55552 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

management community; and (b) certify 

that ‘‘Final financial reports have been 

submitted to NOAA’s Grants 

Management Division and a final 

funding draw-down has been made 

through the Automated Standard 

Application for Payments (ASAP).’’ 

If equipment is purchased with grant 

funds, applicants may be asked to 

submit an equipment inventory in 

accordance with 15 CFR 14.34(f)(3), 15 

CFR 24.32(b) or 15 CFR 24.32(d)(2) as an 

appendix to progress reports. Further, 

the program office recommends that 

recipients request disposition 

instructions for equipment 

approximately 150 days before the 

project period ends to allow sufficient 

time to have equipment disposition 

requests addressed before a project 

period ends. Equipment disposition 

instructions typically require that 

recipients complete an ‘‘other’’ award 

action request in Grants Online. NOAA 

will provide instructions for disposition 

in accordance with 15 CFR 14.34(g)–(h) 

and 15 CFR 24.32(g)(2). 

Please be advised that potential 

funding applicants must register with 

Grants.gov before any application 

materials can be submitted. An 

organization’s one time registration 

process may take up to three weeks to 

complete so please allow sufficient time 

to ensure applications are submitted 

before the closing date. To use 

Grants.gov, applicants must have a Dun 

and Bradstreet Data Universal 

Numbering System (DUNS) number and 

be registered in the Central Contractor 

Registry (CCR). Allow a minimum of 

five days to complete the CCR 

registration. (Note: Your organization’s 

Employer Identification Number (EIN) 

will be needed on the application form.) 

The Grants.gov site contains 

directions for submitting an application, 

the application package (forms), and is 

also where the completed application is 

submitted. Applicants using Grants.gov 

must locate the downloadable 

application package for this solicitation 

by the Funding Opportunity Number or 

the CFDA number (11.473). Applicants 

will be able to download a copy of the 

application package, complete it off 

line, and then upload and submit the 

application via the Grants.gov site. 

After electronic submission of the 

application, the person submitting the 

application will receive within the next 

24 to 48 hours two e-mail messages from 

Grants.gov updating them on the 

progress of their application. The first email will confirm receipt of the 

application by the Grants.gov system, 

and the second will indicate that the 

application has either been successfully 

validated by the system before 

transmission to the grantor agency or 

has been rejected because of errors. 

After the application has been validated, 

this same person will receive another email when the application has been 

downloaded by the Federal agency. 

Christopher C. Cartwright, 

Associate Assistant Administrator for 

Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services 

and Coastal Zone Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22645 Filed 9–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–841] 

Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (the Department) 

preliminarily determines that sales of 

polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) from Taiwan 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(LTFV) as provided in section 733(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are listed in the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. 

Pursuant to requests from the 

respondent, we are postponing by 

60 days the final determination and 

extending provisional measures from a 

four-month period to not more than 

6 months. Accordingly, we will make 

our final determination not later than 

135 days after publication of this 

preliminary determination. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 

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: 

Applicable Statute and Regulations 

Unless otherwise indicated, all 

citations to the Act or the Department’s 

regulations, 19 CFR part 351, are to 

those provisions in effect on September 

27, 2004, the date of initiation of this 

investigation. 

Background 

On September 27, 2004, the 

Department initiated the antidumping 

duty investigation on PVA from Taiwan. 

See Initiation of Anti Dumping Duty 

Investigation: Polyvinyl Alcohol From 

Taiwan, 69 FR 59204 (October 4, 2004) 

(Initiation Notice). On October 22, 2004, 

the International Trade Commission 

(ITC) made a preliminary determination 

that there was not a reasonable 

indication of injury due to imports of 

the subject merchandise. See Polyvinyl 

Alcohol From Taiwan, 69 FR 63177 

(October 29, 2004). As a result, the 

Department terminated the 

investigation. 

The petitioner appealed the negative 

ITC preliminary determination to the 

Court of International Trade (CIT). On 

remand from the CIT, the ITC reversed 

its preliminary determination and found 

instead that there was a reasonable 

indication of injury due to imports of 

the subject merchandise. The CIT 

affirmed the ITC’s remand 

determination. See Celanese Chemicals, 

Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 08–125 

(CIT 2008). DuPont, an importer of the 

subject merchandise, appealed the CIT’s 

decision to the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (CAFC). On December 

23, 2009, the CAFC affirmed the ITC’s 

decision. See Polyvinyl Alcohol From 

Taiwan; Determination, 75 FR 15726 

(March 30, 2010). The ITC notified the 

Department of its affirmative 

determination in the preliminary phase 

of an antidumping duty investigation 

concerning imports of PVA from Taiwan 

on March 25, 2010. See letter from the 

ITC dated March 25, 2010. On April 20, 

2010, the Department issued a decision 

memorandum which stated that the 

deadline for its preliminary 

determination is July 18, 2010. See 

memorandum to Laurie Parkhill dated 

April 20, 2010, at 10. 

On April 20, 2010, we issued the 

antidumping questionnaire to Chang 

Chun Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (CCPC). 

On May 24, 2010, we received a 

response to section A of our 

questionnaire from CCPC. On June 10, 

2010, we received a response to sections 

B–D of our questionnaire from CCPC. 

We issued supplemental questionnaires 

to CCPC and received responses to these 

questionnaires from CCPC. 

On June 17, 2010, the petitioner 

requested that the Department postpone 

its preliminary determination by 50 

days. In accordance with section 

733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we postponed 

our preliminary determination by 

50 days. See Postponement of 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 55553 

Preliminary Determination of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation: 

Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan, 75 FR 

38079 (July 1, 2010). 

On July 22, 2010, and August 6, 2010, 

the petitioner submitted allegations that 

CCPC engaged in targeted dumping 

during the POI. 

On July 28, 2010, the petitioner 

amended the scope of the investigation 

and the definition of the domestic like 

product. 

On August 4, 2010, CCPC submitted 

comments on the scope of the 

investigation. On August 13, 2010, the 

petitioner submitted comments 

opposing CCPC’s requested exclusions. 

On August 6, 2010, the petitioner 

submitted comments for consideration 

in the preliminary determination. 

On August 16, 2010, CCPC submitted 

comments on the petitioner’s targeteddumping allegations. On August 31, 

2010, the petitioner submitted 

comments rebutting CCPC’s arguments 

on the targeted-dumping allegations. 

On August 20, 2010, CCPC submitted 

a request that, in the event that the 

Department issues an affirmative 

preliminary antidumping 

determination, the Department should 

extend the final determination to the 

maximum of 135 days after the date of 

publication of the preliminary 

determination. CCPC also requested 

that, in the event that the Department 

issues an affirmative preliminary 

antidumping determination, the 

Department should extend the 

application of provisional measures by 

the corresponding period of extension 

in accordance with section 733(d) of the 

Act. 

On September 1, 2010, the petitioner 

submitted further comments regarding 

CCPC’s reported physical 

characteristics. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. 

This period corresponds to the four 

most recent fiscal quarters prior to the 

month of the filing of the petition, 

September 2004. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is PVA. This product 

consists of all PVA hydrolyzed in excess 

of 80 percent, whether or not mixed or 

diluted with commercial levels of 

defoamer or boric acid. PVA in fiber 

form and PVB-grade low-ash PVA are 

not included in the scope of this 

investigation. PVB-grade low-ash PVA is 

defined to be PVA that meets the 

following specifications: Hydrolysis, 

Mole % of 98.40 ± 0.40, 4% Solution 

Viscosity 30.00 ± 2.50 centipois, and 

ash—ISE, wt% less than 0.60, 4% 

solution color 20mm cell, 10.0 

maximum APHA units, haze index, 

20mm cell, 5.0, maximum. The 

merchandise under investigation is 

currently classifiable under subheading 

3905.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under investigation is 

dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

On July 28, 2010, the petitioner 

amended the scope of the petition and 

the definition of the domestic like 

product to exclude ‘‘PVB-grade low-ash’’ 

PVA, which it defined as ‘‘PVA that 

meets the following specifications: 

Hydrolysis, Mole % of 98.40 ± 0.40, 4% 

Solution Viscosity 30.00 ± 2.50 

centipois, and ash—ISE, wt% less than 

0.60, 4% solution color 20mm cell, 10.0 

maximum APHA units, haze index, 

20mm cell, 5.0, maximum.’’ See the 

petitioner’s July 28, 2010, submission. 

We have adopted the petitioner’s 

amendment and the scope of the 

investigation, described above, reflects 

this amendment. 

On August 4, 2010, CCPC submitted 

comments on the scope of the 

investigation. Specifically, CCPC 

requested that the Department exclude 

15 categories of merchandise that the 

Department excluded from the scope of 

the antidumping duty orders on PVA 

from Japan and from the People’s 

Republic of China. CCPC argues that 

these exclusions are appropriate 

because the three proceedings are 

virtually contemporaneous, because the 

petitioner still cannot manufacture these 

products, and because doing so would 

allow U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to administer the three 

antidumping duty orders on PVA 

consistently. 

On August 13, 2010, the petitioner 

submitted comments opposing CCPC’s 

requested exclusions. The petitioner 

observes that the first product for which 

CCPC requested exclusion, PVA in fiber 

form, is already specifically excluded 

from the investigation. With respect to 

the remaining products, the petitioner 

states that CCPC’s assertion that the 

petitioner cannot manufacture the 

products at issue is incorrect. The 

petitioner states that it has the 

competence to manufacture products 

that fall within or that are functionally 

equivalent to and commercially 

competitive with products that fall 

within all of CCPC’s proposed 

exclusions that are at issue. The 

petitioner states that it is actively selling 

or developing markets for products that 

fall into several of these categories. The 

petitioner argues that its ability to 

compete in the domestic PVA market 

with products in any of these categories 

will be directly affected by dumped 

imports in these categories. 

Because the petitioner opposes 

CCPC’s proposed exclusions and 

because the petitioner has stated that it 

is both actively developing and capable 

of producing PVA that is commercially 

competitive with products that fall 

within all of CCPC’s proposed 

exclusions (with the exception of PVA 

in fiber form, which is already excluded 

from the investigation), we have not 

adopted the scope exclusions requested 

by CCPC. 

Targeted-Dumping Allegation 

The statute allows the Department to 

employ the average-to-transaction 

margin-calculation methodology under 

the following circumstances: (1) There 

is a pattern of export prices that differ 

significantly among purchasers, regions, 

or periods of time; (2) the Department 

explains why such differences cannot be 

taken into account using the average-toaverage or transaction-to-transaction 

methodology. See section 777A(d)(1)(B) 

of the Act. 

On July 21, 2010, the petitioner 

submitted a timely allegation of targeted 

dumping with respect to CCPC and 

asserted that the Department should 

apply the average-to-transaction 

methodology in calculating the margin 

for CCPC. In its allegation, the petitioner 

asserts that there are patterns of export 

prices (EPs) for comparable 

merchandise that differ significantly 

among purchasers and regions. On 

August 6, 2010, the petitioner amended 

its allegation to assert that there are 

patterns of EPs for comparable 

merchandise that differ significantly 

among time periods. The petitioner 

relied on the Department’s targeteddumping test in Certain Steel Nails from 

the United Arab Emirates: Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Not Less 

Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 

2008), and Certain Steel Nails from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 

2008) (collectively, Nails). 

Because our analysis includes 

business-proprietary information, for a 

full discussion see Memorandum to 

Susan Kuhbach entitled ‘‘Less-ThanFair-Value Investigation on Polyvinyl 

Alcohol from Taiwan: Targeted 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55554 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

Dumping—Chang Chun Petrochemical 

Co., Ltd.,’’ dated September 7, 2010 

(Targeted-Dumping Memo). 

A. Targeted-Dumping Test 

We conducted customer, regional, and 

time-period targeted-dumping analyses 

for CCPC using the methodology we 

adopted in Nails as modified in 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Taiwan: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

74 FR 55183 (October 27, 2009) (test 

unchanged in final; 75 FR 14569 (March 

26, 2010)), to correct a ministerial error. 

The methodology we employed 

involves a two-stage test; the first stage 

addresses the pattern requirement and 

the second stage addresses the 

significant-difference requirement. See 

section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 

Nails. In this test we made all price 

comparisons on the basis of identical 

merchandise (i.e., by control number or 

CONNUM). The test procedures are the 

same for the customer, region, and timeperiod targeted-dumping allegations. 

We based all of our targeted-dumping 

calculations on the U.S. net price which 

we determined for U.S. sales by CCPC 

in our standard margin calculations. For 

further discussion of the test and the 

results, see the Targeted-Dumping 

Memo. 

As a result of our analysis, we 

preliminarily determine that there is a 

pattern of EPs for comparable 

merchandise that differ significantly 

among certain customers and time 

periods for CCPC in accordance with 

section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 

our practice as discussed in Nails. 

B. Price-Comparison Method 

Section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act 

states that the Department may compare 

the weighted average of the normal 

value to EPs or constructed export 

prices (CEPs) of individual transactions 

for comparable merchandise if the 

Department explains why differences in 

the patterns of EPs and CEPs cannot be 

taken into account using the average-toaverage methodology. As described 

above, we have preliminarily 

determined that, with respect to sales by 

CCPC for certain customers and time 

periods, there was a pattern of prices 

that differ significantly. We find that 

these differences cannot be taken into 

account using the average-to-average 

methodology because the average-toaverage methodology conceals 

differences in the patterns of prices 

between the targeted and non-targeted 

groups by averaging low-priced sales to 

the targeted group with high-priced 

sales to the non-targeted group. 

Once we determine that the customer, 

regional, or time-period pattern-of-price 

differences are significant, our recent 

practice has been to apply the averageto-transaction methodology to all sales 

regardless of whether they are targeted. 

See, e.g., Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from Taiwan: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 

14569 (March 26, 2010), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1 (Taiwan 

Bags). Prior to the publication of 

Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions 

Governing Targeted Dumping in 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 

74930 (December 10, 2008) (Withdrawal 

of Regulations), however, the regulation 

in effect when we initiated this 

investigation, 19 CFR 351.414(f)(2) 

(2004), specified that ‘‘the Secretary 

normally will limit the application of 

the average-to-transaction methodology 

to those sales that constitute targeted 

dumping.’’ 

The use of the qualifier ‘‘normally’’ in 

19 CFR 351.414(f)(2) (2004) indicates 

that we have the discretion to depart 

from limiting the application of the 

average-to-transaction methodology to 

those sales that constitute targeted 

dumping if we find it appropriate to do 

so. We preliminarily determine that 

such a departure is appropriate in this 

investigation. After this investigation 

was initiated, we withdrew this 

regulation because we recognized that 

the regulation ‘‘may have established 

thresholds or other criteria that have 

prevented the use of this comparison 

methodology to unmask dumping, 

contrary to the Congressional intent.’’ 

See Withdrawal of Regulations, 73 FR at 

74931. We said further that 

‘‘{w}ithdrawal {of the regulation} will 

allow the Department to exercise the 

discretion intended by the statute and, 

thereby, develop a practice that will 

allow interested parties to pursue all 

statutory avenues of relief in this area.’’ 

Id. Since the publication of Withdrawal 

of Regulations, we have refined our 

practice in cases involving targeted 

dumping. Specifically, ‘‘if the criteria of 

section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act are 

satisfied, the Department will apply 

average-to-transaction comparisons for 

all sales in calculating the weightedaverage dumping margin.’’ See Taiwan 

Bags and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Accordingly, because 19 CFR 

351.414(f)(2) (2004) gives us the 

discretion to depart from limiting the 

application of the average-to-transaction 

methodology to only those sales that 

constitute targeted dumping and 

because we have developed a practice 

which better reflects Congressional 

intent, we have applied the average-totransaction methodology to all U.S. 

sales that CCPC reported and have not 

offset any margins found. 

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that the Department 

normally will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the producer’s or exporter’s 

records kept in the ordinary course of 

business, as the date of sale. The 

regulation provides further that the 

Department may use a date other than 

the date of the invoice if the Secretary 

is satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the material 

terms of sale are established. 

CCPC reported that the essential terms 

of sale (i.e., price and quantity) were set 

on the date of the customer’s order for 

both home-market and U.S. sales. For 

home-market sales, CCPC reported the 

‘‘customer-order entry date’’ as the date 

of sale because home-market customers 

placed orders by telephone or online; as 

a result, there is no customer-order form 

and the date on which CCPC entered the 

order into its sales system is the closest 

date to when CCPC received the 

customer order. See CCPC’s July 21, 

2010, supplemental response at page 8. 

For U.S. sales, CCPC was able to report 

the date of the customer order as the 

date of sale because U.S. customers 

placed order by fax or by e-mail. Id. 

We preliminarily determine that the 

material terms of sale are set on the 

invoice date for both home-market and 

U.S. sales. Although CCPC reported that 

the price and quantity did not change 

after the customer-order date for either 

its home-market or U.S. sales, CCPC 

reported that other terms of sale, such 

as the product code, designated 

customer, or packing type, changed after 

the customer-order date with respect to 

a number of both home-market and U.S. 

sales. See CCPC’s August 20, 2010, 

supplemental response at Exhibits 4 and 

8. The record is not clear as to the extent 

that changes in product type or packing 

type have on price. The record does 

demonstrate that there are significantly 

different costs associated with different 

packing types. See CCPC’s section B–D 

response dated June 10, 2010, at 

exhibits 13 and 18. Therefore, we are 

preliminarily treating these types of 

changes as changes to the essential 

terms of sale. Accordingly, we have 

preliminarily determined that the 

invoice date is the date of sale with 

respect to CCPC’s home-market and U.S. 

sales. 

Fair-Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of PVA to 

the United States by CCPC were made 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 55555 

at LTFV during the POI, we compared 

EP to normal value as described in the 

‘‘U.S. Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice. As described in 

the ‘‘Targeted-Dumping Allegation’’ 

section, above, we made average-totransaction comparisons for all of 

CCPC’s reported sales and did not 

provide offsets for non-dumped 

comparisons. 

Product Comparisons 

We have taken into account the 

comments that were submitted by the 

interested parties concerning productcomparison criteria. In accordance with 

section 771(16) of the Act, all products 

produced by the respondent that are 

covered by the description in the ‘‘Scope 

of the Investigation’’ section, above, and 

sold in the home market during the POI 

are considered to be foreign like product 

for purposes of determining appropriate 

product comparisons to U.S. sales. We 

have relied on eleven criteria to match 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 

home-market sales of the foreign like 

product: viscosity, molecular structure, 

hydrolysis, degree of modification, 

particle size, tackifier, defoamer, ash, 

color, volatiles, and visual impurities. 

Where there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the home market made 

in the ordinary course of trade for 

comparison to U.S. sales, we matched 

U.S. sales to the next most similar 

foreign like product on the basis of the 

characteristics listed above. 

CCPC reported viscosity, hydrolysis, 

and degree of modification using ranges 

rather than specific values because, it 

explained, CCPC sells PVA by grades 

which are defined by ranges. See 

CCPC’s July 7, 2010, submission at 

pages 2–4. The petitioner has argued 

that the Department should require 

CCPC to code the product 

characteristics accurately and to assign 

the identical product-characteristic code 

to products that are identical with 

respect to the characteristic. According 

to the petitioner, the ranges CCPC used 

to report these characteristics include 

overlapping ranges, meaning that the 

different product codes could be 

employed for products with identical 

characteristics. As a result, the 

petitioner contends, products that are 

identical with respect to certain 

physical characteristics can be coded as 

different. The petitioner asserts that 

CCPC’s reporting methodology prevents 

the Department from matching identical 

and most similar products accurately. 

The petitioner suggests that the 

Department use adverse facts available 

for CCPC’s margin or collapse certain 

models for the preliminary 

determination. 

We preliminarily determine that it 

would be inappropriate to revise CCPC’s 

codes for reporting viscosity, hydrolysis, 

or degree of modification. CCPC has 

stated that it produces and sells PVA on 

the basis of grades which are defined 

principally in terms of ranges of 

hydrolysis, viscosity, and 

polymerization. See CCPC’s July 7, 

2010, submission at page 2. CCPC also 

submitted evidence indicating that other 

PVA producers also sell PVA on the 

basis of grades. Id. at Exhibits 1 through 

3. Furthermore, CCPC’s ranges for these 

characteristics correspond to the 

definitions of the grades it produces and 

sells in its ordinary course of business. 

Compare CCPC’s May 14, 2010, section 

B response at pages 8–10 and its May 

14, 2010, section C response at pages 

39–40 with its product brochure at 

CCPC’s May 14, 2010, section A 

response at Exhibit 16. 

The petitioner does not dispute any of 

this. Rather, the petitioner’s argument is 

based on the fact that certain ranges for 

viscosity overlap. As a preliminary 

matter, the ranges CCPC used to report 

hydrolysis and degree of modification 

do not overlap. Accordingly, with 

respect to these physical characteristics, 

the petitioner’s concern about the 

assignment of different codes to 

identical products is not relevant. 

With respect to viscosity, while there 

is overlap between certain viscosity 

codes, there are specific viscosities for 

which a product would be within one 

range but not the other. For example, 

CCPC’s code 12 covers PVA with a 

viscosity of between 24 and 32 

centipoises, code 13 covers PVA with a 

viscosity of between 25 and 30 

centipoises, and code 14 covers PVA 

with a viscosity of between 27 and 33 

centipoises. See CCPC’s May 14, 2010, 

section B response at pages 8–10 and its 

May 14, 2010, section C response at 

pages 39–40. Thus, a sale of PVA with 

a viscosity between 27 and 30 

centipoises could be assigned any three 

of these codes. By contrast, however, a 

sale of PVA with a centipoises of above 

32 but below 33 could only be assigned 

a code of 14. While the petitioner is 

correct that the certificates of analysis 

which CCPC submitted indicate that the 

PVA corresponding to those certificates 

could be assigned any of these three 

codes, the petitioner based its argument 

on four certificates of analysis which 

CCPC submitted with its July 21, 2010, 

supplemental response. This is a very 

small sample in relation to the number 

of transactions CCPC submitted in its 

home-market and U.S. sales databases. 

See CCPC’s July 21, 2010, supplemental 

response at Exhibits 6 and 7. 

Furthermore, the record demonstrates 

that, with respect to certain grades of 

PVA which have overlapping viscosity 

codes, there are batches of these grades 

of PVA which could only be assigned 

one code but not another. For example, 

the first of the certificates of analysis 

CCPC submitted in Exhibit 5 of its July 

21, 2010, supplemental response shows 

a grade which can only be assigned a 

particular viscosity code. If we were to 

adopt the petitioner’s suggestion, we 

would collapse this viscosity code with 

another code, thus opening the 

possibility that we could treat nonidentical merchandise as identical. 

Furthermore, although the petitioner 

raised the possibility that we could treat 

identical products as non-identical 

products, there is no evidence on the 

record showing that we would actually 

do so. The two grades on the four 

certificates of analysis which the 

petitioner cites could all conceivably be 

assigned the same viscosity code, but 

the hydrolysis values on these 

certificates of analysis demonstrate that 

these two grades must be assigned 

different hydrolysis codes. See CCPC’s 

July 21, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire at Exhibit 4. Thus, even if 

we collapsed these viscosity codes, 

these two grades would still not be 

identical merchandise. 

For the foregoing reasons, we 

preliminarily determine that it is not 

appropriate to modify CCPC’s reported 

physical characteristics. 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we used EP for CCPC’s U.S. 

sales because the subject merchandise 

was sold directly to unaffiliated 

customers in the United States prior to 

importation. As described in the 

‘‘Targeted-Dumping Allegation’’ section, 

above, we compared transaction-specific 

EPs to the weighted-average normal 

values. 

We calculated EP based on the packed 

price to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. We made deductions for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

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

memorandum to the file entitled 

‘‘Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan— 

Analysis Memorandum for Chang Chun 

Petrochemical Co., Ltd.’’ dated 

September 7, 2010 (Analysis Memo), for 

additional information. 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55556 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

Normal Value 

A. Home-Market Viability and 

Comparison-Market Selection 

To determine whether there is a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating normal value (i.e., the 

aggregate volume of home-market sales 

of the foreign like product is equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales), we compared 

each respondent’s volume of homemarket sales of the foreign like product 

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

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

the Act. Based on this comparison, we 

have preliminarily determined that 

CCPC had a viable home market during 

the POI. Consequently, we based normal 

value on home-market sales in 

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

the Act. 

B. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

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

practicable, we determine normal value 

based on sales in the comparison market 

at the same level of trade as the EP sales 

in the U.S. market. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(1), the normal-value level of 

trade is based on the starting price of the 

sales in the comparison market or, when 

normal value is based on constructed 

value, the starting price of the sales from 

which we derive selling, general and 

administrative expenses and profit. For 

EP sales, the U.S. level of trade is based 

on the starting price of the sales in the 

U.S. market, which is usually from the 

exporter to the importer. 

To determine whether comparisonmarket sales are at a different level of 

trade than EP sales, we examine stages 

in the marketing process and selling 

functions along the chain of distribution 

between the producer and the 

unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 

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

sales are at a different level of trade and 

the difference affects price 

comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which normal 

value is based and the comparisonmarket sales at the level of trade of the 

export transaction, we make a level-oftrade adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61733 (November 19, 

1997). 

In this investigation, we obtained 

information from CCPC regarding the 

marketing stages involved in making its 

reported home-market and U.S. sales, 

including a description of the selling 

activities the respondent performed for 

each channel of distribution. 

During the POI, CCPC reported that it 

sold PVA in the home market through 

a single channel of distribution. We 

found that the selling activities 

associated with all sales through this 

channel of distribution did not differ. 

Accordingly, we found that the homemarket channel of distribution 

constituted a single level of trade. 

CCPC reported that its EP sales were 

made to distributors through a single 

channel of distribution. We found that 

the selling activities associated with all 

sales through this channel of 

distribution did not differ. Accordingly, 

we found that the EP channel of 

distribution constituted a single level of 

trade. We found that the EP level of 

trade was identical to the home-market 

level of trade in terms of selling 

activities. Thus, we matched CCPC’s EP 

sales at the same level of trade in the 

home market and made no level-of-trade 

adjustment. See Analysis Memo. 

C. Cost of Production 

Based on our analysis of an allegation 

contained in the petition, we found that 

there were reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that sales of PVA in 

the home market were made at prices 

below their cost of production (COP). 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) 

of the Act, we initiated a countrywide 

sales-below-cost-investigation to 

determine whether sales were made at 

prices below their respective COP (see 

Initiation Notice, 69 FR at 59206). 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of the cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product 

plus an amount for selling, general and 

administrative expenses (SG&A), 

financial expenses, and comparisonmarket packing costs (see the ‘‘Test of 

Comparison-Market Sales Prices’’ 

section below for treatment of homemarket selling expenses and packing 

costs). We relied on the COP data 

submitted by CCPC with one exception: 

We increased the reported general and 

administrative (G&A) expenses to 

include a non-operating expense lineitem from the financial statements, ‘‘loss 

on work stoppages.’’ This expense is 

associated with a temporary shutdown 

of CCPC’s operations for its copper foil 

division. See Memorandum to Neal 

Halper from Ernest Gziryan entitled 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Determination—Chang 

Chun Petrochemical Co. Ltd.,’’ dated 

September 7, 2010. 

2. Test of Home-Market Sales Prices 

On a product-specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home-market sales of 

the foreign like product, as required 

under section 773(b) of the Act, to 

determine whether the sales were made 

at prices below the COP. For purposes 

of this comparison, we used the COP 

exclusive of selling and packing 

expenses. The prices were adjusted for 

discounts and were exclusive of any 

applicable movement charges, direct 

and indirect selling expenses, and 

packing expenses, adjusted as discussed 

below. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

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

the Act, where less than 20 percent of 

the respondent’s sales of a given 

product are at prices less than the COP, 

we do not disregard any below-cost 

sales of that product because we 

determine that the below-cost sales were 

not made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ 

Where 20 percent or more of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the POI were at prices less than 

COP, we determine that such sales have 

been made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ 

and, thus, we disregard below-cost 

sales. See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act. Further, we determine that the 

sales were made within an extended 

period of time, in accordance with 

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

we examine below-cost sales occurring 

during the entire POI. In such cases, 

because we compare prices to POIaverage costs, we also determine that 

such sales were not made at prices 

which would permit recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time 

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) 

of the Act. 

In this case, we found that, for certain 

specific products, more than 20 percent 

of CCPC’s home-market sales were at 

prices less than the COP and, in 

addition, such sales did not provide for 

the recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. Therefore, we 

disregarded these sales and used the 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining normal value in accordance 

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

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Home-Market Prices 

We based normal value on packed, 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers in the home market. 

The petitioner has argued that the 

Department should remove ‘‘transport’’ 

sales from the home-market sales 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 55557 

database. Transport sales occur when 

the transportation company is 

responsible for any loss during the 

shipment from CCPC’s factory to the 

customer; the transportation company 

will compensate the customer for the 

loss of product by purchasing an equal 

amount of the product from CCPC and 

delivering the replacement product to 

the customer. See CCPC’s July 21, 2010, 

supplemental response at 20. The 

petitioner contends that these 

transactions are not really sales but are 

reimbursement by the transportation 

company for lost product. 

We preliminarily determine that these 

transactions are sales. Any 

reimbursement is between the 

transportation company and the original 

customer. From CCPC’s point of view, it 

made a sale to the original customer and 

then made a sale to a transport company 

and it gets compensated for both. 

Accordingly, we have not removed 

these sales from our analysis. See 

Analysis Memo. 

We made an adjustment to the starting 

price, where appropriate, for discounts 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). 

We made deductions, where 

appropriate, for movement expenses 

under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 

the Act, we made circumstance-of-sale 

adjustments by deducting home-market 

direct selling expenses from, and adding 

U.S. direct selling expenses to, normal 

value. See also 19 CFR 351.410. 

We made an adjustment to CCPC’s 

reported credit expense for certain U.S. 

sales where the customer paid by letter 

of credit and CCPC ‘‘negotiated with the 

paying banks for earlier release of 

customer payments with interest.’’ See 

CCPC’s July 21, 2010, supplemental 

response at page 33. CCPC reported the 

date of payment, which it used to 

calculate imputed credit expenses, for 

such sales based on when it received 

funds from the bank. Id. at page 20. We 

preliminarily determine that it is 

appropriate to use the date when the 

customer actually paid as the date of 

payment. Although CCPC received 

funds from the customer’s bank at an 

earlier date, it had to pay interest to the 

customer’s bank for early release of the 

funds. Id. at page 33. Thus, this is 

essentially a loan transaction between 

CCPC and the customer’s bank; CCPC’s 

customer is not involved. Indeed, CCPC 

acknowledges that its customers did not 

pay earlier than the payment terms 

prescribed. Id. Because the 

circumstance-of-sale adjustment to 

normal value for imputed credit 

expenses is meant to capture differences 

in the credit terms a respondent extends 

its customers in different markets, it is 

appropriate to use the date that the 

customer actually paid as the date of 

payment rather than the date on which 

CCPC negotiated a loan with the 

customer’s bank. Accordingly, where 

CCPC’s reported payment date for these 

U.S. sales were less than the payment 

terms prescribed, we have revised the 

payment date to match the prescribed 

payment terms and have recalculated 

imputed credit expenses accordingly. 

We 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. We deducted 

the costs of home-market packing 

materials from and added U.S. packing 

costs to normal value in accordance 

with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the 

Act. 

The Department’s regulations at 19 

CFR 351.401(g)(1) provide that the 

Department may consider allocated 

expenses where the Department ‘‘is 

satisfied that the allocation 

methodology does not cause 

inaccuracies or distortions.’’ We 

preliminarily determine that CCPC’s 

reported allocation of its packing-labor 

expense is unreasonably distortive 

because CCPC allocated packing labor 

equally to all sales even though U.S. 

sales are generally packed using many 

more packing materials (and, therefore, 

presumably require more time to pack) 

than home-market sales. See CCPC’s 

questionnaire response dated June 10, 

2010, at exhibits 13 and 18. CCPC has 

admitted that it ‘‘incurred its packing 

expenses solely based on outside 

packing labor’s overall time performed.’’ 

See CCPC’s August 20, 2010, 

supplemental response at page 4. 

Despite our two requests of CCPC to 

recalculate packing labor to reflect 

differences in labor time associated with 

different packing types, CCPC has failed 

to do so. See CCPC’s July 21, 2010, 

response at page 25 and CCPC’s August 

20, 2010, supplemental response at 

pages 3–4. CCPC asserts that its 

allocation is accurate because it 

incurred packing expenses based on 

time ‘‘regardless of the packing types 

and markets of polyvinyl alcohol.’’ See 

CCPC’s August 20, 2010, supplemental 

response at page 4. While it may be true 

that there is no difference in the perhour rate charged by the providers of 

the packing service based on market or 

packing type, U.S. sales are packed 

using many more packing materials than 

home-market sales; we commented in 

our supplemental questionnaire that, as 

a result, it would presumably mean that 

it would take more time to pack U.S. 

sales than home-market sales. CCPC did 

not address this comment in its 

response. Id. at pages 3–4. 

As a result of CCPC’s allocation, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

reported packing labor for U.S. sales is 

understated while the reported packing 

labor for home-market sales is 

overstated. Each of these distortions has 

the effect of reducing the dumping 

margin. 

Section 776(a)(1)(A) of the Act 

provides that the Department may use 

the facts available if necessary 

information is not available on the 

record. Because CCPC did not provide a 

reasonable allocation methodology to 

account for the difference in packing 

times, we have preliminarily 

determined that the use of facts 

available with respect to CCPC’s 

packing-labor expenses is warranted. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use an adverse 

inference when using the facts available 

when a respondent has not acted to the 

best of its ability to provide necessary 

information. Because CCPC did not 

provide a reasonable allocation 

methodology to account for the 

difference in packing times despite our 

multiple requests to do so, we have 

preliminarily determined that an 

adverse inference with respect to 

CCPC’s packing-labor expenses is 

warranted. Accordingly, as adverse facts 

available, we have denied CCPC’s 

claimed packing-labor adjustment for 

home-market sales and we have 

allocated all of CCPC’s packing-labor 

expenses to export sales. Because we are 

using the actual expenses and 

shipments reported by CCPC rather than 

secondary information, corroboration 

under section 776(c) of the Act is not 

necessary. 

Currency Conversion 

It is our normal practice to make 

currency conversions into U.S. dollars 

in accordance with section 773A(a) of 

the Act based on exchange rates in effect 

on the dates of the U.S. sales, as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

We have converted all prices, costs, 

expenses, and adjustments denominated 

in Taiwan dollars into U.S. dollars in 

accordance with our normal practice. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

upon which we will rely in making our 

final determination for CCPC. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we will direct CBP to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

PVA from Taiwan that are entered, or 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55558 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

margins, as indicated below, as follows: 

(1) The rate for CCPC will be the rate we 

have determined in this preliminary 

determination; (2) if the exporter is not 

a firm identified in this investigation 

but the producer is, the rate will be the 

rate established for the producer of the 

subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all 

other producers or exporters will be 

3.02 percent, as discussed in the ‘‘AllOthers Rate’’ section, below. These 

suspension-of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted-average margin 

(percent) 

Chang Chun Petrochemical 

Co., Ltd. ............................ 3.02 

All Others .............................. 3.02 

All-Others Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that the estimated all-others 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. CCPC is the only 

respondent in this investigation for 

which the Department has calculated a 

company-specific rate. Therefore, for 

purposes of determining the all-others 

rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) 

of the Act, we are using the weightedaverage dumping margin calculated for 

CCPC, 3.02 percent. See, e.g., Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 

30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999), and Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 72 FR 30753, 

30757 (June 4, 2007) (unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 

60636 (October 25, 2007)). 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed in our preliminary 

determination to interested parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination. 

If the Department’s final determination 

is affirmative, the ITC will determine 

within 75 days after the date of that 

affirmative determination whether 

imports of PVA from Taiwan are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, the U.S. industry (see 

section 735(b)(3) of the Act). 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs to the Department no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the issuance of the last verification 

report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, the content 

of which is limited to the issues raised 

in the case briefs, must be filed within 

five days from the deadline date for the 

submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). A list of authorities used, a 

table of contents, and an executive 

summary of issues should accompany 

any briefs submitted to the Department. 

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

summaries should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. Further, 

we request that parties submitting briefs 

and rebuttal briefs provide the 

Department with a copy of the public 

version of such briefs on diskette. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, the Department will hold a public 

hearing, if timely requested, to afford 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on issues raised in case briefs, 

provided that such a hearing is 

requested by an interested party. See 

also 19 CFR 351.310. If a timely request 

for a hearing is made in this 

investigation, we intend to hold the 

hearing two days after the deadline for 

filing a rebuttal brief at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in 

a room to be determined. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the date, time, and 

location of the hearing 48 hours before 

the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 

if one is requested, must submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

1870, within 30 days of the publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain 

the following: (1) The party’s name, 

address, and telephone number; (2) a 

list of participants; (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

At the hearing, oral presentations will 

be limited to issues raised in the briefs. 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

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

that a final determination may be 

postponed until not later than 135 days 

after the date of the publication of the 

preliminary determination if, in the 

event of an affirmative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by exporters who 

account for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise or, in 

the event of a negative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by the petitioner. 

Section 351.210(e)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations requires that 

requests by respondents for 

postponement of a final determination 

be accompanied by a request for 

extension of provisional measures from 

a four-month period to not more than 

six months. 

On August 20, 2010, CCPC requested 

that, in the event of an affirmative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department postpone 

its final determination by 60 days. At 

the same time, CCPC requested that the 

Department extend the application of 

the provisional measures prescribed 

under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month 

period to a six-month period. In 

accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), because 

(1) our preliminary determination is 

affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter 

accounts for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting this request and 

are postponing the final determination 

until no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Suspension of liquidation will 

be extended accordingly. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

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

Dated: September 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22776 Filed 9–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES