Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32125 

1Those companies are: Far Eastern Industries, 

Ltd., (Shanghai) and Far Eastern Polychem 

Industries;Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; 

Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Cixi Santai 

Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Cixi Waysun Chemical 

Fiber Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre Co., 

Ltd.; Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd.; 

Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Sanxin 

Paper Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., 

Ltd.; Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre Factory; Nantong 

Loulai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.;Nanyang Textile 

Co., Ltd.; Suzhou PolyFiber Co., Ltd.; Xiamen 

Xianglu Chemical Fiber Co.; Zhaoqing Tifo New 

Fiber Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., 

Ltd.; Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; 

Dragon Max Trading Development; Xiake Color 

Spinning Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber 

Co., Ltd.; Hyosung Singapore PTE Ltd.; Jiangyin 

Changlong Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Ma Ha 

Company, Ltd.; Jiangyin Huahong Chemical Fiber 

Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Mighty Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; 

and Huvis Sichuan. 

2See Memorandum to James Dole, Director, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, from Alexis Polovina, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9; First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the PRC: Selection of Respondents for 

Individual Review, dated November 7, 2008 

(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15963 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–905] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Extension of Time Limit for 

the Final Results 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting the first 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

polyester staple fiber (‘‘PSF’’) from the 

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

the period of review (‘‘POR’’) December 

26, 2006, through May 31, 2008. The 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that sales have been made 

below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by the 

respondents. If these preliminary results 

are adopted in our final results of this 

review, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results no later than 180 days from 

the date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’). 

See ‘‘Extension of the Time Limits for 

the Final Results’’ below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 7, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emeka Chukwudebe or Alexis Polovina 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482 0219 or (202) 482 

3927 respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 1, 2007, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

polyester staple fiber from the PRC. See 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 30545 

(June 1, 2007) (‘‘Order’’). On July 30, 

2008, the Department published a notice 

of initiation of an administrative review 

of certain PSF from the PRC covering 

the period December 26, 2006, through 

May 31, 2008 for 27 companies.1 See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). On February 19, 2009, the 

Department published a notice 

extending the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results by 120 days to 

June 30, 2009. See Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic 

of China: Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 7660 

(February 19, 2009). 

Respondent Selection 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter or producer of the subject 

merchandise. However, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 

Department discretion to limit its 

examination to a reasonable number of 

exporters or producers if it is not 

practicable to examine all exporters or 

producers involved in the review. 

On August 5, 2008, the Department 

released CBP data for entries of the 

subject merchandise during the POR 

under administrative protective order 

(‘‘APO’’) to all interested parties having 

an APO as of five days of publication of 

the Initiation Notice, inviting comments 

regarding the CBP data and respondent 

selection. The Department received 

comments and rebuttal comments 

between August 14, 2008, and August 

22, 2008. 

On October 1, 2008, the Department 

sent out a quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

questionnaire to all 27 companies for 

which a review was requested because 

a significant amount of the volume in 

the CBP data was unclear. In the CBP 

data, the identity of the largest exporter 

could not be publicly identified by any 

party, including the Department. 

Moreover, it was unclear if companies 

with the same CBP module suffix could 

be grouped together or whether the CBP 

module suffix was properly used by 

those companies which were assigned 

the CBP module suffix in the 

investigation. In addition, parties 

requested numerous adjustments to the 

CBP data, including but not limited to 

grouping of companies, and corrections 

to company names. The Department 

received Q&V responses between 

October 16, 2008, and October 20, 2008, 

from 19 of the 27 companies who 

received the questionnaire. 

On November 7, 2008, the Department 

issued its respondent selection 

memorandum after assessing its 

resources and determining that it could 

reasonably examine two exporters 

subject to this review. Pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the 

Department selected Ningbo Dafa 

Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo 

Dafa’’) and Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber 

Co. (‘‘Santai’’) as mandatory 

respondents.2 The Department sent 

antidumping duty questionnaires to 

Ningbo Dafa and Santai on November 

14, 2008. 

Ningbo Dafa submitted the Section A 

Questionnaire Response on December 5, 

2008, the Section C Questionnaire 

Response on December 30, 2008, and 

the Section D Questionnaire Response 

on January 9, 2009. Santai submitted the 

Section A Questionnaire Response on 

December 12, 2008, and the Sections C 

and D Questionnaire Responses on 

January 9, 2009. 

Petitioners submitted deficiency 

comments regarding respondents’ 

questionnaire responses between 

December 2008 and May 2009. The 

Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to Ningbo Dafa and 

Santai between March 2009 and May 

2009 to which both companies 

responded. 

32126 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

3See the Department’s Letter to All Interested 

Parties; Antidumping Investigation of Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber (‘‘PSF’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): Surrogate Country List, 

dated February 13, 2009 (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). 4See Surrogate Country List. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value 

Data 

On February 13, 2009, the Department 

sent interested parties a letter inviting 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and surrogate value data.3 No 

parties provided comments with respect 

to selection of a surrogate country. On 

April 27, 2009, the Department received 

information to value factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’) from Ningbo Dafa, 

Santai, and Petitioners. On May 11, 

2009, Ningbo Dafa and Santai filed 

rebuttal comments. On May 14, 2009, 

Ningbo Dafa provided additional 

surrogate value information and 

comments. On May 19, 2009, Petitioners 

filed additional rebuttal comments. All 

the surrogate values placed on the 

record were obtained from sources in 

India. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is synthetic staple fibers, not carded, 

combed or otherwise processed for 

spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 

decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in 

diameter. This merchandise is cut to 

lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) 

to five inches (127 mm). The subject 

merchandise may be coated, usually 

with a silicon or other finish, or not 

coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing 

in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, 

comforters, cushions, pillows, and 

furniture. 

The following products are excluded 

from the scope: (1) PSF of less than 3.3 

decitex (less than 3 denier) currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading 5503.20.0025 

and known to the industry as PSF for 

spinning and generally used in woven 

and knit applications to produce textile 

and apparel products; (2) PSF of 10 to 

18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 

8 inches and that are generally used in 

the manufacture of carpeting; and (3) 

low–melt PSF defined as a bi– 

component fiber with an outer, non– 

polyester sheath that melts at a 

significantly lower temperature than its 

inner polyester core (classified at 

HTSUS 5503.20.0015). 

Certain PSF is classifiable under the 

HTSUS subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 

5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under the orders is dispositive. 

Non–Market Economy (‘‘NME’’) 

Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as an NME country. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See, e.g., 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 have contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, the Department 

calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country and 

available information does not permit 

the Department to determine NV 

pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, 

then, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, the Department bases NV on an 

NME producer’s FOPs, to the extent 

possible, in one or more market– 

economy countries that (1) are at a level 

of economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country, and (2) are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The Department 

determined India, Philippines, 

Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and 

Peru are countries comparable to the 

PRC in terms of economic 

development.4

Based on publicly available 

information placed on the record (e.g., 

production data), the Department 

determines India to be a reliable source 

for surrogate values because India is at 

a comparable level of economic 

development pursuant to section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant 

producer of subject merchandise, and 

has publicly available and reliable data. 

Accordingly, the Department has 

selected India as the surrogate country 

for purposes of valuing the FOPs 

because it meets the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate country selection. 

Separate Rates 

In 2005, the Department notified 

parties of a new application and 

certification process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate rate 

status in an NME review. The process 

requires exporters and producers to 

submit a separate rate status 

certification and/or application. See 

also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate– 

Rates Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non–Market 

Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005) 

(‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’), available at: 

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

standard for eligibility for a separate 

rate, which is whether a firm can 

demonstrate an absence of both de jure 

and de facto government control over its 

export activities, has not changed. 

A designation of a country as an NME 

remains in effect until it is revoked by 

the Department. See section 

771(18)(c)(i) of the Act. In proceedings 

involving NME countries, it is the 

Department’s practice to begin with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. See, e.g., Policy Bulletin 05.1; 

see also Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In 

Part: Certain Lined Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 

53079, 53082 (September 8, 2006); 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, 29307 

(May 22, 2006) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’). 

It is the Department’s policy to assign 

all exporters of merchandise subject to 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

affirmatively demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307. 

Exporters can demonstrate this 

independence through the absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control over export activities. Id. The 

Department analyzes each entity 

exporting the subject merchandise 

under a test arising from the Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 

20588, 20589 (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, 22586–87 (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. See, e.g., Final 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32127 

5Those companies are: Dragon Max Trading 

Development; Xiake Color Spinning Co., Ltd.; 

Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Hyosung 

Singapore PTE Ltd.; Jiangyin Changlong Chemical 

Fiber Co., Ltd.; Ma Ha Company, Ltd.; Jiangyin 

Huahong Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Mighty 

Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Huvis Sichuan; and 

Suzhou PolyFiber Co., Ltd. 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax 

Candles from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 

13, 2007). 

In addition to the two mandatory 

respondents, Ningbo Dafa and Santai, 

the Department received separate rate 

applications or certifications from the 

following 15 companies (‘‘Separate–Rate 

Applicants’’): Far Eastern Industries, 

Ltd., (Shanghai) and Far Eastern 

Polychem Industries; Cixi Sansheng 

Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Cixi Waysun 

Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd., Hangzhou Best 

Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou 

Hanbang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd.; 

Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd.; 

Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., Ltd.; 

Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., Ltd.; 

Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre Factory; 

Nantong Loulai Chemical Fiber Co., 

Ltd.; Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd.; Xiamen 

Xianglu Chemical Fiber Co.; Zhaoqing 

Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang 

Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., Ltd.; and 

Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., 

Ltd. However, the following 10 

companies did not submit either a 

separate–rate application or 

certification: Dragon Max Trading 

Development; Xiake Color Spinning Co., 

Ltd.; Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber 

Co., Ltd.; Hyosung Singapore PTE Ltd.; 

Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fiber Co., 

Ltd.; Ma Ha Company, Ltd.; Jiangyin 

Huahong Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; 

Jiangyin Mighty Chemical Fiber Co., 

Ltd.; Huvis Sichuan; and Suzhou 

PolyFiber Co., Ltd. Therefore, because 

these companies did not demonstrate 

their eligibility for separate rate status, 

they have now been included as part of 

the PRC–wide entity. 

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) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence 

provided by Ningbo Dafa, Santai, and 

the Separate–Rate Applicants supports a 

preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of government control based on the 

following: (1) an absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) there are applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and (3) there 

are formal measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. 

See, e.g., Ningbo Dafa’s Separate Rate 

Certification, dated September 4, 2008, 

at pages 3–4; and Santai’s Section A 

Questionnaire Response, dated 

December 12, 2008, at pages 2–9. 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 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 

government control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. The evidence provided 

by Ningbo Dafa, Santai, and the 

Separate–Rate Applicants supports a 

preliminary finding of de facto absence 

of government control based on the 

following: (1) the companies set their 

own export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) the 

companies have authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) the companies have 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) there 

is no restriction on any of the 

companies’ use of export revenue. See, 

e.g., Ningbo Dafa’s Separate Rate 

Certification, dated December 12, 2008, 

at pages 5–6 and Santai’s Section A 

Questionnaire Response, dated 

September 5, 2008, at pages 2–9. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Ningbo Dafa and Santai have 

established that they qualify for a 

separate rate under the criteria 

established by Silicon Carbide and 

Sparklers. 

Separate Rate Calculation 

As stated previously, this 

administrative review covers 27 

exporters. Of those, the Department 

selected two exporters, Ningbo Dafa and 

Santai, as mandatory respondents in 

this review. As stated above, 10 

companies are part of the PRC–Wide 

entity and thus are not entitled to a 

separate rate.5 The remaining 15 

companies submitted timely 

information as requested by the 

Department and thus, the Department 

has preliminarily determined to treat 

these companies as cooperative 

Separate–Rate Applicants. 

The statute and the Department’s 

regulations do not address the 

establishment of a rate to be applied to 

individual companies not selected for 

examination where the Department 

limited its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally 

we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of 

the Act, which provides instructions for 

calculating the all–others rate in an 

investigation, for guidance when 

calculating the rate for respondents we 

did not examine in an administrative 

review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

instructs that we are not to calculate an 

all–others rate using any zero or de 

minimis margins or any margins based 

entirely on facts available. Accordingly, 

the Department’s practice in this regard, 

in reviews involving limited respondent 

selection based on exporters accounting 

for the largest volumes of trade, has 

been to average the rates for the selected 

companies, excluding zero and de 

minimis rates and rates based entirely 

on facts available. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and 

Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

52273, 52275 (September 9, 2008) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6 (‘‘Shrimp 

from Vietnam’’). Section 735(c)(5)(B) of 

the Act also provides that, where all 

margins are zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on facts available, we may use 

‘‘any reasonable method’’ for assigning 

the rate to non–selected respondents, 

including ‘‘averaging the estimated 

weighted average dumping margins 

determined for the exporters and 

producers individually investigated.’’ 

The Department has available in 

administrative reviews information that 

would not be available in an 

investigation, namely rates from prior 

32128 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

6See Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Reviews: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 74 FR 11349 (March 

17, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6; Notice of Amended 

Final Results of the Fourth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 74 FR 

17816 (April 17, 2009). 

7See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 10. 

administrative and new shipper 

reviews. Accordingly, since the 

determination in the investigation in 

this proceeding, the Department has 

determined that in cases where we have 

found dumping margins in previous 

segments of a proceeding, a reasonable 

method for determining the rate for 

non–selected companies is to use the 

most recent rate calculated for the non– 

selected company in question, unless 

we calculated in a more recent review 

a rate for any company that was not 

zero, de minimis or based entirely on 

facts available. See Shrimp from 

Vietnam at Comment 6; Ball Bearings 

and Parts Thereof from France, 

Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Rescission of Review in Part, 73 FR 

52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 16; see also 

Certain Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the New Shipper 

Review and Fourth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of the Fourth Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 52015 (September 8, 

2008) (changed in final results as final 

calculated rate for mandatory 

respondent was above de minimis, 

which remained unchanged in the 

amended final results).6

In this case, all the Separate–Rate 

Applicants received a separate rate in 

the original investigation. Therefore, for 

the preliminary results, we are assigning 

all the Separate–Rate Applicants a 

separate rate of 4.44%, which is the 

separate rate from the original 

investigation. Entities receiving this rate 

are identified by name in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. 

Date of Sale 

Ningbo Dafa and Santai reported the 

invoice date as the date of sale because 

they claim that, for their U.S. sales of 

subject merchandise made during the 

POR, the material terms of sale were 

established on the invoice date. The 

Department preliminarily determines 

that the invoice date is the most 

appropriate date to use as Ningbo Dafa’s 

and Santai’s date of sale is in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and 

the Department’s long–standing practice 

of determining the date of sale.7

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of certain 

PSF to the United States by Ningbo Dafa 

and Santai were made at less than fair 

value, the Department compared the 

export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described 

in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections below. 

U.S. Price 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, the Department calculated the 

EP for a portion of sales to the United 

States for Ningbo Dafa and Santai 

because the first sale to an unaffiliated 

party was made before the date of 

importation and the use of constructed 

EP (‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise 

warranted. The Department calculated 

EP based on the price to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. In 

accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Act, as appropriate, the Department 

deducted from the starting price to 

unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland 

freight and brokerage and handling. 

Each of these services was either 

provided by an NME vendor or paid for 

using an NME currency. Thus, the 

Department based the deduction of 

these movement charges on surrogate 

values. 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using a factors–of-production 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home–market 

prices, third–country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of non–market economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under the 

Department’s normal methodologies. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to value the FOPs, but 

when a producer sources an input from 

a market economy country and pays for 

it in a market economy currency, the 

Department may value the factor using 

the actual price paid for the input. 

During the POR, both Ningbo Dafa and 

Santai reported that they purchased 

certain inputs from a market economy 

supplier and paid for the inputs in a 

market economy currency. See Ningbo 

Dafa Section D Questionnaire Response, 

dated January 9, 2009, at pages D–5–6 

and Exhibit 3; and Santai’s Section D 

Questionnaire Response, dated January 

9, 2009, at page 5 and Exhibit D–1–B. 

The Department has a rebuttable 

presumption that market economy input 

prices are the best available information 

for valuing an input when the total 

volume of the input purchased from all 

market economy sources during the 

period of investigation or review 

exceeds 33 percent of the total volume 

of the input purchased from all sources 

during the period. See Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 

Expected Non–Market Economy Wages, 

Duty Drawback; and Request for 

Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717–18 

(October 19, 2006) (‘‘Antidumping 

Methodologies’’). In these cases, unless 

case–specific facts provide adequate 

grounds to rebut the Department’s 

presumption, the Department will use 

the weighted average market economy 

purchase price to value the input. 

Alternatively, when the volume of an 

NME firm’s purchases of an input from 

market economy suppliers during the 

period is below 33 percent of its total 

volume of purchases of the input during 

the period, but where these purchases 

are otherwise valid and there is no 

reason to disregard the prices, the 

Department will weight–average the 

market economy purchase price with an 

appropriate surrogate value according to 

their respective shares of the total 

volume of purchases, unless case– 

specific facts provide adequate grounds 

to rebut the presumption. See 

Antidumping Methodologies. When a 

firm has made market economy input 

purchases that may have been dumped 

or subsidized, are not bona fide, or are 

otherwise not acceptable for use in a 

dumping calculation, the Department 

will exclude them from the numerator 

of the ratio to ensure a fair 

determination of whether valid market 

economy purchases meet the 33–percent 

threshold. See Antidumping 

Methodologies. 

The Department used Indian import 

data from the World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA 

Indian import data’’) published by 

Global Trade Information Services, Inc., 

which is sourced from the Directorate 

General of Commercial Intelligence & 

Statistics, Indian Ministry of Commerce, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32129 

to determine the surrogate values for 

raw material, steam coal, by–products, 

and packing material inputs. The 

Department has disregarded statistics 

from NMEs, countries with generally 

available export subsidies, and 

undetermined countries, in calculating 

the average value. For a detailed 

description of all surrogate values used 

for Ningbo Dafa and Santai, see 

Memorandum to the File through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 

from Alexis Polovina, Case Analyst: 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’): Surrogate Values for the 

Preliminary Results (‘‘Prelim Surrogate 

Value Memo’’) dated June 30, 2009. 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, for subject merchandise 

produced by Ningbo Dafa and Santai, 

the Department calculated NV based on 

the FOPs reported by Ningbo Dafa and 

Santai for the POR. The Department 

used the WTA Indian import data and 

other publicly available Indian sources 

in order to calculate surrogate values for 

Ningbo Dafa and Santai’s FOPs. To 

calculate NV, the Department 

multiplied the reported per–unit factor 

quantities by publicly available Indian 

surrogate values. The Department’s 

practice when selecting the best 

available information for valuing FOPs 

is to select, to the extent practicable, 

surrogate values which are product– 

specific, representative of a broad 

market average, publicly available, 

contemporaneous with the POR and 

exclusive of taxes and duties. See, e.g., 

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

As appropriate, the Department 

adjusted input prices by including 

freight costs to render them delivered 

prices. Specifically, the Department 

added to Indian import surrogate values 

a surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision of the 

Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United 

States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 

1997). See Prelim Surrogate Value 

Memo. 

In those instances where the 

Department could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

to the POR with which to value factors, 

the Department adjusted the surrogate 

values using, where appropriate, the 

Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) 

as published in the International 

Financial Statistics of the International 

Monetary Fund, a printout of which is 

attached to the Prelim Surrogate Value 

Memo at Attachment 2. Where 

necessary, the Department adjusted 

surrogate values for inflation and 

exchange rates, taxes, and the 

Department converted all applicable 

items to a per–kilogram basis. 

The Department valued electricity 

using price data for small, medium, and 

large industries, as published by the 

Central Electricity Authority of the 

Government of India (‘‘CEA’’) in its 

publication titled ‘‘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 

rates charged to industries in India. 

Since the rates are not contemporaneous 

with the POR, the Department inflated 

the values using the WPI. Parties have 

suggested that the Department rely on 

the 2005 International Energy Agency 

(‘‘IEA’’) data. However, the Department 

preliminarily finds that we cannot rely 

on those data because the 2005 IEA data 

are less contemporaneous than the July 

2006 CEA data. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine to value 

electricity using the CEA price data. See 

Prelim Surrogate Value Memo. 

Because water is essential to the 

production process of the subject 

merchandise, the Department is 

considering water to be a direct material 

input, and not as overhead, and valued 

water with a surrogate value according 

to our practice. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the 

People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 

(October 28, 2003) and accompanying 

Issue and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 11. The Department valued 

water using data from the Maharashtra 

Industrial Development Corporation 

(www.midcindia.org) as it includes a 

wide range of industrial water tariffs. To 

value water, we used the revised 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation (‘‘MIDC’’) water rates 

available at http://www.midcindia.com/ 

water–supply, which we deflated using 

Indian WPI. See Prelim Surrogate Value 

Memo. 

For direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), the Department used the 

PRC regression–based wage rate as 

reported on Import Administration’s 

home page, Import Library, Expected 

Wages of Selected NME Countries, 

revised in May 2008; see http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html; 

Corrected 2007 Calculation of Expected 

Non–Market Economy Wages, 73 FR 

27795 (May 14, 2008). The source of 

these wage–rate data listed on Import 

Administration’s web site is the 

Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2005, ILO 

(Geneva: 2007), Chapter 5B: Wages in 

Manufacturing. Because this regression– 

based wage rate does not separate the 

labor rates into different skill levels or 

types of labor, the Department has 

applied the same wage rate to all skill 

levels and types of labor reported by the 

respondents. See Prelim Surrogate 

Value Memo. 

The Department 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 website contains inland 

freight truck rates between many large 

Indian cities. Since this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POR, the 

Department deflated the rate using WPI. 

See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo. 

To value brokerage and handling, the 

Department calculated a simple average 

of the brokerage and handling costs that 

were reported in public submissions 

that were filed in three antidumping 

duty cases. Specifically, the Department 

averaged the public brokerage and 

handling expenses reported by Navneet 

Publications (India) Ltd. in the 2007– 

2008 antidumping duty 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 antidumping duty 

administrative review of certain 

preserved mushrooms from India. The 

Department inflated the brokerage and 

handling rate using the appropriate WPI 

inflator. See Prelim Surrogate Value 

Memo. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) 

expenses, and profit, the Department 

used the audited financial statements of 

Ganesh Polytex Limited. 

We are preliminarily granting a by– 

product offset to Ningbo Dafa for waste 

paper and waste bottle hood. We are 

also preliminarily granting a by–product 

offset to Ningbo Dafa for waste fiber 

based on its production of waste fiber, 

as opposed to its POR reintroduction of 

waste fiber. Ningbo Dafa stated that 

when waste fiber is produced it enters 

an inventory–in account and a value is 

assigned to that inventory in their 

books. Moreover, Ningbo claims that all 

of the waste fiber produced during the 

POR has been or will be reintroduced. 

In other words, there is no indication 

32130 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

that any of the waste fiber produced is 

not ultimately reintroduced into the 

processing stage. Under such a 

circumstance, the practice of using the 

‘‘lower of’’ the quantity of by–product 

produced or reintroduced in each POR 

may lead to a biased result over 

multiple review periods. The 

Department notes that granting the by– 

product offset based on total by–product 

production during the POR is a 

departure from past NME practice, in 

which by–product offsets were based on 

its total POR reintroduction of the by– 

product produced during the POR. See, 

e.g., 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) 

and accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 12. However, 

this change brings our NME practice 

into line with normal accounting 

principles, which recognizes and 

records the economic value of a by– 

product when it is produced. We are 

hereby notifying parties of this change 

in practice for NME cases and we invite 

interested parties to provide comments 

in their case briefs. 

We are also preliminarily granting a 

by–product offset to Santai for 

polypropylene (‘‘PP’’) waste and 

polyethylene terephthalate (‘‘PET’’) 

waste. 

Currency Conversion 

Where necessary, the Department 

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. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that the following weighted– 

average dumping margins exist: 

CERTAIN POLYESTER STAPLE FIBER FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average Margin (Percent) 

Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. .......................................................................................................... 0.00 

Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co. ..................................................................................................................... 0.06 (de minimis) 

Far Eastern Polychem Industries .................................................................................................................. 4.44 

Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. ....................................................................................................... 4.44 

Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd. ........................................................................................................... 4.44 

Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................... 4.44 

Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. .............................................................................................. 4.44 

Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................... 4.44 

Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................. 4.44 

Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., Ltd. ......................................................................................................... 4.44 

Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre Factory .......................................................................................................... 4.44 

Nantong Loulai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................... 4.44 

Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd. .............................................................................................................................. 4.44 

Xiamen Xianglu Chemical Fiber Co. ............................................................................................................. 4.44 

Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................ 4.44 

Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................... 4.44 

Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................. 4.44 

PRC–Wide Rate ............................................................................................................................................ 44.30 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Because, as discussed above, 

the Department intends to seek 

additional information, the Department 

will establish the briefing schedule at a 

later time, and will notify parties of the 

schedule in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309. Parties who submit case briefs 

or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each 

argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2) 

a brief summary of the argument; and 3) 

a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c) and (d). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room 1117, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

1) the party’s name, address and 

telephone number; 2) the number of 

participants; and 3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. Id. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of the issues 

raised in any written briefs, not later 

than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

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

Extension of the Time Limit for the 

Final Results 

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

requires that the Department issue the 

final results of an administrative review 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary results are published. If 

it is not practicable to complete the 

review within that time period, section 

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

Department to extend the deadline for 

the final results to a maximum of 180 

days after the date on which the 

preliminary results are published. 

In this proceeding, the Department 

requires additional time to complete the 

final results of this administrative 

review to issue additional supplemental 

questionnaires, conduct verifications of 

several producers in addition to the 

exporters, generate the reports of the 

verification findings, and properly 

consider the issues raised in case briefs 

from interested parties. Thus, it is not 

practicable to complete this 

administrative review within the 

original time limit. Consequently, the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for completion of the final results of this 

review by 60 days, in accordance with 

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

results are now due no later 180 days 

after the publication date of these 

preliminary results. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by these 

reviews. The Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32131 

1Title II, Pub. Law No. 108–494, 118 Stat. 3986, 

47 U.S.C. §§ 309 (j) (3), 921, 923, 928 and note 

(annual report requirement). 

days after the publication date of the 

final results of this review excluding 

any reported sales that entered during 

the gap period. In accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated 

exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

subject to this review. Where the 

respondent has reported reliable entered 

values, we calculated importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rates by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer (or customer) and dividing this 

amount by the total entered value of the 

sales to each importer (or customer). See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is greater than de minimis, 

we will apply the assessment rate to the 

entered value of the importers’/ 

customers’ entries 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). 

For the companies receiving a 

separate rate that were not selected for 

individual review, the assessment rate 

will be based on the rate from the 

investigation or, if appropriate, a simple 

average of the cash deposit rates 

calculated for the companies selected 

for individual review pursuant to 

section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

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 the 

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (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 which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 44.3 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 and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15964 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

[Docket No. 0906231085–91085–01] 

Relocation of Federal Systems in the 

1710–1755 MHz Frequency Band: 

Review of the Initial Implementation of 

the Commercial Spectrum 

Enhancement Act 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) seeks comment 

on the initial implementation of the 

Commercial Spectrum Enhancement 

Act (CSEA).1 The CSEA, which was 

enacted in 2004, created an innovative 

funding mechanism allowing Federal 

agencies to recover the costs of 

relocating their radio systems from the 

proceeds of the auction of the radio 

spectrum vacated. The first auction 

under the CSEA, that of the 1710–1755 

MHz band, concluded in 2006, 

providing new opportunities for 

Advanced Wireless Services (AWS–1). 

Over two years into the relocation of 

Federal systems from this band, NTIA 

requests information on what 

implementation steps should be 

retained as best practices, what lessons 

have been learned, and what, if any, 

improvements should be made in future 

relocations under the CSEA. 

DATE: Comments are requested on or 

before August 21, 2009, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Parties may mail written 

comments to Gary Patrick, Spectrum 

Engineering and Analysis Division, 

Office of Spectrum Management, 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 6725, 

Washington, DC 20230, with copies to 

Gina Harrison, Esq., Office of Spectrum 

Management, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

N.W., Room 4099, Washington, DC 

20230. Alternatively, comments may be 

submitted in Microsoft Word format 

electronically to 

csealessonslearned@ntia.doc.gov. 

Comments will be posted on NTIA’s 

website at http://www.ntia.doc.gov and 

regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Patrick, National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 6725, 

Washington, DC 20230 or Gina 

Harrison, Esq., National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

N.W., Room 4099, Washington, DC 

20230; telephone (202) 482–9132 or 

(202) 482–2695; or email: 

gpatrick@ntia.doc.gov or 

rharrison@ntia.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Overview 

NTIA decided to reallocate the 1710– 

1755 MHz band to commercial use in