Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Notices 9753 

1See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 

Strip From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in 

Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 

75 FR 49893 (August 16, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). 

2 DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, 

Inc., SKC, Inc., and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

3See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 

Strip From the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

69629 (November 15, 2010). 

4See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 49894. 

5 Id. 

6 In the Preliminary Results, the Department 

stated that it had ‘‘valued electricity using rates for 

large industries at 33 Kilo Volts, as published by the 

Central Electricity Authority of the Government of 

India in ‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates 

of Electricity Supply in India,’ dated March 2008.’’ 

See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 49898. This 

statement in the Federal Register notice was an 

error, as the Department had actually averaged all 

tax-exclusive rates for electricity for small, medium, 

and large industries as published in the abovementioned report. See Memorandum to the File 

through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, from Thomas Martin, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

Continued 

CFR 351.214 (i)(1). The Act further 

provides that the Department may 

extend that 180-day period to 300 days 

if it determines that the case is 

extraordinarily complicated. See also 19 

CFR 351.214 (i)(2). 

Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary 

Results 

The Department determines that this 

new shipper review involves 

extraordinarily complicated 

methodological issues, including 

Shanghai Colour’s multiple production 

stages for subject merchandise and the 

need to evaluate the bona fide nature of 

Shanghai Colour’s sales. The 

Department finds that these 

extraordinarily complicated issues 

require additional time to evaluate. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(i)(2), the Department is 

extending the time limit for the 

preliminary results by 120 days, until 

no later than July 25, 2011. The final 

results continue to be due 90 days after 

the publication of the preliminary 

results. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: February 10, 2011. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3541 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–924] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

First Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 16, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published the 

Preliminary Results of the first 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, 

and strip (‘‘PET film’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 We gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. 

Based upon our analysis of the 

comments and information received, we 

made changes to the margin calculation 

for the final results. We find that the 

participating respondents in this review, 

the two mandatory respondents Fuwei 

Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fuwei 

Films’’), Shaoxing Xiangyu Green 

Packing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Green Packing’’), and 

Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wanhua’’) 

(collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’), sold 

subject merchandise at less than normal 

value during the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’), November 6, 2008, through 

October 31, 2009. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 22, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3936. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

As noted above, on August 16, 2010, 

the Department published the 

Preliminary Results of this 

administrative review. Between 

September 28, 2010 and October 5, 

2010, we received case and rebuttal 

briefs from Petitioners 2 and 

Respondents. On September 28, 2010, 

we also received written arguments 

from Bemis Company, Inc., an industrial 

user of PET film. On October 18, 2010, 

the Department placed a revised wage 

rate calculation on the record for 

comment. Between October 26, 2010 

and November 1, 2010, we received 

comments and rebuttal comments from 

Petitioners and Respondents regarding 

the revised wage rate calculation. On 

November 15, 2010, the Department 

published a notice extending the time 

period for issuing the final results by 60 

days to February 14, 2011.3 On 

November 22, 2010, the Department 

held a public hearing of the arguments 

presented in the interested parties’ 

submissions. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs by 

parties are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

which is dated concurrently with this 

notice (‘‘I&D Memo’’). A list of the issues 

which parties raised, and to which we 

respond in the I&D Memo, is attached to 

this notice as an Appendix. The I&D 

Memo is a public document and is on 

file in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), 

Main Commerce Building, Room 7046, 

and is accessible on the Department’s 

Web site at 

http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department preliminarily rescinded the 

administrative review with respect to 

Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dongfang’’). Dongfang 

reported that it had no shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR.4 As we stated in 

the Preliminary Results, our 

examination of shipment data from U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

for Dongfang confirmed that there were 

no entries of subject merchandise from 

Dongfang during the POR. 5 We also 

received no comments or information to 

change our preliminary rescission. 

Therefore, we are rescinding this 

administrative review with respect to 

Dongfang. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on a review of the record, as 

well as comments received from parties 

regarding our Preliminary Results, we 

have made revisions to Respondents’ 

margin calculations for the final 

results.6 Pursuant to a recent decision 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

9754 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Notices 

from the People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

Factor Values,’’ dated August 9, 2010, at 4. No 

parties commented on this error, but the 

Department notes that there is no change with 

respect to the calculation of the surrogate value for 

electricity between the Preliminary Results and 

these final results of review. 

7See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 

(Fed. Cir. 2010). 

8See Memorandum from Thomas Martin to The 

File, ‘‘First Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the 

People’s Republic of China: Industry-Specific Wage 

Rate Selection,’’ dated October 18, 2010. 

9See I&D Memo at Comment 2; see also 

Memorandum to the File through Robert Bolling, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 

from Thomas Martin, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, ‘‘Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic 

of China: Changes to Surrogate Values for the Final 

Results of Review,’’ dated February 14, 2011 (‘‘Final 

Surrogate Values Memorandum’’) at 2. 

10See I&D Memo at Comment 3. 

11See I&D Memo at Comment 4; see also Final 

Surrogate Values Memorandum at 3. 

12See I&D Memo at Comment 9. 

13See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 

(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 

Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 

60632 (October 25, 2007). 

14See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 49896. 

15 See I&D Memo at Comment 1. 

16See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as 

further developed in Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994). 

17See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 49895. 

18See section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. 

19See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 47587, 47591 

(August 14, 2008). 

20See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 49895. 

by the Court of Appeal for the Federal 

Circuit 7, subsequent to the Preliminary 

Results, we calculated a revised hourly 

wage rate to use in valuing 

Respondents’ reported labor.8

Additionally, we have: (1) Revised the 

calculated surrogate overhead, selling, 

general and administrative expenses, 

and profit applicable to Respondents 

using information from the financial 

statements of JBF Industries Limited, a 

manufacturer in India of merchandise 

comparable to subject merchandise; 9 (2) 

revised the surrogate value for bright 

polyester chips and master batch chips 

by using the simple-average of the two 

weighted average surrogate values for 

merchandise of Indian Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule subheadings 3907.60.10 

and 3907.6020; 10 (3) revised the 

surrogate value for steam by using 

information more contemporaneous 

with the POR; 11 and (4) recalculated 

Fuwei Films’ indirect selling expenses 

pursuant to the Department’s 

established policy and practice.12

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed 

PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metalized films 

and other finished films that have had 

at least one of their surfaces modified by 

the application of a performanceenhancing resinous or inorganic layer 

more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also 

excluded is roller transport cleaning 

film which has at least one of its 

surfaces modified by application of 0.5 

micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and 

drafting film is also excluded. PET film 

is classifiable under subheading 

3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). While HTSUS subheadings 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes, our written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy Treatment 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country.13 In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), any determination 

that a foreign country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

No party has challenged the designation 

of the PRC as an NME country in this 

review. Therefore, the Department 

continues to treat the PRC as an NME 

country for purposes of these final 

results. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department stated that it selected India 

as the appropriate surrogate country to 

use in this administrative review for the 

following reasons: (1) It is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise; 

(2) it is at a similar level of economic 

development pursuant to section 

773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) the 

Department has reliable data from India 

that it can use to value the factors of 

production.14 While the Department 

received comments on the surrogate 

country issue after the Preliminary 

Results, the Department has not made 

changes to its findings with respect to 

the selection of a surrogate country for 

the final results.15

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department holds a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of subject 

merchandise in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate.16

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department found that the two 

mandatory respondents and Wanhua 

demonstrated eligibility for separate-rate 

status.17 Since the publication of the 

Preliminary Results, no party has 

commented on the eligibility of the two 

mandatory respondents and Wanhua for 

separate-rate status. For the final results, 

the Department continues to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this administrative review by the two 

mandatory respondents and Wanhua 

demonstrates both de jure and de facto 

absence of government control with 

respect to each company’s respective 

exports of the subject merchandise. 

Thus, the Department continues to find 

that the two mandatory respondents and 

Wanhua are eligible for separate-rate 

status. 

The separate rate is determined based 

on the estimated weighted-average 

dumping margins established for 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated, excluding zero and de 

minimis margins or margins based 

entirely on adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’).18 In this administrative review 

both mandatory respondents, Fuwei 

Films and Green Packing, have 

estimated weighted-average dumping 

margins which are above de minimis 

and which are not based on total AFA. 

Therefore, because there are only two 

relevant weighted-average dumping 

margins for these final results and 

because using a weighted-average risks 

disclosure of business proprietary 

information, the separate rate is a 

simple-average of these two values, 

which is 36.93 percent.19

PRC-Wide Entity 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department determined that certain PRC 

exporters failed to recertify their 

separate rates using the separate rate 

certification provided at the 

Department’s Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html to 

demonstrate their continued eligibility 

for separate-rate status. Also, Shanghai 

Xishu Electric Material Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Xishu’’) and Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Uchem’’) did not make a claim that 

they did not ship or sell subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR.20 Thus, the Department treated 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Notices 9755 

21 Id. 22See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 

3, 2000). 

these PRC exporters as part of the PRCwide entity. The Department also found 

that the PRC-wide entity did not 

respond to our requests for 

information.21 No additional 

information was placed on the record 

with respect to any of these companies 

after the Preliminary Results. Since the 

PRC-wide entity did not provide the 

Department with requested information, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act, the Department continues to find it 

appropriate to base the PRC-wide rate 

on facts available. 

Because the Department begins with 

the presumption that all companies 

within an NME country are subject to 

government control, and because only 

the mandatory respondents and Wanhua 

have overcome that presumption, the 

Department is applying a single 

antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide 

entity rate) to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. Such 

companies did not demonstrate 

entitlement to a separate rate.22 The 

PRC-wide entity rate applies to all 

entries of subject merchandise except 

for entries from the two mandatory 

respondents and Wanhua. 

Final Results of Review 

The dumping margins for the POR are 

as follows: 

Exporter 

Antidumping 

duty percent 

margin 

Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., 

Ltd. .................................... 30.91 

Shaoxing Xiangyu Green 

Packing Co., Ltd. .............. 42.94 

Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. ...... 36.93 

PRC-wide Entity 23 ................ 76.72 

23Xishu and Uchem are part of the PRCwide entity. 

Assessment 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific (or customer) ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate, without regard 

to antidumping duties, all entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR for 

which the importer-specific assessment 

rate is zero or de minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these 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 the rate established in these 

final results of review (except, if the rate 

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

percent, a zero cash deposit rate 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 76.72 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 nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this POR. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties has occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

administrative review and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: February 14, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Issues & Decision 

Memorandum 

Issue 1: Selection of Surrogate Financial 

Statements. 

Issue 2: Whether the Department should 

select Thailand as the surrogate country 

rather than India. 

Issue 3: Whether the Department should 

continue to use Indian imports of 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) 

classification 3907.60.20 to value Bright 

Polyester Chip and Master Batch Chip. 

Issue 4: Whether the Department should 

revise the surrogate value for steam. 

Issue 5: Whether Fuwei Films correctly 

reported PET film additives in its factors of 

production (‘‘FOPs’’). 

Issue 6: Whether Fuwei Films reported all 

suppliers of FOPs, and all raw materials 

that it purchased from suppliers and 

consumed during the POR. 

Issue 7: Whether the Department should 

revise its CONNUM methodology based on 

Fuwei Films’ FOPs allocation 

methodology. 

Issue 8: Whether the Department should 

make further revisions to its labor rate 

methodology revised after the Preliminary 

Results. 

Issue 9: Whether the Department should 

revise Fuwei Films’ methodology for 

calculating indirect selling expenses. 

Issue 10: Whether the Department should 

have selected Wanhua as a mandatory 

respondent. 

Issue 11: Whether the Department should 

revise its methodology for calculating the 

separate rate for respondents not 

specifically reviewed. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3909 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN: 0648–XA233 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES