Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Notices 53953 

1We stated that the review covers the following 

companies: C.P. Packaging Co., Ltd., Giant Pack Co., 

Ltd., Landblue (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Landblue), 

Sahachit Watana Plastics Ind. Co., Ltd., Thai Plastic 

Bags Industries Co., Ltd. (TPBI), and Thantawan 

Industry Public Co., Ltd. Id., 74 FR at 48226. The 

Department has determined previously that TPBI, 

APEC Film Ltd., and Winner’s Pack Co., Ltd., 

comprise the Thai Plastic Bags Group. See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Thailand, 69 FR 34122, 34123 (June 18, 2004). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XX66 

The National Saltwater Angler Registry 

Program; Designation of Exempted 

States for Anglers, Spear Fishers, and 

For-Hire Fishing Vessels 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has designated the 

states of Alaska, Oregon, California, 

New York, Connecticut, Delaware, 

American Samoa and Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands as 

exempted states for anglers, spear 

fishers and for-hire fishing vessels. 

NMFS has designated the states of 

Virginia and Massachusetts as exempted 

states for for-hire fishing vessels. 

DATES: Effective on September 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Gordon C. Colvin, Fishery 

Biologist, NMFS ST–12453, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gordon C. Colvin, Fishery Biologist; 

(301) 713–2367 x175; e-mail: 

Gordon.Colvin@noaa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final 

rule implementing the National 

Saltwater Angler Registry Program, 50 

CFR subpart P, was published in the 

Federal Register on December 30, 2008. 

The final rule requires persons who are 

angling, spear fishing or operating a forhire fishing vessel in the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone or for anadromous 

species to register annually with NOAA, 

beginning January 1, 2009. However, 

persons who are licensed or registered 

by, or state residents who are not 

required to register or hold a license 

issued by, a state that is designated as 

an exempted state are not required to 

register with NOAA. The final rule sets 

forth the requirements for states to be 

designated as exempted states. 

Generally, exempted states must agree 

to provide to NMFS names, addresses, 

dates of birth and telephone numbers of 

the persons licensed or registered under 

a qualifying state license and/or registry 

program, or to provide catch and effort 

data from a qualifying regional survey of 

recreational fishing, and enter into a 

Memorandum of Agreement with NMFS 

to formalize the data reporting 

agreement. 

NMFS has received proposals for 

providing license/registry and/or 

regional survey catch and effort data 

from the states listed below, has 

determined that the states’ programs 

qualify for exempted state designation 

under the provisions of the final rule, 

and has entered into Memoranda of 

Agreement with each of the states. 

Therefore, pursuant to 50 CFR 

600.1415(b)(3), notice is hereby given 

that the following states are designated 

as exempted states under 50 CFR 

subpart P: Alaska, Oregon, California, 

New York, Delaware, Connecticut, 

American Samoa, Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands. Persons who 

hold a valid fishing license or 

registration issued by these exempted 

states for angling, spear fishing or 

operating a for-hire fishing vessel in 

tidal waters are not required to register 

with NOAA under 50 CFR 600.1405(b). 

Persons who are residents of these 

exempted states who are not required to 

hold a fishing license, or to be registered 

to fish under the laws of these exempted 

states, also are not required to register 

with NOAA. Further, pursuant to 50 

CFR 600.1415(b)(3), notice is hereby 

given that the following states are 

designated as exempted states only for 

for-hire fishing vessels: Virginia, 

Massachusetts. Persons who hold a 

valid license or registration issued by 

these exempted states for operating a 

for-hire fishing vessel in tidal waters are 

not required to register with NOAA 

under 50 CFR 600.1405(b). 

Dated: August 26, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21987 Filed 9–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–821] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Thailand: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from Thailand. The review covers five 

exporters/producers. The period of 

review (POR) is August 1, 2008, through 

July 31, 2009. We have preliminarily 

determined that sales have been made 

below normal value by companies 

subject to this review. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit comments in this 

review are requested to submit with 

each argument (1) a statement of the 

issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 2, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Schauer or Richard Rimlinger, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0410 or (202) 482– 

4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 9, 2004, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on PRCBs from 

Thailand. See Antidumping Duty Order: 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004). 

On September 22, 2009, we published a 

notice of initiation of an administrative 

review of six companies. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 

48224 (September 22, 2009).1 Since 

initiation of the review, we selected 

Landblue and TPBI for individual 

examination. See Memorandum to 

Laurie Parkhill dated October 15, 2009. 

In addition, we extended the due date 

for completion of these preliminary 

results. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Thailand: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 23673 (May 4, 2010), and 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Thailand: Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

36359 (June 25, 2010). Finally, we 

rescinded the review with respect to 

Landblue. See Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from Thailand: Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
53954 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Notices 

Review in Part, 75 FR 34699 (June 18, 

2010). 

The POR is August 1, 2008, through 

July 31, 2009. We are conducting this 

review in accordance with section 

751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the 

antidumping duty order is 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. 

As a result of changes to the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), imports of the 

subject merchandise are currently 

classifiable under statistical category 

3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. 

Furthermore, although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Selection of Respondents 

Due to the large number of companies 

in the review and the resulting 

administrative burden to examine each 

company for which a request had been 

made and not withdrawn, the 

Department exercised its authority to 

limit the number of respondents 

selected for examination. Where it is not 

practicable to examine all known 

exporters/producers of subject 

merchandise because of the large 

number of such companies, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act allows the 

Department to limit its examination to 

either a sample of exporters, producers, 

or types of products that is statistically 

valid, based on the information 

available at the time of selection, or 

exporters and producers accounting for 

the largest volume of subject 

merchandise from the exporting country 

that can be reasonably examined. 

Accordingly, based on our analysis of 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) import data on the record of this 

review (see letters from Laurie Parkhill 

to Daniel L. Schneiderman and to Victor 

S. Mroczka dated September 28, 2009) 

and our available resources, we decided 

to examine the sales of Landblue and 

TPBI. See Memorandum to Laurie 

Parkhill regarding respondent selection, 

dated October 15, 2009. 

Because we rescinded the review with 

respect to Landblue, for the companies 

which remain under review and which 

we did not select for individual 

examination, we have determined the 

margin based on the weighted-average 

margin of TPBI, the sole remaining 

respondent selected for individual 

examination in this review. 

Affiliation 

TPBI has argued that a certain 

company (Company A) is not affiliated 

with TPBI although TPBI and Company 

A mutually own a company in Vietnam 

that produces PRCBs. See TPBI’s 

Section A response dated December 9, 

2009, at page A–6. We have 

preliminarily determined that Company 

A is ‘‘operationally in a position to 

exercise restraint or direction’’ over 

TPBI, pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of 

the Act. Accordingly, we have 

preliminarily determined that Company 

A is affiliated with TPBI. Because of the 

proprietary nature of this analysis, see 

the Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill 

entitled ‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Thailand—Affiliation’’ dated 

August 26, 2010, for a complete 

discussion of this determination. 

Export Price 

For the price to the United States for 

TPBI, we used export price (EP) as 

defined in section 772(a) of the Act. We 

calculated EP based on the packed freeon-board or delivered price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in, or for 

exportation to, the United States. See 

section 772(c) of the Act. We made 

deductions for any movement expenses 

in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) 

of the Act. We made adjustments for 

duty drawback under the Investment 

Promotion Act and under Section 19 

BIS of the Customs Act claimed by TPBI 

in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) 

of the Act. For a detailed explanation of 

these adjustments, see Memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Thailand—Thai Plastic Bags 

Industries Group Preliminary Results 

Analysis Memorandum 8/1/08—7/31/ 

09,’’ dated August 26, 2010 (Analysis 

Memo). 

Comparison-Market Sales 

Based on a comparison of the 

aggregate quantity of home-market and 

U.S. sales and absent any information 

that a particular market situation in the 

exporting country did not permit a 

proper comparison, we determined that 

the quantity of foreign like product sold 

by TPBI in Thailand was sufficient to 

permit a proper comparison with the 

sales of the subject merchandise to the 

United States, pursuant to section 773(a) 

of the Act. TPBI’s quantity of sales in 

Thailand was greater than five percent 

of its quantity of sales to the U.S. 

market. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 

normal value on the prices at which the 

foreign like product was first sold for 

consumption in Thailand in the usual 

commercial quantities, in the ordinary 

course of trade, and at the same level of 

trade as the U.S. sales. 

Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b) of 

the Act, we disregarded the below-cost 

sales of TPBI in the most recent 

administrative review of this company 

completed before the initiation of this 

review. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Thailand: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 64580, 64581 (November 

16, 2007). Therefore, we have 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that TPBI’s sales of the foreign like 

product under consideration for the 

determination of normal value in this 

review may have been made at prices 

below the cost of production (COP) as 

provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 

the Act. Accordingly, pursuant to 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we have 

conducted a COP analysis of TPBI’s 

sales in Thailand in this review. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the COP based 

on the sum of the costs of materials and 

fabrication employed in producing the 

foreign like product, the selling, general, 

and administrative (SG&A) expenses, 

and all costs and expenses incidental to 

packing the merchandise. In our COP 

analysis, we used the home-market sales 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Notices 53955 

and COP information TPBI provided in 

its questionnaire responses. 

We relied on the COP data submitted 

by TPBI except as follows: 

1. In accordance with the 

transactions-disregarded rule (section 

773(f)(2) of the Act), we adjusted TPBI’s 

cost of manufacturing (COM) to reflect 

the market value of printing plates that 

were purchased from an affiliate. 

2. In accordance with the major-input 

rule (section 773(f)(3) of the Act), we 

adjusted TPBI’s COM to reflect the 

market value of certain resin that was 

purchased from an affiliate. 

3. With respect to the allocation of 

direct labor, variable overhead, and 

fixed overhead costs, we have 

preliminarily determined that the 

methodology reported by TPBI 

unreasonably distorts the COM for the 

subject merchandise and the foreign like 

product. This reported methodology is 

not only inconsistent with the 

methodology applied by TPBI in its 

books and records, it also results in a 

large variability in costs that have 

nothing to do with physical differences 

in the merchandise. Accordingly, 

pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, as 

facts otherwise available, we have 

weight-averaged these costs on a perunit basis in order to prevent such 

significant differences in costs between 

physically similar merchandise. See 

Statement of Administrative Action, 

URAA, H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103rd Cong. 

(1994), at 834–5 (stating that, if the 

Department determines that costs 

reported by a respondent ‘‘shifted away 

costs from the production of the subject 

merchandise, or the foreign like 

product,’’ the Department has the 

authority to ‘‘adjust costs appropriately 

to ensure that they (the costs) are not 

artificially reduced’’). 

3. We adjusted TPBI’s reported COM 

to remove an offset claimed by TPBI for 

revenue associated with the 

Government of Thailand’s Blue Corner 

Rebate program. 

For additional details on these 

adjustments, see Memorandum to Neal 

M. Halper entitled ‘‘Cost of Production 

and Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results’’ dated August 26, 2010 (Cost 

Memo). 

Alternative Cost Methodology 

The Department’s normal practice is 

to calculate an annual weighted-average 

cost for the entire period of 

investigation (POI) or POR. See, e.g., 

Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 

2000), and the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 18. 

We recognize that possible distortions 

may result if we use our normal annualaverage cost methodology during a 

period of significant cost changes. In 

determining whether to deviate from 

our normal methodology of calculating 

an annual weighted-average cost, we 

evaluate the case-specific record 

evidence using two primary factors: (1) 

The change in the COM recognized by 

the respondent during the POI or POR 

must be deemed significant; (2) the 

record evidence must indicate that sales 

prices during the shorter averaging 

periods (e.g., quarters rather than the 

POR) could be reasonably linked with 

the COP during the same shorter 

averaging periods. See, e.g., Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398 

(December 11, 2008), and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4 and 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Mexico; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 6627 (February 10, 2010), 

and the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. 

This methodology was recently upheld 

by the Court of International Trade in 

SeAH Steel Corporation v. United 

States, Slip. Op. 10–60 (CIT May 19, 

2010), as supported by substantial 

evidence and otherwise in accordance 

with law. 

1. Significance of Cost Changes 

Record evidence shows that TPBI 

experienced significant changes in its 

total COM during the POR and that 

these changes were primarily 

attributable to the price volatility of its 

raw-material inputs used to produce the 

merchandise under consideration. 

Because of the proprietary nature of this 

analysis, see the Cost Memo for a more 

complete discussion of this 

determination. 

2. Linkage Between Cost and Sales 

Information 

If the Department finds cost changes 

to be significant in a given investigation 

or administrative review, the 

Department evaluates whether there is 

evidence of linkage between the cost 

changes and the sales prices for the POI 

or POR. Our definition of linkage does 

not require direct traceability between 

specific sales and their specific 

production cost but, rather, relies on 

whether there are elements which 

would demonstrate a reasonable 

correlation between the underlying 

costs and the final sales prices charged 

by the company. 

Because we received the data 

necessary for a determination with 

respect to the linkage between the cost 

changes and the sales prices for the POR 

shortly before the statutory due date for 

the issuance of these preliminary 

results, we have not yet reached a 

conclusion as to whether there is 

evidence of such linkage in this review. 

After these preliminary results are 

published, we will issue our analysis 

regarding quarterly costs as well as any 

margin recalculations, if appropriate. 

Thus, for these preliminary results, we 

have not applied our quarterly cost 

methodology but, rather, have applied 

our standard methodology of using 

annual costs based on the data TPBI 

reported, adjusted as described in the 

‘‘Cost of Production’’ section above. 

Results of Cost Test and Cost-Recovery 

Test 

After calculating the COP in 

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

Act, we tested whether home-market 

sales of the foreign like product were 

made at prices below the COP within an 

extended period of time in substantial 

quantities and whether such prices 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. See 

section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We 

compared model-specific COPs to the 

reported home-market prices less any 

applicable movement charges, 

discounts, and rebates. 

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

Act, when less than 20 percent of TPBI’s 

sales of a given product were made at 

prices less than the COP, we did not 

disregard any below-cost sales of that 

product because the below-cost sales 

were not made in substantial quantities 

within an extended period of time. 

When 20 percent or more of TPBI’s sales 

of a given product during the POR were 

made at prices less than the COP, we 

disregarded the below-cost sales 

because they were made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act. 

Further, in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we compared 

prices to weighted-average per-unit 

COPs for the POR and determined that 

these sales were at prices which would 

not permit recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time. Because we 

are applying our standard annualaverage cost test in these preliminary 

results, we have also applied our 

standard cost-recovery test with no 

adjustments. Based on both of these 

tests, we disregarded certain sales made 

by TBPI in the home market which were 

made at below-cost prices. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
53956 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Notices 

2A similar decision to reject the Department’s 

interpretation under section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act 

was reversed in Thai I–Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., 

v. United States, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 16677 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010). 

Model-Matching Methodology 

In making our comparisons of U.S. 

sales with sales of the foreign like 

product in the home market, we used 

the following methodology. If an 

identical comparison-market model 

with identical physical characteristics 

as listed below was reported, we made 

comparisons to weighted-average homemarket prices that were based on all 

sales which passed the COP test of the 

identical product during a 

contemporaneous month. If there were 

no contemporaneous sales of an 

identical model, we identified the most 

similar home-market model. To 

determine the most similar model, we 

matched the foreign like product based 

on physical characteristics reported by 

the respondent in the following order of 

importance: (1) Quality, (2) bag type, (3) 

length, (4) width, (5) gusset, (6) 

thickness, (7) percentage of high-density 

polyethylene resin, (8) percentage of 

low-density polyethylene resin, (9) 

percentage of low linear-density 

polyethylene resin, (10) percentage of 

color concentrate, (11) percentage of ink 

coverage, (12) number of ink colors, and 

(13) number of sides printed. 

Normal Value 

We based home-market prices on the 

packed, ex-factory, or delivered prices 

to unaffiliated purchasers. When 

applicable, we made adjustments for 

differences in packing and for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

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

We also made adjustments for 

differences in cost attributable to 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise pursuant to section 

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

351.411, adjusted as described in the 

‘‘Cost of Production’’ section above, and 

for differences in circumstances of sale 

in accordance with section 

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

351.410. We made circumstance-of-sale 

adjustments by deducting home-market 

direct selling expenses from and adding 

U.S. direct selling expenses to normal 

value. 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 

normal value at the same level of trade 

as the EP sales. See the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ 

section below. 

Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we used constructed value as 

the basis for normal value when there 

were no contemporaneous comparable 

sales of the foreign like product in the 

comparison market. We calculated 

constructed value in accordance with 

section 773(e) of the Act. We included 

the cost of materials and fabrication, 

adjusted as described in the ‘‘Cost of 

Production’’ section above, SG&A 

expenses, U.S. packing expenses, and 

profit in the calculation of constructed 

value. In accordance with section 

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A 

expenses and profit on the amounts 

incurred and realized by TPBI in 

connection with the production and sale 

of the foreign like product in the 

ordinary course of trade for 

consumption in the home market. 

When appropriate, we made 

adjustments to constructed value in 

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the 

Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 CFR 

351.412 for circumstance-of-sale 

differences and level-of-trade 

differences. We made circumstance-ofsale adjustments by deducting homemarket direct selling expenses from and 

adding U.S. direct selling expenses to 

constructed value. We also made 

adjustments, when applicable, for 

home-market indirect selling expenses 

to offset U.S. commissions. We 

calculated constructed value at the same 

level of trade as the EP. For a detailed 

explanation of the calculations, see 

Analysis Memo. 

TPBI argued that the Department 

should not exclude home-market sales 

that fail the cost test from its calculation 

of profit for constructed value (CV 

profit). Citing Atar, S.r.l. v. United 

States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1092 (CIT 

2009) (Atar), TPBI asserts that the Court 

of International Trade has found the 

Department’s practice of excluding 

home-market sales that fail the cost test 

from its calculation of CV profit to be 

contrary to law. TPBI misunderstands 

the Court’s analysis in Atar. That 

decision does not apply to the facts of 

this case because the Atar decision was 

made with regard to a statutory 

provision not at issue here. 

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

provides that, in calculating CV profit, 

the Department will only use ‘‘actual 

amounts’’ incurred ‘‘in the ordinary 

course of trade’’ in the home market. 

Section 771(15)(A) of the Act makes 

clear that home-market sales that failed 

the cost test are outside the ordinary 

course of trade. Section 773(e)(2)(B) of 

the Act, on the other hand, applies if 

those actual amounts are not available. 

In the administrative review challenged 

in Atar, Notice of Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Ninth 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017 (August 

8, 2006) (unchanged in final; 72 FR 

7011, February 14, 2007) (Pasta from 

Italy), the respondent did not have a 

viable home market so the Department 

calculated CV profit pursuant to section 

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

At issue in Atar was the fact that there 

is no ‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ language 

in section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act yet the 

Department nonetheless excluded sales 

that failed the cost test from its 

calculation of CV profit. The plaintiff, 

Atar, argued that the Department must 

calculate these respondent companies’ 

profit rates based on all sales, above and 

below cost, for purposes of calculating 

CV profit pursuant to section 

773(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The Court agreed 

with Atar, finding that the Department 

erred in excluding below-cost sales in 

its calculation of CV profit because such 

a requirement only applies when a 

viable home market exists, pursuant to 

section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. See Atar, 

637 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1092 (CIT 2009).2

In this review, by contrast, TPBI does 

have a viable home market and, 

therefore, we can determine selling 

expenses and profit under section 

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

consistent with that provision, we have 

used only sales made within the 

ordinary course of trade in calculating 

CV profit. 

Level of Trade 

To the extent practicable, we 

determined normal value for sales at the 

same level of trade as the U.S. sales. The 

normal-value level of trade is that of the 

starting-price sales in the home market. 

When normal value is based on 

constructed value, the level of trade is 

that of the sales from which we derived 

SG&A and profit. 

To determine whether home-market 

sales are at a different level of trade than 

U.S. sales, we examined stages in the 

marketing process and selling functions 

along the chain of distribution between 

the producer and the unaffiliated 

customer. This analysis revealed that 

there were not any significant 

differences in selling functions between 

different channels of distribution or 

customer type in either the home or U.S. 

markets. Therefore, we determined that 

TPBI made all home-market sales at one 

level of trade. Moreover, we determined 

that all home-market sales by TPBI were 

made at the same level of trade as its 

U.S. sales. For a more detailed 

discussion, see Analysis Memo. 

Accordingly, we compared TPBI’s U.S. 

sales to its home-market sales, all of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Notices 53957 

which were made at the same level of 

trade. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following percentage weighted-average 

dumping margins on PRCBs from 

Thailand exist for the period August 1, 

2008, through July 31, 2009: 

Producer/exporter Percent 

margin 

TPBI .......................................... 20.41 

C.P. Packaging Co., Ltd. .......... 20.41 

Giant Pack Co., Ltd. ................. 20.41 

Sahachit Watana Plastics Ind. 

Co., Ltd. ................................ 20.41 

Thantawan Industry Public Co., 

Ltd. ........................................ 20.41 

Comments 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to interested parties to 

this review within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.310. Interested parties who 

wish to request a hearing or to 

participate in a hearing if a hearing is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain the following 

information: (1) The party’s name, 

address, and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; (3) a list of 

issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in the case briefs. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from 

interested parties may be submitted not 

later than seven (7) days after the date 

on which we issue our determination 

regarding quarterly costs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs from 

interested parties, limited to the issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be 

submitted not later than five days after 

the time limit for filing the case briefs 

or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). 

If requested, any hearing will be held 

two days after the scheduled date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

review are requested to submit with 

each argument a statement of the issue, 

a summary of the arguments not 

exceeding five pages, and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of issues raised 

in any such written briefs or at the 

hearing, if held, not later than 120 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 

calculated for TPBI an importer (or 

customer)-specific assessment value for 

merchandise subject to this review by 

dividing the total dumping margin 

(calculated as the difference between 

normal value and EP) for each importer 

or customer by the total kilograms the 

exporter sold to that importer or 

customer. We will instruct CBP to assess 

the resulting per-kilogram amount 

against each kilogram of merchandise in 

each of that importer’s/customer’s 

entries during the POR. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. This clarification applies 

to entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by TPBI for which it 

did not know its merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

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

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

For the companies which were not 

selected for individual examination, we 

will instruct CBP to apply the rates 

listed above to all entries of subject 

merchandise produced and/or exported 

by such firms. 

We intend to issue liquidation 

instructions to CBP 15 days after 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of PRCBs from 

Thailand entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The 

cash-deposit rates for the reviewed 

companies will be the rates established 

in the final results of review; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cashdeposit 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, a prior 

review, or the less-than-fair-value 

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) if neither the exporter 

nor the manufacturer has its own rate, 

the cash-deposit rate will be 2.80 

percent, the all-others rate for this 

proceeding. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importer 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary 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. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: August 26, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21985 Filed 9–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS 

Notice of Meeting 

The next meeting of the U.S. 

Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 

for 16 September 2010, at 10 a.m. in the 

Commission offices at the National 

Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary 

Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20001–2728. Items of discussion 

may include buildings, parks and 

memorials. 

Draft agendas and additional 

information regarding the Commission 

are available on our Web site: http:// 

www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the 

agenda and requests to submit written 

or oral statements should be addressed 

to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. 

Commission of Fine Arts, at the above 

address; by e-mailing staff@cfa.gov; or 

by calling 202–504–2200. Individuals 

requiring sign language interpretation 

for the hearing impaired should contact 

the Secretary at least 10 days before the 

meeting date. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1