7244 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(percent) 

Dear Year Brothers Mfg. Co., 

Ltd. .......................................... 0.00 

Roung Shu Industry Corporation 4.54 

Shienq Huong Enterprise Co., 

Ltd./Hsien Chan Enterprise 

Co., Ltd./Novelty Handicrafts 

Co., Ltd. .................................. 0.00 

All Others .................................... 4.54 

For Dear Year and Shienq Huong, 

because their estimated weighted– 

average preliminary dumping margins 

are zero, we are not directing CBP to 

suspend liquidation of either company’s 

entries. 

‘‘All Others’’ Rate 

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

provides that the estimated ‘‘All Others’’ 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties to 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of the 

Department’s preliminary affirmative 

determination of sales at LTFV. If the 

Department’s final determination is 

affirmative, the ITC will determine 

before the later of 120 days after the date 

of this preliminary determination or 45 

days after our final determination 

whether imports of narrow woven 

ribbons from Taiwan are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to, the U.S. industry (see section 

735(b)(2) of the Act). As we are 

postponing the deadline for our final 

determination to 135 days from the date 

of the publication of this preliminary 

determination, the ITC will make its 

final determination no later than 45 

days after our final determination. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs to the Department 

related to sales issues no later than 

seven days after the date of the issuance 

of the last sales verification report 

issued in this proceeding; the case briefs 

related to cost of production issues may 

be submitted no later than seven days 

after the date of issuance of the last cost 

verification report issued in this 

proceeding. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is 

limited to the issues raised in the case 

briefs, must be filed within five days 

from the deadline date for the 

submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). A list of authorities used, a 

table of contents, and an executive 

summary of issues should accompany 

any briefs submitted to the Department. 

Executive summaries should be limited 

to five pages total, including footnotes. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, the Department will hold a public 

hearing, if timely requested, to afford 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on arguments raised in case or 

rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 

hearing is requested by an interested 

party. If a timely request for a hearing 

is made in this investigation, we intend 

to hold the hearing two days after the 

rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in 

a room to be determined. See 19 CFR 

351.310. Parties should confirm by 

telephone, the date, time, and location 

of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 

if one is requested, must submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

1870, within 30 days of the publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) the party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. At the hearing, oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

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

Dated: February 4, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3133 Filed 2–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–952] 

Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge from the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 18, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) preliminarily 

determines that narrow woven ribbons 

with woven selvedge (‘‘narrow woven 

ribbons’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in 

section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The estimated 

dumping margins are shown in the 

‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ section of 

this notice. Interested parties are invited 

to comment on the preliminary 

determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Zhulieta Willbrand or Karine Gziryan, 

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) 482–3147 and (202) 

482–4081, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 9, 2009, the Department 

received petitions concerning imports of 

narrow woven ribbons from the PRC 

and Taiwan filed in proper form by 

Berwick Offray LLC and its wholly– 

owned subsidiary Lion Ribbon 

Company, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioner’’). See Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Narrow Woven 

Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the 

People’s Republic of China and Taiwan, 

dated July 9, 2009 (the ‘‘Petition’’). The 

Department initiated an antidumping 

duty investigation of narrow woven 

ribbons from the PRC and Taiwan on 

July 29, 2009. See Narrow Woven 

Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the 

People’s Republic of China and Taiwan: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 74 FR 39291 (August 6, 

2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it intended to 

select PRC respondents based on 

quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 7245 

1 See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of 

Commerce, ≥Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven 

Selvedge From China: Petitioner’s Comments On 

Surrogate Country Selection≥ (October 21, 2009). 

questionnaires. See Initiation Notice, 74 

FR at 39296. On July 30, 2009, the 

Department requested Q&V information 

from the 86 companies identified by 

Petitioner in the Petition as potential 

producers or exporters of narrow woven 

ribbons from the PRC. See Letter from 

Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, to All 

Interested Parties, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Narrow Woven Ribbons 

with Woven Selvedge from the People’s 

Republic of China: Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire’’ (July 30, 2009). 

Additionally, the Department posted the 

Q&V questionnaire for this investigation 

on its website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia– 

highlights-and–news.html. The 

Department received timely responses 

to its Q&V questionnaire from the 

following 19 companies: Beauty Horn 

Investment Limited (‘‘Beauty Horn’’); 

Billion Trend International Ltd.; 

Dongguan Yi Sheng Decoration Co., 

Ltd.; Fujian Rongshu Industry Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Fujian Rongshu’’); Guangzhou 

Complacent Weaving Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Guangzhou Complacent’’); Ningbo 

Huarui Import & Export Co., Ltd.; 

Ningbo Jinfeng Thread & Ribbon Co. 

Ltd.; Ningbo Jintian Import & Export 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo Jintian’’); Ningbo MH 

Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo MH’’); 

Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo V.K.’’); Stribbons 

(Guangzhou) Ltd. (‘‘Stribbons’’); 

Stribbons (Nan Yang) Ltd.; Tensen 

International Trading Ltd.; Tianjin Sun 

Ribbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sun Ribbon’’); 

Weifang Dongfang Ribbon Weaving Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Weifang Dongfang’’); Weifang Yu 

Yuan Textile Co., Ltd. (‘‘Weifang Yu 

Yuan’’); Xiamen Yi He Textile Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Xiamen Yi He’’); Yangzhou Bestpak 

Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yangzhou 

Bestpak’’); and Yama Ribbons and Bows 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yama Ribbons’’). See 

Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, 

International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to John M. 

Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, 

‘‘Respondent Selection in the 

Antidumping Investigation of Narrow 

Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge 

from the People’s Republic of China’’ 

(September 11, 2009) (‘‘Respondent 

Selection Memorandum’’). 

On August 18, 2009, we received 

comments from Petitioner regarding 

product characteristics. On August 25, 

2009, we received rebuttal comments 

from Shienq Huong Enterprise Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Shieng Huong’’) regarding product 

characteristics. On September 3, 2009, 

we received additional comments from 

Petitioner regarding product 

characteristics. On September 9, 2009, 

we received additional rebuttal 

comments from Shienq Hong. On 

September 21, 2009, we received 

additional comments from Petitioner 

regarding product characteristics. On 

September 24, 2009, the Department 

released revised product characteristics. 

On October 30, 2009, Petitioner 

submitted comments on the 

Department’s revised product 

characteristics. 

On September 1, 2009, the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured by reason of imports of narrow 

woven ribbons from the PRC and 

Taiwan. See Narrow Woven Ribbons 

With Woven Selvedge From China and 

Taiwan, Investigation Nos. 701–TA–467 

and 731–TA–1164–1165 (Preliminary), 

74 FR 46224 (September 8, 2009). 

On September 11, 2009, the 

Department selected Yama Ribbons and 

Ningbo Jintian as mandatory 

respondents. See Respondent Selection 

Memorandum. On September 11, 2009, 

the Department issued antidumping 

questionnaires to the mandatory 

respondents (i.e., Yama Ribbons and 

Ningbo Jintian). Yama Ribbons 

submitted timely responses to sections 

A through C of the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire. However, 

Ningbo Jintian failed to submit 

responses to any section of the 

Department’s antidumping 

questionnaires. 

Between September 23, 2009, and 

October 5, 2009, we received timely 

filed separate–rate applications from the 

following 12 companies: Beauty Horn; 

Fujian Rongshu; Guangzhou 

Complacent; Ningbo MH; Ningbo V.K.; 

Stribbons; Sun Ribbon; Dongguan Yi 

Sheng Decoration Co., Ltd. and Sun 

Rich (Asia) Limited (collectively ‘‘Sun 

Rich’’); Weifang Dongfang; Weifang Yu 

Yuan; Xiamen Yi He; and Yangzhou 

Bestpak. 

The Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to and received 

responses from Yama Ribbons, Beauty 

Horn, Fujian Rongshu, Guangzhou 

Complacent, Ningbo MH, Ningbo V.K., 

Stribbons, Sun Ribbon, Sun Rich, 

Weifang Dongfang, Weifang Yu Yuan, 

and Xiamen Yi He between November 

2009 and January 2010. From October 

2009 through January 2010, Petitioner 

submitted comments to the Department 

regarding Yama Ribbons’ responses to 

sections A, C, and D of the antidumping 

questionnaire. 

On October 7, 2009, the Department 

released a letter to interested parties 

which listed potential surrogate 

countries and invited interested parties 

to comment on surrogate country and 

surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) selection. See 

Letter from Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 

to All Interested Parties, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Narrow Woven 

Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (October 7, 

2009). On October 21, 2009, Petitioner 

submitted comments1 on the 

appropriate surrogate country. No other 

interested parties commented on the 

selection of a surrogate country. For a 

detailed discussion of the selection of 

the surrogate country, see ‘‘Surrogate 

Country’’ section below. 

On October 30, 2009, Petitioner made 

a request for a 50-day postponement of 

the preliminary determination. On 

November 19, 2009, pursuant to section 

733(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.205(f)(1), the Department postponed 

this preliminary determination by fifty 

days. See Narrow Woven Ribbons With 

Woven Selvedge From the People’s 

Republic of China and Taiwan: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 74 FR 59962 (November 

19, 2009). 

On December 7, 2009, and December 

14, 2009, Yama Ribbons submitted 

publicly available SV information in 

response to specific requests for 

information by the Department. No 

other party submitted SV information. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. 

This period corresponds to the two most 

recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 

of the filing of the petition (i.e., July, 

2009). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the 

Act, on January 21, 2009, and January 

29, 2010, Yama Ribbons requested that, 

in the event of an affirmative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department postpone 

its final determination by 60 days. In the 

same submissions, Yama Ribbons 

agreed that the Department may extend 

the application of the provisional 

measures prescribed under 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2) until the date of the final 

determination. Because our preliminary 

determination is affirmative, and the 

respondent requesting an extension of 

the final determination, and an 

extension of the provisional measures, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

7246 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 

accounts for a significant proportion of 

exports of the merchandise under 

consideration, and no compelling 

reasons for denial exist, we are 

extending the due date for the final 

determination by 60 days. Suspension 

of liquidation will be extended 

accordingly. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise subject to the 

investigation is narrow woven ribbons 

with woven selvedge, in any length, but 

with a width (measured at the narrowest 

span of the ribbon) less than or equal to 

12 centimeters, composed of, in whole 

or in part, man–made fibers (whether 

artificial or synthetic, including but not 

limited to nylon, polyester, rayon, 

polypropylene, and polyethylene 

teraphthalate), metal threads and/or 

metalized yarns, or any combination 

thereof. Narrow woven ribbons subject 

to the investigation may: 

• also include natural or other non– 

man-made fibers; 

• be of any color, style, pattern, or 

weave construction, including but 

not limited to single–faced satin, 

double–faced satin, grosgrain, 

sheer, taffeta, twill, jacquard, or a 

combination of two or more colors, 

styles, patterns, and/or weave 

constructions; 

• have been subjected to, or composed 

of materials that have been 

subjected to, various treatments, 

including but not limited to dyeing, 

printing, foil stamping, embossing, 

flocking, coating, and/or sizing; 

• have embellishments, including but 

not limited to applique ́, fringes, 

embroidery, buttons, glitter, 

sequins, laminates, and/or adhesive 

backing; 

• have wire and/or monofilament in, 

on, or along the longitudinal edges 

of the ribbon; 

• have ends of any shape or 

dimension, including but not 

limited to straight ends that are 

perpendicular to the longitudinal 

edges of the ribbon, tapered ends, 

flared ends or shaped ends, and the 

ends of such woven ribbons may or 

may not be hemmed; 

• have longitudinal edges that are 

straight or of any shape, and the 

longitudinal edges of such woven 

ribbon may or may not be parallel 

to each other; 

• consist of such ribbons affixed to 

like ribbon and/or cut–edge woven 

ribbon, a configuration also known 

as an ‘‘ornamental trimming;’’ 

• be wound on spools; attached to a 

card; hanked (i.e., coiled or 

bundled); packaged in boxes, trays 

or bags; or configured as skeins, 

balls, bateaus or folds; and/or 

• be included within a kit or set such 

as when packaged with other 

products, including but not limited 

to gift bags, gift boxes and/or other 

types of ribbon. 

Narrow woven ribbons subject to the 

investigation include all narrow woven 

fabrics, tapes, and labels that fall within 

this written description of the scope of 

this investigation. 

Excluded from the scope of the 

investigation are the following: 

(1) formed bows composed of narrow 

woven ribbons with woven selvedge; 

(2) ‘‘pull–bows’’ (i.e., an assemblage of 

ribbons connected to one another, 

folded flat and equipped with a means 

to form such ribbons into the shape of 

a bow by pulling on a length of material 

affixed to such assemblage) composed of 

narrow woven ribbons; 

(3) narrow woven ribbons comprised 

at least 20 percent by weight of 

elastomeric yarn (i.e., filament yarn, 

including monofilament, of synthetic 

textile material, other than textured 

yarn, which does not break on being 

extended to three times its original 

length and which returns, after being 

extended to twice its original length, 

within a period of five minutes, to a 

length not greater than one and a half 

times its original length as defined in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), Section XI, Note 

13) or rubber thread; 

(4) narrow woven ribbons of a kind 

used for the manufacture of typewriter 

or printer ribbons; 

(5) narrow woven labels and apparel 

tapes, cut–to-length or cut–to-shape, 

having a length (when measured across 

the longest edge–to-edge span) not 

exceeding 8 centimeters; 

(6) narrow woven ribbons with woven 

selvedge attached to and forming the 

handle of a gift bag; 

(7) cut–edge narrow woven ribbons 

formed by cutting broad woven fabric 

into strips of ribbon, with or without 

treatments to prevent the longitudinal 

edges of the ribbon from fraying (such 

as by merrowing, lamination, sono– 

bonding, fusing, gumming or waxing), 

and with or without wire running 

lengthwise along the longitudinal edges 

of the ribbon; 

(8) narrow woven ribbons comprised 

at least 85 percent by weight of threads 

having a denier of 225 or higher; 

(9) narrow woven ribbons constructed 

from pile fabrics (i.e., fabrics with a 

surface effect formed by tufts or loops of 

yarn that stand up from the body of the 

fabric); 

(10) narrow woven ribbon affixed 

(including by tying) as a decorative 

detail to non–subject merchandise, such 

as a gift bag, gift box, gift tin, greeting 

card or plush toy, or affixed (including 

by tying) as a decorative detail to 

packaging containing non–subject 

merchandise; 

(11) narrow woven ribbon that is (a) 

affixed to non–subject merchandise as a 

working component of such non–subject 

merchandise, such as where narrow 

woven ribbon comprises an apparel 

trimming, book marker, bag cinch, or 

part of an identity card holder, or (b) 

affixed (including by tying) to non– 

subject merchandise as a working 

component that holds or packages such 

non–subject merchandise or attaches 

packaging or labeling to such non– 

subject merchandise, such as a ‘‘belly 

band’’ around a pair of pajamas, a pair 

of socks or a blanket; and 

(12) narrow woven ribbon(s) 

comprising a belt attached to and 

imported with an item of wearing 

apparel, whether or not such belt is 

removable from such item of wearing 

apparel. 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is classifiable under the 

HTSUS statistical categories 

5806.32.1020; 5806.32.1030; 

5806.32.1050 and 5806.32.1060. Subject 

merchandise also may enter under 

subheadings 5806.31.00; 5806.32.20; 

5806.39.20; 5806.39.30; 5808.90.00; 

5810.91.00; 5810.99.90; 5903.90.10; 

5903.90.25; 5907.00.60; and 5907.00.80 

and under statistical categories 

5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 

5903.90.3090; and 6307.90.9889. The 

HTSUS statistical categories and 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

merchandise under investigation is 

dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

the Department’s regulations (see 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997)), in our Initiation Notice we set 

aside a period of time for parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage, and 

encouraged all parties to submit 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

publication of the Initiation Notice. 

On August 18, 2009, we received 

timely comments on the scope of the 

investigation from the following 

interested parties: 1) Costco Wholesale, 

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Jo–Ann 

Stores, Inc., Michael Stores, Inc., and 

Target Corporation (collectively, ‘‘The 

Ribbons Retailers’’); 2) Papillon Ribbon 

and Bow, Inc. (‘‘Papillon’’); and 3) 

Essential Ribbons, Inc. (‘‘Essential 

Ribbons’’). Specifically, we received two 

requests that the Department modify the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 7247 

scope to clarify that certain products are 

outside the scope, and two additional 

requests that the Department narrow the 

scope to exclude two products that 

include merchandise which falls within 

the scope. These requests are as follows: 

1) The Ribbons Retailers requested that 

the Department modify exclusions 10 

(i.e., narrow woven ribbons affixed as a 

decorative detail to non–subject 

merchandise) and 11 (i.e., narrow 

woven ribbons affixed to non–subject 

merchandise as a working component) 

to clarify that narrow woven ribbons 

affixed to non–subject merchandise for 

a functional purpose (such as ‘‘belly 

bands’’ around a pair of pajamas and 

stationery packaged together by means 

of a ribbon) is excluded from the scope; 

2) Papillon requested that the 

Department modify the scope to 

explicitly exclude formed rosettes, 

which Papillon argued is a subset of 

exclusions 1 (i.e., formed bows) and 11; 

3) The Ribbons Retailers requested that 

the Department narrow the scope to 

exclude narrow woven ribbons included 

within a kit or set in de minimis 

amounts (such as narrow woven ribbons 

in holiday ornament sets, which are of 

small, pre–cut lengths and are used to 

tie ornaments to a tree); and 

4) Essential Ribbons requested that the 

Department narrow the scope to exclude 

pre–cut, hand–finished narrow woven 

ribbons for retail packaging in lengths of 

72 inches or less. 

On December 22, 2009, and January 

29, 2010, Petitioner submitted 

comments on each of the above scope 

requests. Specifically, Petitioner agreed 

in concept with both requests made by 

The Ribbons Retailers (i.e., items one 

and three, above), although Petitioner 

disagreed with The Ribbons Retailers’ 

request to modify exclusion 10. 

Moreover, while Petitioner also agreed 

with Papillon that rosettes are not 

covered by the scope of the 

investigation (i.e., item two, above), it 

contended that the existing language of 

the scope at exclusions 1 and 11 is 

sufficiently clear on this point, given 

that rosettes are bows. Finally, 

Petitioner opposed Essential Ribbon’s 

request that the Department narrow the 

scope to exclude pre–cut, hand–finished 

ribbon (i.e., item four, above) because 

Petitioner intended that such ribbon fall 

within the scope. Regarding this latter 

item, Petitioner asserts that it has in the 

past produced this product and may 

well produce it in the future, as it 

requires only a very minor finishing 

operation to cut and seal the ends of the 

ribbon. Further, Petitioner notes that it 

currently sells narrow woven ribbons in 

similar lengths (i.e., of three feet or less), 

and it prices these products in the same 

manner. 

On January 19, 2010, Essential 

Ribbons submitted comments opposing 

Petitioner’s assertion that it wishes to 

have pre–cut, hand–finished ribbon 

(i.e., item four, above) covered by the 

scope of this investigation. Essential 

Ribbons asserts that the petitioner does 

not currently produce this product and 

thus it should be excluded from the 

scope of this investigation. 

We have carefully considered each of 

the requests noted above, as well as 

Petitioner’s responsive comments. 

While the Department does have the 

authority to define or clarify the scope 

of an investigation, the Department 

must exercise this authority in a manner 

which reflects the intent of the petition 

and the Department generally should 

not use its authority to define the scope 

of an investigation in a manner that 

would thwart the statutory mandate to 

provide the relief requested in the 

petition. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Softwood Lumber 

Products From Canada, 67 FR 15539 

(April 2, 2002), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

under Scope Issues (after Comment 49). 

Thus, absent an overarching reason to 

modify the scope in the petition, the 

Department accepts it. Id. See also 

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 73 FR 51788, 51789 

(September, 5 2008); Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Not Less Than 

Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the 

Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347 

(September 27, 2001) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 12; and Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries, Ltd. v. U.S., 986 F. Supp. 

1428 (CIT 1997). 

In this case, Petitioner has no 

objection to modifying the scope with 

respect to items one and three described 

above (i.e., narrow woven ribbons 

affixed to non–subject merchandise for 

a functional purpose and narrow woven 

ribbons included in kits or sets in de 

minimis amounts). Accordingly, we 

have modified the scope to incorporate 

Petitioner’s revised language with 

respect to item one because this 

modification is consistent with the 

intent of the petition. See the ‘‘Scope of 

the Investigation’’ section above. 

However, regarding item number three, 

we have concerns over whether the 

proposed scope exclusion would be 

administrable. Therefore, we have not 

modified the scope to exclude narrow 

woven ribbons included in kits or sets 

in ‘‘de minimis’’ amounts, as described 

by Petitioner, for purposes of the 

preliminary determination. We intend 

to work with The Ribbons Retailers and 

Petitioner to determine whether this 

exclusion could be administrable and 

will consider modifying the scope for 

purposes of the final determination. 

Regarding item two (i.e., rosettes), 

Petitioner also agrees that this product 

is excluded. However, we have not 

modified the scope language with 

respect to rosettes because we find that 

the scope is sufficiently clear that 

rosettes are not covered by this 

investigation, and thus no modification 

is necessary. Finally, we have made no 

change to the scope with respect to item 

four (i.e., pre–cut, hand–finished 

ribbons) because: 1) these products are 

clearly within the scope; and 2) 

Petitioner intended that these products 

be covered. 

Non–Market Economy Treatment 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country. See, 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) (‘‘Coated Free Sheet 

Paper’’). 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. No party has challenged the 

designation of the PRC as an NME 

country in this investigation. Therefore, 

we continue to treat the PRC as an NME 

country for purposes of this preliminary 

determination. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

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

normal value (‘‘NV’’), in most 

circumstances, on the NME producer’s 

factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’) valued in 

a surrogate market–economy 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 market– 

economy countries that are at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country and are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The sources of the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

7248 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 

2See Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting 

Director, Office of Policy, to Robert Bolling, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 

‘‘Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Narrow Woven 

Ribbon With Woven Selvedge from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (September 15, 2009). 

3 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the 

final determination of this investigation, interested 

parties may submit factual information to rebut, 

clarify, or correct factual information submitted by 

an interested party less than ten days before, on, or 

after, the applicable deadline for submission of 

such factual information. However, the Department 

notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new 

information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 

corrects information recently placed on the record. 

The Department generally will not accept the 

submission of additional, previously absent-fromthe-record alternative surrogate value information 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 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. 

4See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rate Practice 

and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), at 6, available 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. (‘‘Policy 

Bulletin 05.1’’). Policy Bulletin 05.1 states, in 

relevant part, ‘‘While 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 

applied 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.’’ 

surrogate values we have used in this 

investigation are discussed under the 

‘‘Normal Value’’ section below. 

The Department determined that 

India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 

Colombia, Thailand and Peru are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development.2 Once 

the countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC have been 

identified, we select an appropriate 

surrogate country by determining 

whether an economically comparable 

country is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise and whether 

the data for valuing FOPs is both 

available and reliable. In their October 

21, 2009, submission, Petitioner 

referenced their statement in the 

Petition where they argued that the 

Department should select India as a 

surrogate country because it satisfies the 

statutory requirements for the selection 

of a surrogate country since it is at a 

level of economic development that is 

comparable to the PRC, and is a 

significant producer of merchandise 

comparable to the merchandise under 

investigation. See Petitioner’s October 

21, 2009, submission at 1–2. No other 

party provided comments on the record 

concerning the surrogate country. 

We have determined that it is 

appropriate to use India as a surrogate 

country pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of 

the Act based on the following: (1) it is 

at a similar level of economic 

development pursuant to section 

773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise; 

and (3) we have reliable data from India 

that we can use to value the FOPs. Thus, 

we have calculated NV using Indian 

prices when available and appropriate 

to the FOPs of Yama Ribbons. We have 

obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible. See Memorandum to the File 

from Zhulieta Willbrand, International 

Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, ‘‘Investigation of 

Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven 

Selvedge from the People’s Republic of 

China: Surrogate Values for the 

Preliminary Determination,’’ which is 

dated concurrently with this notice 

(‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 

determination in an antidumping 

investigation, interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value the FOPs within 40 days after the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

determination.3

Separate Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department notified parties of the 

application process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate rate 

status in NME investigations. See 

Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 39296–39297. 

The process requires exporters and 

producers to submit a separate rate 

status application.4

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has 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. Exporters can demonstrate 

this independence through the absence 

of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under the test announced 

in the 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) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as 

further developed in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). 

However, if the Department determines 

that a company is wholly foreign– 

owned or located in a market economy, 

then a separate rate analysis is not 

necessary to determine whether it is 

independent from government control. 

Separate Rate Recipients 

1. Joint Ventures Between Chinese 

and Foreign Companies or Wholly 

Chinese-Owned Companies 

Four separate rate applicants in this 

investigation, Yangzhou Bestpak, 

Ningbo MH, Ningbo V.K., and Weifang 

Yu Yuan (collectively, ‘‘Chinese SR 

Applicants’’), provided evidence that 

they are either joint ventures between 

Chinese and foreign companies or 

wholly Chinese–owned companies. The 

Department has analyzed whether each 

of the four Chinese SR Applicants has 

demonstrated the absence of de jure and 

de facto governmental control over its 

respective export activities. 

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 license; (2) legislative enactments 

decentralizing control of companies; 

and (3) other formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 

20589. The evidence provided by the 

four Chinese SR Applicants supports a 

preliminary finding that all of the above 

criteria have been satisfied. 

The evidence provided by the four 

Chinese SR Applicants supports a 

preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of governmental control based on the 

following: (1) an absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporters’ business and 

export licenses; (2) the existence of 

applicable legislative enactments 

decentralizing control of Chinese 

companies; and (3) the implementation 

of formal measures by the government 

decentralizing control of Chinese 

companies. 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically, the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 7249 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a governmental agency; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

governmental control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

The evidence provided by the four 

Chinese SR Applicants supports a 

preliminary finding of de facto absence 

of governmental control based on record 

statements and supporting 

documentation showing that the 

companies: (1) set their own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) have the 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; (3) maintain 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) retain 

the proceeds of their respective export 

sales and make independent decisions 

regarding disposition of profits or 

financing of losses. 

Therefore, the evidence placed on the 

record of this investigation by the four 

Chinese SR Applicants demonstrates an 

absence of de jure and de facto 

government control under the criteria 

identified in Sparklers and Silicon 

Carbide. Accordingly, the Department 

has preliminarily granted a separate rate 

to the Chinese SR Applicants. See 

‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ section 

below. 

2.Wholly Foreign–Owned 

Eight separate rate applicants in this 

investigation, Beauty Horn, Fujian 

Rongshu, Guangzhou Complacent, 

Stribbons, Sun Ribbon, Sun Rich, 

Weifang Dongfang, Xiamen Yi He, and 

the mandatory respondent Yama 

Ribbons, (‘‘Foreign–Owned SR 

Applicants’’), provided evidence that 

they are wholly owned by individuals 

or companies located in market 

economies in their separate rate 

applications. Therefore, because they 

are wholly foreign–owned and the 

Department has no evidence indicating 

that they are under the control of the 

government of the PRC, a separate rates 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether these companies are 

independent from government control. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine 

Monohydrate from the People’s 

Republic of China, 64 FR 71104 

(December 20, 1999) (determining that 

the respondent was wholly foreign– 

owned and, thus, qualified for a 

separate rate). Accordingly, the 

Department has preliminarily granted a 

separate rate to these Foreign–Owned 

SR Applicants. See ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section below. 

Companies Not Receiving a Separate 

Rate 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department requested that all 

companies wishing to qualify for 

separate rate status in this investigation 

submit a separate rate status 

application. See Initiation Notice. The 

following five exporters submitted a 

timely response to the Department’s 

Q&V questionnaire but did not provide 

a separate rate application: 1) Billion 

Trend International Ltd.; 2) Ningbo 

Huarui Import & Export Co., Ltd.; 3) 

Ningbo Jinfeng Thread & Ribbon Co. 

Ltd.; 4) Ningbo Jintian; and 5) Tensen 

International Trading Ltd., and therefore 

have not demonstrated their eligibility 

for separate rate status in this 

investigation. As a result, the 

Department is treating these Chinese 

exporters as part of the PRC–wide 

entity. 

Margins for Separate Rate Recipients 

Through the evidence in their 

applications, the separate–rate 

applicants have demonstrated their 

eligibility for a separate rate, see the 

‘‘Separate Rates’’ section above. 

Normally, 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’’). See section 735(c)(5)(A) of the 

Act. In this case, because there are no 

rates other than de minimis or those 

based on AFA, we have determined to 

take a simple average of the AFA rate 

applied to the PRC–wide entity and the 

de minimis rate calculated for Yama 

Ribbons as a reasonable method for 

purposes of determining the rate 

assigned to separate rate applicants. See 

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. We note 

that this methodology is consistent with 

the Department’s past practice. See 1– 

Hydroxyethylidene–1, 1–Diphosphonic 

Acid from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545, 

10546 (March 11, 2009). That rate is 

115.70 percent. The separate–rate 

applicants are listed in the ‘‘Suspension 

of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

Use of Facts Available and Adverse 

Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ (‘‘FA’’) if (1) 

necessary information is not on the 

record, or (2) an interested party or any 

other person (A) withholds information 

that has been requested, (B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding, or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Such an adverse 

inference may include reliance on 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Application of Partial Facts Available 

for Yama Ribbons 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary 

information is not on the record, or (2) 

an interested party or any other person 

(A) withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding, or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. We have 

preliminarily determined that the 

application of partial facts available is 

warranted for certain packing materials 

FOPs reported by Yama Ribbons. 

The Department must rely upon FA 

because Yama Ribbons did not provide 

us with accurate information with 

respect to certain packing materials 

FOPs with sufficient time to utilize 

Yama Ribbons’ data for the preliminary 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

7250 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 

[1]As stated in the ‘‘Background’’ section above, 

the Department received 19 timely responses to the 

86 Q&V questionnaires the Department sent to 

potential exporters identified in the Petition. 

[2]As stated in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section above, 

19 exporters submitted a timely response to the 

Department’s Q&V questionnaire with sales within 

the POI, but only 12 of these exporters submitted 

a separate rate application. 

determination. On January 29, 2010, the 

Department informed Yama Ribbons’ 

counsel that in the process of evaluating 

Yama Ribbons’ packing data submitted 

on January 13, 2010, it had noticed that 

Yama Ribbons reported, for certain 

sales, a wide range of consumption rates 

for packing materials. The Department 

requested that Yama Ribbons evaluate 

its January 13, 2010, FOP database and 

inform the Department if there were 

misreported consumption rates for 

packing materials. The Department also 

expressly instructed Yama Ribbons not 

to submit any new numerical database 

in response to the Department’s inquiry. 

See Memorandum to the File from 

Zhulieta Willbrand, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation on Narrow Woven 

Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the 

People’s Republic of China: Packing 

Materials,’’ (January 29, 2010). On 

February 1, 2009, Yama Ribbons 

submitted a narrative explanation 

identifying sales with misreported 

consumption rates for packing 

materials, and stated reasons why these 

consumption rates were misreported. 

See ‘‘Narrow Woven Ribbons With 

Wovern Selvedge from People’s 

Republic of China, Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Packing Materials 

Consumption Rates Response’’ (February 

1, 2010). On February 1, 2010, the 

Department informed Yama Ribbons 

that the company could provide a 

revised FOP database reflecting only the 

narrative information submitted on 

February 1, 2010. The Department also 

notified Yama Ribbons that even if the 

revised FOP database was submitted to 

the Department before the preliminary 

determination, the Department could 

not guarantee that the new information 

would be considered in Yama Ribbons’ 

margin calculation for the preliminary 

determination. See Memorandum to the 

File from Zhulieta Willbrand, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation on 

Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge from the People’s Republic of 

China: New Numerical Data,’’ (February 

1, 2010). On February 2, 2010, Yama 

Ribbons provided a revised FOP 

database and a narrative explanation for 

all discrepancies. 

The Department has determined that 

it lacks the sufficient amount of time 

before the preliminary determination to 

properly evaluate Yama Ribbons’ 

revised FOP database. Yama Ribbons’ 

new FOP database was submitted just 

two days prior to the completion of the 

preliminary determination, which is an 

insufficient amount of time for the 

Department to evaluate the new 

database for consistency with the prior 

database. Thus, the Department has 

determined to use Yama Ribbons’ 

January 13, 2010, FOP database in the 

preliminary determination margin 

calculation program. However, the 

Department acknowledges that the 

January 13, 2010, database suffers some 

deficiencies, as identified by Yama 

Ribbons pursuant to the Department’s 

inquiries. Because the January 13, 2010, 

FOP database cannot serve as a reliable 

basis for this determination under 

section 782(e) of the Act, the 

Department finds that for the packing 

materials FOPs at issue, the Department 

must calculate dumping margins using 

the facts otherwise available pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. 

In accordance with section 

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department 

has applied FA for some of Yama 

Ribbons packing materials FOPs. As FA, 

for certain misreported packing 

materials FOPs we have applied a 

simple average consumption rate for 

each of the respective packing materials. 

See Analysis Memorandum for Yama 

Ribbons and Bows Co. Ltd. (‘‘Yama’s 

Analysis Memo’’) dated February 4, 

2010. 

At this time the Department does not 

find that it is necessary to apply an 

adverse inference, pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, because Yama 

Ribbons responded to the Department’s 

request for additional information 

concerning its January 13, 2010, FOP 

database. The Department may issue 

supplemental questionnaires after 

issuance of the preliminary 

determination to further analyze these 

packing FOPs for the final 

determination. 

PRC–Wide Entity 

1. Non–Responsive Companies 

On July 30, 2009, the Department 

requested Q&V information from the 86 

companies that Petitioner identified as 

potential exporters or producers of 

narrow woven ribbons from the PRC. 

Additionally, the Department’s 

Initiation Notice informed these 

companies of the requirements to 

respond to both the Department’s Q&V 

questionnaire and the separate rate 

application in order to receive 

consideration for separate rate status. 

See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 39296. 

However, only 19 exporters/ 

manufacturers responded to the 

Department’s request for Q&V 

information.[1] Furthermore, only 12 

exporters/manufacturers that submitted 

Q&V information also submitted a 

separate rate application.[2] Therefore, 

the Department preliminarily 

determines that there were exports of 

merchandise under investigation from 

PRC exporters/manufacturers that did 

not respond to the Department’s Q&V 

questionnaire, and/or subsequently did 

not demonstrate their eligibility for 

separate rate status. As a result, the 

Department is treating these PRC 

exporters/manufacturers (‘‘non– 

responsive companies’’) as part of the 

PRC–wide entity. 

2. Ningbo Jintian 

As stated above, Ningbo Jintian did 

not respond to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaires (i.e., 

Sections A, C and D questionnaire). 

Because Ningbo Jintian failed to 

participate in this investigation, Ningbo 

Jintian has failed to demonstrate that it 

operates free of government control and 

that it is entitled to a separate rate. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Ningbo Jintian is part of the 

PRC–wide entity. 

Application of Total Adverse Facts 

Available 

As noted above, the Department has 

determined that the companies that did 

not submit separate rate applications, 

including Ningbo Jintian, are part of the 

PRC–wide entity. Pursuant to section 

776(a) of the Act, the Department 

further finds that the PRC–wide entity 

failed to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaires, withheld required 

information, and/or submitted 

information that cannot be verified, thus 

significantly impeding the proceeding. 

See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

and Preliminary Partial Determination 

of Critical Circumstances: Diamond 

Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 

77121, 77128 (December 29, 2005), 

unchanged in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final 

Partial Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances: Diamond 

Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the 

People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 

(May 22, 2006). Accordingly, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined to base the PRC–wide 

entity’s margin on FA. See section 

776(a) of the Act. Further, because the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 7251 

5See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479, 6481 

(February 4, 2008), quoting SAA at 870. 

6See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

PRC–wide entity failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with the Department’s request 

for information, the Department 

preliminarily determines that, when 

selecting from among the FA, an adverse 

inference is warranted for the PRC–wide 

entity pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act. 

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available 

Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the 

Department may rely on information 

derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 

Department selects a rate that is 

sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the 

purpose of the facts available rule to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner.’’ See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors From 

Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 

1998). Further, it is the Department’s 

practice to select a rate that ensures 

‘‘that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the Seventh 

Administrative Review; Final Results of 

the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 

FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005) 

(quoting Statement of Administrative 

Action (‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. 

Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 

870 (1994)). 

It is the Department’s practice to 

select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) 

highest margin alleged in the petition, 

or (b) the highest calculated rate of any 

respondent in the investigation. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled 

Flat–Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 

Products From The People’s Republic of 

China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at ‘‘Facts Available.’’ In 

the instant investigation, as AFA, we 

have preliminarily assigned to the PRC– 

wide entity, including companies that 

did not respond to the Department’s 

Q&V questionnaire, such as Ningbo 

Jintian, , the highest rate on the record 

of this proceeding for narrow woven 

ribbons from the PRC, which in this 

case is the 231.40 percent margin from 

the Petition. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR 

at 39296. The Department preliminarily 

determines that this information is the 

most appropriate from the available 

sources to effectuate the purposes of 

AFA. The Department will consider all 

margins on the record at the time of the 

final determination for the purpose of 

determining the most appropriate AFA 

rate for the PRC–wide entity, including 

Ningbo Jintian. 

The dumping margin for the PRC– 

wide entity applies to all entries of the 

merchandise under investigation except 

for entries of subject merchandise from 

the exporter/manufacturer combinations 

listed in the chart in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section below. 

Corroboration of Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning merchandise subject to this 

investigation, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation.’’5 To ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

that the Department will satisfy itself 

that the secondary information to be 

used has probative value. Independent 

sources used to corroborate may 

include, for example, published price 

lists, official import statistics and 

customs data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used.6

The AFA rate that the Department 

used is from the Petition. Petitioner’s 

methodology for calculating the United 

States price and NV in the Petition is 

discussed in the Initiation Notice. To 

corroborate the AFA margin that we 

have selected, we compared this margin 

to the margin we found for the 

respondent. We found that the margin of 

231.40 percent has probative value 

because it is in the range of the model– 

specific margins that we found for the 

mandatory respondent, Yama Ribbons. 

See Yama’s Analysis Memo. 

Accordingly, we find that the rate of 

231.40 percent is corroborated within 

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Date of Sale 

The Department’s regulations state 

that, ‘‘in identifying the date of sale of 

the merchandise under consideration or 

foreign like product, the Secretary 

normally will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter or producer’s 

records kept in the normal course of 

business.’’ See 19 CFR 351.401(i). In 

Allied Tube, the Court of International 

Trade (‘‘CIT’’) found that a ‘‘party 

seeking to establish a date of sale other 

than invoice date bears the burden of 

producing sufficient evidence to 

satisf{y}’ the Department that a different 

date better reflects the date on which 

the exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale.’’’Allied Tube and 

Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. 

Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (CIT 2001) (quoting 

19 CFR 351.401(i)) (‘‘Allied Tube’’). 

Additionally, the Secretary may use a 

date other than the date of invoice if the 

Secretary is satisfied that a different 

date better reflects the date on which 

the exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 

351.401(i); see also Allied Tube, 132 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1090–1092. The date of sale 

is generally the date on which the 

parties agree upon all material terms of 

the sale. This normally includes the 

price, quantity, delivery terms and 

payment terms. See Nakornthai Strip 

Mill Pub. Co. v. United States, 614 F. 

Supp. 2d 1323, 1334 (CIT 2009). 

Yama Ribbons reported that the date 

of sale was determined by the shipment 

date of the subject merchandise to the 

unaffiliated United States customer 

because the shipment date is the date by 

which all terms of sale are considered 

final. In this case, as the Department 

found no evidence contrary to Yama 

Ribbon’s claims that shipment date was 

the appropriate date of sale, the 

Department used shipment as the date 

of sale for this preliminary 

determination. 

Fair Value Comparison 

To determine whether sales of narrow 

woven ribbons to the United States by 

Yama Ribbons were made at LTFV, we 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

7252 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 

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

described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, for Yama Ribbons, we based the 

U.S. price of sales on EP because the 

first sale to unaffiliated purchasers was 

made prior to importation and the use 

of constructed export price was not 

otherwise warranted. In accordance 

with section 772(c) of the Act, we 

calculated EP for Yama Ribbons by 

deducting the following expenses from 

the starting price (gross unit price) 

charged to the first unaffiliated 

customer in the United States: foreign 

movement expenses, foreign brokerage 

and handling expenses and 

international freight. We reduced 

movement expenses, where appropriate, 

by the amount of freight revenue paid 

by the customer to Yama Ribbons. In 

accordance with our practice in the 

recently completed administrative 

review of polyethylene retail carrier 

bags from the PRC, we capped the 

amount of freight revenue deducted at 

no greater than the amount of movement 

expenses. See Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 

(February 11, 2009) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 4. Yama also claimed an 

additional revenue adjustment to EP 

(i.e., additional processing fees). For 

processing fees, we have preliminarily 

determined to allow this adjustment 

because Yama Ribbons claimed that it 

accounted for the additional FOPs 

utilized in providing for the additional 

processing in its reported FOPs. See 

Yama’s Analysis Memo. We plan to 

closely examine the processing fees 

issue at verification. Additionally, we 

based movement expenses on surrogate 

values where the service was purchased 

from a PRC company. See Yama’s 

Analysis Memo. For details regarding 

our EP calculation, see Yama’s Analysis 

Memo. 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine NV 

using a FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home–market 

prices, third–country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

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. See, e.g., Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part, and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Certain Lined Paper Products from the 

People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 

19695, 19703 (April 17, 2006), 

unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined 

Paper Products From the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 

(September 8, 2006). 

As the basis for NV, Yama Ribbons 

provided FOPs used in each stage for 

producing narrow woven ribbons. 

Consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of 

the Act, it is the Department’s practice 

to value the FOPs that a respondent uses 

to produce the merchandise under 

consideration. 

Factor Valuation Methodology 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by Yama Ribbons. To 

calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per–unit factor–consumption 

rates by publicly available surrogate 

values. In selecting the surrogate values, 

we considered the quality, specificity, 

and contemporaneity of the data. See, 

e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final 

Results of First New Shipper Review and 

First Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 66 

FR 31204 (June 11, 2001) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description 

of all surrogate values used for Yama 

Ribbons can be found in the Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

For this preliminary determination, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we used data from the Indian 

import statistics in the World Trade 

Atlas (‘‘WTA’’), and other publicly 

available Indian sources in order to 

calculate surrogate values for Yama 

Ribbons’ FOPs (direct materials, energy, 

and packing materials) and certain 

movement expenses. In selecting the 

best available information for valuing 

FOPs in accordance with section 

773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department’s 

practice is to select, to the extent 

practicable, surrogate values which are 

non–export average values, most 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive. 

See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in 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). The record 

shows that data in the WTA Indian 

import statistics, as well as those from 

the other Indian sources, are 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive. 

See Surrogate Value Memorandum. In 

those instances where we could not 

obtain publicly available information 

contemporaneous to the POI with which 

to value factors, we adjusted the 

surrogate values using, where 

appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price 

Index as published in the International 

Financial Statistics of the International 

Monetary Fund. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Exhibit 2. 

Furthermore, with regard to the 

Indian import–based surrogate values, 

we have disregarded import prices that 

we have reason to believe or suspect 

may be subsidized. We have reason to 

believe or suspect that prices of inputs 

from Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non–industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries may be subsidized. 

See 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) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7. Further, 

guided by the legislative history, it is 

the Department’s practice not to 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 7253 

conduct a formal investigation to ensure 

that such prices are not subsidized. See 

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness 

Act of 1988, Conference Report to 

accompany H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 590 

(1988) reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 

1547, 1623–24; see also Coated Free 

Sheet Paper. Rather, the Department 

bases its decision on information that is 

available to it at the time it makes its 

determination. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 

24559 (May 5, 2008) (‘‘PET Film from 

China’’), unchanged in Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 

(September 24, 2008). Therefore, we 

have not used prices from these 

countries in calculating the Indian 

import–based surrogate values. 

Additionally, we disregarded prices 

from NME countries. 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. See PET Film from China, 73 

FR at 24559. 

For direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression–based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s home page, 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html, 

‘‘Expected Wages Of Selected Non– 

Market Economy Countries, Expected 

Wage Calculation: 2007 GNI Data, 

Regression Analysis: 2007 GNI Data.’’ 

Because this regression–based wage rate 

does not separate the labor rates into 

different skill levels or types of labor, 

we have applied the same wage rate to 

all skill levels and types of labor 

reported by the respondent. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Exhibit 6. 

We valued truck freight expenses 

using a per–unit average rate calculated 

from data on the infobanc Web site: 

http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this Web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. The value is contemporaneous 

with the POI. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Exhibit 9. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication titled Electricity Tariff & 

Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India, dated March 2008. 

These electricity rates represent actual 

country–wide, publicly available 

information on tax–exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. As 

the rates listed in this source became 

effective on a variety of different dates, 

we are not adjusting the average value 

for inflation. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Exhibit 3. 

We calculated the surrogate value for 

steam based upon the April 2007–March 

2008 financial statement of Hindalco 

Industries Limited. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Exhibit 5. 

The Department valued water using 

data from the Maharashtra Industrial 

Development Corporation (http:// 

midcindia.org) as it includes a wide 

range of industrial water tariffs. This 

source provides 376 industrial water 

rates within the Maharashtra province 

for April 2009: 188 of the water rates 

were for the ‘‘inside industrial areas’’ 

usage category and 188 of the water 

rates were for the ‘‘outside industrial 

areas’’ usage category. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum at Exhibit 4. 

We valued brokerage and handling 

using a simple average of the brokerage 

and handling costs reported in public 

submissions filed in three antidumping 

duty cases. Specifically, we averaged 

the public brokerage and handling 

expenses reported by Navneet 

Publications (India) Ltd. in the 2007– 

2008 administrative review of certain 

lined paper products from India, Essar 

Steel Limited in the 2006–2007 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of hot–rolled carbon steel flat products 

from India, and Himalaya International 

Ltd. in the 2005–2006 administrative 

review of certain preserved mushrooms 

from India. The Department adjusted 

the average brokerage and handling rate 

for inflation. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at Exhibit 8. 

We valued international ocean freight 

using rate quotes from Maersk Sealand, 

a market–economy shipper. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Exhibit 10. 

We valued international air freight 

using rates obtained from DHL. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

Exhibit 11. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we used the factory 

overhead, selling, general and 

administrative expenses, and profit data 

from an Indian producer of comparable 

merchandise, Ratan Glitter Industries 

Ltd., a producer of comparable narrow 

woven ribbons, for the fiscal year April 

1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. See 

Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit 39. 

Currency Conversion 

We 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. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

upon which we will rely in making our 

final determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 39297. This 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. 

Preliminary Determination 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that the following dumping 

margins exist for the period January 

2009 through June 2009: 

Exporter Producer Weighted–Average 

Percent Margin 

Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. ........................................ Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. ........................................ 0 

Beauty Horn Investment Limited ............................................ Tianjin Sun Ribbon Co., Ltd. .................................................. 115.70 

Fujian Rongshu Industry Co., Ltd. ......................................... Fujian Rongshu Industry Co., Ltd. ......................................... 115.70 

Guangzhou Complacent Weaving Co., Ltd. ........................... Guangzhou Complacent Weaving Co., Ltd. .......................... 115.70 

Ningbo MH Industry Co., Ltd. ................................................. Hangzhou City Linghu Jiacheng Silk Ribbon Co., Ltd. .......... 115.70 

Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. .............................. Ningbo Yinzhou Jinfeng Knitting Factory ............................... 115.70 

Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd. ................................................... Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd. ................................................... 115.70 

Stribbons (Guangzhou) Ltd. ................................................... Stribbons (Nanyang) MNC Ltd. .............................................. 115.70 

Sun Rich (Asia) Limited .......................................................... Dongguan Yi Sheng Decoration Co., Ltd. ............................. 115.70 

Tianjin Sun Ribbon Co., Ltd. .................................................. Tianjin Sun Ribbon Co., Ltd. .................................................. 115.70 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

7254 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 

Exporter Producer Weighted–Average 

Percent Margin 

Weifang Dongfang Ribbon Weaving Co., Ltd. ....................... Weifang Dongfang Ribbon Weaving Co., Ltd. ....................... 115.70 

Weifang Yu Yuan Textile Co., Ltd. ......................................... Weifang Yu Yuan Textile Co., Ltd. ........................................ 115.70 

Xiamen Yi He Textile Co., Ltd. ............................................... Xiamen Yi He Textile Co., Ltd. .............................................. 115.70 

Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. ........................... Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. ........................... 115.70 

PRC–wide Entity ..................................................................... ................................................................................................. * 231.40 

*(Including Ningbo Jintian Import & Export Co., Ltd.) 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

narrow woven ribbons from the PRC as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ 

section, entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. We will instruct 

CBP to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond equal to the weighted– 

average amount by which the normal 

value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated 

above. 

Additionally, the Department has 

determined in its Narrow Woven 

Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

74 FR 66090, 66096 (December 14, 

2009) (‘‘CVD Prelim’’) that the product 

under investigation, exported and 

produced by Yama Ribbons, did not 

benefit from an export subsidy. 

However, the countervailing duty rate 

for Ningbo Jintian, Beauty Horn, Fujian 

Rongshu, Guangzhou Complacent, 

Ningbo MH, Ningbo V.K., Stribbons, 

Sun Ribbon, Sun Rich, Weifang 

Dongfang, Weifang Yu Yuan, Xiamen Yi 

He, and Yangzhou Bestpak is the all– 

others rate, which is 59.49 percent. Id. 

Therefore, we will instruct CBP to 

require an antidumping duty cash 

deposit or the posting of a bond for each 

entry equal to the weighted–average 

margin indicated above for these 

companies adjusted for the export 

subsidies determined in the CVD 

Prelim. The adjusted cash deposit rate 

for Ningbo Jintian, Beauty Horn, Fujian 

Rongshu, Guangzhou Complacent, 

Ningbo MH, Ningbo V.K., Stribbons, 

Sun Ribbon, Sun Rich, Weifang 

Dongfang, Weifang Yu Yuan, Xiamen Yi 

He, and Yangzhou Bestpak is 115.70 

percent. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at LTFV. If the Department’s final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine before the later of 120 

days after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after our final 

determination whether imports of 

narrow woven ribbons from Taiwan are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, the U.S. industry (see 

section 735(b)(2) of the Act). As we are 

postponing the deadline for our final 

determination to 135 days from the date 

of the publication of this preliminary 

determination, the ITC will make its 

final determination no later than 45 

days after our final determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date on 

which the final verification report is 

issued in this proceeding and rebuttal 

briefs limited to issues raised in case 

briefs and must be received no later 

than five days after the deadline date for 

case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) and 

(d). A list of authorities used and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. This summary should be 

limited to five pages total, including 

footnotes. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, and if timely requested, we will 

hold a public hearing, to afford 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on arguments raised in case or 

rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing 

is made, we intend to hold the hearing 

two days after the deadline of 

submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

location to be determined. Parties 

should confirm by telephone the date, 

time, and location of the hearing two 

days before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 4, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3128 Filed 2–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XU28 

International Whaling Commission; 

2010 Intersessional Meetings; 

Nominations 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for 

nominations. 

SUMMARY: This notice is a call for 

nominees for the U.S. Delegation to the 

March 2010 Small Working Group and 

intersessional meetings of the 

International Whaling Commission 

(IWC). The non-federal representative(s) 

selected as a result of this nomination 

process is(are) responsible for providing 

input and recommendations to the U.S. 

IWC Commissioner representing the 

positions of non-governmental 

organizations. Generally, only one nonWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES