Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 77829 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

56070 (September 15, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 2See Letter from Emeka Chukwudebe, Case 

Analyst, Office 9, to Interested Parties: Extension 

Briefing Schedule for 1st AR Antidumping 

Administrative Reviews of Certain Steel Nails from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) (October 5, 

2010). See also Memorandum For: All Interested 

Parties, from Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, 

Import Administration, dated October 6, 2010. See 

also Memorandum For: All Interested Parties, from 

Matthew Renkey, Case Analyst, Import 

Administration, dated October 21, 2010. 

to the publication of the Preliminary 

Results, the Department extended the 

deadlines for submission of surrogate 

values, rebuttal comments and case 

briefs.2 The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is 

January 23, 2008, through July 31, 2009. 

The final results are currently due no 

later than January 13, 2011. 

Extension of Time Limit For the Final 

Results 

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

of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), requires 

that the Department issue the final 

results of an administrative review 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary results are published. If 

it is not practicable to complete the 

review within that time period, section 

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

Department to extend the deadline for 

the final results to a maximum of 180 

days after the date on which the 

preliminary results are published. 

The Department finds that it is not 

practicable to complete the final results 

within this time limit because the 

Department is in the process of 

conducting the verification of a 

mandatory respondent and needs 

additional time to complete this 

verification and issue its final 

determination. In addition, the 

extension of the briefing schedule for 

surrogate values and company-specific 

issues in this proceeding necessitates 

additional time for the Department to 

make its final determination. As a 

result, the Department finds that it is 

not practicable to complete verification, 

to review the surrogate value data, and 

to analyze the case brief comments 

within the scheduled time limit. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department 

is fully extending the time for the 

completion of the final results of this 

review to March 14, 2011. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: December 8, 2010. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31366 Filed 12–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–421–811] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

the Netherlands: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 10, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published its preliminary 

results in the antidumping duty 

administrative review of purified 

carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) from the 

Netherlands. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From the 

Netherlands; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 48310 (August 10, 2010) 

(Preliminary Results). The merchandise 

covered by the order is purified CMC, as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ 

section of this notice. The period of 

review (POR) is July 1, 2008, through 

June 30, 2009. We afforded interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

the Preliminary Results. We received 

comments from interested parties on 

October 22, 2010, and, in light of these 

comments, have made changes to our 

margin calculations. Thus, the final 

results differ from those published in 

the Department’s Preliminary Results. 

The final weighted-average dumping 

margins for the reviewed firms are listed 

below in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Results of the Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: December 14, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edythe Artman, Olga Carter, or Angelica 

Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3931, 

(202) 482–8221, or (202) 482–3019, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 10, 2010, the Department 

published the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on purified 

CMC from the Netherlands. See 

Preliminary Results at 48310. The 

respondents under review are Akzo 

Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V. 

(ANFC) and CP Kelco B.V. (CP Kelco). 

The petitioner in this proceeding is 

Aqualon Company, a unit of Hercules 

Inc. We invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary Results 

following the release of all verification 

reports. See Preliminary Results at 

48318. 

On September 29, 2010, the 

Department released the home-market 

sales verification report for ANFC and, 

on October 13, 2010, we released the 

U.S. sales verification report for this 

company. We did not verify the 

responses of CP Kelco in the current 

review. 

On October 22, 2010, ANFC 

submitted a case brief and CP Kelco 

submitted a letter in lieu of a case brief. 

The petitioner did not file any 

comments on the preliminary results of 

review and no party requested a hearing 

concerning the review. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

is all purified CMC, sometimes also 

referred to as purified sodium CMC, 

polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, 

which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, 

odorless, biodegradable powder, 

comprising sodium CMC that has been 

refined and purified to a minimum 

assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does 

not include unpurified or crude CMC, 

CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, 

and CMC that is cross-linked through 

heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC 

that has undergone one or more 

purification operations which, at a 

minimum, reduce the remaining salt 

and other by-product portion of the 

product to less than ten percent. The 

merchandise subject to the order is 

classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States at 

subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff 

classification is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in ANFC’s case brief 

and CP Kelco’s letter in lieu of a case 

brief are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results of the 2008/2009 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands,’’ from Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Paul Piquado, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated December 8, 2010 

(Issues and Decision Memorandum), 

and hereby adopted by this notice. A list 

of the issues raised, all of which are in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum, 

is attached to this notice as Appendix I. 

A copy of the Issues and Decision 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
77830 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 

1This database and the most-recently submitted 

home-market sales database reflected all other 

minor corrections and revisions requested by the 

Department at verification and were used to 

calculate CP Kelco’s preliminary dumping margin. 

2The adjustment to manufacturing costs, upon 

which inventory carrying costs are based, would 

also make it necessary to recalculate the inventory 

carrying costs incurred in the United States except 

that we already inserted the programming language 

for this recalculation in ANFC’s margin-calculation 

program for the preliminary results. We made this 

earlier change based on our finding that these costs 

should be calculated by using the U.S. interest rate. 

See ‘‘Analysis of Data Submitted by Akzo Nobel 

Functional Chemicals B.V. (ANFC) and Akzo Nobel 

Functional Chemicals LLC (AN–US) in the 

Preliminary Results of the 2008–2009 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Purified Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) 

from the Netherlands,’’ from Olga Carter and Edythe 

Artman, International Trade Compliance Analysts, 

to the File, dated August 2, 2010, at 10. 

Memorandum will be placed on the 

official file of this review, which is 

located in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU), room 7046 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on the Internet at 

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

copy and electronic version of the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received from ANFC, we 

have made changes to its margin 

calculations for the final results. The 

Department changed the assignment of 

product characteristics to the variable 

‘‘CMCHAR’’ from U.S. product 

characteristics to home-market product 

characteristics. This change is 

consistent with our model-matching 

methodology and will ensure that sales 

in the U.S. market are compared to 

home-market sales of the identical or 

similar models. We also have changed 

the calculation of movement expenses 

so that warehousing expenses are only 

included in domestic movement 

expenses (i.e., they have been removed 

from the calculation of international 

movement expenses). Finally, we have 

reviewed ANFC’s comments with 

respect to the inventory carrying costs 

incurred in the United States and agree 

that no such costs were incurred on 

‘‘Channel-1’’ sales—those sales in which 

the product was shipped directly from 

the production facility or warehouse in 

the Netherlands to the U.S. customer. 

Thus, we have modified our 

recalculation of inventory carrying costs 

incurred in the United States in the 

margin calculation program to exclude 

Channel-1 sales. For a more detailed 

discussion of the changes made to 

ANFC’s calculations, see ‘‘Memorandum 

to the File: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands: Analysis of the Sales 

Responses Submitted by Akzo Nobel 

Functional Chemicals B.V.,’’ from Olga 

Carter, International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to the File, dated December 8, 

2010. A public version of this 

memorandum is on file in the CRU. 

In addition, we made changes to the 

programs used to calculate ANFC’s 

margin based on our own review of the 

record following the issuance of the 

Preliminary Results. First, in light of a 

finding discovered at ANFC’s homemarket sales verification, we have 

corrected the entry date of one U.S. sale. 

Specifically, in our margin-calculation 

program, we have entered the verified 

date of entry for this sale (and, as 

described below, are recalculating the 

inventory carrying costs for this sale, as 

we are for all sales). Second, subsequent 

to the issuance of the Preliminary 

Results, we noticed that a minor 

correction relating to one sale was not 

reflected in ANFC’s most-recently 

submitted U.S. sales database.1

Consequently, for this sale, we entered 

the verified date of entry and amount of 

U.S. duties incurred on the sale in the 

margin-calculation program. Lastly, we 

noticed an oversight in our preliminary 

margin calculations in that, having 

made an adjustment to the 

manufacturing costs of all products, we 

failed to recalculate the inventory 

carrying costs incurred in the 

Netherlands on both home-market and 

U.S. sales.2 See the memorandum on 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Akzo Nobel 

Functional Chemicals B.V.,’’ from 

Frederick W. Mines, Accountant, to 

Peter S. Scholl, Lead Accountant, dated 

August 2, 2010. Thus, we have corrected 

this oversight for the final results by 

modifying the comparison-market and 

margin-calculation programs to 

recalculate the inventory carrying costs 

that ANFC incurred in the Netherlands. 

With respect to CP Kelco, we 

reviewed the company’s comment that 

language in our margin-calculation 

program, used to recalculate U.S. 

indirect selling expenses incurred in the 

home market, resulted in an inadvertent 

mathematical error. As suggested by the 

respondent, we have modified the 

programming language so that the gross 

unit price of a sale is now added to any 

billing adjustments of the sale before the 

selling-expense factor is applied to the 

sum of these two amounts. This change 

is detailed in the ‘‘CP Kelco B.V.— 

Analysis Memorandum for the Final 

Results of the 2008/2009 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands,’’ from Edythe Artman, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to the File, dated December 8, 

2010. A public version of this 

memorandum is on file in the CRU. 

Final Results of the Review 

We determine the following 

percentage weighted-average margins to 

exist for the period July 1, 2008, through 

June 30, 2009: 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weighted-average 

margin 

(percentage) 

ANFC ............................ 9.06 

CP Kelco B.V. ............... 2.64 

Assessment 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the 

Department normally calculates an 

assessment rate for each importer of the 

subject merchandise covered by the 

review. In this review, we have 

calculated, whenever possible, an 

exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rate or value for 

merchandise subject to this review as 

described below. 

With respect to export-price sales (i.e., 

sales directly to the unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States) for these 

final results, we divided the total 

dumping margins (calculated as the 

difference between normal value and 

export price) for each exporter’s 

importer or customer by the total 

number of units the exporter sold to that 

importer or customer. We will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per-unit 

dollar amount against each unit of 

merchandise in each of that importer’s/ 

customer’s POR entries. 

For constructed-export-price sales 

(e.g., sales through ANFC’s U.S. affiliate 

to the unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States), we divided the total 

dumping margins for the reviewed sales 

by the total entered value of those 

reviewed sales for each importer. We 

will direct CBP to assess the resulting 

percentage margin against the entered 

customs values for the subject 

merchandise on each of that importer’s 

POR entries. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). 

The calculated per-unit values or ad 

valorem rates, as appropriate, will be 

assessed uniformly on all entries made 

by the respective importers during the 

POR. Where the assessment rate is 

above de minimis, we will instruct CBP 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 77831 

to assess duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by reviewed 

companies for which these companies 

did not know their merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after publication of these final 

results of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash-deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of this notice of final results 

of administrative review for all 

shipments of purified CMC from the 

Netherlands entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act): (1) The 

cash-deposit rates for ANFC and CP 

Kelco will be the rates established in the 

final results of this review; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not covered in this review, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this or 

any previous review or in the less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation but the 

manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous review 

or the investigation, the cash-deposit 

rate will continue to be the all-others 

rate of 14.57 percent, which is the allothers rate established by the 

Department in the LTFV investigation. 

See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and 

Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). 

These cash-deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely, 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation that is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: December 8, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Comments in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum 

Clerical Errors 

Comment 1: Physical Characteristic Codes of 

Comparison-Market Sales. 

Comment 2: Double-counting of Warehousing 

Expenses Incurred in the Country of 

Manufacture. 

Comment 3: Inventory Carrying Costs 

Incurred in the United States on Certain 

Sales. 

Comment 4: Calculation of U.S. Indirect 

Selling Expenses Incurred in the Country 

of Manufacture. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31369 Filed 12–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–428–840] 

Lightweight Thermal Paper From 

Germany: Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on lightweight 

thermal paper from Germany. For the 

period November 20, 2008, through 

October 31, 2009, we have preliminarily 

determined that Papierfabrik August 

Koehler AG and Koehler America, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Koehler’’) did not make 

sales of subject merchandise at less than 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) (i.e., sales were 

made at de minimis dumping margins). 

If these preliminary results are adopted 

in the final results of this administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 14, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Moore or George McMahon, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3692 or (202) 482– 

1167, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 2, 2009, the Department 

issued a notice of opportunity to request 

an administrative review of this order 

for the period of review (‘‘POR’’) 

November 20, 2008, through October 31, 

2009. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 74 

FR 56573 (November 2, 2009). 

On November 30, 2009, we received 

a timely request from Appleton Papers, 

Inc. (‘‘petitioner’’) for the Department to 

conduct an administrative review of 

Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Flensburg 

GmbH, Mitsubishi HiTec Paper 

Bielefeld GmbH and Mitsubishi 

International Corporation (collectively, 

‘‘Mitsubishi’’), and Papierfabrik August 

Koehler AG and Koehler America, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Koehler’’). We also 

received a request from Koehler for the 

Department to conduct an 

administrative review of Koehler. 

On December 23, 2009, the 

Department published the notice of 

initiation of this antidumping duty 

administrative review covering the 

period November 20, 2008, through 

October 31, 2009, naming Mitsubishi 

and Koehler as respondents. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES