resin amount and applied it to each 

product identified by control number 

based on the actual usage. See the July 

2, 2009, memorandum to Neal M. 

Halper entitled ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results—Euro Plastics Malaysia Sdn. 

Bhd.’’ 

In the normal course of business, Euro 

Plastics explained in its response, it 

does not weigh finished products. 

Production quantities are recorded in its 

books and records by cartons, and Euro 

Plastics uses a standard conversion 

formula to calculate the quantity of bags 

in kilograms. Euro Plastics weighs the 

finished products only before shipping. 

Euro Plastics reported two different cost 

databases. In one cost database, Euro 

Plastics used production quantities 

calculated as the actual weight of 

shipped products adjusted for the 

changes in standard inventory weights. 

Euro Plastics based the second database 

on production quantities by cartons 

converted to kilograms using the 

standard conversion formula. For the 

preliminary results, we have used the 

actual-weight database because it 

represents most closely the actual 

quantity of products produced during 

the period of review. 

After calculating the COP, we tested 

whether comparison-market sales of the 

foreign like product were made at prices 

below the COP within an extended 

period of time in substantial quantities 

and whether such prices permitted the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. See section 773(b)(2) of 

the Act. In order to determine whether 

the sales were made at below-cost 

prices, we compared model-specific 

COPs to the reported comparisonmarket prices less any applicable 

movement charges, discounts, and 

rebates. See section 773(b) of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the period of review were at 

prices less than the COP, we did not 

disregard any below-cost sales of that 

product because we determined 

preliminarily that the below-cost sales 

were not made in substantial quantities. 

Where 20 percent or more of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the period of review were at 

prices less than the COP, we 

disregarded the below-cost sales 

because we determined preliminarily 

that they were made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time, pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act. Based on 

comparisons of prices to weightedaverage COPs for the period of review, 

we determined preliminarily that these 

sales were at prices which would not 

permit recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See 

Euro Plastics Preliminary Results 

Analysis Memorandum dated July 2, 

2009. Based on this test, we disregarded 

the respondent’s below-cost sales and 

used the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining normal value in accordance 

with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

Euro Plastics relied on its 2007 

financial statements to calculate the 

COP because its audited 2008 financial 

statements were not yet available. The 

period of review covers five months in 

2007 and seven months in 2008; 

therefore, we requested that Euro 

Plastics recalculate its general and 

administrative (G&A) expense and 

financial-expense rates using the 

audited 2008 financial statements. Euro 

Plastics stated that, as soon as the 

audited 2008 financial statements 

become available, the company will 

resubmit the calculation of the G&A and 

financial-expense rates. Accordingly, for 

the final results, we intend to use G&A 

and financial-expense rates based on the 

audited 2008 financial statements. 

Model-Matching Methodology 

In making our comparisons of U.S. 

sales with sales of the foreign like 

product in the home market, we used 

the following methodology. If an 

identical comparison-market model 

with identical physical characteristics 

as listed below was reported, we made 

comparisons to weighted-average 

comparison-market prices that were 

based on all sales which passed the COP 

test of the identical product during a 

contemporaneous month. If there were 

no contemporaneous sales of an 

identical model, we identified the most 

similar comparison-market model. To 

determine the most similar model, we 

matched the foreign like product based 

on the physical characteristics reported 

by the respondent in the following order 

of importance: (1) Quality, (2) bag type, 

(3) length, (4) width, (5) gusset, (6) 

thickness, (7) percentage of high-density 

polyethylene resin, (8) percentage of 

low-density polyethylene resin, (9) 

percentage of low linear-density 

polyethylene resin, (10) percentage of 

color concentrate, (11) percentage of ink 

coverage, (12) number of ink colors, (13) 

number of sides printed. 

Normal Value 

We based normal value for Euro 

Plastics on the prices of the foreign like 

products it sold to its home-market 

customers. We made adjustments for 

differences in packing expense in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of 

the Act. We also made adjustments for 

differences in cost attributable to 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.411. In addition, we made 

adjustments for differences in 

circumstances of sale in accordance 

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to 

EP, we made circumstance-of-sale 

adjustments by deducting home-market 

direct selling expenses incurred on 

home-market sales from, and adding 

U.S. direct selling expenses to, normal 

value. For comparisons to CEP, we 

made circumstance-of-sale adjustments 

by deducting home-market direct selling 

expenses from normal value. In 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 32883 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 

of the Act, we based normal value on 

sales at the same level of trade as the EP 

or the CEP. See the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ 

section below. 

We did not deduct from the 

calculation of normal value certain taxes 

and inland-freight expenses which Euro 

Plastics claimed for its home-market 

sales. In its home-market sales database, 

Euro Plastics reported a variable named 

TAXH. Euro Plastics explained that 

TAXH contains combined amounts for 

import duties and sales taxes that Euro 

Plastics incurred on its home-market 

sales. Because the statute allows for 

deduction of any taxes imposed directly 

upon the foreign like product which 

have not been collected on the subject 

merchandise in accordance with section 

773(6)(B)(iii) of the Act but the statute 

does not allow such a deduction for 

import duties, we requested Euro 

Plastics to report the sales tax separately 

from the import duties. In response to 

our request, Euro Plastics reported that 

the amount under TAXH is a 

combination of import duties, sales 

taxes, and transporter charges but the 

company did not report the sales tax 

separately under a separate variable as 

we had requested. In addition, Euro 

Plastics did not provide sufficient 

supporting documentation to justify the 

deduction of TAXH from the gross unit 

price in its claim for amounts under 

TAXH. 

Euro Plastics calculated its inlandfreight expense from the factory to the 

place of delivery based on a period-ofreview average. Euro Plastics explained 

that, because its freight carriers made 

multiple stops during their delivery 

runs, it is not feasible to calculate this 

expense in a more specific manner. 

Record evidence indicates, however, 

that Euro Plastics could employ a more 

specific methodology to calculate this 

expense but Euro Plastics did not do so. 

A respondent seeking a decision in its 

favor has the burden to produce and 

present information to support its claim. 

See 19 CFR 351.401(b)(c). The burden of 

evidentiary production belongs to ‘‘the 

party in possession of the necessary 

information.’’ See, e.g., Zenith Elecs. 

Corp. v. United States, 988 F.2d 1573, 

1583 (CAFC 1993). A respondent has 

the burden to present the information in 

the first instance with its request for a 

decision in its favor. See NTN Bearing 

Corp. of Am. v. United States, 997 F.2d 

1453, 1458 (CAFC 1993). Because Euro 

Plastics did not respond with sufficient 

information that we requested with 

respect to its claims for deductions in its 

favor, we have denied the claims by 

Euro Plastics for adjustments to normal 

value for the amounts reported under 

TAXH and the inland-freight expense at 

issue. See Euro Plastics Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum dated July 2, 

2009, for more detail. 

Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we used constructed value as 

the basis for normal value when there 

were no usable sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market. We 

calculated constructed value in 

accordance with section 773(e) of the 

Act. We included the cost of materials 

and fabrication, SG&A expenses, U.S. 

packing expenses, and profit in the 

calculation of constructed value. We 

made the same adjustment to 

constructed value concerning resin costs 

as outlined in the ‘‘Cost of Production’’ 

section above. In accordance with 

section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based 

SG&A expenses and profit on the 

amounts incurred and realized by Euro 

Plastics in connection with the 

production and sale of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade 

for consumption in the home market. 

We made adjustments to constructed 

value in accordance with section 

773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 

for circumstance-of-sale differences. For 

comparisons to EP, we made 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 

deducting home-market direct selling 

expenses from, and adding U.S. direct 

selling expenses to, constructed value. 

For comparisons to CEP, we made 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 

deducting home-market direct selling 

expenses from constructed value. We 

calculated constructed value at the same 

level of trade as the EP or CEP. 

Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

provides that, to the extent practicable, 

the Department will calculate normal 

value based on sales at the same level 

of trade as the EP and CEP. The normalvalue level of trade is that of the 

starting-price sales in the comparison 

market before any adjustments. See 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Euro 

Plastics reported identical selling 

functions along the chain of distribution 

between the producer and the 

unaffiliated customer in the comparison 

and U.S. markets. We have reviewed the 

selling functions Euro Plastics reported 

including sales forecasting, order input/ 

processing, direct sales personnel, sales/ 

marketing support, freight and delivery, 

and packing. We examined them in 

relation to a number of expenses Euro 

Plastics reported in its responses and 

found no discrepancies. Therefore, we 

determined that Euro Plastics made all 

comparison-market sales at one level of 

trade, all U.S. sales at one level of trade, 

and all comparison-market sales at the 

same level of trade as the CEP sales and 

EP sales. See sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 

773(a)(7) of the Act. See Euro Plastics 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 

dated July 2, 2009, for more detail. 

Euro Plastics claimed a CEP offset in 

this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.412(f)(1), the Department will grant 

a CEP offset if normal value is compared 

to CEP price, normal value is at a more 

advanced level of trade than the CEP 

level of trade, and information on the 

record does not provide a basis to 

determine whether the difference in 

level of trade affects price 

comparability. Because we find that the 

home-market level of trade is not more 

advanced than the CEP level of trade 

and because Euro Plastics did not 

demonstrate that there is a difference in 

level of trade between the home-market 

and CEP sales, we have denied the 

claim by Euro Plastics for a CEP offset 

to normal value for these preliminary 

results. See the Euro Plastics 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 

dated July 2, 2009, for more detail. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

weighted-average dumping margin on 

PRCBs from Malaysia for the period 

August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008, 

for Euro Plastics is 43.07 percent. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 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 a hearing 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. 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in the case and 

rebuttal 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 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32884 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

the time limit for filing the case briefs 

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

and 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 

requested, 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 in any such written briefs 

not later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. See section 

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

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. With respect 

to EP sales, we divided the total 

dumping duties (calculated as the 

difference between normal value and 

EP) for each importer or customer by the 

total number of units Euro Plastics sold 

to that importer or customer. We will 

direct CBP to assess the resulting perunit dollar amount against each unit of 

merchandise in each of that importer’s/ 

customer’s entries during the review 

period. 

For CEP sales, we divided the total 

dumping margins for the reviewed sales 

by the total entered value of those 

reviewed sales for each importer. We 

will direct CBP to assess the resulting 

percentage margin against the entered 

customs values for the subject 

merchandise on each of that importer’s 

entries during the review period. See 19 

CFR 351.212(b). 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the period of review produced by 

Euro Plastics for which it did not know 

its merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-others rate if there is no 

rate for the intermediate company(ies) 

involved in the transaction. For a full 

discussion of this clarification, see 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 

6, 2003). 

We intend to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after publication of the final 

results of review. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of PRCBs from 

Malaysia entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication, as provided by 

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

cash-deposit rate for Euro Plastics will 

be the rate established in the final 

results of review; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies not 

listed above, the cash-deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

this review, a prior review, or the lessthan-fair-value investigation but the 

manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer has its 

own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 

84.94 percent, as established in the lessthan-fair-value investigation, which is 

the all-others-rate for this proceeding. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importer 

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 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: July 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–16283 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–886] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 2009 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Cartsos, 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) 482–1757. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

At the request of interested parties, 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on polyethylene retail carrier bags from 

the People’s Republic of China for the 

period August 1, 2007, through July 31, 

2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 56795 (September 30, 2008). 

On April 16, 2009, we extended the due 

date for the completion of the 

preliminary results of review by 60 

days. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags From Malaysia, Thailand, and the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of 

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 74 FR 17633 (April 16, 2009). 

Currently, the preliminary results of 

review are due no later than July 2, 

2009. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to make a preliminary 

determination within 245 days after the 

last day of the anniversary month of an 

order for which a review is requested 

and a final determination within 120 

days after the date on which the 

preliminary determination is published. 

If it is not practicable to complete the 

review within these time periods, 

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

the Department to extend the time limit 

for the preliminary determination to a 

maximum of 365 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES