7236 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 

From 3:45 p.m. - 4:00 p.m., the 

Council will receive presentations. 

Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting of 

the Whole: March 3, 2010, 4:00 p.m. 

until 5:30 p.m. 

The Snapper Grouper Committee will 

review management alternatives in 

Amendment 17A to the Snapper 

Grouper Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) addressing overfishing of red 

snapper, modify the document as 

necessary, and provide direction to staff. 

NOTE: There will be an informal 

public question and answer session 

with NOAA Fisheries Services’ Regional 

Administrator and the Council 

Chairman on March 3, 2010 beginning 

at 5:30 p.m. Immediately following the 

informal session, the public will be 

provided an opportunity to officially 

comment on any of the agenda items. 

Council Session: March 4, 2010, 8:30 

a.m. until 6 p.m. 

Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting 

of the Whole: March 4, 2010, 8:30 a.m. 

until 6 p.m. 

The Snapper Grouper Committee will 

continue to review management 

alternatives in Amendment 17A, modify 

the document as necessary, and provide 

direction to staff. The Committee will 

review Amendments 18 and 20 to the 

Snapper Grouper FMP, modify the 

documents as necessary and provide 

guidance to staff. Amendment 18 to the 

Snapper Grouper FMP addresses several 

management measures relative to the 

management complex, including 

expansion of the management unit 

northward of the Council’s current 

jurisdiction, limiting participation in 

the commercial fishery for golden 

tilefish, modifications of management 

for the black sea bass pot fishery, 

allocations, changes to the golden 

tilefish fishing year, improvements to 

fisheries statistics, and designation of 

Essential Fish Habitat in northern areas. 

Amendment 20 to the Snapper Grouper 

FMP addresses changes to the Wreckfish 

commercial fishery Individual 

Transferable Quota (ITQ) program. The 

Committee also will receive a 

presentation from the SSC on the 

Control Rule relative to the 

Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit 

(ACL) Amendment. 

Council Session: March 5, 2010, 8:30 

a.m. until 3:30 p.m. 

Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting of 

the Whole: March 5, 2010, 8:30 a.m. 

until 10 a.m. 

The Snapper Grouper Committee will 

continue to review the Comprehensive 

ACL Amendment and provide direction 

to staff. 

From 10 a.m. - 10:15 a.m., the Council 

will receive a report from the Catch 

Shares Committee and take action as 

appropriate. 

From 10:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m., the 

Council will receive a report from the 

Mackerel Committee and take action as 

appropriate. 

From 10:30 a.m. - 10:45 a.m., the 

Council will receive a report from the 

SEDAR Committee and take action as 

appropriate. 

From 10:45 a.m. - 11:00 a.m., the 

Council will receive a report from the 

Ecosystem-Based Management 

Committee and take action as 

appropriate. 

From 11 a.m. - 11:15 a.m., the Council 

will receive a report from the Shrimp 

Committee and take action as 

appropriate. 

From 11:15 a.m. - 11:30 a.m., the 

Council will receive a report from the 

joint Executive/Finance Committees 

meeting, approve the CY 2010 budget 

(as necessary), consider other 

Committee recommendations and take 

action as appropriate. 

From 11:30 a.m. - 11:45 a.m., the 

Council will receive a report from the 

Advisory Panel Selection Committee 

and take action as appropriate. 

From 11:45 a.m. - 12 noon., the 

Council will receive legal briefing on 

litigation (Closed Session). 

From 1 p.m. - 1:15 p.m., the Council 

will receive a report from the SSC 

Selection Committee and take action as 

appropriate. 

From 1:15 p.m. - 1:30 p.m., the 

Council will receive a report from the 

Information and Education Committee 

and take action as appropriate. 

From 1:30 p.m. - 1:45 p.m., the 

Council will receive a report from the 

Law Enforcement Committee and take 

action as appropriate. 

From 1:45 p.m. - 2 p.m., the Council 

will review and develop 

recommendations on Experimental 

Permit requests as necessary. 

From 2 p.m. - 3:30 p.m., the Council 

will receive status reports from NOAA 

Fisheries’ Southeast Regional Office, 

NOAA Fisheries’ Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, agency and liaison 

reports, and discuss other business 

including upcoming meetings. 

Documents regarding these issues are 

available from the Council office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this Council for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subjects of formal 

final Council action during this meeting. 

Council action will be restricted to those 

issues specifically listed in this notice 

and any issues arising after publication 

of this notice that require emergency 

action under section 305 (c) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the 

public has been notified of the Council’s 

intent to take final action to address the 

emergency. 

Except for advertised (scheduled) 

public hearings and public comment, 

the times and sequence specified on this 

agenda are subject to change. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to the Council office 

(see ADDRESSES) by February 26, 2010. 

Dated: February 12, 2010. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3112 Filed 2–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–844] 

Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge from Taiwan: 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 Taiwan are being, or are 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value (LTFV), as provided 

in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). The 

estimated dumping margins are listed in 

the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section 

of this notice. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on this preliminary 

determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hector Rodriguez or Holly Phelps, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0629 and (202) 

482–0656, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Since the initiation of this 

investigation (see Narrow Woven 

Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 7237 

1The petitioner in this investigation is Berwick 

Offray LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary Lion 

Ribbon Company, Inc. 

People’s Republic of China and Taiwan: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 74 FR 39291 (Aug. 6, 

2009) (Initiation Notice)), the following 

events have occurred. 

On August 18, 2009, we received 

comments on the scope of the 

investigation from various importers of 

subject merchandise. Specifically, we 

received requests that the Department 

clarify the existing scope language to 

explicitly exclude formed rosettes and 

narrow woven ribbons affixed to non– 

subject merchandise for a functional 

purpose, both of which are covered by 

one of the scope exclusions. We also 

received two requests that the 

Department modify the existing scope to 

exclude two products that include 

merchandise which falls within the 

scope (i.e., de minimis amounts of 

narrow woven ribbons included within 

a kit or set and pre–cut, hand–finished 

narrow woven ribbons for retail 

packaging in lengths of 72 inches or 

less). For further discussion, see the 

‘‘Scope Comments’’ section of this 

notice, below. 

On August 24, 2009, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of 

narrow woven ribbons from Taiwan are 

materially injuring the U.S. industry, 

and on August 31, 2009, the ITC 

notified the Department of its findings. 

See Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge from China and Taiwan; 

Determinations, Investigation Nos. 701 

TA 467 and 731 TA 1164–1165 

(Preliminary), 74 FR 46224 (Sept. 8, 

2009). 

Also on August 31, 2009, we selected 

the following companies as the 

mandatory respondents in this 

investigation and issued antidumping 

duty questionnaires to them: Dear Year 

Brothers Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Dear Year), 

Roung Shu Industry Corporation (Roung 

Shu), and Shienq Huong Enterprise Co., 

Ltd. (Shienq Huong). See Memorandum 

from James Maeder, Office Director, to 

John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary, entitled, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven 

Selvedge from Taiwan: Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Review,’’ 

dated August 31, 2009 (Respondent 

Selection Memo). In the Respondent 

Selection Memo, we indicated that the 

Department intended to solicit 

information to determine if it is 

appropriate to ‘‘collapse’’ Shienq Huong 

with two affiliated exporters of subject 

merchandise, Hsien Chan Enterprise 

Co., Ltd. (Hsien Chan) and Novelty 

Handicrafts Co., Ltd. (Novelty), such 

that these three companies would be 

treated as a single entity. 

In September 2009, we issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Shienq 

Huong regarding the nature of its 

relationship with its affiliates, as well as 

the affiliates’ involvement in the 

production and sale of narrow woven 

ribbons during the period of 

investigation (POI). Also in this month, 

each of the respondents notified the 

Department that it did not have a viable 

home market during the POI, and each 

provided information on its largest third 

country comparison markets. On 

September 21, the petitioner1 submitted 

comments regarding third country 

market selection with respect to Shienq 

Houng. On September 29 and 30, 2009, 

respectively, we issued supplemental 

questions to Shienq Houng and Roung 

Shu regarding their third country 

markets. 

In September and October 2009, we 

received responses to section A of the 

antidumping duty questionnaire (i.e., 

the section covering general information 

about the company) from each of the 

respondents, and we issued them 

supplemental section A questionnaires. 

In these months, we also requested 

additional information from each 

respondent regarding its selling 

practices. We received the responses to 

the supplemental questionnaires 

covering section A and the 

questionnaires regarding each 

respondents’ selling practices in 

September and October 2009. 

In October 2009, we received Shienq 

Huong’s response to the September 

supplemental questionnaire on 

affiliation. We issued an additional 

supplemental questionnaire on this 

topic, and received Shienq Huong’s 

response, in this month. 

Also in October 2009, we received 

responses to the market selection 

supplemental questionnaires from 

Shienq Houng and Roung Shu, as well 

as additional comments from the 

petitioner on this issue. Also in this 

month, we received responses to 

sections B (i.e., the section covering 

comparison market sales) and C (i.e., the 

section covering U.S. sales) of the 

antidumping duty questionnaire from 

each of the respondents. 

On October 30, 2009, the petitioner 

made a timely request pursuant to 

section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.205(e) for a 50–day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the 

Department postponed the preliminary 

determination of this investigation until 

February 4, 2010. 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 (Nov. 19, 

2009). 

In November 2009, we issued 

supplemental questionnaires related to 

sections B and C to each respondent. 

Also in November 2009, the petitioner 

alleged that Dear Year, Roung Shu, and 

Shienq Houng made third country sales 

below the cost of production (COP) and, 

therefore, requested that the Department 

initiate a sales–below-cost investigation 

of these respondents. In December 2009, 

the Department initiated a sales–belowcost investigation for Dear Year, Roung 

Shu, and Shienq Houng. See the 

December 8, 2009, Memoranda to James 

Maeder, Director Office 2, from the 

Team entitled: ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Narrow Woven Ribbons 

with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan: The 

Petitioner’s Allegation of Sales Below 

the Cost of Production for Dear Year 

Brothers Mfg. Co.’’ (Dear Year Cost 

Allegation Memo), ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Narrow Woven Ribbons 

with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan: The 

Petitioner’s Allegation of Sales Below 

the Cost of Production for Roung Shu 

Industry Corporation’’ (Roung Shu Cost 

Allegation Memo), and ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Narrow Woven 

Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from 

Taiwan: The Petitioner’s Allegation of 

Sales Below the Cost of Production for 

Shienq Huong Enterprise Co., Ltd.’’ 

(Shienq Huong Cost Allegation Memo). 

On that same date, we instructed Dear 

Year, Roung Shu, and Shienq Houng to 

respond to section D (i.e., the section 

covering COP and constructed value 

(CV)) of the questionnaire. 

In December 2009, we received 

responses to our sections B and C 

supplemental questionnaires from Dear 

Year, Roung Shu, and Shienq Houng. 

We also issued additional supplemental 

questions to Dear Year and Shienq 

Houng regarding their manufacturing 

processes, as well as their purchases of 

ribbons from unaffiliated suppliers. 

Also in December 2009, we received 

comments from the petitioner 

(including revised scope language) on 

the two scope clarification, as well as 

the two scope exclusion, requests 

submitted in August 2009. For further 

discussion, see the ‘‘Scope Comments’’ 

section below. 

On December 29, 2009 and January 

14, 2010, Roung Shu and Shienq Huong, 

respectively, requested that in the event 

of an affirmative preliminary 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

7238 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 

determination in this investigation, the 

Department: 1) postpone its final 

determination by 60 days in accordance 

with 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.210(b)(2)(ii); and 2) extend the 

application of the provisional measures 

prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) 

from a four–month period to a six– 

month period. For further discussion, 

see the ‘‘Postponement of Final 

Determination and Extension of 

Provisional Measures’’ section of this 

notice, below. 

In January 2010, we determined that 

it is appropriate to ‘‘collapse’’ Shienq 

Huong with its two affiliates, Hsien 

Chan and Novelty. See Memorandum to 

James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations, from the Team 

entitled, ‘‘Whether to Collapse Shieng 

Houng Enterprise Co., Hsien Chan 

Enterprise Co., and Novelty Handicrafts 

Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Narrow Woven Ribbons 

with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan,’’ 

dated January 8, 2010 (Collapsing 

Memo). In addition, we determined that 

Roung Shu and Shienq Huong correctly 

reported sales to Mexico, and Dear Year 

correctly reported sales to Canada, as 

the basis for normal value. See 

Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from the Team entitled, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Narrow Woven 

Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from 

Taiwan - Selection of the Appropriate 

Third Country Markets,’’ dated January 

13, 2010 (Market Selection Memo); see 

also the ‘‘Home Market Viability and 

Selection of Comparison Markets’’ 

section of this notice, below, for further 

discussion. In this month, Shienq 

Huong submitted a letter permitting the 

Department to treat the names of its 

affiliates, Hsien Chan and Novelty, as 

public information for the remainder of 

this proceeding. 

Also in January 2010, we received 

responses to section D of the 

antidumping duty questionnaire from 

each of the respondents. We issued 

supplemental questionnaires regarding 

section D of the questionnaire during 

this month, as well additional 

supplemental questionnaires regarding 

each respondent’s sales. The responses 

to the Department’s additional sales 

supplemental questionnaires for each 

respondent were received in January 

2010. However, because the responses 

to the Department’s section D 

supplemental questionnaires were not 

received before the date of the 

preliminary determination, we are 

unable to consider them in our 

preliminary determination. We will 

consider this information in our final 

determination. 

Also in January 2010, we received 

additional comments from Essential 

Ribbons, Inc., responding to the 

petitioner’s December 2009 scope 

comments, as well as additional 

comments from the petitioner regarding 

the scope of this investigation. For 

further discussion, see the ‘‘Scope 

Comments’’ section below. 

Finally in January 2010, we received 

a request from the petitioner that the 

Department collect cost data from the 

unaffiliated suppliers of narrow woven 

ribbons purchased by each of the 

respondents. For further discussion, see 

the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ 

section of this notice, below. In this 

same month, Shienq Huong responded 

to the petitioner’s request to collect 

additional cost data. 

In February 2010, Dear Year requested 

that in the event of an affirmative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department: 1) 

postpone its final determination by 60 

days in accordance with 735(a)(2)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii); 

and 2) extend the application of the 

provisional measures prescribed under 

19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four–month 

period to a six–month period. For 

further discussion, see the 

‘‘Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures’’ 

section of this notice, below. On the 

same date, Dear Year also responded to 

the petitioner’s January 2010 request to 

collect additional cost data. 

Finally, in February 2010 we issued a 

final supplemental sales questionnaire 

to each of the respondents. In addition, 

we requested cost information from one 

of Dear Year’s and two of Shienq 

Huong’s unaffiliated suppliers of 

purchased ribbon. This information is 

due in March 2010. For further 

discussion, see the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section of this notice, below. 

Period of Investigation 

The POI is July 1, 2008, to June 30, 

2009. This period corresponds to the 

four most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition. 

See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that a final determination may be 

postponed until not later than 135 days 

after the date of the publication of the 

preliminary determination if, in the 

event of an affirmative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by exporters, 

who account for a significant proportion 

of exports of the subject merchandise, or 

in the event of a negative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by the petitioner. 

The Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), require that requests by 

respondents for postponement of a final 

determination be accompanied by a 

request for extension of provisional 

measures from a four–month period to 

not more than six months. 

On December 29, 2009, January 14, 

2010, and February 1, 2010, Roung Shu, 

Shienq Huong, and Dear Year, 

respectively, requested that in the event 

of an affirmative preliminary 

determination in this investigation, the 

Department postpone its final 

determination by 60 days. At the same 

time, Roung Shu, Shienq Huong, and 

Dear Year requested that the Department 

extend the application of the 

provisional measures prescribed under 

section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), from a four–month period 

to a six–month period. In accordance 

with section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.210(b)(2), because (1) our 

preliminary determination is 

affirmative, (2) the requesting exporters 

account for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting this request and 

are postponing the final determination 

until no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 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; 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 7239 

• 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 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

7240 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 

packaging in lengths of 72 inches or 

less. 

On December 22, 2009, and January 

29, 2010, the petitioner submitted 

comments on each of the above scope 

requests. Specifically, the petitioner 

agreed in concept with both requests 

made by the Ribbons Retailers (i.e., 

items one and three, above), although 

the petitioner disagreed with the 

Ribbons Retailers’ request to modify 

exclusion 10. Moreover, while the 

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, the 

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 

the petitioner intended that such ribbon 

fall within the scope. Regarding this 

latter item, the 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, the 

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 

the 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 the 

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 

(Sept., 5 2008); Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Not Less Than 

Fair Value: Pure Magnesium from the 

Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347 (Sept. 

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, the 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 

the 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 the petitioner, for purposes of the 

preliminary determination. We intend 

to work with the Ribbons Retailers and 

the 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), the 

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) the 

petitioner intended that these products 

be covered. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of narrow 

woven ribbons from Taiwan to the 

United States were made at LTFV, we 

compared the export price (EP) to the 

normal value (NV), as described in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice, below. In 

accordance with section 

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 

compared POI weighted–average EPs to 

weighted–average NVs. 

For this preliminary determination, 

we have determined that none of the 

respondents had a viable home market 

during the POI. Therefore, as the basis 

for NV, we used third country sales to 

Canada for Dear Year, and Mexico for 

Roung Shu and Shienq Huong, when 

making comparisons in accordance with 

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. For 

further discussion, see the Market 

Selection Memo. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by the same manufacturer and 

sold by Dear Year in Canada, and Roung 

Shu and Shienq Huong in Mexico, 

during the POI that fit the description in 

the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section of 

this notice to be foreign like products 

for purposes of determining appropriate 

product comparisons to U.S. sales. We 

compared U.S. sales to sales made in the 

third country, where appropriate. Where 

there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the third country made 

in the ordinary course of trade and 

produced by the same manufacturer to 

compare to U.S. sales, we compared 

U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 

foreign like product, or CV. 

In making the product comparisons, 

we matched foreign like products based 

on the physical characteristics reported 

by the respondents in the following 

order of importance: width, type, 

number of ends in the warp, number of 

weft picks, spool capacity, yarn 

composition, metal percentage, selvedge 

construction, dye process, surface 

finish, embellishments, dyed color, 

pattern type, selvedge contour, product 

unit packaging, and treatments. In 

addition, we confined our product 

comparisons to products produced by 

the same manufacturer. See the ‘‘Cost of 

Production Analysis’’ section, below, for 

further discussion. 

In certain instances, the respondents 

reported the physical characteristics at a 

greater level of detail than that 

requested in the questionnaire. Where 

appropriate, we reclassified these 

physical characteristics using the 

categories listed in the questionnaire. 

Finally, Dear Year reported that some 

of its sales were made in either lengths 

of: 1) less than one yard; or 2) feet 

which did not equal whole yards. We 

note that we have required all 

respondents to report the spool 

capacities of their products in whole 

yards and thus have accepted Dear 

Year’s reported spool capacities for 

purposes of the preliminary 

determination. The Department invites 

interested parties to submit comments 

in their case briefs on whether the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 7241 

Department should revise its reporting 

requirements for the spool capacity 

product characteristic. 

Export Price 

We used EP methodology for each 

respondent, in accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act, because the subject 

merchandise was sold to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation by the 

exporter or producer outside the United 

States and constructed export price 

(CEP) methodology was not otherwise 

warranted based on the facts on the 

record. 

A. Dear Year 

We based EP on the packed price to 

an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for handling fees charged to 

the customer, price adjustments tied to 

exchange rates, and relabeling fees. We 

capped relabeling revenue by the 

amount of packing expenses incurred, 

in accordance with our practice. See 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 40167 

(Aug. 11, 2009), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3. 

We made deductions for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, 

where appropriate, foreign inland 

freight and foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses. 

B. Roung Shu 

We based EP on the packed price to 

an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for post–invoice price 

markdowns and rebates (including both 

volume rebates and certain post–sale 

price adjustments classified by Roung 

Shu as discounts). We made deductions 

for movement expenses in accordance 

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; 

these included, where appropriate, 

foreign inland freight and foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses. 

C. Shienq Huong 

We based EP on the packed price to 

an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for billing adjustments. We 

made deductions for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, 

where appropriate, foreign inland 

freight and foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and 

Comparison–Market Selection 

To determine whether there is a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product is equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales), we compared 

each respondent’s volume of home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise. See section 773(a)(1)(C) of 

the Act. 

