Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Notices 20627 

1See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 18524 (April 4, 2011) 

(‘‘AD Final Determination’’). 

2See Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, 76 FR 18521, (April 4, 2011). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 29, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of antidumping and 

countervailing duty administrative 

reviews and requests for revocation in 

part for certain frozen fish fillets from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

covering the period August 1, 2009, 

through July 31, 2010. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 60076 

(September 29, 2010). The preliminary 

results are currently due on May 3, 

2011. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

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

of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(1) require the Department to 

issue the preliminary results in an 

administrative review of an 

antidumping duty order 245 days after 

the last day of the anniversary month of 

the order for which the administrative 

review was requested. The Department 

may, however, extend the deadline for 

completion of the preliminary results of 

an administrative review to 365 days if 

it determines it is not practicable to 

complete the review within the 

foregoing time period. See section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(h)(2). 

The Department finds that it is not 

practicable to complete the preliminary 

results within this time limit. The 

Department is extending the deadline 

because it has provided parties 

additional time to submit surrogate 

country comments and thus will require 

additional time to analyze these 

comments. We are therefore extending 

the time for the completion of the 

preliminary results of this review by 120 

days to August 31, 2011. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

Dated: April 7, 2011. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8940 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–967] 

Aluminum Extrusions From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Correction to the Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 13, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Stolz or Lori Apodaca, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4474 or (202) 482– 

4551, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final 

Determination in this investigation was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 4, 2011.1 For the AD Final 

Determination, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) assigned 

an antidumping duty margin of 33.28 

percent to the mandatory respondent 

and an antidumping duty margin of 

32.79 percent to 29 separate-rate 

companies. 

Section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

provides for an adjustment to the export 

price and constructed export price to 

offset any countervailing duties (‘‘CVD’’) 

based on export subsidies. Consistent 

with this mandate, the Department 

applies an offset to the antidumping 

(‘‘AD’’) cash deposit rate equal to the 

amount of the export subsidy applied to 

that same party in the CVD 

investigation. In its AD Final 

Determination, the Department stated 

that for the individually examined 

respondent it would reduce the cash 

deposit requirement by the amount of 

export subsidies found for the same 

individually examined AD respondents 

in the CVD proceeding (i.e., 0.26 

percent). Similarly, the Department 

stated that for the separate-rate 

respondents it would reduce their cash 

deposit requirements by the amount of 

export subsidies included in the All 

Others rate from the CVD Final 

Determination (i.e., 42.16 percent).2

However, the provisional measures in 

the concurrent CVD investigation 

expired on January 6, 2011. See section 

703(d) of the Act. Likewise, the 

provisional measures in the AD 

investigation will expire on May 11, 

2011. See section 733(d) of the Act. 

Thus, for the remainder of the AD 

provisional measures period, April 4, 

2011, (the date of publication of the AD 

Final Determination) until May 11, 

2011, no CVD duties will be collected. 

Because no export subsidy-related 

duties will be collected during this 

period, the Department has determined 

that collecting the full AD cash deposit 

amounts during this period, without 

adjusting for the amount of the export 

subsidies found in the concurrent CVD 

proceeding, is appropriate. 

Therefore, the Department will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to collect the full AD 

cash deposit amounts specified in the 

AD Final Determination, without 

adjusting for export subsidies found in 

the concurrent CVD proceeding, for the 

period April 4, 2011, until May 11, 

2011. Beginning May 11, 2011, and until 

such time as final measures, if any, are 

imposed, no cash deposits for estimated 

AD duties will be collected. In the event 

that the ITC publishes an affirmative 

final injury determination in either the 

AD or CVD proceeding, then 

appropriate cash deposit instructions 

will be forwarded to CBP for the 

imposition of final measures, effective 

on the date of publication of the ITC’s 

affirmative final injury determination. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 777(i) of the 

Act. 

Dated: April 6, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8943 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–802] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On February 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the antidumping duty order on 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

20628 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Notices 

1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping 

Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 5152 

(February 1, 2005) (‘‘Order’’). 

2See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 75 FR 

60730 (October 1, 2010). 

3See Quoc Viet’s January 31, 2011 submission. 

4See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review, 76 FR 16384 (March 23, 2011). 

5 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which 

includes the telson and the uropods. 

6See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 11349 (March 17, 2009). 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp 

(‘‘shrimp’’) from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’).1 The 

Department is conducting a new shipper 

review (‘‘NSR’’) of the Order, covering 

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

1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR for which the importer-specific 

assessment rates are above de minimis. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 13, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0413. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 26, 2010, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), and 

section 351.214(c) of the Department’s 

regulations, the Department received a 

NSR request from Quoc Viet 

Seaproducts Processing Trading and 

Import-Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Quoc Viet’’). 

Quoc Viet certified that it was the 

producer and exporter of the subject 

merchandise upon which the request 

was based. On October 1, 2010, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of the NSR of the Order for 

Quoc Viet.2 On September 28, 2010, the 

Department issued its original 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Quoc Viet. Between October 22, 2010, 

and February 3, 2011, Quoc Viet 

submitted responses to the original and 

supplemental sections A, C, D and 

Importer antidumping duty 

questionnaires. 

On January 4, 2011, the Department 

sent interested parties a letter requesting 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and information pertaining to 

valuing factors of production (‘‘FOP’’). 

On January 31, 2011, Quoc Viet 

submitted surrogate country comments 

and surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) data.3

On March 23, 2011, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of this review to 

April 14, 2011.4

Scope of the Order 

The scope of the order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm-raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,5

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

the order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild-caught 

warmwater species include, but are not 

limited to, white leg shrimp (Penaeus 

vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus 

merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus 

chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis) 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of the order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of the order. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS 

subheading 1605.20.1020); (2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS 

subheadings 0306.23.0020 and 

0306.23.0040); (4) shrimp and prawns in 

prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.0510); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.1040); (7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product: (1) That is produced from fresh 

(or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled 

shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of 

rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 

purity has been applied; (3) with the 

entire surface of the shrimp flesh 

thoroughly and evenly coated with the 

flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of 

the end product constituting between 

four and 10 percent of the product’s 

total weight after being dusted, but prior 

to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected 

to IQF freezing immediately after 

application of the dusting layer. 

Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product that, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par-fried. 

The products covered by the order are 

currently classified under the following 

HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.0003, 

0306.13.0006, 0306.13.0009, 

0306.13.0012, 0306.13.0015, 

0306.13.0018, 0306.13.0021, 

0306.13.0024, 0306.13.0027, 

0306.13.0040, 1605.20.1010 and 

1605.20.1030. These HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

the order is dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam 

has been treated as a non-market 

(‘‘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.6 None of the parties to this 

proceeding have contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Separate Rate Determination 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, there is 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Notices 20629 

7See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 

56 FR at 20589; 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). 8For more detailed discussion of this issue, see 

Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. Fullerton, 

Program Manager, Office IX, from Paul Walker, Case 

Analyst, ‘‘Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing 

Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd.,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

9See also Memorandum to the File, through Scot 

T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office IX, ‘‘Fourth 

New Shipper Review of Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 

Results,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘SV 

Memo’’). 

10See Quoc Viet’s January 31, 2011 submission. 

11See Memorandum from Carole Showers, 

Director, Office of Policy, to Scot T. Fullerton, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

‘‘Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for New 

Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam,’’ dated December 6, 2010 

(‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). 

12 Id. 

13 Id. 

Department’s standard policy to assign 

all exporters of the merchandise subject 

to review in NME countries a single rate 

unless an exporter can affirmatively 

demonstrate an absence of government 

control, both in law (de jure) and in fact 

(de facto), with respect to exports. To 

establish whether a company is 

sufficiently independent to be entitled 

to a separate, company-specific rate, the 

Department analyzes each exporting 

entity in an NME country under the test 

established in the Final Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 

Sparklers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) 

(‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified by the Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From 

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). 

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; and (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies. 

In this NSR, Quoc Viet submitted 

complete responses to the separate rate 

section of the Department’s NME 

questionnaire. The evidence submitted 

by Quoc Viet includes government laws 

and regulations on corporate ownership, 

business licenses, and narrative 

information regarding its operations and 

selection of management. The evidence 

provided by Quoc Viet supports a 

finding of a de jure absence of 

government control over each of its 

export activities. Thus, we believe that 

the evidence on the record supports a 

preliminary finding of an absence of de 

jure government control based on: (1) 

An absence of restrictive stipulations 

associated with the exporter’s business 

license; and (2) the legal authority on 

the record decentralizing control over 

Quoc Viet. 

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

The absence of de facto government 

control over exports is based on whether 

the respondent: (1) Sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and other exporters; (2) retains the 

proceeds from its export sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

the disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) has autonomy from 

the government regarding the selection 

of management.7

In its questionnaire responses, Quoc 

Viet submitted evidence indicating an 

absence of de facto government control 

over its export activities. Specifically, 

this evidence indicates that: (1) Quoc 

Viet sets its own export prices 

independent of the government and 

without the approval of a government 

authority; (2) Quoc Viet retains the 

proceeds from its sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding the 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) Quoc Viet has a general 

manager, branch manager or division 

manager with the authority to negotiate 

and bind the company in an agreement; 

(4) the general manager is selected by 

the board of directors or company 

employees, and the general manager 

appoints the deputy managers and the 

manager of each department; and (5) 

there is no restriction on any of either 

company’s use of export revenues. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Quoc Viet has established 

prima facie that it qualifies for a 

separate rate under the criteria 

established by Silicon Carbide and 

Sparklers. 

New Shipper Review Bona Fide 

Analysis 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we investigated the bona fide 

nature of the sale made by Quoc Viet in 

this NSR. We found that the sale by 

Quoc Viet was made on a bona fide 

basis.8 Based on our investigation into 

the bona fide nature of the sale, the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

Quoc Viet, and the company’s eligibility 

for separate rates (see Separate Rate 

Determination section above), we 

preliminarily determine that Quoc Viet 

has met the requirement to qualify as a 

new shipper during this POR. Therefore, 

for the purposes of these preliminary 

results, we are treating Quoc Viet’s sale 

of subject merchandise to the United 

States as an appropriate transaction for 

this NSR. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department conducts a 

review of imports from an NME country, 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to 

base NV, in most circumstances, on the 

NME producer’s FOPs, valued in a 

surrogate market economy (‘‘ME’’) 

country or countries considered to be 

appropriate by the Department. In 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, in valuing the FOPs, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in 

one or more ME countries that are: (1) 

at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country; 

and (2) significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. Further, 

pursuant to section 351.408(c)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department will normally value FOPs in 

a single country, except for labor. The 

sources of the surrogate factor values are 

discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section below.9

As noted above, on January 4, 2011, 

the Department sent interested parties a 

letter requesting comments on surrogate 

country selection and information 

pertaining to valuing FOPs. On January 

31, 2011, the Department received 

comments from Quoc Viet suggesting 

that the Department select Bangladesh 

as the surrogate country, as well as 

Bangladeshi SV data.10

Pursuant to its practice, the 

Department received a list of potential 

surrogate countries from Import 

Administration’s Office of Policy 

(‘‘OP’’).11 The OP determined that 

Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, 

the Philippines and Indonesia were at a 

comparable level of economic 

development to Vietnam.12 The 

Department considers the six countries 

identified by the OP in its Surrogate 

Country List as ‘‘equally comparable in 

terms of economic development.’’ 13

Thus, we find that Bangladesh, 

Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, the 

Philippines, and Indonesia are all at an 

economic level of development equally 

comparable to that of Vietnam. We note 

that the Surrogate Country List is a nonexhaustive list of economically 

comparable countries. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

20630 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Notices 

14See Quoc Viet’s January 31, 2011 submission at 

Exhibit 1. 

15See SV Memo for details regarding the SVs for 

movement expenses. 

16 In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(ii) of 

the Department’s regulations, for the final results in 

an antidumping NSR, interested parties may submit 

publicly available information to value FOPs within 

20 days after the date of publication of the 

preliminary results. 

17See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 

of 1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. 

Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA 

1988’’) at 590. 

18See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 

India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year 

(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 

75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from 

Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

4; see Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 

FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; see 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 

2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at 23. 

19See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of 1998–1999 

Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 

Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

20See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Color Television Receivers from the People’s 

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

21See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 

2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

Quoc Viet submitted evidence that 

Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, 

the Philippines and Indonesia are all 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise.14 However, while we find 

that these countries are economically 

comparable to Vietnam and produce 

comparable merchandise, we note that 

the record contains no publicly 

available SV factor information for 

Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, the 

Philippines or Indonesia. 

With regard to Bangladesh, the record 

contains publicly available surrogate 

factor value information. Given the 

above-cited facts, we find that the 

information on the record shows that 

Bangladesh is an appropriate surrogate 

country because Bangladesh is at a 

similar level of economic development 

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

is a significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, and has reliable, publicly 

available data for surrogate valuation 

purposes. 

U.S. Price 

For Quoc Viet’s export price (‘‘EP’’) 

sale, we used the EP methodology, 

pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, 

because the first sale to an unaffiliated 

purchaser was made prior to 

importation and constructed export 

price was not otherwise warranted by 

the facts on the record. We calculated 

EP based on cost and freight foreign port 

price to the first unaffiliated purchaser 

in the United States. We also deducted 

foreign inland freight, and foreign 

brokerage and handling from the 

starting price (or gross unit price), in 

accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Act. We reviewed the movement 

expenses incurred in Vietnam by Quoc 

Viet and found that they were provided 

by an NME vendor or paid for using 

Vietnamese currency. Thus, we based 

the deduction of these movement 

charges on SVs.15

Normal Value 

A. Methodology 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine the NV using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME country 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 

FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. 

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

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

country; and (2) 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. 

B. Factor Valuations 16

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

FOPs reported by Quoc Viet for the 

POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied 

the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available 

Bangladeshi SVs. In selecting SVs, we 

considered the quality, specificity and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Bangladeshi import SVs a surrogate 

freight cost using the shorter of the 

reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory of production, or 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory of production, where 

appropriate. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit’s (‘‘CAFC’’) 

decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 

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

Cir. 1997). Where we did not use 

Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we 

calculated freight based on the reported 

distance from the supplier to the 

factory. 

In accordance with the OTCA 1988 

legislative history, the Department 

continues to apply its long-standing 

practice of disregarding SVs if it has a 

reason to believe or suspect the source 

data may be subsidized.17 In this regard, 

the Department has previously found 

that it is appropriate to disregard such 

prices from India, Indonesia, South 

Korea and Thailand because we have 

determined that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry specific export subsidies.18

Based on the existence of these subsidy 

programs that were generally available 

to all exporters and producers in these 

countries at the time of the POR, the 

Department finds that it is reasonable to 

infer that all exporters from India, 

Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand 

may have benefitted from these 

subsidies. 

Additionally, we disregarded prices 

from NME countries.19 Finally, imports 

that were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded 

from the average value, because the 

Department could not be certain that 

they were not from either an NME 

country or a country with general export 

subsidies.20 Lastly, the Department has 

also excluded imports from Bangladesh 

into Bangladesh because there is no 

evidence on the record regarding what 

these data represent (e.g., reimportations, another category of 

unspecified imports, or the result of an 

error in reporting). Thus, these data do 

not represent the best available 

information upon which to rely for 

valuation purposes.21

Therefore, based on the information 

currently available, we have not used 

prices from these countries either in 

calculating the Bangladeshi importbased SVs or in calculating ME input 

values. In instances where an ME input 

was obtained solely from suppliers 

located in these countries, we used 

Bangladeshi import-based SVs to value 

the input. 

To value Quoc Viet’s raw shrimp 

input, we used data for Bangladesh from 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Notices 20631 

22See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2A. 

23The calculation for shrimp and all other 

surrogate values listed below may be found in the 

SV Memo. 24This can be accessed online at: http:// 

www.unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/. 

25See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Hand Trucks and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 

69 FR 29509 (May 24, 2004). 

26See http://www.trade.gov/ia/, see also SV 

Memo. 

a study conducted by the Network of 

Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific 

(‘‘NACA’’), an intergovernmental 

organization affiliated with the United 

Nation’s (‘‘UN’’) Food and Agricultural 

Organization (‘‘FAO’’). The Department’s 

practice when selecting the best 

available information for valuing FOPs, 

in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of 

the Act, is to select, to the extent 

practicable, SVs which are productspecific, representative of a broadmarket average, publicly available, 

contemporaneous with the POR and 

exclusive of taxes and duties.22 The 

Department notes that the value of the 

main input, head-on, shell-on shrimp, is 

a critical FOP in the dumping 

calculation as it accounts for a 

significant percentage of NV. Moreover, 

the ability to value shrimp on a countsize basis is a significant consideration 

with respect to the data available on the 

record, as the subject merchandise and 

the raw shrimp input are both sold on 

a count-size specific basis. The 

Bangladeshi shrimp values within the 

NACA study are compiled by the UN’s 

FAO from actual pricing records kept by 

Bangladeshi farmers, traders, depots, 

agents, and processors. The Bangladeshi 

shrimp values within the NACA study 

are publicly available, represent a 

broad-market average, are productspecific, count-size-specific, 

contemporaneous and represent actual 

transaction prices.23

The Department used UN ComTrade 

Statistics, provided by the UN 

Department of Economic and Social 

Affairs’ Statistics Division, as its 

primary source of Bangladeshi SV data 

to value the raw material and packing 

material inputs that Quoc Viet used to 

produce the merchandise under review 

during the POR, except where listed 

below.24 For a detailed description of all 

SVs, see SV Memo. The data represents 

cumulative values for the calendar year 

2007, for inputs classified by the 

Harmonized Commodity Description 

and Coding System number. As noted 

above, for each input value, we used the 

average value per unit for that input 

imported into Bangladesh from all 

countries that the Department has not 

previously determined to be NME 

countries, countries that the Department 

has determined to be countries which 

subsidized exports (i.e., Indonesia, 

South Korea, Thailand, and India), 

imports from unspecified countries and 

imports from Bangladesh into 

Bangladesh. 

It is the Department’s practice to 

calculate price index adjustors to inflate 

or deflate, as appropriate, SVs that are 

not contemporaneous with the POR 

using the wholesale price index (‘‘WPI’’) 

for the subject country.25 However, in 

this case, a WPI was not available for 

Bangladesh. Therefore, where publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

with the POR with which to value 

factors could not be obtained, SVs were 

adjusted using the Consumer Price 

Index (‘‘CPI’’) rate for Bangladesh, or the 

WPI for India or Indonesia (for certain 

SVs where Bangladeshi data could not 

be obtained), as published in the 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund. 

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. We relied on the daily 

exchange rates posted on the Import 

Administration Web site.26

On May 14, 2010, the CAFC in 

Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 

1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010), found that the 

regression-based method for calculating 

wage rates, as stipulated by section 

351.408(c)(3) of the Department’s 

regulations, uses data not permitted by 

the statutory requirements laid out in 

section 773 of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 

1677b(c)). The Department is continuing 

to evaluate options for determining 

labor values in light of the recent CAFC 

decision. However, for these 

preliminary results, we have calculated 

an hourly wage rate to use in valuing 

the respondent’s reported labor input by 

averaging industry-specific earnings 

and/or wages in countries that are 

economically comparable to Vietnam 

and that are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. 

For the preliminary results of this 

NSR, the Department is valuing labor 

using a simple average industry-specific 

wage rate using earnings or wage data 

reported under Chapter 5B by the 

International Labor Organization 

(‘‘ILO’’). To achieve an industry-specific 

labor value, we relied on industryspecific labor data from the countries 

we determined to be both economically 

comparable to Vietnam, and significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

A full description of the industryspecific wage rate calculation 

methodology is provided in the SV 

Memo. The Department calculated a 

simple average industry-specific wage 

rate of $1.09 for these preliminary 

results. Specifically, for this review, the 

Department has calculated the wage rate 

using a simple average of the data 

provided to the ILO under SubClassification 15 of the ISIC–Revision 3 

standard by countries determined to be 

both economically comparable to 

Vietnam and significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. The 

Department finds the two-digit 

description under ISIC–Revision 3 

(‘‘Manufacture of Food Products and 

Beverages’’) to be the best available wage 

rate SV on the record because it is 

specific and derived from industries 

that produce merchandise comparable 

to the subject merchandise. 

Consequently, we averaged the ILO 

industry-specific wage rate data or 

earnings data available from the 

following countries found to be 

economically comparable to Vietnam 

and are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise: The 

Philippines, Egypt and Indonesia. For 

further information on the calculation of 

the wage rate, see SV Memo. 

We valued electricity using data from 

the Bangladesh Ministry of Power, 

Energy, & Mineral Resources. This 

information was published on their 

Power Division’s website. We valued 

water using 2007 data from the Asian 

Development Bank. We inflated the 

value using the POR average CPI rate. 

We valued diesel using data published 

by the World Bank in ‘‘Bangladesh: 

Transport at a Glance,’’ published in 

June 2006. We inflated the value using 

the POR average CPI rate. 

To value truck freight and motorcycle 

freight, we used data published in 2008 

Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh 

published by the Bangladesh Bureau of 

Statistics. We inflated the value using 

the POR average CPI rate. We valued 

containerization using Indian 

information previously available on the 

Import Administration Web site. We 

inflated the value using the POR average 

WPI rate. We valued brokerage and 

handling using a price list of export 

procedures necessary to export a 

standardized cargo of goods in 

Bangladesh. The price list is compiled 

based on a survey case study of the 

procedural requirements for trading a 

standard shipment of goods by ocean 

transport in India that is published in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

20632 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Notices 

27See SV Memo which contains the following 

memorandum: Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, 

through Maureen Flannery, Program Manager, 

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, from Christian 

Hughes and Adina Teodorescu, Case Analysts, 

‘‘Surrogate Valuation of Shell Scrap: Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC), Administrative Review 9/1/00–8/31/ 

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

9/1/00–10/15/01.’’ 

28 Id. 

29See SV Memo at Exhibit 8. 

30See Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in 

Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

31See section 351.310(c) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

Doing Business 2011: Bangladesh, 

published by the World Bank. 

We valued the by-product using shell 

scrap values using a surrogate value for 

shrimp by-products based on a purchase 

price quote for wet shrimp shells from 

an Indonesian buyer of crustacean 

shells. Although we recognize that Quoc 

Viet reported by-products other than 

shells and that this surrogate value is 

not from Bangladesh, the primary 

surrogate country, this information 

represents the best information on the 

record and has been used in past case 

segments.27 Moreover, we also note that 

this is the only surrogate value on the 

record for by-products, and as a 

consequence, is being used for these 

preliminary results. We inflated the 

value using the POR average WPI rate.28

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we used the simple average 

of the 2009–2010 financial statement of 

Apex Foods Limited and the 2008–2009 

financial statement of Gemini Seafood 

Limited, both of which are Bangladeshi 

shrimp processors.29

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department has preliminarily 

determined that the following dumping 

margin exists for the period February 1, 

2010, through July 31, 2010: 

CERTAIN FROZEN WARMWATER

SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM

Manufacturer/exporter Margin 

Quoc Viet .................................... de minimis 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose to 

parties of this proceeding the 

calculation performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with section 351.224(b) of 

the Department’s regulations. 

Comments 

In accordance with section 

351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department’s 

regulations, for the final results, 

interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value FOPs 

within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Interested parties must provide the 

Department with supporting 

documentation for the publicly 

available information to value each 

FOP. Additionally, in accordance with 

section 351.301(c)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations, for the final 

results of this NSR, interested parties 

may submit factual information to rebut, 

clarify, or correct factual information 

submitted by an interested party within 

ten days of the applicable deadline for 

submission of such factual information. 

However, the Department notes that 

section 351.301(c)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations permits new 

information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information 

recently placed on the record.30

In accordance with section 

351.309(c)(ii) of the Department’s 

regulations, interested parties may 

submit case briefs and/or written 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

results of this NSR. In accordance with 

section 351.309(d) of the Department’s 

regulations, rebuttal briefs and rebuttals 

to written comments, limited to issues 

raised in such briefs or comments, may 

be filed no later than five days after the 

deadline for submitting the case briefs. 

The Department requests that interested 

parties provide an executive summary 

of each argument contained within the 

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results.31 Requests 

should contain the following 

information: (1) The party’s name, 

address, and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; and (3) a list of 

the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. If we receive a 

request for a hearing, we plan to hold 

the hearing seven days after the 

deadline for submission of the rebuttal 

briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this NSR, which will 

include the results of its analysis raised 

in any such comments, within 90 days 

of publication of these preliminary 

results, pursuant to section 351.214(i) of 

the Department’s regulations. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this NSR. 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this NSR. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of review, the Department shall 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to section 

351.212(b)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations, we will calculate importerspecific (or customer) ad valorem duty 

assessment rates. We will instruct CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirement will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

NSR for all shipments of subject 

merchandise produced and exported 

from Quoc Viet 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 subject merchandise produced and 

exported by Quoc Viet, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established in the 

final results of this NSR. If the cash 

deposit rate calculated in the final 

results is zero or de minimis, no cash 

deposit will be required for the specific 

producer-exporter combination listed 

above. The cash deposit requirement, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of its 

responsibility under section 

351.402(f)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations 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 Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

section 351.214(h) and 351.221(b)(4) of 

the Department’s regulations. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Notices 20633 

Dated: April 6, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8892 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Announcement of Meeting to Explore 

Feasibility of Establishing a NIST/ 

Industry Consortium on Neutron 

Measurements for Soft Materials 

Manufacturing 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) 

invites interested parties to attend a preconsortium meeting on June 2–3, 2011 

to be held on the NIST campus. The 

goal of the one-day meeting is to 

evaluate industry interest in creating a 

NIST/industry consortium focused on 

advanced neutron-based probes for soft 

materials. The goals of such a 

consortium would include the 

development of neutron-based 

measurements that would address 

critical needs for manufacturers of soft 

materials such as polymers, complex 

fluids, and protein-based materials. 

Advances in neutron-based 

measurement science are anticipated 

through the development of sample 

environments that closely mimic 

manufacturing processes, measurement 

methods to probe and analyze complex 

mixtures, and data analysis models that 

support routine measurements with 

high information content. The 

consortium would be administered by 

NIST. Consortium research and 

development would be conducted by 

NIST staff members along with at least 

one technical representative from each 

participating member company. CRADA 

contributions for participation in the 

consortium would be on the order of 

Twenty Thousand ($20,000) per year. 

The initial term of the consortium is 

intended to be three years. 

DATES: The meeting will take place on 

June 2–3, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held on 

the NIST Gaithersburg campus, 100 

Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. 

Please note admittance instructions 

under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronald L. Jones, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau 

Drive, Stop 8514, Gaithersburg, MD 

20899–8514, USA; Telephone: (301) 

975–4624; Fax (301) 975–3928; E-mail: 

ronald.jones@nist.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All 

visitors to the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology site will 

have to pre-register to be admitted. 

Anyone wishing to attend this meeting 

must pre-register by C.O.B May 27, 2011 

in order to attend. Please submit your 

name, e-mail address, and phone 

number to Teresa Vicente, and you will 

be provided instructions for admittance. 

Non-U.S. citizens must also submit their 

country of citizenship, title, employer/ 

sponsor, and address. Teresa Vicente’s 

e-mail address teresa.vicente@nist.gov 

and their phone number is (301) 975– 

3883. 

Dated: April 6, 2011. 

Charles H. Romine, 

Acting Associate Director for Laboratory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9009 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Record of Decision (ROD) for the Base 

Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 2005 

Actions at Fort McPherson, GA 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Record of decision. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army 

announces the availability of the ROD, 

which summarizes the decision on how 

to implement property disposal in 

accordance with the Defense Base 

Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 

(the Base Closure Act), Public Law 101– 

510, as amended, following the closure 

of Fort McPherson, Georgia. 

The Army has decided to implement 

its preferred alternative of early transfer 

of surplus federal property to other 

entities for reuse. Pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) and its implementing 

regulations, the Army prepared a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

that includes the evaluation of the 

environmental and socioeconomic 

impacts of disposing of surplus federal 

property and the implementation by 

others of reasonable, foreseeable reuse 

alternatives for the entire property. 

Under the early transfer alternative, the 

Army can transfer and dispose of 

surplus property for redevelopment 

before environmental remedial actions 

have been completed. This method of 

early disposal, allowable under Section 

120(h)(3)(C) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, 

would defer the CERCLA covenant 

requirement to complete all necessary 

environmental cleanup prior to the 

transfer of the remediated property. In 

this way, parcels could become 

available for redevelopment and reuse 

sooner under this disposal alternative 

than under any other. The Governor of 

Georgia must concur with the deferral 

request for the surplus federal property 

at Fort McPherson. 

ADDRESSES: To obtain a copy of the ROD 

contact Mr. Owen Nuttall, Fort 

McPherson BRAC Environmental Office, 

Building 714, 1508 Hood Avenue, Fort 

Gillem, GA 30297–5161; (404) 469–5245 

or owen.nuttall@us.army.mil. An 

electronic version of the ROD can be 

viewed or downloaded at: http:// 

www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/brac/ 

nepa_eis_docs.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Owen Nuttall at (404) 469–5245. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

McPherson Planning Local 

Redevelopment Authority (MPLRA) 

reuse plan (Reuse Plan) provides the 

basis for the development of reasonable 

and foreseeable reuse scenarios 

evaluated in the FEIS. The McPherson 

Implementing Local Redevelopment 

Authority (MILRA) is the 

implementation authority for the 

redevelopment of Fort McPherson and 

will implement the Reuse Plan. The 

range of reuse alternatives evaluated in 

the EIS encompasses reasonably 

foreseeable variations of the Reuse Plan 

and the results of this analysis were 

used by the Army in its decision 

regarding disposition of the property. 

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

for the Closure and Disposal of Fort 

McPherson has been legally executed by 

the signing of authorized representatives 

of the Army, the Georgia State Historic 

Preservation Officer, and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation. Army 

obligations fully described in the MOA 

are considered mitigations required 

under the National Historic Preservation 

Act. Specific mitigation measures the 

Army commits to perform are outlined 

in the MOA. 

Dated: April 7, 2011. 

Hershell E. Wolfe, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Environment, Safety and Occupational 

Health). 

[FR Doc. 2011–8814 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES