Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 19049-19056 [E9-9567]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 79 (Monday, April 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19049-19056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9567]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-560-822, A-583-843, A-552-804]


Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov at (202) 482-0665 or 
Minoo Hatten at (202) 482-1690 (Indonesia and Taiwan), AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 5; Maisha Cryor at (202) 482-5831 or Robert Bolling 
at (202) 482-3434 (Socialist Republic of Vietnam), AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On March 31, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received petitions concerning imports of polyethylene retail carrier 
bags (PRCBs) from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam (Vietnam) filed in proper form by Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and 
Superbag Corporation (the petitioners). See the Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam submitted on March 31, 2009 (the Petitions). On April 3, 
2009, the Department issued a request for additional information and 
clarification of certain areas of the Petitions. Based on the 
Department's requests, the petitioners filed additional information on 
April 8, 10, 15, and 16, 2009 (hereinafter, Supplement to the 
Petitions, dated respectively). The period of investigation (POI) for 
Indonesia and Taiwan is January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. The 
POI for Vietnam is July 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. See 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1).
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of PRCBs from 
Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in 
the United States at less than fair value, within the meaning of 
section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, 
or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested 
parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and have 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the 
antidumping duty investigations that the petitioners are requesting 
that the Department initiate (see ``Determination of Industry Support 
for the Petitions'' section below).

Scope of Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations is PRCBs. See 
Attachment I to this notice for a complete description of the 
merchandise covered by these investigations.

Comments on Scope of Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products 
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 
discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), 
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested 
parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments should be 
addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to 
provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments 
and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
determinations.

[[Page 19050]]

Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires

    We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the 
appropriate physical characteristics of PRCBs to be reported in 
response to our antidumping questionnaires. This information will be 
used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject 
merchandise in order to report more accurately the relevant factors and 
costs of production as well as to develop appropriate product-
comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as 1) general product 
characteristics and 2) the product-comparison criteria. We recognize 
that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as 
product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on 
meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while 
there may be some physical product characteristics used by 
manufacturers to describe PRCBs, it may be that only a select few 
product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful 
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment 
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in 
matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most 
important physical characteristics first and the least important 
characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaires, we must 
receive comments at the above-referenced address by May 11, 2009. 
Additionally, we must receive rebuttal comments by May 21, 2009.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for (i) at least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall 
(i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method if there is a large number of 
producers in the industry.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), 
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' 
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In 
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of 
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions 
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to law. See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United 
States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), affirmed 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. 
Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic-
like-product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not 
offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that PRCBs constitute a single 
domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of 
that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic-like-
product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: PRCBs from Indonesia (Indonesia Initiation Checklist) at 
Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support), Antidumping Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: PRCBs from Taiwan (Taiwan Initiation Checklist) 
at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support), and Antidumping 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: PRCBs from Vietnam (Vietnam 
Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support) 
which are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the 
main Department of Commerce building.
    With regard to section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, in determining 
whether the petitioners have standing (i.e., the domestic workers and 
producer supporting the Petitions account for (1) at least 25 percent 
of the total production of the domestic like product and (2) more than 
50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by 
that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, 
the Petitions), we considered the industry-support data contained in 
the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in 
the ``Scope of Investigations'' section above and Attachment I. To 
establish industry support, the petitioners provided their shipments of 
the domestic like product for the year 2008 and compared them to an 
estimate of shipments of the domestic like product for the entire 
industry. See Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit 3 and Supplement to 
the Petitions dated April 10, 2009. The petitioners argue that U.S. 
shipments of PRCBs are a reasonable proxy for U.S. production of PRCBs 
as most PRCBs are produced to order for specific retail customers and 
that inventories that are maintained are typically small. See Volume II 
of the Petitions at Exhibit 3. Based on the fact that total industry-
production data for the domestic like product for 2008 are not 
reasonably available and that the petitioners have established that 
shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data, we have relied 
upon shipment data for purposes of measuring industry support. For 
further discussion see Indonesia Initiation Checklist, Taiwan 
Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam Initiation Checklist at Attachment II 
(Analysis of Industry Support).
    On April 15, 2009, the Government of Vietnam (GOV), an interested 
party to this proceeding as defined in section 771(9)(B) of the Act, 
provided the Department with a written statement to accompany its 
remarks during consultations with the Department regarding the 
countervailing duty (CVD) petition involving imports of PRCBs

[[Page 19051]]

from Vietnam. The first issue raised in this statement addresses the 
GOV's concerns that the petitioners may not meet the required threshold 
for standing. Because this information pertains to industry support 
and, thus, is an acceptable form of pre-initiation communication under 
section 732(c)(4)(E) of the Act, the Department placed the GOV's 
written statement on the record of all three antidumping petitions. See 
Memorandum to the File from Mark Hoadley, Program Manager through 
Barbara E. Tillman, Director AD/CVD Operations, Office 6: ``Antidumping 
Petitions on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags (PRCBs) from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam), Indonesia, and Taiwan: 
Information Provided by the Government of Vietnam (GOV) Regarding 
Industry Support,'' dated April 16, 2009. Also, on April 17, 2009, we 
received submissions on behalf of Vietnamese producers of PRCBs, 
interested parties to this proceeding as defined in section 771(9)(A) 
of the Act, questioning the industry-support calculation. See Indonesia 
Initiation Checklist, Taiwan Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support). 
On April 20, 2009, the petitioners filed their reply to these 
challenges. For further discussion of these submissions see Indonesia 
Initiation Checklist, Taiwan Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support).
    The Department's review of the data provided in the Petitions, 
supplemental submissions, other information on the record, and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that the 
petitioners have established industry support. Because the Petitions 
establish support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for 
more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product, the Department is not required to take further action in order 
to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling). See section 732(c)(4)(D) 
of the Act and Indonesia Initiation Checklist, Taiwan Initiation 
Checklist, and Vietnam Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 
Nonetheless, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory 
criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 
because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions 
account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic 
like product. See Indonesia Initiation Checklist, Taiwan Initiation 
Checklist, and Vietnam Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, 
the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the 
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the Petitions. Accordingly, the Department determines 
that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within 
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See Indonesia Initiation 
Checklist, Taiwan Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment II.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry in accordance with section 732(c)(4)(A) 
of the Act. The petitioners are an interested party as defined in 
section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the antidumping investigations that 
they are requesting that the Department initiate. See Indonesia 
Initiation Checklist, Taiwan Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the 
petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depressing 
and suppressing effects, lost sales and revenue, reduced production and 
capacity utilization, reduced shipments, reduced employment, and an 
overall decline in financial performance. We have assessed the 
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat 
of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these 
allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the 
statutory requirements for initiation. See Indonesia Initiation 
Checklist, Taiwan Initiation Checklist, and Vietnam Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment III (Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of 
Material Injury and Causation for the Petition).

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate these investigations of imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, 
Taiwan, and Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and 
adjustments relating to the U.S. price, constructed value (CV) (for 
Indonesia and Taiwan), and the factors of production (for Vietnam) are 
also discussed in the country-specific initiation checklists. See 
Indonesia Initiation Checklist, Taiwan Initiation Checklist, and 
Vietnam Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this 
information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our 
preliminary or final determinations, we will reexamine the information 
and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.

Export Price

Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam

    The petitioners calculated three versions of export price (EP) for 
each country using the average per-unit customs values (AUV) of imports 
of subject merchandise from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam during the 
country-specific POI derived from U.S. Census Bureau import statistics. 
See Volume I of the Petitions at pages 22-26, 33, 35, 41, Volume II of 
the Petitions at Exhibit 13, Supplement to the Petitions, dated April 
8, 2009, at pages 7-11 and Exhibits CI-6, CI-9, CI-11, CI-14, and 
Supplement to the Petitions, dated April 15, 2009, at pages 2-7 and 
Exhibit 1. The petitioners used a single reporting number of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under which 
subject merchandise is imported (3923.21.0085). The first method of 
calculating EP uses total import quantities and values for the 
respective POI. The petitioners calculated EP under this scenario by 
weight-averaging the per-unit AUVs during the country-specific POI 
using the entry-specific gross packed shipment weight in kilograms. Id.
    The second method of calculating EP relies on the lowest monthly 
port-specific per-unit AUVs during the country-specific POI. The 
petitioners calculated EP under this method by simple-averaging the 
monthly per-unit AUVs during the POI. Id. The petitioners claim that 
the second method of estimating EP is likely to produce a more 
representative estimate of actual margins of dumping. The petitioners 
assert that it is reasonable to assume that the lowest monthly port-

[[Page 19052]]

specific per-unit AUVs appear to represent sales of t-shirt bags (the 
type of product which the ITC has acknowledged is at the low end of 
PRCBs price and cost continuum (see footnote 9 of the Supplement to the 
Petitions, dated April 15, 2009)) which are the same type of PRCBs on 
which the petitioners based their cost model in calculating normal 
value. Id. See Supplement to the Petitions, dated April 8, 2009, at 
pages 9-11 and Exhibit CI-6. At the Department's request to 
substantiate their claims, the petitioners used Automated Manifest 
System data to determine which particular imports were of t-shirt bags. 
This resulted in complete information from manifests for one month of 
the POI for Indonesia and Taiwan, partial information for certain other 
POI months for Indonesia and Taiwan, and partial information for one 
month of the POI for Vietnam. As a result of this information, the 
petitioners provided a third method of calculating EPs for all 
countries using the lowest port-specific per-unit AUVs for a single 
month of the POI for which the petitioners substantiated their 
assertion (fully for Indonesia and Taiwan and partially for Vietnam) 
that the corresponding shipments are of t-shirt bags. See Supplement to 
the Petitions, dated April 15, 2009, at pages 2 through 7 and Exhibits 
1 and 3.
    We have relied on the petitioners' first and third methods of 
calculating EPs. We did not rely, however, on the petitioners' second 
method of calculating EPs because the petitioners did not substantiate 
their assertion with respect to all POI months for all three countries 
that the lowest monthly port-specific per-unit AUVs were shipments of 
t-shirt bags.
    Because the petitioners' derivation of the per-unit AUVs for both 
EP-calculation scenarios relied on the gross-weight basis (i.e., packed 
weight of subject merchandise), the petitioners converted the per-unit 
AUVs for both EP-calculation scenarios from the gross-weight basis to 
net-weight basis using an adjustment which estimates the weight of 
packing materials required to pack one metric ton of subject 
merchandise. See Volume I of the Petitions at pages 22-26, 33, 35, 41, 
Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit 13, and Supplement to the 
Petitions, dated April 15, 2009, at Exhibit 3. The petitioners made an 
adjustment for foreign brokerage and handling expenses and foreign 
inland-freight expenses because the AUVs are based on free-on-board 
(FOB) foreign port prices. See Indonesia Initiation Checklist, Taiwan 
Initiation Checklist, Vietnam Initiation Checklist, and ``Fair-Value 
Comparisons'' section below for EP-to-NV margins.

NV Based on CV

    With respect to NV, the petitioners state that neither home-market 
prices nor third-country POI prices of PRCBs produced in Indonesia or 
Taiwan were reasonably available. According to the petitioners, they 
were unsuccessful in obtaining Indonesian or Taiwanese POI pricing 
information despite their best efforts. See Volume I of the Petitions 
at pages 26-27. Further, the petitioners claim that they were unable to 
base NV on publicly available information covering Indonesian or 
Taiwanese third-country export prices because the underlying statistics 
for Indonesian or Taiwanese HTS numbers cover a far broader group of 
products than those covered by the scope of the petitions (i.e., HTSUS 
number 3923.21.0085). The petitioners claim that the World Trade Atlas 
(WTA) data indicate that there is no additional disaggregation beyond 
the six-digit HTS level (i.e., 3923.21) allowable with either 
Indonesian or Taiwanese tariff classification numbers. Id. Therefore, 
the petitioners based NV on CV.
    Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of 
manufacturing (COM) selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, packing expenses, and profit. In calculating COM and packing, 
the petitioners based the quantity of each of the inputs used to 
manufacture and pack PRCBs in Indonesia or Taiwan based on its own 
production experience during the POI. The petitioners claim that the 
actual usage rates of the foreign manufacturers of PRCBs are not 
reasonably attainable because such information is closely guarded by 
foreign producers and is not otherwise publicly available. The 
petitioners claim that the major foreign exporters of PRCBs use 
production machinery, raw-material inputs, and production processes 
similar to those of U.S. producers. See Volume I of the Petitions at 
pages 27-30 and Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits 20, 21, 23, and 
24.
    The petitioners then multiplied the usage quantities of the inputs 
used to manufacture and pack PRCBs by the Indonesian or Taiwanese 
values based on publicly available data or, where appropriate, data 
from a surrogate foreign country.\1\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 
pages 30, 32, and 34 and Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits 20, 21, 
24, 25, and 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ With respect to masterbatch colorants, because Indonesian 
import statistics do not report any imports during the POI under the 
applicable HTS number for this product, the petitioners valued this 
input using the simple average of Taiwanese and Indian average 
import values during the POI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Raw materials (e.g., polyethylene resin) are the most significant 
inputs used in the production of PRCBs. The petitioners determined the 
consumption of all raw materials and packing materials based on the 
quantities they used to produce a metric ton of PRCBs (i.e., t-shirt 
bags).

Indonesia

    The petitioners valued all raw materials and packing materials 
using the Indonesian import statistics as reflected in the WTA data for 
the most recent twelve-month period available, December 2007 through 
November 2008. The petitioners excluded from these import statistics 
imports from countries previously determined by the Department to be 
non-market-economy (NME) countries and from Indonesia, the Republic of 
Korea, and Thailand because the Department has previously excluded 
prices from these countries because they maintain broadly available, 
non-industry-specific export subsidies. Because Indonesian import 
statistics report import values in U.S. dollars, the petitioners did 
not make currency conversions. The petitioners did not adjust the 
import values using the producer-price inflation index (PPI) for the 
United States to make it contemporaneous with the POI. See Volume I of 
the Petitions at pages 30-32 and Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits 
20 and 24.
    The petitioners determined labor costs using the labor consumption 
in hours derived from their own experience. The petitioners valued 
labor inputs using Indonesian wage rates obtained from the 
International Labour Organization's ``Laborsta'' database at https://laborsta.ilo.org. The petitioners adjusted Indonesian labor rates to 
make them contemporaneous with the POI using Indonesian Wholesale Price 
Indices as published by International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund (IFS). The petitioners converted the 
Indonesian labor rates into U.S. dollars using the Department's POI 
exchange rates at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/. See Volume 
I of the Petitions at page 32 and Volume II of the Petitions at 
Exhibits 20 and 25.
    The petitioners determined electricity costs using the electricity 
consumption in kilowatt hours derived from their own experience. The 
petitioners valued electricity using the Indonesian electricity rate 
for the industry reported by the International Energy Agency. Because 
Indonesian electricity rates are reported in U.S. dollars, the 
petitioners

[[Page 19053]]

did not make currency conversions. The petitioners adjusted Indonesian 
electricity rate to make it contemporaneous with the POI using the PPI 
for the United States as published by IFS. See Volume I of the 
Petitions at page 32 and Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits 20 and 
26.
    To calculate factory overhead, SG&A, financial expenses and a 
profit rate, the petitioners relied on financial statements of an 
Indonesian producer of plastic packaging products, PT. Dynaplast Tbk., 
for the period most contemporaneous with the POI for which the 
petitioners were able to obtain such information. See Volume I of the 
Petitions at pages 32-33, Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibits 20 and 
27, and Supplement to the Petitions, dated April 8, 2009, at Exhibit 
CI-9. See also Indonesia Initiation Checklist.

Taiwan

    The petitioners valued all raw materials and packing materials 
using the Taiwanese import statistics as reflected in the WTA data for 
the POI. The petitioners excluded from these import statistics imports 
from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME 
countries and from Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand 
because the Department has previously excluded prices from these 
countries because they maintain broadly available, non-industry-
specific export subsidies. Because Taiwanese import statistics report 
import values in Taiwanese dollars, the petitioners converted the 
import values into U.S. dollars using the Department's POI exchange 
rates. See Volume I of the Petitions at pages 30-31 and 34 and Volume 
II of the Petitions at Exhibits 21 and 24.
    The petitioners determined labor costs using the labor consumption 
in hours derived from their own experience. The petitioners valued 
labor inputs using Taiwanese wage rates obtained from the International 
Labour Organization's ``Laborsta'' database at https://laborsta.ilo.org. 
The petitioners adjusted Taiwanese labor rates to make them 
contemporaneous with the POI using Taiwanese Wholesale Price Indices as 
published by IFS. The petitioners converted the Taiwanese labor rates 
into U.S. dollars using the Department's POI exchange rates. See Volume 
I of the Petitions at page 34 and Volume II of the Petitions at 
Exhibits 21 and 25.
    The petitioners determined electricity costs using the electricity 
consumption in kilowatt hours derived from their own experience. The 
petitioners valued electricity using the Taiwanese electricity rate for 
the industry reported by the International Energy Agency. Because 
Taiwanese electricity rates are reported in U.S. dollars, the 
petitioners did not make currency conversions. The petitioners adjusted 
the electricity rate for Taiwan to make it contemporaneous with the POI 
using the PPI for the United States as published by the IFS. See Volume 
I of the Petitions at page 34 and Volume II of the Petitions at 
Exhibits 21 and 26.
    To calculate factory overhead, SG&A, and a profit rate, the 
petitioners relied on financial statements of a Taiwanese producer of 
plastic packaging products, Formosa Taffeta Corporation, Ltd. (Formosa 
Taffeta), for the period most contemporaneous with the POI for which 
the petitioners were able to obtain such information. For the 
calculation of the financial expense, the petitioners relied on the 
financial statements of Formosa Taffeta's parent company, Formosa 
Plastics Corporation. See Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit 21 and 
Supplement to the Petitions, dated April 8, 2009, at Exhibits CI-11, 
CI-12, and CI-13. We revised the petitioners' calculation of the SG&A 
rate to exclude foreign-exchange gains and interest expenses that were 
also accounted for in the financial-expense rate as well as other 
income and expenses related to investments. We then revised the 
petitioners' profit calculation to account for the revised SG&A 
expenses. See Taiwan Initiation Checklist.

Vietnam

    The petitioners state that Vietnam is an NME country and no 
determination to the contrary has been made by the Department. See 
Volume I of the Petitions at 36. The petitioners state that, in each of 
the three antidumping duty investigations the Department has conducted 
on imports from Vietnam, the Department determined that Vietnam is an 
NME country, citing Uncovered Innerspring Units from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 62479 (October 21, 2008), 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), and 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).
    In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 
presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the 
Department. The presumption of NME status for Vietnam has not been 
revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for 
purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV 
of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued 
in a surrogate market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) 
of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties, including 
the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant information 
related to the issues of Vietnam's NME status and the granting of 
separate rates to individual exporters.
    Citing section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioners contend that 
India is the appropriate surrogate country for Vietnam because 1) it is 
at a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam, 2) it 
is a significant producer of PRCBs, and 3) the Department has 
previously found India to be a ready source for reliable surrogate 
values for Vietnam proceedings. See Volume I of the Petitions at 36-39. 
Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we believe that 
it is appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation 
purposes. After initiation of the investigation, interested parties 
will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate-
country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be 
provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to 
value factors of production within 40 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination.
    The petitioners calculated NV and dumping margins for the U.S. 
price, discussed above, using the Department's NME methodology as 
required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. The 
petitioners calculated NV based on their own consumption rates for 
producing PRCBs in 2008. See Vietnam Initiation Checklist. The 
petitioners state that their production experience is representative of 
the production process used in Vietnam because all of the material 
inputs and processing are unlikely to be materially different for a 
Vietnam producer of PRCBs. See Volume I of the Petitions at page 28.
    The petitioners valued the factors of production based on 
reasonably available, public surrogate-country data, including India 
statistics from the WTA and the Central Electric Authority of the 
Government of India. See Vietnam Initiation Checklist. Where the 
petitioners were unable to find input prices contemporaneous with the 
POI, the petitioners adjusted for inflation

[[Page 19054]]

using the Indian Wholesale Price Index from the IFS. See Supplement to 
the Petition, dated April 8, 2009, at page 21. In addition, the 
petitioners made currency conversions, where necessary, based on the 
POI-average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate, as reported on the 
Department's website. See Supplement to the Petitions, dated April 15, 
2009, at pages 9-12 and Exhibit 7. The petitioners determined labor 
costs using the labor consumption, in hours, derived from their own 
experience. See Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit 23. The labor 
cost was then determined using the Department's NME Wage Rate for 
Vietnam at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/. See Volume I of the 
Petitions at page 40 and Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit 29. For 
purposes of initiation, the Department determines that the surrogate 
values used by the petitioners are reasonably available and, thus, 
acceptable for purposes of initiation.
    The petitioners determined electricity costs using the electricity 
consumption, in kilowatt hours, derived from their own experience. The 
petitioners valued electricity using the Indian electricity rate 
reported by the Central Electric Authority of the Government of India. 
The petitioners inflated the electricity rate to the POI using the 
Indian Wholesale Price Index as published by the IFS and converted it 
from Indian rupees to U.S. dollars using the Department's POI exchange 
rates. See Supplement to the Petitions, dated April 8, 2009, at page 21 
and Exhibit CI-16.
    The petitioners based factory overhead, SG&A, and profit on data 
from Synthetic Packers Pvt. Ltd. for the fiscal year April 1, 2007, 
through March 31, 2008. See Volume I of the Petitions at page 40 and 
Volume II of the Petitions at Exhibit 31. For purposes of initiation, 
the Department finds the petitioners' use of Synthetic's financial 
ratios appropriate.

Fair-Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value. Based on a comparison of EPs (using methods one and three 
presented by the petitioners) and CV calculated in accordance with 
section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for PRCBs 
from Indonesia range from 35.47 to 60.24 percent. See Indonesia 
Initiation Checklist. Based on a comparison of EPs (methods one and 
three) and CV calculated in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the 
Act, the estimated revised dumping margins for PRCBs from Taiwan range 
from 76.25 to 95.81 percent. See Taiwan Initiation Checklist. Based on 
a comparison of EPs (methods one and three) and NV calculated in 
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margins for PRCBs from Vietnam range from 28.49 to 76.11 percent. See 
Vietnam Initiation Checklist.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the Petitions on PRCBs from 
Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam the Department finds that the Petitions 
meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 
initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports 
of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam are being, or are likely 
to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance 
with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless 
postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 
140 days after the date of this initiation.

Targeted-Dumping Allegations

    On December 10, 2008, the Department issued an interim final rule 
for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 351.414(f) and (g), the 
regulatory provisions governing the targeted- dumping analysis in 
antidumping duty investigations, and the corresponding regulation 
governing the deadline for targeted-dumping allegations, 19 CFR 
351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing 
Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 
(December 10, 2008). The Department stated that ``{w{time} ithdrawal 
will allow the Department to exercise the discretion intended by the 
statute and, thereby, develop a practice that will allow interested 
parties to pursue all statutory avenues of relief in this area.'' Id. 
at 74931.
    In order to accomplish this objective, if any interested party 
wishes to make a targeted- dumping allegation in any of these 
investigations pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such 
allegations are due no later than 45 days before the scheduled date of 
the country-specific preliminary determination.

Respondent Selection

Indonesia and Taiwan

    For these investigations, the Department intends to select 
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for 
U.S. imports under HTSUS number 3923.21.0085 during the POI. We intend 
to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to 
all parties with access to information protected by APO within five 
days of publication of this Federal Register notice and make our 
decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication 
of this notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data 
and respondent selection within 10 days of publication of this Federal 
Register notice.
    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such 
applications may be found on the Department's website at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.

Vietnam

    For this investigation, the Department will request quantity and 
value information from all known exporters and producers identified 
with complete contact information in the Petition. The quantity and 
value data received from NME exporters/producers will be used as the 
basis to select the mandatory respondents.
    The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to 
both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate 
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive 
consideration for separate-rate status. See Circular Welded Austenitic 
Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation 
of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 
2008), and Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist 
Canvas From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 
28, 2005). Attachment II of this notice contains the quantity and value 
questionnaire that must be submitted by all NME exporters/producers no 
later than May 11, 2009. In addition, the Department will post the 
quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on 
the Import Administration website at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html. Also, the Department will send the quantity 
and value questionnaire to those Vietnam companies identified in the 
Supplement to the Petitions, dated April 16, 2009, at Exhibits II-6, 
III-12.

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application. 
See Policy Bulletin

[[Page 19055]]

05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries 
(April 5, 2005) (Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin), 
available on the Department's website at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. Based on our experience in processing the separate-rate 
applications in previous antidumping duty investigations, we have 
modified the application for this investigation to make it more 
administrable and easier for applicants to complete. See, e.g., 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic 
Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 43591, 
43594-95 (August 6, 2007). The specific requirements for submitting the 
separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail 
in the application itself, which will be available on the Department's 
website at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of 
publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. The 
separate-rate application will be due 60 days after publication of this 
initiation notice. As noted in the ``Respondent Selection'' section 
above, the Department requires that respondents submit a response to 
both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate 
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive 
consideration for separate-rate status.

Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this 
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin 
states:
    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates 
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now 
assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers 
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the 
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of 
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents 
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool 
of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the 
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the 
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to 
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise 
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that 
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.
See Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, at page 6 (emphasis 
added).

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the Petitions have been 
provided to the representatives of the Governments of Indonesia, 
Taiwan, and Vietnam. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public 
version of the Petitions to the foreign producers/exporters, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the International Trade Commission

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than May 15, 2009, 
whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of PRCBs from 
Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam are materially injuring, or threatening 
material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination with 
respect to any country will result in the investigation being 
terminated for that country; otherwise, these investigations will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: April 20, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Attachment I

Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise subject to these investigations is polyethylene 
retail carrier bags (PRCBs), which also may be referred to as t-shirt 
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).
    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 these investigations 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 merchandise included within the scope of these 
investigations are currently classifiable under statistical category 
3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). This subheading may also cover products that are outside the 
scope of these investigations. Furthermore, although the HTSUS 
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of these investigations is 
dispositive.

Attachment II

Format For Reporting Quantity and Value of Sales

In providing the information in the chart below, please provide the 
total quantity in both pieces (1,000 units) and kilograms (kg) (net 
weight) and total value (in U.S. dollars) of all your sales to the 
United States during the period July 1, 2008, through December 31, 
2008, covered by the scope of this investigation (see Attachment II), 
produced in the Vietnam, i.e. PRCBs.
Please provide the conversion factor used to convert pieces (1,000 
units) to kg (net weight).
Please use the invoice date when determining which sales to include 
within the period noted above.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ If you believe that another date besides the invoice date 
would provide a more accurate representation of your company's sales 
during the designated period, please provide a full explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, if you believe that you should be treated as a single 
entity along with other named exporters, please complete the chart, 
below, both in the aggregate for all named parties in your

[[Page 19056]]

group and, in separate charts, individually for each named entity. 
Please label each chart accordingly.
Please state whether you exported PRCBs to the United States during the 
POI.
If you did export PRCBs to the United States during the POI, please 
state whether you produced 100 percent of the PRCBs that you exported 
to the United States during the POI.
If you did produce 100 percent of the PRCBs that you exported to the 
United States during the POI, please provide the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total Quantity
      Market: United States         Total Quantity       Pieces (1,000     Terms of Sale\2\     Total Value\3\
                                   (kg) (Net Weight)        units)                                  ($U.S.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Export Price\4\..............
2. Constructed Export Price\5\..
3. Further Manufactured\6\......
Total...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB).
\3\ Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and
  sources.
\4\ Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person
  occurs before the goods are imported into the United States.
\5\ Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an
  unaffiliated person occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person is made by
  a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if
  the sale occurs prior to importation. Do not report the sale to the affiliated party in the United States,
  rather report the sale made by the affiliated party to the unaffiliated customer in the United States.
\6\ ``Further manufactured'' refers to merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United
  States before sale to the first unaffiliated customer.

If you did not produce 100 percent of the PRCBs that you exported to 
the United States during the POI, please provide the following 
information:
    1) Identify each company which produced the PRCBs (Company A) that 
you (Company B) exported to the United States;
    2) Provide the physical address of each company which produced the 
PRCBs (Company A) that you (Company B) exported to the United States 
during the POI;
    3) For each company (Company/Companies A) which produced the PRCBs 
that you (Company B) exported, provide the quantity (in kg and pieces) 
and value of the PRCBs that you (Company B) exported to the United 
Sates during the POI;
    4) Provide the quantity (in kg and pieces) and the value of the 
PRCBs that you (Company B) exported to the United Sates during the POI 
that was produced by your company (Company B);
    5) Use the chart below to provide the information requested above:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Quantity in Both    Quantity (kg)(Net
                                                                           (kg )(Net Weight)  Weight) and Pieces   Value of Quantity   Value of Quantity
                                                                           and Pieces (1,000     (1,000 units)        Produced By         Produced By
        Market: United States           Name of   Country of    Name of    units)Produced By      Produced By        Company A and       Company B and
                                       Company A   Company A   Company B     Company A and       Company B and        Exported by         Exported by
                                                                              Exported by         Exported by          Company B           Company B
                                                                               Company B           Company B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export Price........................
Constructed Export Price............
Further Manufactured................
Total...............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-9567 Filed 4-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S