Based on this comparison, we 

determined that each respondent’s 

aggregate volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product was 

insufficient to permit a proper 

comparison with U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise. We used sales to 

each respondent’s largest third country 

market as the basis for comparison– 

market sales in accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.404, as no other comparison 

market(s) offered grea ter product 

similiarity. As discussed above, we used 

Canada for Dear Year, and Mexico for 

Roung Shu and Shienq Houng. For 

further discussion, see the Market 

Selection Memo. 

B. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (LOT) as the EP. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1), the 

NV LOT is that of the starting–price 

sales in the comparison market or, when 

NV is based on CV, that of the sales 

from which we derive selling, general, 

and administrative (SG&A) expenses 

and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also 

the level of the starting–price sale, 

which is usually from exporter to 

importer. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP sales, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). If the comparison–market 

sales are at a different LOT, and the 

difference affects price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and comparison 

market sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction, we make an LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. 

In this investigation, we obtained 

information from each respondent 

regarding the marketing stages involved 

in making the reported third country 

and U.S. sales, including a description 

of the selling activities performed by 

each respondent for each channel of 

distribution. We analyzed this data and 

found that each respondent made direct 

sales to distributors and/or retailers in 

both the U.S. and comparison markets. 

According to the information in their 

questionnaire responses, these 

respondents perform essentially the 

same selling functions in the United 

States and the relevant third country 

market (i.e., for Dear Year, strategic/ 

economic planning, inventory 

maintenance, provision of guarantees, 

and packing; for Roung Shu, color trend 

advice, provision of rebates, provision 

of warranties and guarantees, provision 

of samples, and packing; and for Shienq 

Huong, inventory maintenance, freight 

and delivery arrangements, and 

packing). Therefore, we find that, for 

each respondent, the sales channels in 

each market are at the same LOT. 

Accordingly, all comparisons are at the 

same LOT for Dear Year, Roung Shu, 

and Shienq Huong and an adjustment 

pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 

Act is not warranted. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

Based on our analysis of the 

petitioner’s allegations, we found that 

there were reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that Dear Year’s, 

Roung Shu’s, and Shienq Huong’s sales 

of narrow woven ribbons in their third 

country markets were made at prices 

below their COP. Accordingly, pursuant 

to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated 

sales–below-cost investigations to 

determine whether the respondents’ 

sales were made at prices below their 

respective COPs. See the Dear Year Cost 

Allegation Memo, the Roung Shu Cost 

Allegation Memo, and the Shieng 

Huong Cost Allegation Memo, for 

further discussion. 

In their sections A and D 

questionnaire responses, the 

respondents reported that they 

subcontracted the production of some or 

all of the narrow woven ribbons 

manufactured during the POI using 

unaffiliated suppliers. Moreover, both 

Dear Year and Shienq Huong also 

reported that they purchased undyed (or 

‘‘greige’’) ribbon from unaffiliated 

companies, which they then further 

processed (e.g., dyed, leveled, and/or 

printed) into the finished products sold 

in the United States and their 

comparison markets. Finally, Dear Year 

reported that it purchased piece–dyed 

narrow woven ribbons from unaffiliated 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

7242 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 

suppliers which it cut into final lengths 

and packed in individual spools before 

sale. In each of these instances, the 

respondents claimed that they were the 

manufacturers of the narrow woven 

ribbons, arguing that the value added 

during their own production operations 

was significant. 

On January 26, 2010, the petitioner 

submitted comments on this topic, in 

which it argued that the unaffiliated 

suppliers of the purchased ribbon are 

the manufacturers and thus should be 

required to submit cost data in this 

proceeding. After analyzing the data on 

the record, we preliminarily determine 

that the company which weaves the 

ribbon is the manufacturer because the 

essential characteristics of the ribbon 

are established at this stage and because 

the foreign exporter/producer that 

further processes the ribbon does not 

control and direct the production of the 

basic ribbon which it then further 

processes. In accordance with our past 

practice, we are collecting cost data 

from certain of these unaffiliated 

suppliers. See, e.g., Ball Bearings and 

Parts Thereof From France, Germany, 

Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Rescission 

of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 52823 (Sept. 

11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 15; 

and SKF USA Inc. v. United States, Ct. 

No. 08–322 (Slip Op. 09–148) (CIT 

2009). However, because we currently 

do not have cost information for the 

unaffiliated weavers, as facts available, 

we are determining COP based on 

acquisition prices for purchased ribbon 

for purposes of the preliminary 

determination. 

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. Here, we lack 

information necessary to determine the 

unaffiliated suppliers’ actual costs and 

must, therefore, rely upon facts 

available. The acquisition prices for 

purchased ribbon constitute reasonable 

facts available because they are 

product–specific and the only data 

available on the record at this time with 

respect to purchased ribbon. 

We plan to examine the issue of 

whether the weaver is the producer 

further at our verifications of Dear Year, 

Roung Shu, and Shienq Huong and we 

will reconsider this issue for the final 

determination, if necessary. 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of the cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus an amount for general and 

administrative expenses (G&A), interest 

expenses, and third country packing 

costs. See ‘‘Test of Third Country Sales 

Prices’’ section below for treatment of 

third country selling expenses. We 

relied on the COP data submitted by the 

respondents except, for Dear Year and 

Roung Shu, we revised the G&A and 

financial expense ratios to exclude 

packing expenses from the cost of sales 

denominator. See the February 4, 2010, 

Memoranda from Heidi Schriefer, 

Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Determination – Dear Year 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,’’ and Kristin 

Case, Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Determination – Roung Shu 

Industry Corporation,’’ for further 

discussion. 

2. Test of Third Country Sales Prices 

On a product–specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weighted– 

average COP to the third country sales 

of the foreign like product, as required 

under section 773(b) of the Act, in order 

to determine whether the sale prices 

were below the COP. The prices were 

exclusive of any applicable billing 

adjustments, discounts, rebates, 

movement charges, and direct and 

indirect selling expenses. In 

determining whether to disregard third 

country market sales made at prices less 

than their COP, we examined, in 

accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) 

and (B) of the Act, whether such sales 

were made (1) within an extended 

period of time in substantial quantities, 

and (2) at prices which permitted the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the POI are at prices less than the 

COP, we do not disregard any below– 

cost sales of that product, because we 

determine that in such instances the 

below–cost sales were not made in 

substantial quantities. Where 20 percent 

or more of the respondent’s sales of a 

given product during the POI are at 

prices less than the COP, we determine 

that the below–cost sales represent 

substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In 

such cases, we also determine whether 

such sales were made at prices which 

would not permit recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of 

the Act. 

We found that, for certain specific 

products, more than 20 percent of Dear 

Year’s, Roung Shu’s, and Shienq 

Huong’s third country sales during the 

POI were at prices less than the COP 

and, in addition, the below–cost sales 

did not provide for the recovery of costs 

within a reasonable period of time. We 

therefore excluded these sales and used 

the remaining sales, if any, as the basis 

for determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where there 

were no sales of any comparable 

product at prices above the COP, we 

used CV as the basis for determining 

NV. 

4. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

a. Dear Year 

For Dear Year, we calculated NV 

based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for discounts. We made 

deductions for movement expenses, 

including foreign inland freight 

expenses and foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses. 

We made adjustments under section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410 for differences in circumstances 

of sale for credit expenses, display unit 

costs, warranty expenses, and bank 

charges. We recalculated Dear Year’s 

U.S. warranty expenses to base them on 

Dear Year’s historical experience. See 

Memorandum from Holly Phelps to the 

file entitled, ‘‘Calculations Performed for 

Dear Year Brothers Mfg. Co., Ltd. for the 

Preliminary Results in the 08–09 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Narrow Woven Ribbon with Woven 

Selvedge from Taiwan,’’ dated February 

4, 2010, for further discussion. 

Regarding display unit costs, Dear 

Year reported that it sold certain narrow 

woven ribbons in combinations in 

displays with other products. However, 

it did not report the cost of the display 

units for all products sold in this 

fashion in its U.S. sales listing. 

Therefore, we have based the cost of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 7243 

these displays on the average cost of 

display units reported in the U.S. sales 

listing, as facts available. We have 

afforded Dear Year an opportunity to 

provide the missing data, and we will 

consider this information for purposes 

of the final determination. 

We made no adjustment to NV for 

testing fees incurred by Dear Year 

because we determined that these 

expenses were more appropriately 

classified as indirect selling expenses, 

in accordance with the Department’s 

practice. See, e.g., Honey from 

Argentina: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Determination to Revoke 

Order in Part, 74 FR 32107 (July 7, 

2009), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

We made adjustments for differences 

in costs attributable to differences in the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.411. We also deducted third 

country packing costs and added U.S. 

packing costs in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

b. Roung Shu 

For Roung Shu, we calculated NV 

based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for post–invoice price 

markdowns and rebates (including both 

volume rebates and certain post–sale 

price adjustments classified by Roung 

Shu as discounts). We made no 

adjustment to NV for the cost of 

contributions made by Roung Shu 

toward the opening on new retail outlets 

by one of the company’s customers, 

because we determined that these 

expenses were more appropriately 

classified as indirect selling expenses. 

We made deductions for movement 

expenses, including foreign inland 

freight expenses, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, international freight 

expenses, and marine insurance. In 

addition, we made adjustments under 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 

circumstances of sale for credit 

expenses, the cost of display units, 

advertising expenses, U.S. warranty 

expenses, and bank charges. We 

recalculated Roung Shu’s third country 

and U.S. credit expenses to use the 

simple average of the POI U.S. Federal 

Reserve interest rates, as well as to base 

the expense on gross unit price. See 

Memorandum from Miriam Eqab to the 

file entitled, ‘‘Calculations Performed for 

Roung Shu Industry Corporation (Roung 

Shu) for the Preliminary Results in the 

08–09 Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Narrow Woven Ribbon with Woven 

Selvedge from Taiwan,’’ dated February 

4, 2010, for further discussion. In 

addition, we denied Roung Shu’s claim 

for third country warranty expenses 

because the company’s response 

contained conflicting information 

related to this adjustment, and thus we 

preliminarily found that it was not 

adequately supported. Nonetheless, we 

intend to request additional information 

from Roung Shu related to its third 

country warranties and will consider 

this information for purposes of the 

final determination. 

We made adjustments for differences 

in costs attributable to differences in the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.411. We also deducted third 

country packing costs and added U.S. 

packing costs in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

c. Shienq Huong 

For Shienq Huong, we calculated NV 

based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers. We made deductions for 

movement expenses, including foreign 

inland freight expenses and foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses. In 

addition, we made adjustments under 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 

circumstances of sale for credit 

expenses, the cost of display units, U.S. 

warranty expenses, and bank charges. 

We recalculated Shienq Huong’s third 

country and U.S. credit expenses for 

sales denominated in U.S. dollars to use 

the simple average of the POI U.S. 

Federal Reserve interest rates. We also 

recalculated Shienq Huong’s U.S. 

warranty expenses to base them on 

Shienq Huong’s historical experience. 

See Memorandum from Hector 

Rodriguez to the file entitled, 

‘‘Calculations Performed for Shienq 

Huong Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Shieng 

Huong) for the Preliminary 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Narrow Woven Ribbons 

with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan,’’ 

dated February 4, 2010, for further 

discussion. 

We made adjustments for differences 

in costs attributable to differences in the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.411. We also deducted third 

country packing costs and added U.S. 

packing costs in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

5. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides 

that, where NV cannot be based on 

comparison market sales, NV may be 

based on CV. Accordingly, for those 

narrow woven ribbons for which we 

could not determine the NV based on 

comparison market sales, we based NV 

on CV. 

Section 773(e) of the Act provides that 

CV shall be based on the sum of the cost 

of materials and fabrication for the 

imported merchandise, plus amounts 

for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. 

packing costs. For each respondent, we 

calculated the cost of materials and 

fabrication based on the methodology 

described in the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section, above. We based 

SG&A and profit for each respondent on 

the actual amounts incurred and 

realized by it in connection with the 

production and sale of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade 

for consumption in the comparison 

market, in accordance with section 

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. 

We made adjustments to CV for 

differences in circumstances of sale in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(iii) 

and (a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410. For comparisons to EP, we 

made circumstance–of-sale adjustments 

by deducting direct selling expenses 

incurred on comparison market sales 

from, and adding U.S. direct selling 

expenses to, CV. See 19 CFR 351.410(c). 

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 

relied upon in making our final 

determination. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of narrow 

woven ribbons from Taiwan that are 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will also instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted–average 

dumping margins, as indicated in the 

chart below. These instructions 

suspending liquidation will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

The weighted–average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

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