1982 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–549–821 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce published the 

preliminary results of the 2004/2005 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags from 

Thailand. We gave interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

preliminary results. Based on our 

analysis of the comments received and 

an examination of our calculations, we 

have made certain changes for the final 

results. The final weighted–average 

dumping margins for the respondents 

are listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of 

the Review’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Schauer at (202) 482–0410 or 

Richard Rimlinger at (202) 482–4477, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 11, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

53405 (September 11, 2006) 

(Preliminary Results) in the Federal 

Register. The period of review is 

January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005. 

We invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. On October 11, 

2006, we received case briefs from the 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag 

Committee and its individual members, 

Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag 

Corporation (collectively, the 

petitioners) and respondents CP 

Packaging Co., Ltd. (CP), King Pac 

Industrial Co., Ltd., Dpac Industrial Co., 

Ltd., Zippac Co., Ltd., and King Bag Co., 

Ltd. (collectively, King Pac), Sahachit 

Watana Plastic Ind. Co., Ltd. (Sahachit), 

and Universal Polybag Co., Ltd., Alpine 

Plastics, Inc., Advance Polybag Inc., and 

API Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, UPC/ 

API). On October 19, 2006, the 

petitioners, CP, King Pac, and UPC/API 

filed rebuttal briefs. At the request of 

certain parties, we held a hearing on 

October 25, 2006. 

We have conducted this review in 

accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of Order 

The merchandise subject to this 

antidumping duty order is polyethylene 

retail carrier bags (PRCBs) which may be 

referred to as t–shirt sacks, merchandise 

bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. 

The subject merchandise is defined as 

non–sealable sacks and bags with 

handles (including drawstrings), 

without zippers or integral extruded 

closures, with or without gussets, with 

or without printing, of polyethylene 

film having a thickness no greater than 

0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 

0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no 

length or width shorter than 6 inches 

(15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches 

(101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be 

shorter than 6 inches but not longer 

than 40 inches (101.6 cm). 

PRCBs are typically provided without 

any consumer packaging and free of 

charge by retail establishments, e.g., 

grocery, drug, convenience, department, 

specialty retail, discount stores, and 

restaurants, to their customers to 

package and carry their purchased 

products. The scope of the order 

excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are 

not printed with logos or store names 

and that are closeable with drawstrings 

made of polyethylene film and (2) 

polyethylene bags that are packed in 

consumer packaging with printing that 

refers to specific end–uses other than 

packaging and carrying merchandise 

from retail establishments, e.g., garbage 

bags, lawn bags, trash–can liners. 

Imports of the subject merchandise 

are currently classifiable under 

statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). This 

subheading also covers products that are 

outside the scope of the order. 

Furthermore, although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of this order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this review 

are addressed in the January 9, 2007, 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Thailand for the period of 

review January 26, 2004, through July 

31, 2005 (Decision Memorandum), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

Attached to this notice as an appendix 

is a list of the issues which parties have 

raised and to which we have responded 

in the Decision Memorandum. Parties 

can find a complete discussion of all 

issues raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Department’s Central Records Unit, 

Room B–099 of the main Department 

building (CRU). In addition, a complete 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

can be accessed directly on the Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since The Preliminary Results 

With respect to CP, in the Preliminary 

Results, we used, as adverse facts 

available for CP’s inland–freight 

expense incurred on its U.S. sales, the 

highest expense which CP reported. For 

these final results of review, we used a 

simple average of the three highest per–

kilogram freight expenses reported by 

other respondents in this review. 

With respect to UPC/API, in the 

Preliminary Results, we adjusted the 

market prices of UPC’s direct purchases 

from unaffiliated suppliers by UPC’s 

affiliates’ selling, general, and 

administrative expenses and then 

compared the transfer price UPC paid to 

its affiliated suppliers to these adjusted 

market prices. For these final results of 

review, we compared the transfer price 

UPC paid to its affiliated suppliers to 

the unadjusted market price of UPC’s 

direct purchases from unaffiliated 

suppliers. We then valued the inputs 

UPC received from its affiliated reseller 

at the higher of market price or transfer 

price. In doing this, we corrected a 

ministerial error we made in the 

Preliminary Results by ensuring that the 

total value of HDPE resin is included in 

the numerator to derive the cost–ofmanufacturing (COM) adjustment factor. 

Further, in the Preliminary Results, 

we added additional costs to COM in 

error when disallowing UPC/API’s 

claimed shutdown adjustment. For 

these final results of review, although 

we have not changed our position 

regarding UPC/API’s claimed shutdown 

adjustment, we corrected the error by 

not adding back additional shutdown 

cost fields to COM. See Comment 5 of 

the Decision Memorandum concerning 

allegations of other ministerial errors. 

Cost of Production 

Pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and 

(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 

percent of sales of a given product were 

at prices less than the cost of production 

(COP), we did not disregard any below–

cost sales of that product because we 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Notices 1983 

determined that the below–cost sales 

were not made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of a respondent’s sales of a given 

product during the period of review 

were at prices less than the COP, we 

determined such sales to have been 

made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ See 

sections 773(b)(1) and (b)(2)(C) of the 

Act. The sales were made within an 

extended period of time, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, 

because we examined below–cost sales 

occurring during the entire period of 

review. We compared the prices of 

below–cost sales to the weighted–

average per–unit COP for the period of 

review to determine whether such sales 

were not made at prices which would 

permit recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 

We found that, for certain products, 

more than 20 percent of the 

comparison–market sales were at prices 

less than the COP and, thus, the below–

cost sales were made within an 

extended period of time in substantial 

quantities by the following respondents: 

CP, UPC/API, Thai Plastic Bags 

Industries Company Ltd. and APEC 

Film Ltd. (collectively, TPBG), Apple 

Film Co., Ltd. (Apple), and Naraipak 

Co., Ltd., and Narai Packaging 

(Thailand) Ltd. (collectively, Naraipak). 

In addition, these sales were made at 

prices that did not provide for the 

recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. Therefore, we excluded 

these sales and used the remaining 

sales, if any, as the basis for determining 

normal value in accordance with section 

773(b)(1) of the Act. 

Final Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that the following percentage 

weighted–average dumping margins 

exist on polyethylene retail carrier bags 

from Thailand for the period January 26, 

2004, through July 31, 2005: 

Company Margin (percent) 

UPC/API ....................... 11.75 

TPBG ............................ 1.41 

Apple ............................. 16.43 

CP Packaging ............... 6.10 

King Pac ....................... 122.88 

Naraipak ....................... 1.69 

Sahachit ........................ 6.34 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department 

calculated importer–specific duty 

assessment rates on the basis of the ratio 

of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of the 

examined sales for that importer. Where 

the assessment rate is above de minimis, 

we will instruct CBP to assess duties on 

all entries of subject merchandise by 

that importer. The Department intends 

to issue assessment instructions to CBP 

15 days after the date of publication of 

these final results of review. The 

Department clarified its ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. 

See Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Proceedings: Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 

6, 2003) (Assessment–Policy Notice). 

This clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise it sold 

to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–

others rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment–Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

a. Export Price 

With respect to export–price sales, we 

divided the total dumping margins 

(calculated as the difference between 

normal value and the 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 on each of that 

importer’s or customer’s entries during 

the review period. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

b. Constructed Export Price 

For constructed export–price sales, 

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 entries during the review 

period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of 

this notice of final results of 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication, consistent with section 

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash–deposit 

rates for the reviewed companies will be 

the rates shown above; (2) for previously 

investigated companies not listed above, 

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 

review or the original less–than-fair–

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; (4) the cash–deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be 2.80 

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate from the 

amended final determination of the 

LTFV investigation published on July 

15, 2004. See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags From Thailand, 69 FR 42419 (July 

15, 2004). 

These deposit requirements shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

importers of their responsibility under 

19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

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. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

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 the terms of an APO is 

a sanctionable violation.We are issuing 

and publishing these results in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: January 9, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

Comments and Responses 

1. CP - Direct–Material Costs 

2. CP - Inland–Freight Expenses 

3. UPC/API - Cost Issues 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

1984 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 17, 2007 / Notices 

A. Quarterly Costs vs. Period Costs 

B. Shutdown Costs 

C. Major–Input Purchases 

4. UPC/API - Contract Sales 

5. UPC/API - Offsetting of Negative 

Margins 

6. UPC/API - Ministerial Errors 

7. King Pac - Adverse Facts Available 

8. King Pac - Application of 

Provisional–Measures Cap 

9. Sahachit - G&A Calculation 

[FR Doc. E7–552 Filed 1–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Atlantic Sea 

Scallops Amendment 10 Data 

Collection 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before March 19, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Ryan Silva, 978–281–9326 or 

Ryan.Silva@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) Northeast Region manages the 

Atlantic sea scallop (scallop) fishery of 

the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off 

the East Coast under the Atlantic Sea 

Scallop Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP). The regulations implementing 

the FMP are at 50 CFR part 648. This 

collection, Amendment 10, was merged 

with Framework Adjustments 14, 15, 

16, 17 and 18 of the FMP. 

Amendment 10 included new access 

area broken trip notification 

requirements and access area trip 

exchange procedures for limited access 

vessels participating in the Area Access 

Program. 

Framework Adjustments 14 and 15 

required occasional scallop vessels that 

participate in the Area Access Program 

to install a vessel monitoring system 

(VMS) unit. 

Framework Adjustment 16 required 

the installation of VMS units on general 

category scallop vessels participating in 

the Area Access Program. These vessels 

are required to declare an access area 

trip prior to departure and to report 

daily catch information while on an 

access area trip. 

Framework Adjustment 17 extended 

the VMS reporting requirements to 

include the general category vessels that 

possess or land more than 40 lbs. of 

scallop meats. The VMS is required to 

be fully automatic and operational at all 

times, unless exempted under the 

power-down exemption. These vessels 

are required to declare a trip prior to 

departure and to report daily catch 

information while on an access area 

trip. 

Framework Adjustment 18 required 

vessels taking broken trip compensation 

trips to enter a unique trip identification 

code into their VMS units prior to 

departure. 

II. Method of Collection 

VMS transmissions, paper 

applications, telephone calls and/or 

E-mail are required from participants. 

Facsimile transmission of paper forms, 

mail, E-mail, and/or express mail are the 

methods of information submittal. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0648–0491. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

1,296. 

Estimated Total Responses: 235,998. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 2 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Hours: 7,837. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $1,242,440. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: January 11, 2007. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–488 Filed 1–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’), as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and/or 

continuing collections of information in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program 

helps to ensure that requested data can 

be provided in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized, collection 

instruments are clearly understood, and 

the impact of collection requirement on 

respondents can be properly assessed. 

Currently, the Corporation is 

soliciting comments concerning its 

proposed renewal of its Senior Corps 

Project Progress Report (PPR)—reference 

OMB Control Number 3045–0033, with 

an expiration date of August 31, 2007. 

In conjunction with the PPR renewal, 

the Corporation proposes to make 

several modifications: 

• Streamline the ‘‘Data Demographic’’

section of the collection instrument to 

reduce frequency and eliminate 

redundancy; and 

• Modify the PPR datasheet frequency 

schedule from biennial to annual. 

Copies of the information collection 

requests can be obtained by contacting 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES