55568 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

no later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs may be filed no later 

than five days after the time limit for 

submitting the case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

argument in these proceedings are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. Further, parties 

submitting case briefs and/or rebuttal 

briefs are requested to provide the 

Department with an additional copy of 

the public version of any such argument 

on diskette. The Department will issue 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of our 

analysis of the issues in any such 

argument or at a hearing, within 120 

days of publication of these preliminary 

results, unless extended. See section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h). 

Duty Assessment 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer or customer-specific ad 

valorem assessment rates for the 

merchandise based on the ratio of the 

total amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales made 

during the POR to the total customs 

value of the sales used to calculate those 

duties. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). Where 

the duty assessment rates are above de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 

duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer in 

accordance with the requirements set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). The 

Department will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties at the lesser of the 

cash deposit rate in effect on the date of 

entry or the final assessment rate, for 

entries during the period January 30, 

2008, through July 27, 2008. See section 

703(d) of the Act. Pursuant to section 

703(d) of the Act, suspension of 

liquidation was discontinued on July 

28, 2008, and no antidumping duties 

will be assessed on entries made on or 

after July 28, 2008, through August 3, 

2008. For entries made on or after 

August 4, 2008, through July 31, 2009, 

if the amount of duties that would be 

assessed by applying importer or 

customer specific assessment rates 

determined herein (‘‘final duties’’) is 

different from the amount of duties that 

would be assessed by applying the 

estimated duties rate applied to these 

entries (‘‘provisional duties’’), the 

Secretary will instruct the Customs 

Service to disregard the difference to the 

extent that the provisional duties are 

less than the final duties, and to assess 

antidumping or countervailing duties at 

the assessment rate if the provisional 

duties exceed the final duties. See 19 

CFR 351.212(d). In accordance with 19 

CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP on 

or after 41 days following the 

publication of the final results of this 

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). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the company included in 

these preliminary results for which the 

reviewed company did not know its 

merchandise 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 intermediate company or 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Furthermore, the following cash 

deposit requirements will be effective 

upon completion of the final results of 

this administrative review, for all 

shipments of LWRPT from Mexico 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

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

cash deposit rate for the companies 

covered by this review (i.e., 

Maquilacero, Regiopytsa, IMSA, Perfiles 

y Herrajes, Galvak, Hylsa, Nacional, 

Prolamsa, and Ternium) will be the rate 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent (de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), the 

cash deposit will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or 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; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous review 

conducted by the Department, the cash 

deposit rate will be the all-others rate of 

3.76 percent, which is the all-others rate 

established in the LTFV investigation. 

See Order at 73 FR 45405. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: September 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22777 Filed 9–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–916] 

Laminated Woven Sacks From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 

2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting the 

first administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on laminated 

woven sacks (‘‘woven sacks’’) from the 

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

the period of review (‘‘POR’’) January 31, 

2008, through July 31, 2009. The 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that sales have been made 

below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by the 

respondent. If these preliminary results 

are adopted in our final results of this 

review, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR. Interested 

parties are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. We intend to issue 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 55569 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Laminated Woven Sacks From the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 45941 (August 7, 2008) 

(‘‘Woven Sacks Order’’). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 38397 

(August 3, 2009). 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224 

(September 22, 2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

4See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People’s 

Republic of China: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

66954 (December 17, 2009). 

5Petitioners are the Laminated Woven Sacks 

Committee and its individual members, Coating 

Excellence International, LLC and Polytex Fibers 

Corporation. 

6See Laminated Woven Sacks from the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of the Time Limit for 

the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 20564 (April 20, 

2010); see Laminated Woven Sacks from the 

People’s Republic of China: Extension of the Time 

Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

49888 (August 16, 2010). 

7See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Office 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, from 

Zhulieta Willbrand, International Trade Analyst, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, ‘‘Preliminary 

Decision Regarding the Country of Origin of 

Laminated Woven Sacks Exported by Zibo Aifudi 

Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.,—Laminated Woven 

Sacks from the People’s Republic of China’’ (May 

25, 2010). 

8 ‘‘Paper suitable for high quality print graphics,’’ 

as used herein, means paper having an ISO 

brightness of 82 or higher and a Sheffield 

Smoothness of 250 or less. Coated free sheet is an 

example of a paper suitable for high quality print 

graphics. 

the final results of this review no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brandon Farlander, 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) 482–0182. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 7, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on woven sacks 

from the PRC.1 On August 3, 2009, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the Woven Sacks Order.2

The Department received a timely 

request for an administrative review of 

the Woven Sacks Order from Zibo 

Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zibo 

Aifudi’’) and Changshu Xinsheng Bags 

Producing Company, Ltd. (‘‘Changshu 

Xinsheng Bags’’) on August 26, 2009, 

and August 31, 2009, respectively, in 

accordance with section 751(a) of Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’). On 

September 22, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of the initiation of an 

administrative review of the Woven 

Sacks Order.3 The review was initiated 

with respect to both Zibo Aifudi and 

Changshu Xinsheng Bags. On November 

6, 2009, Changshu Xinsheng Bags 

submitted to the Department a timely 

letter requesting a withdrawal from the 

ongoing administrative review. On 

December 17, 2009, the Department 

rescinded the review with respect to 

Changshu Xinsheng Bags.4

The Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to Zibo Aifudi from 

January to June 2010. The Department 

received responses to its supplemental 

questionnaires from Zibo Aifudi from 

January to July 2010. From January to 

July 2010, Petitioners 5 submitted 

comments to the Department regarding 

the submissions and/or responses of 

Zibo Aifudi. 

On March 3, 2010, the Department 

released a letter to interested parties 

which listed potential surrogate 

countries and invited interested parties 

to comment on surrogate country and 

surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) selection. 

Between March and July 2010, 

Petitioners and Zibo Aifudi submitted 

publicly available SV information, 

comments, and rebuttal comments on 

the selection of a surrogate country and 

SVs. On July 9, 2010, the Department 

requested additional information and 

analysis regarding the three financial 

statements on the record from 

Petitioners and Zibo Aifudi. For a 

discussion of the selection of the 

surrogate country, see ‘‘Surrogate 

Country’’ section below. 

On April 20, 2010, and August 16, 

2010, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act, the Department extended the 

time period for completing the 

preliminary results by 90 days and 30 

days, respectively.6

On May 25, 2010, the Department 

preliminarily determined that the PRC 

is the country of origin of woven sacks 

produced in the PRC from imported 

fabric. As a result, the Department 

preliminarily determined that the 

woven sacks produced in the PRC by 

Zibo Aifudi from imported fabric and 

imported by Zibo Aifudi into the United 

States are within the scope of the order.7

On August 6, 2010, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Zibo Aifudi regarding its consumption 

of imported woven fabric. On August 

18, 2010, Zibo Aifudi responded to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire and provided an 

explanation, with supporting 

documentation, of its consumption of 

imported woven fabric. See the Factor 

Valuation Methodology section below 

for additional information. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is laminated woven sacks. Laminated 

woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting 

of one or more plies of fabric consisting 

of woven polypropylene strip and/or 

woven polyethylene strip, regardless of 

the width of the strip; with or without 

an extrusion coating of polypropylene 

and/or polyethylene on one or both 

sides of the fabric; laminated by any 

method either to an exterior ply of 

plastic film such as biaxially-oriented 

polypropylene (‘‘BOPP’’) or to an 

exterior ply of paper that is suitable for 

high quality print graphics; 8 printed 

with three colors or more in register; 

with or without lining; whether or not 

closed on one end; whether or not in 

roll form (including sheets, lay-flat 

tubing, and sleeves); with or without 

handles; with or without special closing 

features; not exceeding one kilogram in 

weight. Laminated woven sacks are 

typically used for retail packaging of 

consumer goods such as pet foods and 

bird seed. 

Effective July 1, 2007, laminated 

woven sacks are classifiable under 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings 

6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. 

Laminated woven sacks were previously 

classifiable under HTSUS subheading 

6305.33.0020. If entered with plastic 

coating on both sides of the fabric 

consisting of woven polypropylene strip 

and/or woven polyethylene strip, 

laminated woven sacks may be 

classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 

3923.21.0080, 3923.21.0095, and 

3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on 

one end or in roll form (including 

sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), 

laminated woven sacks may be 

classifiable under other HTSUS 

subheadings including 3917.39.0050, 

3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 

5903.90.2500. If the polypropylene 

strips and/or polyethylene strips making 

up the fabric measure more than 5 

millimeters in width, laminated woven 

sacks may be classifiable under other 

HTSUS subheadings including 

4601.99.0500, 4601.99.9000, and 

4602.90.0000. Although HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

9See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 

(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 

Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 

60632 (October 25, 2007). 

10See Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting 

Director, Office of Policy, to Robert Bolling, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 

‘‘Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Laminated Woven Sacks from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (January 25, 2010). 

11Petitioners submitted surrogate country 

information and recommended India as the 

surrogate country. See Petitioners’ March 12, 2010 

surrogate country comments. 

12See Memorandum to the File from Brandon 

Farlander, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, ‘‘Administrative 

Review of Laminated Woven Sacks from the 

People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Value 

Memorandum,’’ (September 3, 2010) (‘‘Surrogate 

Value Memorandum’’). 

13 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for 

the final results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 

submitted by an interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for 

submission of such factual information. However, 

the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) 

permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information placed on the 

record. The Department generally will not accept 

the submission of additional, previously absentfrom-the-record alternative surrogate value 

information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See 

Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

14See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

15See Zibo Aifudi’s Section A response, dated 

October 26, 2009, at 4–7. 

16 Id. 

Non-Market Economy Treatment 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country.9 In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. No party has challenged the 

designation of the PRC as an NME 

country in this review. Therefore, the 

Department continues to treat the PRC 

as an NME country for purposes of these 

preliminary results. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department reviews 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, 

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’) valued in a surrogate marketeconomy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOPs in one or more market-economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

The sources of the SVs that the 

Department has used in this review are 

discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section below. 

In this review, the Department 

determined that India, the Philippines, 

Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru 

are countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development.10 Once 

the countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC have been 

identified, the Department selects an 

appropriate surrogate country by 

determining whether an economically 

comparable country is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise 

and whether the data for valuing FOPs 

are both available and reliable. 

The Department has preliminarily 

determined that it is appropriate to use 

India as a surrogate country pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the 

following: (1) It is at a similar level of 

economic development to the PRC 

pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; 

(2) it is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise; and (3) the 

Department has reliable data from India 

that it can use to value the FOPs.11

Thus, the Department calculated NV 

using Indian prices when available and 

appropriate to value the FOPs of Zibo 

Aifudi. The Department obtained and 

relied upon publicly available 

information wherever possible.12

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may 

submit publicly-available information to 

value FOPs until 20 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

results.13

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department holds a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of subject 

merchandise 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. Exporters can demonstrate 

this independence through the absence 

of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under the test announced 

in the Notice of 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 

further developed in 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’’). 

However, if the Department determines 

that a company is wholly foreign-owned 

or located in a market economy, then a 

separate rate analysis is not necessary to 

determine whether it is independent 

from government control. 

The mandatory respondent, Zibo 

Aifudi, provided evidence that it is a 

joint venture between PRC and U.S. 

companies. The Department has 

analyzed whether Zibo Aifudi has 

demonstrated the absence of de jure and 

de facto governmental control over its 

export activities. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export license; (2) legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.14

The evidence provided by Zibo Aifudi 

supports a preliminary finding that all 

of the above criteria have been 

satisfied.15

Specifically, the evidence provided by 

Zibo Aifudi supports a preliminary 

finding of de jure absence of 

governmental control based on the 

following: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) the existence of 

applicable legislative enactments 

decentralizing control of Chinese 

companies; and (3) the implementation 

of formal measures by the government 

decentralizing control of Chinese 

companies.16

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically, the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a governmental agency; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 55571 

17See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see 

also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 

(May 8, 1995). 

18See Zibo Aifudi’s Section A response, dated 

October 26, 2009, at 7–10. 

19See ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

below. 

20See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 

(April 17, 2006), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: 

Certain Lined Paper Products From the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 

2006). 

21See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December 

4, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6; Final Results of First 

New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China, 

66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses.17 The Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether respondents are, in fact, subject 

to a degree of governmental control 

which would preclude the Department 

from assigning separate rates. 

The evidence provided by Zibo Aifudi 

supports a preliminary finding of de 

facto absence of governmental control 

based on record statements and 

supporting documentation showing that 

the company: (1) Set its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) has the 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; (3) maintains 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) retains 

the proceeds of its export sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses.18

Therefore, the evidence placed on the 

record of this review by Zibo Aifudi 

demonstrates an absence of de jure and 

de facto government control under the 

criteria identified in Sparklers and 

Silicon Carbide. Accordingly, the 

Department has preliminarily granted 

Zibo Aifudi separate rate status.19

Fair Value Comparison 

To determine whether sales of woven 

sacks to the United States by Zibo 

Aifudi were made at less than fair value, 

the Department compared export price 

(‘‘EP’’) and constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) to NV, as described in the ‘‘U.S. 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, the Department used EP as the 

basis for U.S. price for Zibo Aifudi’s 

sales where the first sale to unaffiliated 

purchasers was made prior to 

importation and the use of CEP was not 

otherwise warranted. In accordance 

with section 772(c) of the Act, the 

Department calculated EP for Zibo 

Aifudi by deducting the following 

expenses from the starting price charged 

to the first unaffiliated customer in the 

United States: Foreign inland freight 

from the plant to the port of exportation 

and foreign brokerage and handling. 

Additionally, for the expenses that were 

either provided by an NME vendor or 

paid for using an NME currency, the 

Department based the expenses on SVs, 

as appropriate. For details regarding our 

EP calculations, see Memorandum from 

Brandon Farlander, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to the File, 

‘‘Administrative Review of Laminated 

Woven Sacks from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum for Zibo Aifudi Plastic 

Packaging Co., Ltd.’’ (September 3, 2010) 

(‘‘Zibo Aifudi Analysis Memo’’). 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, the Department used CEP as the 

basis for U.S. price for Zibo Aifudi’s 

sales where Zibo Aifudi first sold 

subject merchandise to its affiliated 

companies in the United States (AMS 

Associates, Inc. (d.b.a. Shapiro Packing, 

Inc.) or Excel Packaging, LLC), which in 

turn sold subject merchandise to 

unaffiliated U.S. customers. In 

accordance with section 772(b) of the 

Act, CEP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) in the United States 

before or after the date of importation by 

or for the account of the producer or 

exporter of such merchandise or by a 

seller affiliated with the producer or 

exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 

with the producer or exporter, as 

adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) 

of the Act. The Department calculated 

CEP for Zibo Aifudi based on delivered 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States and made deductions, 

where applicable, from the U.S. sales 

price for movement expenses and 

appropriate selling adjustments, such as 

early payment discounts, in accordance 

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

These movement expenses included 

foreign inland freight from the plant to 

the port of exportation, foreign 

brokerage and handling, international 

freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs 

duty, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. inland 

freight from port to the U.S. customer. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of 

the Act, the Department deducted 

billing adjustments, early payment 

discounts, credit expenses and indirect 

selling expenses from the U.S. price, all 

of which relate to commercial activity in 

the United States. Also, the Department 

deducted CEP profit, in accordance with 

sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. 

Additionally, for the expenses that were 

either provided by an NME vendor or 

paid for using an NME currency, the 

Department based the expenses on SVs, 

as appropriate. For details regarding the 

CEP calculation, see Zibo Aifudi 

Analysis Memo. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine NV 

using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under the Department’s normal 

methodologies.20

As the basis for NV, Zibo Aifudi 

provided FOPs used in the production 

of woven sacks. Consistent with section 

773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, it is the 

Department’s practice to value the FOPs 

that a respondent uses to produce 

woven sacks. 

Factor Valuation Methodology 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, the Department calculated NV 

based on FOP data reported by Zibo 

Aifudi. To calculate NV, the Department 

multiplied the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available 

Indian SVs. In selecting the SVs, the 

Department considered the quality, 

specificity, and contemporaneity of the 

data.21 As appropriate, the Department 

adjusted input prices by including 

freight costs to make them delivered 

prices. Specifically, the Department 

added to Indian import SVs a surrogate 

freight cost using the shorter of the 

reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory or the distance 

from the nearest seaport to the factory 

where appropriate. This adjustment is 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55572 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

22See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997). 

23See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy 

Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 

71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) 

(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies’’). 

24See Antidumping Methodologies, 71 FR at 

61717–18. 

25See e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 

50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009). 

26See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Final 

Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 

(April 19, 2010) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (‘‘OCTG 

Final’’). 

27 GTIS obtains data on imports into India 

directly from the Ministry of Commerce, 

Government of India. 

28Converted from Indian Rupee to U.S. Dollar, 

then converted from U.S. Dollar to Indian Rupee. 

29See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). 

30See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 1. 

31Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

1988, Conf. Report To Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 

No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) at 590. 

32See e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From 

India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-Year 

(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 

75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From 

Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

23. 

in accordance with the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit’s decision in 

Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 

1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A 

detailed description of all SVs used for 

Zibo Aifudi can be found in the 

Surrogate Value Memorandum, at 

Exhibit 1. 

Zibo Aifudi reported that several of its 

raw material inputs (i.e., color ink and 

woven fabric) were sourced from 

market-economy countries and paid for 

in market-economy currencies. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a 

respondent sources inputs from a 

market-economy supplier in meaningful 

quantities (i.e., not insignificant 

quantities), the Department normally 

will use the actual price paid by the 

respondent for those inputs.22 Because 

information reported by Zibo Aifudi 

demonstrates that it purchased 

significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent or 

more) of colored ink and woven fabric 

from market-economy suppliers, the 

Department used Zibo Aifudi’s actual 

market-economy purchase prices of 

colored ink and woven fabric to value 

its FOPs for this input.23 Where 

appropriate, freight expenses were 

added to the market-economy prices of 

this input. When Zibo Aifudi made 

market economy colored ink and woven 

fabric purchases that may have been 

dumped or subsidized, were not bona 

fide, or were otherwise not acceptable 

for use in a dumping calculation, the 

Department excluded them from the 

numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair 

determination of whether valid marketeconomy purchases meet the 33 percent 

threshold.24

In past cases, it has been the 

Department’s practice to value various 

FOPs using import statistics of the 

primary selected surrogate country from 

World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’), as 

published by Global Trade Information 

Services (‘‘GTIS’’).25 However, in a 

recent case, the OCTG Final, the 

Department explained, based on 

discussions with GTIS, that the Indian 

import data obtained from the WTA, as 

published by GTIS, began identifying 

the original reporting currency for India 

as the U.S. Dollar rather than the Indian 

Rupee, as was previously reported by 

GTIS for Indian import data.26 While the 

original India import data27 obtained by 

GTIS is denominated and published in 

Indian Rupees, in the OCTG Final, the 

Department noted that GTIS made a 

decision to change the original reporting 

currency for Indian data from the Indian 

Rupee to the U.S. Dollar in order to 

reduce the loss of the number of 

significant digits when obtaining data 

through the WTA software. 

Additionally, in the OCTG Final, the 

Department also noted that 

subsequently, GTIS restored the ability 

to view Indian Rupee values in the 

WTA software for Indian import data. 

However, because this data was twice 

converted28, it was found that this data 

would not correspond to the original 

India data based on the WTA software’s 

capability to only handle a limited 

number of significant digits in each 

conversion calculation. 

Because of the conversion and 

rounding problems in the data reported 

by the WTA, the Department will now 

obtain import statistics from Global 

Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’), as published by 

GTIS, for valuing various FOPs. The 

data reported in the GTA software 

reports import statistics, such as from 

India, in the original reporting currency 

and thus this data corresponds to the 

original currency value reported by each 

country. Additionally, the data reported 

in the GTA software is reported to the 

nearest digit and thus there is not a loss 

of data by rounding, as there is with the 

data reported by the WTA software. 

Consequently the import statistics we 

obtain from GTA are in the original 

reporting currency of the country from 

which the data are obtained and have 

the same level of accuracy as the 

original data released. 

The Department used data from the 

Indian import statistics in the GTA and 

other publicly available Indian sources 

in order to calculate SVs for Zibo 

Aifudi’s FOPs (i.e., direct materials, 

energy, packing materials) and certain 

movement expenses. In selecting the 

best available information for valuing 

FOPs in accordance with section 

773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department’s 

practice is to select, to the extent 

practicable, SVs which are non-export 

average values, most contemporaneous 

with the POR, product-specific, and taxexclusive.29 The record shows that data 

in the GTA Indian import statistics, as 

well as those from the other Indian 

sources, are contemporaneous with the 

POR, product-specific, and taxexclusive.30

In accordance with legislative history, 

the Department continues to apply its 

long-standing practice of disregarding 

SVs if it has a reason to believe or 

suspect the source data may be 

subsidized.31 In this regard, the 

Department has previously found that it 

is appropriate to disregard such prices 

from Indonesia, South Korea and 

Thailand because we have determined 

that these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry specific export 

subsidies.32 Based on the existence of 

these subsidy programs that were 

generally available to all exporters and 

producers in these countries at the time 

of the POR, the Department finds that it 

is reasonable to infer that all exporters 

from Indonesia, South Korea and 

Thailand may have benefitted from 

these subsidies. Therefore, the 

Department has not used prices from 

these three countries in calculating the 

Indian import-based SVs. 

Additionally, the Department 

disregarded prices from NME countries. 

Finally, imports that were labeled as 

originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’ 

country were excluded from the average 

value, because the Department could 

not be certain that they were not from 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 55573 

33See 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, 24559 (May 5, 2008), 

unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008). 

34See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 

1363, 1372–73 (CAFC 2010). 

35See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 2. 

36See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 4. 

37See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 3. 

38See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 5. 

39See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 6. 

40See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires 

From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 17A; Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Final Results and Rescission, in 

Part, of 2004/2006 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 

52049 (September 12, 2007) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 

(citing Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results 

and Rescission, In Part, of 2004/2005 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 72 

FR 19174 (April 17, 2007)). 

41See Annual Report 2008–2009, Deccan 

Polypacks, at 35 of Attachment 2 of Zibo Aifudi’s 

March 31, 2010, surrogate value submission. 

42See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic 

Acid From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 

FR 10545 (March 11, 2009) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

43See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 

44See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

either an NME country or a country 

with general export subsidies.33

Petitioners raised concerns regarding 

Zibo Aifudi’s FOPs for the production of 

woven sacks from imported woven 

fabric and we sought additional 

information from Zibo Aifudi regarding 

its production of woven sacks from 

imported woven fabric. At this time, we 

are still examining this matter and may 

issue additional supplemental questions 

regarding Zibo Aifudi’s material 

consumption and production process 

for woven sacks produced from 

imported woven fabric. For the 

preliminary results, we have determined 

to use Zibo Aifudi’s reported FOP data, 

specifically Zibo Aifudi’s FOPs used to 

produce woven sacks from imported 

woven fabric, to calculate its margin. 

See Zibo Aifudi Analysis Memo. 

However, we intend to continue to 

analyze this issue for the final results. 

For direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, pursuant to a recent decision by 

the Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit, we are no longer using the 

regression based methodology to value 

labor.34 Rather, we have calculated an 

hourly wage rate to use in valuing each 

respondent’s reported labor input by 

averaging available data for earnings 

and/or wages in countries that are 

economically comparable to the PRC, 

and that are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. Because this 

wage rate does not separate the labor 

rates into different skill levels or types 

of labor, the Department has applied the 

same wage rate to all skill levels and 

types of labor reported by the 

respondents.35

The Department valued truck freight 

expenses using a per-unit average rate 

calculated from data on the infobanc 

Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/ 

logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics 

section of this Web site contains inland 

freight truck rates between many large 

Indian cities. The value is 

contemporaneous with the POR.36

The Department valued electricity 

using price data for small, medium, and 

large industries, as published by the 

Central Electricity Authority of the 

Government of India in its publication 

entitled ‘‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and 

Average Rates of Electricity Supply in 

India,’’ dated March 2008. These 

electricity rates represent actual 

country-wide, publicly available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. We 

did not inflate this value because utility 

rates represent current rates, as 

indicated by the effective dates listed for 

each of the rates provided.37

We valued brokerage and handling 

expenses using a price list of export 

procedures necessary to export a 

standardized cargo of goods in India. 

The price list is compiled based on a 

survey case study of the procedural 

requirements for trading a standard 

shipment of goods by ocean freight in 

India that is published in Doing 

Business 2009: India, published by the 

World Bank. Because these data were 

current throughout the POR, we did not 

inflate the value for brokerage and 

handling.38

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, the Department used the 

factory overhead, selling, general and 

administrative expenses, and profit data 

from two Indian companies, KG 

Petrochem Limited, and Emmbi 

Polyarns Limited, producers of 

merchandise comparable to the subject 

merchandise, for the fiscal year April 1, 

2008, through March 31, 2009.39 The 

Department did not rely on the financial 

statements of Deccan Polypacks Limited 

(‘‘Deccan Polypacks’’) because the record 

indicates that during this period, 

Deccan Polypacks received subsidies 

the Department has previously 

determined to be countervailable. 

Consistent with Department practice, 

we do not use financial statements of a 

company that we have reason to believe 

or suspect may have received subsidies, 

where there are other sufficient reliable 

and representative data on the record for 

purposes of calculating the surrogate 

financial ratios, because the financial 

statements of companies receiving 

actionable subsidies are less 

representative of the financial 

experience of the relevant industry than 

the ratios derived from financial 

statements that do not contain evidence 

of subsidization.40 In this case, Deccan 

Polypacks’ 2008–2009 financial 

statements indicate that Deccan 

Polypacks received benefits under the 

Advance License Scheme.41 India’s 

Advance License Scheme has been 

found by the Department to provide a 

countervailable subsidy.42

Currency Conversion 

The Department 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. 

These exchange rates are available on 

the IA Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

exchange/index.html. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margin exists: 

Exporter/producer 

Weightedaverage 

percent 

margin 

Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging 

Co., Ltd ................................... 0.68 

Disclosure 

The Department 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). 

Public Comment 

Interested parties may submit written 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review.43 Parties that submit 

comments are requested to submit with 

each argument a statement of the issue 

and a brief summary of the argument. 

Rebuttal comments must be limited to 

the issues raised in the written 

comments and may be filed no later 

than five days after the deadline for 

filing case briefs.44 Parties submitting 

written comments or rebuttals are 

requested to provide the Department 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55574 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

45See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

46See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

with an additional copy of those 

comments on disk. Any interested party 

may request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of these preliminary 

results.45 Any hearing, if requested, 

ordinarily will be held two days after 

the scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs.46 Parties should confirm 

by telephone the date, time, and 

location of the hearing two days before 

the scheduled date. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of the administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in the briefs, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) unless the time 

limit is extended. 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

final results of this review. For 

assessment purposes, in accordance 

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

Department calculated exporter/ 

importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for merchandise 

subject to this review. Where the 

respondent has reported reliable entered 

values, the Department calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rates by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

entered value of the sales to each 

importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than de minimis, we will apply 

the assessment rate to the entered value 

of the importer’s/customer’s entries 

during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, the Department 

calculated a per-unit assessment rate by 

aggregating the antidumping duties due 

for all U.S. sales to each importer (or 

customer) and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity sold to that importer 

(or customer). To determine whether the 

duty assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

calculated importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem ratios based on the 

estimated entered value. Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., 

less than 0.50 percent), the Department 

will instruct CBP to liquidate that 

importer’s (or customer’s) entries of 

subject merchandise without regard to 

antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2). 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of the final results of this review. The 

Department intends to instruct CBP to 

liquidate entries containing subject 

merchandise exported by the PRC-wide 

entity at the PRC-wide rate in the final 

results of this review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

review for shipments of subject 

merchandise from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided by sections 751(a)(1) 

and (a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

exporter listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be that established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 91.73 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

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 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with section 

777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: September 3, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22778 Filed 9–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–62864; File No. 4–612] 

Joint Public Roundtable on Swap 

Execution Facilities and SecurityBased Swap Execution Facilities 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (‘‘CFTC’’) and Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’) 

(each, an ‘‘Agency,’’ and collectively, the 

‘‘Agencies’’). 

ACTION: Notice of roundtable discussion; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: On September 15, 2010, 

commencing at 9 a.m. and ending at 

12:30 p.m., staff of the Agencies will 

hold a public roundtable discussion at 

which invited participants will discuss 

swap execution facilities and securitybased swap execution facilities in the 

context of certain authority that 

Sections 733 and 763 of the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (the ‘‘Act’’) granted to the 

Agencies respectively. The discussion 

will be open to the public with seating 

on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Members of the public may also listen 

by telephone. Call-in participants 

should be prepared to provide their first 

name, last name, and affiliation. The 

information for the conference call is set 

forth below. 

• US/Canada Toll-Free: 877–732– 

6422 

• Conference ID: 7772 

A transcript of the public roundtable 

discussion will be published on the 

SEC’s mandatory exchange trading and 

swap execution facilities rulemaking 

page at http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/ 

regreformcomments.shtml. The 

transcript also will be available by a link 

on the CFTC’s SEF Registration 

Requirements and Core Principle 

Rulemaking, Interpretation & Guidance 

Web page at http://www.cftc.gov/Law

Regulation/OTCDerivatives/otc_

rules.html. The roundtable discussion 

will take place in the Auditorium (Room 

L–002) at the SEC Headquarters located 

at 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the 

CFTC’s Office of Public Affairs at (202) 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES