Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 55039 

Comment 6: Unreported Cash Discounts 

for a U.S. Sale 

Comment 7: Treatment of U.S. Sample 

Sales 

Comment 8: Whether to Adjust Normal 

Value for Customs Clearance Fees 

Incurred on Home Market Sales 

Comment 9: Whether to Adjust Normal 

Value for Export Credit Insurance 

Incurred on Home Market Sales 

Comment 10: Whether to Include the 

Surrogate Cost for a Domestic Product 

Sold but Not Produced During the POI 

Comment 11: Corrections to Flex UAE’s 

Reported Cost of Production 

Comment 12: Targeted Dumping 

[FR Doc. E8–22453 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–924] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 24, 2008. 

SUMMARY: On May 5, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, 

and strip (‘‘PET Film’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

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

January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007. 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. Based 

on our analysis of the comments we 

received, we have made changes to our 

calculation for the mandatory 

respondent. The final dumping margins 

for this investigation are listed in the 

‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Begnal or Toni Dach, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1442 or (202) 482– 

1655, respectively. 

FINAL DETERMINATION 

We determine that PET Film from the 

PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in 

the United States at LTFV as provided 

in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section of this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on 

May 5, 2008. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552 (May 

5, 2008) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

On May 2, 2008, DuPont Teijin Films 

China Limited (‘‘DTFC’’), the sole active 

mandatory respondent, along with its 

affiliates DuPont Teijin Hongji Films 

Ningbo Co., Ltd. (‘‘DTHFN’’) and 

DuPont–Hongji Films Foshan Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘DPHJ’’), (collectively the DuPont 

Group), requested a 60-day extension of 

the final determination. On June 2, 

2008, the Department published the 

postponement of the final 

determination. See Postponement of 

Final Determinations of Antidumping 

Duty Investigations: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from the People’s Republic of China, 

Brazil, and Thailand, 73 FR 31964 (June 

5, 2008). 

Between June 5, 2008, and June 20, 

2008, the Department conducted 

verifications of DTFC and DPHJ, and 

their U.S. affiliate, DuPont Teijin Films 

U.S. Limited Partnership (‘‘DTFUS’’). 

See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. Upon the July 

28, 2008, release of the verification 

reports for DPHJ, DTFUS, and DTFC, 

parties were allotted seven days to 

comment on the Preliminary 

Determination. On August 5, 2008, the 

DuPont Group filed a case brief. No 

other interested parties submitted case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the DuPont 

Group’s case brief are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Determination of Sales at Less 

than Fair Value: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated September 17, 2008 (‘‘I&D 

Memo’’), which is hereby adopted by 

this notice. A list of the issues which 

the DuPont Group raised and to which 

we respond in the I&D Memo is attached 

to this notice as an appendix. The I&D 

Memo is a public document and is on 

file in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce Building, 

Room 1117, and is accessible on the 

world wide web at http:// 

www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of information 

on the record of this investigation, and 

comments received from the interested 

parties, we have made changes to the 

margin calculations for the DuPont 

Group. We have revalued some of the 

surrogate values used in the Preliminary 

Determination. The values that were 

modified for this final determination are 

those for surrogate financial ratios and 

PET chips. For further details see I&D 

Memo at Comments 1 and 3, and 

Memorandum to the File from Erin 

Begnal, through Scot T. Fullerton, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9; 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Surrogate Values for the Final 

Determination, dated September 17, 

2008 (‘‘Final Surrogate Value Memo’’). 

In addition, we have made some 

company–specific changes since the 

Preliminary Determination. Specifically, 

we have incorporated, where applicable, 

post–preliminary clarifications based on 

verification for DTFC. For further details 

on these company–specific changes, see 

Memorandum to the File, through Scot 

T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal, 

Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 

‘‘Program Analysis for the Final 

Determination of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated September 17, 2008 (‘‘DTFC 

Analysis Memorandum’’). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are all gauges of raw, pre– 

treated, or primed PET Film, whether 

extruded or co–extruded. Excluded are 

metallized films and other finished 

films that have had at least one of their 

surfaces modified by the application of 

a performance–enhancing resinous or 

inorganic layer more than 0.00001 

inches thick. Also excluded is Roller 

transport cleaning film which has at 

least one of its surfaces modified by 

application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR 

latex. Tracing and drafting film is also 

excluded. PET Film is classifiable under 

subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55040 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 

1See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). 

convenience and Customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Affiliations 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department preliminarily found, based 

on the evidence on the record in this 

investigation and based on the evidence 

presented in the questionnaire 

responses, that DTFC, DPHJ, and 

DTHFN, are affiliated parties within the 

meaning of section 771(33)(E) of the 

Act, due to common ownership. See 

Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

24555. No other information has been 

placed on the record since the 

Preliminary Determination to contradict 

the information upon which we based 

our finding that these companies are 

affiliated. Therefore, for the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

DTFC, DPHJ, and DTHFN are affiliated 

parties pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of 

the Act, based on common ownership. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by the DuPont Group for use 

in our final determination. See 

Memorandum to the File, through Scot 

T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal, 

Senior International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

and Toni Dach, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, regarding, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of 

DuPont–Hongji Films Foshan Co., Ltd. 

in the Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated July 28, 2008; 

Memorandum to the File, through Scot 

T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal, 

Senior International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

and Toni Dach, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, regarding, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of 

DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated July 28, 2008; and 

Memorandum to the File, through Scot 

T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal, 

Senior International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

and Toni Dach, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, regarding, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of 

DuPont Teijin Films U.S. Limited 

Partnership in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated July 28, 2008. For all verified 

companies, we used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by 

respondents. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) it is at a similar level of 

economic development pursuant to 

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

significant producer of identical 

merchandise; (3) and we have reliable 

data from India that we can use to value 

the factors of production. See 

Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

24554–24555. For the final 

determination, we received no 

comments and, therefore, made no 

changes to our findings with respect to 

the selection of a surrogate country. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s practice to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate (‘‘SR’’). See, e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 

1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

From the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon 

Carbide’’), and Section 351.107(d) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that because there is no PRC 

ownership of DTFC and Fuwei Films 

(Shandong) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fuwei Films’’), 

i.e., they are wholly foreign–owned, a 

separate rates analysis was not 

necessary to determine whether these 

companies were independent from 

government control, and we 

preliminarily granted them a separate 

rate. See Preliminary Determination, 73 

FR at 24556. For Shaoxing Xiangyu 

Green Packing Co., Ltd., Tianjin 

Wanhua Co., Ltd., Sichuan Dongfang 

Insulating Material Co., Ltd., and 

Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd. (collectively, 

‘‘SR Applicants’’) we found that each 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate–rate status. Id. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by the SR Applicants 

demonstrate both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control, with 

respect to their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, and, 

thus they are eligible for separate rate 

status. We also continue to find, based 

on evidence placed on the record by 

DTFC and Fuwei Films, that DTFC and 

Fuwei Films are eligible for separate 

rate status. 

For the final determination, we have 

established a margin for the SR 

Applicants based on the rate we 

calculated for the cooperating 

mandatory respondent, DTFC.1

The PRC–Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that Jiangyin 

Jinzhongda New Material Co., Ltd. (‘‘JJ 

New Material’’), which was selected as 

a mandatory respondent, did not 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire and informed the 

Department that it would not participate 

in the investigation. In the Preliminary 

Determination we treated JJ New 

Material as part of the PRC–wide entity 

because it did not demonstrate that it 

operates free of government control over 

its export activities. See Preliminary 

Determination, 73 FR at 24557. No 

additional information has been placed 

on the record with respect to JJ New 

Material after the Preliminary 

Determination. The PRC–wide entity, 

which includes JJ New Material, has not 

provided the Department with the 

requested information; therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A),(B) and 

(C) of the Act, the Department continues 

to find that the use of facts available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC–wide 

rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 55041 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold– 

Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel 

Products from the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). 

See also Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103– 

316, vol. 1 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’) at 870. We 

determined that, because the PRC–wide 

entity did not respond to our requests 

for information and stated that it would 

not participate in the investigation, it 

has failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability. Therefore, the Department finds 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the PRC– 

wide entity. 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

a NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate - the 

PRC–wide rate - to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. Such 

companies did not demonstrate 

entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Synthetic Indigo from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 

2000). The PRC–wide rate applies to all 

entries of subject merchandise except 

for entries from the respondents which 

are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below. 

Corroboration 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department assigned to the PRC–wide 

entity a rate of 76.72 percent, the 

highest calculated rate from the petition. 

See Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

24557. Section 776(c) of the Act 

provides that, when the Department 

relies on secondary information in using 

the facts otherwise available, it must, to 

the extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. We 

have interpreted ‘‘corroborate’’ to mean 

that we will, to the extent practicable, 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information submitted. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled 

Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel 

Products From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5568 

(February 4, 2000). See also Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, 

and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, from Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Partial Termination of Administrative 

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 

6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, From Japan, and 

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 

Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, From Japan: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and 

Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

To corroborate the petition margin for 

use as adverse facts available for the 

PRC–wide entity, to the extent 

appropriate information was available, 

we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy 

of the information in the petition during 

our pre–initiation analysis. See 

Initiation Checklist. We examined 

evidence supporting the calculation in 

the petition to determine the probative 

value of the margin alleged in the 

petition for use as PRC–wide rate. 

During our pre–initiation analysis, we 

examined the key elements of the 

export–price and normal–value 

calculations used in the petition to 

derive the margin. Also, during our pre– 

initiation analysis, we examined 

information from various independent 

sources provided either in the petition 

or, based on our requests, in 

supplements to the petition, that 

corroborates key elements of the export– 

price and normal–value calculations 

used in the petition to derive the 

estimated margin. See 19 CFR 

351.308(d). 

We received no comments as to the 

relevance or probative value of this 

information. Therefore, the Department 

finds that the rate derived from the 

petition for purposes of initiation is 

reliable for the purpose of being selected 

as the adverse facts available rates 

assigned to the PRC–wide entity 

(including JJ New Material). Similar to 

our position in Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Light–Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the 

Republic of Korea, 73 FR 5794 (January 

31, 2008 ), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Light–Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube from the Republic of 

Korea, 73 FR 35655 (June 24, 2008), 72 

FR 1982 (January 17, 2007), because this 

is the first proceeding involving the 

PRC–wide entity (including JJ New 

Material) in this particular case, to 

which we are applying AFA, there are 

no probative alternatives. 

Further, no information has been 

presented in the investigation that calls 

into question the relevance of this 

information. As such, we determine the 

highest margin in the petition, which 

we determined during our pre–initiation 

analysis was based on adequate and 

accurate information, and which we 

have corroborated for purposes of this 

final determination, is relevant as the 

adverse facts–available rate for the PRC– 

wide entity (including JJ New Material). 

Accordingly, by using information that 

was corroborated in the pre–initiation 

stage of this investigation and 

determined to be relevant to the PRC– 

wide entity (including JJ New Material) 

in this investigation, we have 

corroborated the adverse facts–available 

rate ‘‘to the extent practicable.’’ 

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted–average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

PET FILM FROM THE PRC 

Exporter Producer Weighted–Average 

Margin 

DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd. ................................................................ DuPont Hongji Films Foshan Co. Ltd. 3.49 % 

DuPont Teijin Films China Ltd. ................................................................ DuPont Teijin Hongji Films Ningbo Co., Ltd. 3.49 % 

Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. ........................................................... Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. 3.49 % 

Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd. ............................................ Shaoxing Xiangyu Green Packing Co., Ltd. 3.49 % 

Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd. ...................................... Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd. 3.49 % 

Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. ......................................................................... Tianjin Wanhua Co., Ltd. 3.49 % 

Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd. ...................................................................... Sichuan Dongfang Insulating Material Co., Ltd. 3.49 % 

Shanghai Uchem Co., Ltd. ...................................................................... Shanghai Xishu Electric Material Co., Ltd. 3.49 % 

PRC–wide (including Jiangyin Jinzhongda New Material Co., Ltd.) ....... .............................................................................. 76.72% 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55042 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

We will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue 

the suspension of liquidation required 

by section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, of all 

entries of subject merchandise from 

DTFC, the SR Applicants, and the PRC– 

wide entity entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

May 5, 2008, the date of publication of 

the Preliminary Determination. CBP 

shall continue to require a cash deposit 

or the posting of a bond equal to the 

estimated amount by which the normal 

value exceeds the U.S. price as shown 

above. See section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the 

Act. The suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the 

ITC will determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. See section 

735(c)(2) of the Act. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

See id.; section 736 of the Act. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the 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. Timely 

notification of 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. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES: 

Comment 1: Surrogate Value for PET 

Chips 

Comment 2: Surrogate Value for Paper 

Cores 

Comment 3: Revisions to Financial 

Ratio Calculations 

[FR Doc. E8–22454 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Export Trade Certificate of Review 

ACTION: Notice of Application To 

Amend an Export Trade Certificate of 

Review Issued to U.S. Shippers 

Association. 

SUMMARY: Export Trading Company 

Affairs (‘‘ETCA’’), International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, has received an application 

to amend an Export Trade Certificate of 

Review (‘‘Certificate’’). This notice 

summarizes the proposed amendment 

and requests comments relevant to 

whether the Certificate should be 

issued. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export 

Trading Company Affairs, International 

Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131 

(this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail 

at oetca@ita.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of 

the Export Trading Company Act of 

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the 

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export 

Trade Certificates of Review. An Export 

Trade Certificate of Review protects the 

holder and the members identified in 

the Certificate from state and federal 

government antitrust actions and from 

private treble damage antitrust actions 

for the export conduct specified in the 

Certificate and carried out in 

compliance with its terms and 

conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the 

Export Trading Company Act of 1982 

and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the 

Secretary to publish a notice in the 

Federal Register identifying the 

applicant and summarizing its proposed 

export conduct. 

Request for Public Comments 

Interested parties may submit written 

comments relevant to the determination 

whether an amended Certificate should 

be issued. If the comments include any 

privileged or confidential business 

information, it must be clearly marked 

and a non-confidential version of the 

comments (identified as such) should be 

included. Any comments not marked as 

privileged or confidential business 

information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five (5) 

copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be 

submitted no later than 20 days after the 

date of this notice to: Export Trading 

Company Affairs, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 7021–B H, 

Washington, DC 20230. Information 

submitted by any person is exempt from 

disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). 

However, non-confidential versions of 

the comments will be made available to 

the applicant if necessary for 

determining whether or not to issue the 

Certificate. Comments should refer to 

this application as ‘‘Export Trade 

Certificate of Review, application 

number 85–15A18.’’ 

A summary of the application for an 

amendment follows. 

Summary of the Application 

Applicant: U.S. Shippers Association 

(‘‘USSA’’), 3715 East Valley Drive, 

Missouri City, Texas 77459. 

Contact: John S. Chinn, Project 

Director to USSA, Telephone: (734) 

927–4328. 

Application No.: 85–15A18. 

Date Deemed Submitted: September 

17, 2008. 

The original USSA Certificate was 

issued on June 3, 1986 (51 FR 20873, 

June 9, 1986) and last amended on 

January 16, 2008 (73 FR 3944, January 

23, 2008). 

Proposed Amendment: USSA seeks to 

amend its Certificate to: 

1. Add each of the following 

companies as a new ‘‘Member’’ of the 

Certificate within the meaning of 

section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 

CFR 325.2(1)): Guardian Industries 

Corp., Auburn Hills, Michigan; 

Alpharma Inc., Bridgewater, New Jersey; 

LyondellBasell Industries A.F.S.C.A., 

Rotterdam, The Netherlands; and Dawn 

K. Peterson, Katy, Texas; 

2. Delete the following companies as 

‘‘Members’’ of the Certificate: Arch 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES