Justia Regulation Tracker Department Of Commerce International Trade Administration Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 60632-60636 [E7-21041]
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 60632-60636 [E7-21041]
Download as PDF 60632 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether imports of the subject merchandise are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to the industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (''APO'') of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 17, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. A. General Comments Targeting mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Comment 9: Application of Partial Facts Available to Hansol, Moorim, and Hankuk's Total Cost of Manufacture Comment 10: Differences in Merchandise Were Not Verified B. Company–Specific Comments Hansol Comment 1: Treatment of Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset Comment 2: Treatment of Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in Korea (DINDIRSU) Comment 3: Treatment of Missing U.S. Payment Dates Comment 4: Treatment of U.S. Repacking Comment 5: Adjustment of Hansol's Reported U.S. Rebates Comment 6: Production Quantities Were Not Verified Comment 7: General and Administrative Expense Rate Comment 8: Financial Expense Rate Kyesung Comment 9: Price Adjustment Related to the U.S. Price Comment 10: Request to Apply Partial Adverse Facts Available Moorim Hankuk Comments Comment 1: Standard and Appropriate Statistical Techniques Comment 2: Validity of Certain Pasta from Italy Comment 3: Statistical Significance Requirement Comment 4: Whether the Average–to– Average Method Can Account for Targeted Dumping Comment 5: Statutory Application of Transaction–to–Transaction Methodology 17:26 Oct 24, 2007 Cost of Production Comment 11: Moorim's Pulp Costs Remain Unexplained Appendix—Issues in Decision Memo VerDate Aug<31>2005 Comment 6: Discretionary Application of Transaction–to–Transaction Methodology Comment 7: Margin Calculation of Targeted and Non–Targeted Sales Comment 8: Proposed Transaction–to– Transaction Margin Program Jkt 214001 Comment 12: Timeliness of Targeted Dumping Allegation concerning Hankuk Paper Comment 13: Standard Costs for Hankuk EN Paper Comment 14: Credit Balance for Bad Debt Allowance [FR Doc. E7–21035 Filed 10–24–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–570–906 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007. SUMMARY: On June 4, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the ''Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (''LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of coated free sheet paper (''CFS'') from the People's Republic of China (''PRC''). The period of investigation (''POI'') is April 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made changes to our calculations for the mandatory respondents. The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the ''Final Determination Margins'' section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Drew Jackson, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4162 and 482– 4406, respectively. AGENCY: Final Determination We determine that CFS from the PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (''the Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ''Final Determination Margins'' section of this notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on June 4, 2007. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) (''Preliminary Determination''). Between June 18, 2007, and July 13, 2007, the Department conducted verifications of the collapsed entity Gold East Co. Ltd.(Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd., Gold Hua Sheng Paper (Suzhou Industry Park) Co. Ltd., and China Union (Macao E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM 25OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Commercial Offshore) Company Ltd.) (collectively ''Gold East'') and its U.S. affiliate, and separate rates applicant Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co. Ltd. (''Yanzhou Tianzhang''), and its U.S. importer. See the ''Verification'' section below for additional information. We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. On August 31, 2007, petitioner,1 the Bureau of Fair Trade, Ministry of Commerce, People's Republic of China (''BOFT''), Yanzhou Tianzhang, and Gold East filed case briefs. Petitioner and Gold East filed rebuttal briefs on September 7, 2007. Additionally, on September 12, 2007, petitioner, Gold East, Yanzhou Tianzhang, and BOFT, along with other interested parties in concurrent CFS investigations, submitted comments regarding the scope of the instant investigation. These parties filed rebuttal scope comments on September 20, 2007. In response to requests from interested parties, the Department held a hearing on the scope of the investigation on September 26, 2007. Analysis of Comments Received With the exception of the scope issue, all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the ''Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum,'' dated October 17, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice (''Issues and Decision Memorandum''). The scope issue is addressed in a separate memorandum. See ''Scope Comments'' section, below. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issue and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (''CRU''), Main Commerce Building, Room B–099, and is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Additionally, because some of the issues that parties raised and to which we respond contain proprietary information, there is a separate proprietary version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. See ''Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comments and Department of Commerce's Positions Containing Proprietary Information,'' dated October 17, 2007. 1 Petitioner in this investigation is NewPage Corporation. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:26 Oct 24, 2007 Jkt 214001 Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have changed the margin calculation for Gold East. Those changes include the following: 1. We revised our calculation of the per–unit cost of Gold East's self– produced electricity and did not value steam used in production. 2. Based on verification findings, (a) we revised the average market– economy price reported for a type of pulp; (b) recalculated the net unit price of constructed export price (''CEP'') sales to account for unreported selling expenses; (c) reclassified one export price sale as a CEP sale and adjusted the sale's price to reflect CEP expenses; and (d) based the dumping margin of one unreported sale on adverse facts available (''AFA''). 3. We did not value certain reported factors based on our finding that these factors are used in the maintenance of machines, and are properly classified as overhead items. 4. We revised surrogate values for certain factors of production. 5. We valued certain inputs used by Gold East to treat water. 6. We revised the surrogate values for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative (''SG&A''), and profit. 7. We corrected a ministerial error involving one of Gold East's self– produced inputs. For a detailed analysis of Gold East's margin calculation, see ''Final Determination in the Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for Gold East'', dated October 17, 2007. We assigned separate rates applicant Yanzhou Tianzhang the revised final margin calculated for Gold East, the only mandatory respondent to fully participate in this investigation. We assigned the PRC–wide rate, as total AFA, to Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited (''Chenming'), because it ceased participating in this investigation prior to the scheduled verification and, consequently, did not demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes coated free sheet paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes. Coated free sheet paper is produced from not–more-than 10 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 60633 percent by weight mechanical or combined chemical/mechanical fibers. Coated free sheet paper is coated with kaolin (China clay) or other inorganic substances, with or without a binder, and with no other coating. Coated free sheet paper may be surface–colored, surface–decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, or perforated. The subject merchandise includes single- and double–side-coated free sheet paper; coated free sheet paper in both sheet or roll form; and is inclusive of all weights, brightness levels, and finishes. The terms ''wood free'' or ''art'' paper may also be used to describe the imported product. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Coated free sheet paper that is imported printed with final content printed text or graphics; (2) base paper to be sensitized for use in photography; and (3) paper containing by weight 25 percent or more cotton fiber. Coated free sheet paper is classifiable under subheadings 4810.13.1900, 4810.13.2010, 4810.13.2090, 4810.13.5000, 4810.13.7040, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.7040, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, and 4810.19.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (''HTSUS''). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments On August 20, August 28, and September 10, 2007, the petitioner requested that the Department clarify the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of CFS paper from Indonesia, Korea and the People's Republic of China. Specifically, the petitioner asked the Department to ''clarify that the scope of the investigation includes coated free sheet paper containing hardwood BCTMP.'' Because this was a general issue pertaining to all six investigations, the Department set up a general issues file to handle this scope request. A hearing on the scope request was held on September 26, 2007. The hearing comprised a public session, a closed session for the antidumping investigation from Korea, and a closed session for the countervailing duty investigation from the PRC. After considering the comments submitted by the parties to these investigations, we have determined not to adopt the scope clarification sought by the petitioner. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM 25OCN1 60634 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Administration, entitled ''Scope Clarification Request: NewPage Corporation'' dated concurrently with this notice, which is appended to ''Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China.'' Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party (A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties. On June 7, 2007, six days before the commencement of verification, counsel for Chenming informed Department officials that Chenming would not continue its participation in the instant investigation. See Memorandum to the File through Howard Smith, Program Manager, Office 4, concerning ''Telephone Conversation with Counsel for Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Co., Ltd.,'' dated June 7, 2007; see also Chenming's letter to the Department, concerning, ''Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China; Withdrawal of Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited and Withdrawal of Consent to Access Proprietary Information,'' dated June 11, 2007. Because Chenming ceased participation in the instant investigation, the Department was not able to conduct its scheduled verification of Chenming's responses. Verification is integral to the Department's analysis because it allows the Department to satisfy itself that it is relying upon accurate information and calculating dumping margins as accurately as possible. By failing to participate in verification, Chenming prevented the Department from verifying its reported information, including separate rates information, VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:26 Oct 24, 2007 Jkt 214001 and significantly impeded the proceeding. Moreover, by not permitting verification, Chenming failed to prove that it is free of government control and entitled to a separate rate. Additionally, Chenming's refusal to participate in verification demonstrates that it failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request from the Department. Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference with respect to an interested party if the Department finds that the party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–20 (October 16, 1997); see also Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States, 343 F. Supp.2d 1242 (CIT 2004) (approving use of AFA when respondent refused to participate in verification). Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) and 776(b) of the Act, we have, as AFA, treated Chenming as part of the PRC–wide entity and assigned Chenming the PRC– wide rate of 99.65 percent. See the sections entitled ''The PRC–Wide Rate'' and ''Corroboration,'' below, for a discussion of the selection and corroboration of the PRC–Wide rate. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verifications in the PRC and the United States of the information submitted by the respondent and the separate rate applicant for use in our final determination. See the Department's verification reports on the record of this investigation in the CRU with respect to Gold East and Yanzhou Tianzhang. For all verified companies, we used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by respondents. Surrogate Country In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation for the following reasons: (1) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. See Preliminary Determination. For the final determination, we received no comments and made no changes to our PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non– market–economy (''NME'') countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (''Sparklers''), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (''Silicon Carbide''), and Section 351.107(d) of the Department's regulations. In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Gold East and the separate rate applicant, Yanzhou Tianzhang, demonstrated their eligibility for separate–rate status. No party has commented on the eligibility of Gold East or Yanzhou Tianzhang for separate–rate status. For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Gold East and Yanzhou Tianzhang demonstrate both a de jure and de facto absence of government control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under investigation and thus are eligible for separate rate status. The PRC–Wide Rate In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that certain companies and the PRC–wide entity did not respond to our requests for information. In the Preliminary Determination, we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC– wide entity because they did not demonstrate that they operate free of government control over their export activities. No additional information has been placed on the record with respect to these entities after the Preliminary Determination. The PRC–wide entity has not provided the Department with the requested information; therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department continues to find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC–wide rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM 25OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold– Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also, ''Statement of Administrative Action'' accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994). We determine that because the PRC– wide entity has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability because it did not respond to our request for information. Therefore, the Department finds that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRC– wide entity. Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a NME country are subject to government control and because only the companies listed under the ''Final Determination Margins'' section below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate - the PRC–wide rate - to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC–wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from the respondents which are listed in the ''Final Determination Margins'' section below (except as noted). Corroboration At the Preliminary Determination, we corroborated our AFA margin by comparing the range of control number– specific dumping margins calculated for the preliminary determination to the dumping margin alleged in the petition. For the final determination, we conducted a similar analysis and continue to find that the margin of 99.65 percent has probative value. See Memorandum to the File: ''Corroboration of the PRC–Wide Facts Available Rate for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China'', dated October 17, 2007. In addition, no party to this investigation has commented on our selection of this rate as AFA. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 99.65 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:26 Oct 24, 2007 Jkt 214001 Final Determination Margins We determine that the following weighted–average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2006, thorough September 30, 2006: Weighted Average Margin (percent) 60635 does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative GE's Collapsed Entity: ................ 21.12 protective order (''APO'') of their (Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. responsibility concerning the Ltd.-Gold Hua Sheng Paper. disposition of proprietary information (Suzhou Industry Park) Co. Ltd.disclosed under APO in accordance China Union. with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely (Macao Commercial Offshore) Company Ltd. notification of return or destruction of Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper InAPO materials or conversion to judicial dustry Co. Ltd. ........................ 21.12 protective order is hereby requested. PRC–Wide Rate ......................... 99.65 Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a Disclosure sanctionable violation. This determination and notice are issued and We will disclose to parties the calculations performed within five days published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Dated: October 17, 2007. Manufacturer/Exporter Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (''CBP'') to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise that are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 4, 2007, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the estimated weighted– average dumping margins shown above. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (''ITC'') of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise within 45 days of this final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Parties' Comments Comment 1: Whether to Reconsider China's Non–Market Economy (NME) Status and Whether to Treat Certain PRC Companies as Market Oriented Enterprises Comment 2: Alleged Double Remedy in Concurrent NME AD and CVD Proceedings Comment 3: The Appropriate Surrogate Financial Statements to use to Calculate Financial Ratios Comment 4: Whether to Adjust the Financial Ratios by Allocating Wages and Salaries Between Non– manufacturing and Manufacturing Expenses Comment 5: Whether to Adjust the Financial Ratios by Allocating ''Stores and Spares'' Expenses Between Direct Material Costs and Overhead Expenses Comment 6: Whether to Value Certain Materials Claimed to be Overhead Expenses Comment 7: Whether to Value Self– Produced Electricity Used to Produce Electricity Comment 8: Whether to Value Steam That is a By–Product of Self–Produced Electricity Comment 9: Whether to Value Certain Inputs used in Treating Water Comment 10: Whether GE Incorrectly Reported the Unit Price of Certain Purchases Comment 11: Whether the Department Erred in Calculating the Value of a Self– Produced Input E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM 25OCN1 60636 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices Comment 12: Whether Certain Pulp Purchases Should be Treated as Market– Economy Purchases Comment 13: Whether it is Appropriate to Value Labor Using the Expected Wage Rate Calculated by the Department Comment 14: The Appropriate Surrogate Value For A Ground Calcium Carbonate Input Comments 15: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for a Proprietary Material Comment 16: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for a Proprietary Material Comment 17: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Hydrochloric Acid Comment 18: The Appropriate Surrogate Values For Other Paper Chemicals Comment 19: The Appropriate Surrogate Value For Steam Coal Comment 20: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Certain PET Packing Materials Comment 21: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for a Proprietary Material Comment 22: How to Account for Certain Unreported Expenses Comment 23: Whether the Department Should Base the Dumping Margin for One Unreported Sale on Total Adverse Facts Available Comment 24: Whether to Reclassify One Sale as a CEP Sale Comment 25: Whether to Adjust the Market–Economy Purchase Price of NBKP [FR Doc. E7–21041 Filed 10–24–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–560–820 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: We determine that imports of coated free sheet paper (''CFS paper'') are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (''LTFV''), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (''the Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ''Final Determination'' section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 2, Import mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:26 Oct 24, 2007 Jkt 214001 Administration–Room B–099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482–3773, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 4, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty investigation of CFS paper from Indonesia. See 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 (June 4, 2007) (''Preliminary Determination''). On June 13, 2007,1 PT. Pindo Deli Pulp & Paper Mills (''PD''), PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia, Tbk (''TK''), and their affiliates PT. Cakrawala Mega Indah (''CMI''), PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Tbk (''IK''), PT. Lontar Papyrus Pulp & Paper Industries (''Lontar''), PT Arara Abadi (''AA'') and PT. Wirakarya Sakti (''WKS'') (hereafter collectively referred to as ''the Indonesian Respondents'') 2 submitted a revised cost of production (''COP'') database for TK which incorporated corrections found prior to the start of verification. On June 27, 2007, the Indonesian Respondents submitted a revised COP database for PD which incorporated corrections submitted at the start of PD's cost verification on June 22, 2007. From June 20 through July 20, 2007, we verified the sales and cost questionnaire responses of the Indonesian Respondents. On August 20, 27, and 28, 2007, the Department issued its verification reports. We provided the interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Determination and the Department's verification findings. On June 29, 2007, the petitioner 3 requested a hearing to discuss issues addressed by the interested parties in their case and rebuttal briefs. On August 28, 2007, the petitioner requested that the Department clarify the scope of the investigation of CFS paper from Indonesia and placed on the record of this review information to support its request. 1 June 13, 2007, is seven days prior to the start of the cost verification. 2 PD and TK are CFS paper producers, whereas CMI is a reseller of paper products produced by PD and TK. IK and Lontar are pulp producers, whereas AA and WKS are forestry companies. 3 The petitioner in this investigation is NewPage Corporation. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 On September 5, 2007, the petitioner and the Indonesian Respondents submitted case briefs. On September 6, 2007, the petitioner withdrew its request for a hearing. Because the petitioner was the only interested party to request a hearing and it subsequently withdrew its request, no hearing was held on issues raised in the September 5, 2007, case briefs. On September 10, 2007, both the petitioner and the Indonesian Respondents submitted rebuttal briefs. Also on September 10, 2007, the Department rejected the petitioner's August 28, 2007, scope clarification submission because it contained untimely filed new factual information. The petitioner refiled its submission with the new factual information redacted on September 10, 2007. On September 12, 2007, the petitioner and Indonesian Respondents filed case briefs on the scope issue. On September 14, 2007, the Department rejected the Indonesian Respondents' case brief on the scope issue because it contained untimely filed new factual information. The Indonesian Respondents refiled this case brief with the new factual information redacted on September 17, 2007. On September 17, 2007, the Department rejected the Indonesian Respondents' September 10, 2007, rebuttal brief because it contained untimely filed new argument. The Indonesian Respondents refiled their rebuttal brief with the new argument redacted on September 18, 2007. On September 20, 2007, the petitioner and Indonesian Respondents filed rebuttal briefs on the scope issue. A hearing on the scope issue was held on September 26, 2007. Period of Investigation The period of investigation is October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties to this investigation are addressed in the ''Issues and Decision Memorandum'' (''Decision Memo'') from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 17, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM 25OCN1
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 206 (Thursday, October 25, 2007)]
[FR Doc No: E7-21041]
A-570-906
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007.
SUMMARY: On June 4, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of
coated free sheet paper (``CFS'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''). The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2006,
through September 30, 2006. We invited interested parties to comment on
our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. Based on our analysis
of the comments we received, we have made changes to our calculations
for the mandatory respondents. The final dumping margins for this
investigation are listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Drew Jackson, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4162 and 482-4406, respectively.
Final Determination
We determine that CFS from the PRC is being, or is likely to be,
sold in the United States at LTFV as provided in section 735 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of
sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section
of this notice.
The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV on June 4, 2007. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of
China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) (``Preliminary Determination'').
Between June 18, 2007, and July 13, 2007, the Department conducted
verifications of the collapsed entity Gold East Co. Ltd.(Gold East
Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd., Gold Hua Sheng Paper (Suzhou Industry Park)
Co. Ltd., and China Union (Macao
Commercial Offshore) Company Ltd.) (collectively ``Gold East'') and its
U.S. affiliate, and separate rates applicant Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper
Industry Co. Ltd. (``Yanzhou Tianzhang''), and its U.S. importer. See
the ``Verification'' section below for additional information.
We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. On
August 31, 2007, petitioner,\1\ the Bureau of Fair Trade, Ministry of
Commerce, People's Republic of China (``BOFT''), Yanzhou Tianzhang, and
Gold East filed case briefs. Petitioner and Gold East filed rebuttal
briefs on September 7, 2007. Additionally, on September 12, 2007,
petitioner, Gold East, Yanzhou Tianzhang, and BOFT, along with other
interested parties in concurrent CFS investigations, submitted comments
regarding the scope of the instant investigation. These parties filed
rebuttal scope comments on September 20, 2007. In response to requests
from interested parties, the Department held a hearing on the scope of
the investigation on September 26, 2007.
\1\ Petitioner in this investigation is NewPage Corporation.
Analysis of Comments Received
With the exception of the scope issue, all issues raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed
in the ``Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's
Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum,'' dated October 17,
2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice (``Issues and Decision
Memorandum''). The scope issue is addressed in a separate memorandum.
See ``Scope Comments'' section, below. A list of the issues which
parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issue and
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central
Records Unit (``CRU''), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is
accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Additionally, because some of the issues that parties raised and to
which we respond contain proprietary information, there is a separate
proprietary version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. See
``Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic
of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comments and Department of
Commerce's Positions Containing Proprietary Information,'' dated
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have changed the
margin calculation for Gold East. Those changes include the following:
1. We revised our calculation of the per-unit cost of Gold East's
self-produced electricity and did not value steam used in production.
2. Based on verification findings, (a) we revised the average
market-economy price reported for a type of pulp; (b) recalculated the
net unit price of constructed export price (``CEP'') sales to account
for unreported selling expenses; (c) reclassified one export price sale
as a CEP sale and adjusted the sale's price to reflect CEP expenses;
and (d) based the dumping margin of one unreported sale on adverse
facts available (``AFA'').
3. We did not value certain reported factors based on our finding
that these factors are used in the maintenance of machines, and are
properly classified as overhead items.
4. We revised surrogate values for certain factors of production.
5. We valued certain inputs used by Gold East to treat water.
6. We revised the surrogate values for factory overhead, selling,
general and administrative (``SG&A''), and profit.
7. We corrected a ministerial error involving one of Gold East's
self-produced inputs.
For a detailed analysis of Gold East's margin calculation, see
``Final Determination in the Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People's Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for Gold
East'', dated October 17, 2007.
We assigned separate rates applicant Yanzhou Tianzhang the revised
final margin calculated for Gold East, the only mandatory respondent to
fully participate in this investigation.
We assigned the PRC-wide rate, as total AFA, to Shandong Chenming
Paper Holdings Limited (``Chenming'), because it ceased participating
in this investigation prior to the scheduled verification and,
consequently, did not demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation includes coated free
sheet paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or
other graphic purposes. Coated free sheet paper is produced from not-
more-than 10 percent by weight mechanical or combined chemical/
mechanical fibers. Coated free sheet paper is coated with kaolin (China
clay) or other inorganic substances, with or without a binder, and with
no other coating. Coated free sheet paper may be surface-colored,
surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, or
perforated. The subject merchandise includes single- and double-side-
coated free sheet paper; coated free sheet paper in both sheet or roll
form; and is inclusive of all weights, brightness levels, and finishes.
The terms ``wood free'' or ``art'' paper may also be used to describe
the imported product.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Coated free sheet paper that is
imported printed with final content printed text or graphics; (2) base
paper to be sensitized for use in photography; and (3) paper containing
by weight 25 percent or more cotton fiber. Coated free sheet paper is
classifiable under subheadings 4810.13.1900, 4810.13.2010,
4810.13.2090, 4810.13.5000, 4810.13.7040, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010,
and 4810.19.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Scope Comments
On August 20, August 28, and September 10, 2007, the petitioner
requested that the Department clarify the scope of the antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations of CFS paper from Indonesia, Korea
and the People's Republic of China. Specifically, the petitioner asked
the Department to ``clarify that the scope of the investigation
includes coated free sheet paper containing hardwood BCTMP.''
Because this was a general issue pertaining to all six
investigations, the Department set up a general issues file to handle
this scope request. A hearing on the scope request was held on
September 26, 2007. The hearing comprised a public session, a closed
session for the antidumping investigation from Korea, and a closed
session for the countervailing duty investigation from the PRC. After
considering the comments submitted by the parties to these
investigations, we have determined not to adopt the scope clarification
sought by the petitioner. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, entitled ``Scope Clarification Request: NewPage
Corporation'' dated concurrently with this notice, which is appended to
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the
People's Republic of China.''
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject
to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not
decline to consider submitted information if all of the following
requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
On June 7, 2007, six days before the commencement of verification,
counsel for Chenming informed Department officials that Chenming would
not continue its participation in the instant investigation. See
Memorandum to the File through Howard Smith, Program Manager, Office 4,
concerning ``Telephone Conversation with Counsel for Shandong Chenming
Paper Holdings Co., Ltd.,'' dated June 7, 2007; see also Chenming's
letter to the Department, concerning, ``Coated Free Sheet Paper from
the People's Republic of China; Withdrawal of Shandong Chenming Paper
Holdings Limited and Withdrawal of Consent to Access Proprietary
Information,'' dated June 11, 2007. Because Chenming ceased
participation in the instant investigation, the Department was not able
to conduct its scheduled verification of Chenming's responses.
Verification is integral to the Department's analysis because it allows
the Department to satisfy itself that it is relying upon accurate
information and calculating dumping margins as accurately as possible.
By failing to participate in verification, Chenming prevented the
Department from verifying its reported information, including separate
rates information, and significantly impeded the proceeding. Moreover,
by not permitting verification, Chenming failed to prove that it is
free of government control and entitled to a separate rate.
Additionally, Chenming's refusal to participate in verification
demonstrates that it failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of
its ability to comply with a request from the Department. Section
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference
with respect to an interested party if the Department finds that the
party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with a request for information. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon
Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997); see
also Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States, 343 F. Supp.2d 1242
(CIT 2004) (approving use of AFA when respondent refused to participate
in verification). Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D)
and 776(b) of the Act, we have, as AFA, treated Chenming as part of the
PRC-wide entity and assigned Chenming the PRC-wide rate of 99.65
percent. See the sections entitled ``The PRC-Wide Rate'' and
``Corroboration,'' below, for a discussion of the selection and
corroboration of the PRC-Wide rate.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted
verifications in the PRC and the United States of the information
submitted by the respondent and the separate rate applicant for use in
our final determination. See the Department's verification reports on
the record of this investigation in the CRU with respect to Gold East
and Yanzhou Tianzhang. For all verified companies, we used standard
verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting
and production records, as well as original source documents provided
by respondents.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected
India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation
for the following reasons: (1) it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a similar level of economic
development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable
data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. See
Preliminary Determination. For the final determination, we received no
comments and made no changes to our findings with respect to the
selection of a surrogate country.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries,
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter
can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. See Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR
20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon
Carbide''), and Section 351.107(d) of the Department's regulations.
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Gold East and the
separate rate applicant, Yanzhou Tianzhang, demonstrated their
eligibility for separate-rate status. No party has commented on the
eligibility of Gold East or Yanzhou Tianzhang for separate-rate status.
For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence
placed on the record of this investigation by Gold East and Yanzhou
Tianzhang demonstrate both a de jure and de facto absence of government
control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise
under investigation and thus are eligible for separate rate status.
The PRC-Wide Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that certain
companies and the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for
information. In the Preliminary Determination, we treated these PRC
producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not
demonstrate that they operate free of government control over their
export activities. No additional information has been placed on the
record with respect to these entities after the Preliminary
Determination. The PRC-wide entity has not provided the Department with
the requested information; therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A)
of the Act, the Department continues to find that the use of facts
available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. Section 776(b)
of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if
an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with requests for information. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled
Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation,
65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also, ``Statement of
Administrative Action'' accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316,
vol. 1, at 870 (1994). We determine that because the PRC-wide entity
has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability because it did not
respond to our request for information. Therefore, the Department finds
that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse
inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity.
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a
NME country are subject to government control and because only the
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section
below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single
antidumping rate - the PRC-wide rate - to all other exporters of
subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate
entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo from the
People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate
applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from
the respondents which are listed in the ``Final Determination Margins''
section below (except as noted).
Corroboration
At the Preliminary Determination, we corroborated our AFA margin by
comparing the range of control number-specific dumping margins
calculated for the preliminary determination to the dumping margin
alleged in the petition. For the final determination, we conducted a
similar analysis and continue to find that the margin of 99.65 percent
has probative value. See Memorandum to the File: ``Corroboration of the
PRC-Wide Facts Available Rate for the Final Determination in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the
People's Republic of China'', dated October 17, 2007. In addition, no
party to this investigation has commented on our selection of this rate
as AFA. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 99.65 percent is
corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins
exist for the period April 1, 2006, thorough September 30, 2006:
Manufacturer/Exporter                       Margin
(percent)
GE's Collapsed Entity:......................................       21.12
(Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd.-Gold Hua Sheng Paper....
(Suzhou Industry Park) Co. Ltd.-China Union.................
(Macao Commercial Offshore) Company Ltd.....................
Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co. Ltd....................       21.12
PRC-Wide Rate...............................................       99.65
We will disclose to parties the calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to
suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise that are
entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June
4, 2007, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in
the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to continue to require a
cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the
estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above. The suspension
of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine whether the
domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or
threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the
likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise within
45 days of this final determination. If the ITC determines that
material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing
CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and
notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 17, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Parties' Comments
Comment 1: Whether to Reconsider China's Non-Market Economy (NME)
Status and Whether to Treat Certain PRC Companies as Market Oriented
Comment 2: Alleged Double Remedy in Concurrent NME AD and CVD
Comment 3: The Appropriate Surrogate Financial Statements to use to
Calculate Financial Ratios
Comment 4: Whether to Adjust the Financial Ratios by Allocating Wages
and Salaries Between Non-manufacturing and Manufacturing Expenses
Comment 5: Whether to Adjust the Financial Ratios by Allocating
``Stores and Spares'' Expenses Between Direct Material Costs and
Overhead Expenses
Comment 6: Whether to Value Certain Materials Claimed to be Overhead
Comment 7: Whether to Value Self-Produced Electricity Used to Produce
Comment 8: Whether to Value Steam That is a By-Product of Self-Produced
Comment 9: Whether to Value Certain Inputs used in Treating Water
Comment 10: Whether GE Incorrectly Reported the Unit Price of Certain
Comment 11: Whether the Department Erred in Calculating the Value of a
Self-Produced Input
Comment 12: Whether Certain Pulp Purchases Should be Treated as Market-
Economy Purchases
Comment 13: Whether it is Appropriate to Value Labor Using the Expected
Wage Rate Calculated by the Department
Comment 14: The Appropriate Surrogate Value For A Ground Calcium
Carbonate Input
Comments 15: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for a Proprietary Material
Comment 16: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for a Proprietary Material
Comment 17: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Hydrochloric Acid
Comment 18: The Appropriate Surrogate Values For Other Paper Chemicals
Comment 19: The Appropriate Surrogate Value For Steam Coal
Comment 20: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Certain PET Packing
Comment 22: How to Account for Certain Unreported Expenses
Comment 23: Whether the Department Should Base the Dumping Margin for
One Unreported Sale on Total Adverse Facts Available
Comment 24: Whether to Reclassify One Sale as a CEP Sale
Comment 25: Whether to Adjust the Market-Economy Purchase Price of NBKP
[FR Doc. E7-21041 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S


Home › Economy & Finance › Google's Chrome Browser Changes To Be Investigated By UK's Competition Watchdog
Google's Chrome Browser Changes To Be Investigated By UK's Competition Watchdog
By admin2 on January 8, 2021 • ( 0 )
An investigation into Google's proposals to remove third-party cookies and other functions from its Chrome browser will be investigated by the competition watchdog of the United Kingdom. The decision to probe the proposed changes were initiated after concerns were raised in different quarters that the new changes implemented by Google could result in curbing digital advertising by rivals.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said that the prove will target to make an assessment of whether Google's proposed changes to Chrome could result in contraction of advertising spend on the ecosystem of Alphabet's Google and put at disadvantage the company's competitors.
The technology which Google calls the 'Privacy Sandbox' project will give the option to people to receive relevant ads which will help to sustain the current advertising model without the need for the company to track the users of Chrome at the individual user level, Google has said.
"As the CMA found in its recent market study, Google's Privacy Sandbox proposals will potentially have a very significant impact on publishers like newspapers, and the digital advertising market," CMA Chief Executive Officer Andrea Coscelli said.
Complaints from Marketers for an Open Web (MOW), a coalition of technology and publishing companies, had been received by it the CMA said. The complaint alleged that Google is "abusing its dominant position" through the proposals.
Third-party cookies have already been blocked by other web browsers such as Mozilla and Apple Inc's Safari.
A Google spokeswoman said that there is requirement for the industry to bring in major changes to the manner in which digital advertising functions if one wants to create a more private web while at the same time empowering the publishers and advertisers who support the free and open internet.
"We welcome the CMA's involvement as we work to develop new proposals to underpin a healthy, ad-supported web without third-party cookies."
The UK regulator said that a crucial role in targeted digital advertising is played by the so called third party cookies. These cookies help advertisers to effectively and accurately target selected audiences as well as fund free online content for consumers, such as newspapers.
The regulators however also said that the current system also present concerns on privacy as these third party cookies allow tracking of behaviour of consumers all across the web in different ways that causes a makes many consumers to feel uncomfortable and ways that such customer may find difficult to understand.
It will work with Britain's data watchdog on the investigation, the CMA said.
(Adapted from Reuters.com)
‹ Patria Investments Ltd expects IPO valuation between $1 billion to 1.6 billion
Boeing Agrees To A $2.5bn Settlement In US Over 737 Max Conspiracy Charges ›
Categories: Economy & Finance, Regulations & Legal, Strategy, Uncategorized


n2N Announces Integration Platform
n2N Commerce, Inc. (n2N), Cambridge, MA, has announced a new cross-channel on-demand eCommerce technology platform that will be designed from the ground-up to service large multi-channel retailers.
Victoria's Secret Direct will power its $1.3 billion annual direct-to-consumer business with n2N's on-demand software in the second half of 2007.
n2N also announced it has closed on $30 million in initial financing from General Catalyst Partners and Limited Brands, Inc. (NYSE:LTD), which owns Victoria's Secret along with The Limited, Express, Bath & Body Works, Henri Bendel.
According to n2N's press release, its cross-channel platform will seamlessly integrate eCommerce, call center, and order management applications using Web 2.0 technology and personalization throughout "to create a solution that enables retailers to craft strongly branded consumer experiences across channels." It will be engineered in conjunction with and incorporating technology from n2N partners Demandware, Allurent, and ChoiceStream.
It is unclear from both the press release and conversations with the company just how much actual functionality n2N will provide by itself, and what will be provided by integration partners. It is also puzzling why they chose to announce this now, two weeks after the National Retail Federation show in New York, and at least six months before anything will be going live.
Nickelodeon, GSI Extend Partnership
Junction Solutions Acquires Ecommerce Front-End
ProfitCenter Software Announces New User
Escalate Retail Ranked No. 2 on RIS Leaderboard
New Auto Parts Direct Commerce System
Ghirardelli Deploys CORESense
GSI Commerce and Rockport Extend Contract
PCS Signs Current USA
Sigma to Resell MAS 500
Junction Solutions Acquires POS Solution
Junction Solutions Releases JunctionMCR 4.1
CommercialWare Launches Java Powered Cross-Channel...
MK Capital Invests $7.5 MM in Junction Solutions
CommercialWare In RIS Top 10


No transparency in airport negotiations
5 August 2013 By Louis R. Jasikoff
Airport Director Centini claims public does not need to know
The Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport is owned and operated by the counties of Lackawanna and Luzerne and is a governmental subdivision controlled by six board members. Of these, three hail from Lackawanna County and three from Luzerne County, all presiding as the Bi-County Airport Board, according to the airport's website at www.FlyAVP.com.
Current board members are Luzerne County Manager Robert Lawton, Luzerne County Councilmen Tim McGinley and Rick Williams, and Lackawanna County Commissioners James Wansacz, Corey O'Brien, and Patrick O'Malley.
At the July 18 Bi-County Airport Board meeting, approval was given by the board for airport management to begin negotiating a new contract with Aviation Technologies as the incoming fixed based operator (FBO) at the Avoca Airport. A fixed base operator is responsible for commercial and general aviation fueling, aircraft maintenance, charter flights, and flight school operations, amongst other duties.
The current fixed base operator is Saker Aviation, whose ten-year contract expires on August 31 of this year.
Upon the recommendation of Airport Director Barry Centini, the board voted 5–0 (Lawton did not register a vote), authorizing management to commence negotiating a contract with Aviation Technologies.
Before a final recommendation was presented to the board, a number of companies submitted proposals to assume responsibilities as the new fixed base operator. Those proposals were reviewed by Centini, Airport Assistant Director Michael Conner, and Director of Finance and Administration Gary Borthwick, according to Centini. Proposals arrived from Aviation Technologies, Taughannock Aviation, VOLO Aviation, current FBO Saker Aviation, and others.
Centini was asked for access to the RFQ/RFPs (request for qualifications/proposals) submitted by the competing businesses, as well as the rating matrix used in determining a final recommendation. He responded, "It is not public knowledge and it is their [the airport board's] responsibility to evaluate who is best to serve the airport needs." The Gazette explained that when performing a similar investigation into Wilkes-Barre's Hawkeye surveillance system the documents similar to those now being sought were readily available. Centini responded tersely, "Then get a Right-to-Know."
The Independent Gazette has attempted to contact all of the airport board members to pose some serious questions. These queries include how the evaluations were performed, how the RFQ/RFPs were written, and to what extent—if at all—the handling of the FBO contract represents "business as usual" in Luzerne and Lackawanna Counties. Could it be that contracts are being awarded based not on merit, but on whom one is related to or knows?
Of the board members the WBIG has had contact with, none have seen any rating matrix indicating how Centini's favored applicant was determined.
It has come to light that some substantial up-front money has been offered to upgrade current FBO facilities by the companies pursuing the FBO contract. It has also been discovered that the "flowage fee" offered to the airport varies among the competing companies. A flowage fee is a percentage of fuel revenue the fixed based operator returns to the airport facility.
While the highest responsible bid is not the only factor in determining the eventual contract winner, it is certainly an important factor—along with experience. According to a source that wishes to remain anonymous at this time, experience is indeed critical for a fixed base operator, especially when dealing with environmental and other government agencies. The source asserted that airport administration-recommended Aviation Technologies possesses no FBO experience. Comment from Aviation Technologies was not forthcoming at the time of printing.
Saker Aviation, however, filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County on July 31 contending a breach of contract, and seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against both Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties (doing business as the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport), prohibiting them from awarding the FBO lease to Aviation Technologies, Inc. Originally assigned to be adjudicated by Judge Vito P. Geroulo, the hearing was continued until August 14 pending reassignment to another judge.
Luzerne County Manager Lawton told the Gazette, "Questions being posed by the [paper] have certainly given me pause on this matter, and at this point I will not vote to approve any contract until reviewing the evaluations and recommendations made by airport staff."
Airport board Chairman McGinley said he will be asking the airport solicitor for an opinion on whether or not suppressed proposal information should be made public.
Luzerne County board member Williams commented, "Transparency is paramount to insure public trust, and questions raised by the Gazette help in making informed decisions." He, too will wait to hear from the solicitor, and urged the public to attend the next airport board meeting. That meeting is scheduled for August 29 at the Terminal Building Conference Room at 10:30 am.
Lackawanna County board members could not be reached for comment by the time of printing.
Taxpayer Group Pressing for Gasgate Answers Interacting with the County ACE Commission Concerning a Conflict of Interest Matter Taxpayers Bankrolling Sweetheart Deals Property Tax Independence Act info session held with local AFSCME members
Louis R. Jasikoff
http://www.jasikoff.com
Lou is the founder and producer of the WBIG family of publications. He's been active in politics most of his adult life, and is passionate in building the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Independent Gazette into an independent press organization that is respected for its independent journalism, educating the public on stories and issues often not discussed in today's biased and controlled media.
This is very upsetting. Why can't the public see the RFPs? After all the corruption in both Lackawanna and Luzerne counties, the commissioners should know better – or is this just more of the same? Who is benefiting from this contract change? What kind of experience does this new company have? I hear this action will result in 34 local jobs lost! I fly out of Avoca Airport often and I'm worried about safety. Why isn't there more concern from the public? What was the result of the hearing today?
I have the RFP and in the basic qualifications section it states that the qualifications to bid was 3 years in the business of operating a fixed based operation or has provided airline ground handling. I work in the industry and running an FBO is a difficult task in a trying economy. Throwing bags into airplanes is really only a statement Barry Centini Airport Director put into the RFP so he could qualify Aviation Technologies to get the award. The RFP was awarded to the least qualified respondent and I believe was fixed at the get go because I Barry Centini was walking around the PA Aviation Council convention with the owner of Aviation Technoligies a year ago trashing Saker Aviation the company that lost the FBO lease. Also in the RFP there is a clause that says if the Winner of the RFP gets a Sign on Bonus from a fuel supplier that the airport gets no less than 50% of that bonus. Rumor has it that Barry wanted to guide the RFP winner to the fuel company that offered the most cash. The problem with that is this fuel suppliers have to collect that back over time and that is at the expense of all the users of the airport. 1 year ago Allentown took money from a supplier during that rfp and they selected the highest bidder on fuel in return for a 1 million dollar check. Makes you wonder why airlines want to charge so much per ticket out of AVP and ABE these secret payoffs have a lot to do with it. Allentown has suffered great losses as a result of there event. The amount AVP received is rumored to be over $250,000 but I can not confirm this. It was horrible to see a good service provider that had all the qualifications to continue at AVP fall to yet another scandal. This whole process should be exposed. There were several very qualified bidders for this and some actually would have brought additional business to the airport but when they inquired to Barry Centini how the award went to Aviation Technoligies his response was it was a point system that would be disclosed after the contracts were signed. My bet is the contracts were signed with aviation technologies a long time before the RFP went out
Thanks for the insights, Concerned Pilot. You're welcome to email our editor with any additional information you're comfortable sharing.


Aeroparque (J. Newbery)
Ezeiza (M. Pistarini)
Tango Shows
Info Buenos Aires
We are a company leader in travel.
If you're looking for tranquillity and security: that is our commitment.
Empresa líder en viajes.
SPECIAL PRICE "SEÑOR TANGO " FOR 2 PERSONS 175 dolares / 7000 pesos.
El viejo almacén
It is the most traditional tango venue of Buenos Aires, a redoubt with all the warmth and nostalgia of tango. Every day a dinner at 20 pm, with Argentinian meats and international cuisine a la carte is performed. The show, described as "truly Buenos Aires," begins at 22 pm and lasts nearly two hours.
TRANSFER + SHOW + DINNER 60 dolares / 2400 pesos	(per person)
TRANSFER + SHOW 42 dolares / 1700 pesos	(per person)
Tango Porteño
Tango Porteño recreates the golden age, the decade of the 40 ', which used to be the undisputed reign of the tango, the great passion of Argentina entire society. It offers a journey through time by those glorious years in Buenos Aires when tango was enjoyed and breathed in every corner of the city.
Tango Porteño is a wonderful space where they live and live the great orchestras of Canaro, Fresedo, Piazzolla, De Caro, Gobbi, Biagi, De Angelis, Di Sarli, D'Arienzo, Lomuto, D'Agostino and of course the unforgettable Troilo and Pugliese which was then developed its full potential and in a healthy but demanding competition in the reign Chateclair, Armenonville, Marabou, Tabaris, Tibidabo and many others who disappeared in the implacable transformation of the big city were fighting.
TRANSFER + SHOW 25 dolares / 950 pesos	(per person)
Madero Tango
He looked out the window at the spectacular Silver laughed along with what became the immigrants that originated the tango with the most modern buildings in Argentina, it is understood that the tango is alive. Enjoy the "experience" Madero Tango Tango is really where the tango lives. , Recently declared World Heritage, tango is much more than the evocation of the golden decades considered this genre. Madero Tango is the only place of its kind where past and present merge to create a bond with the tango audience that will never be forgotten.
Señor Tango
You will enjoy a display of light, color and sound, in the context of more personalized and careful attention, with all the latest technology at the service of the most dazzling show in the history of tango. With 40 artists on stage, deployment of music, dance and singing in a show created, directed and produced by Fernando Soler, singer and central figure of the show. Señor Tango was declared of parliamentary interest by the Chamber of Deputies of Tourist Interest by the Ministry of Tourism and Cultural Interest by the legislature of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires.
GGVIAJES Y TURISMO
info@ggviajes.com
Móvil: 15 6991-3477 (Guardia 24 hs.)
La Pampa 4455 - Capital Federal


Asian American Press
Building Community Within Diversity
The R-Word: As cruel and offensive as any slur
by aanews
in Editorial
— 8 Mar, 2014
By John Michaelson
Minnesota News Connection
ST. PAUL, Minn. (March 5, 2014) — Across Minnesota and the nation today, people are being asked to take time to stop and think about how their words may affect others.
This is "Spread the Word to End the Word" day, asking people to remove the word "retarded" from their vocabulary, said Julie Hertzog, director of the PACER Center's National Bullying Prevention Center.
"Recognizing that the 'R-word' is offensive, we want to remove it from our society so that students with disabilities feel included and accepted and are identified for their abilities, not for their disabilities," said Hertzog, the mother of a son with Down Syndrome.
While today is focused on getting everyday people to stop using the "R-word," Hertzog said that on a higher level, recent years have seen its use removed from the text of local and national code and law.
"Words really do affect our perceptions about people," she said, "and the term 'mental retardation' is being replaced by 'intellectual disability' in much of our medical dictionaries and our laws."
According to the state Department of Health, more than one in five Minnesotans has some type of disability that impacts his or her daily life.
More information online at r-word.org and at IDaction.org.
Previous story COMMUNITY CALENDAR
Next story ClearWay launches new QUITPLAN Services
© Copyright 2020 Asian American Press. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.


Home > Macroeconomic Analysis > United States Brent Crude Oil Fund
Why the US Economy Stalled in 1Q15
By Jeffrey Rosenberg
So, lower bond yields in March and April have come in an environment of steadily disappointing economic data. And, in that environment, the Federal Reserve's more dovish communication furthered expectations for a more benign interest rate environment.
However, investors should be careful not to read too much into these latest developments.
Despite seasonal adjustments, the U.S. economy has still exhibited surprisingly strong seasonality since the financial crisis. The chart plots the Citi U.S. Economic Surprise Index — an index that reacts positively when economic data surprise above economist forecasts and negatively when data surprise below.
There's a distinct and sharp downward trend at the beginning of almost every year since 2011, only to hit a trough in June and accelerate to a peak by the end of the year. In addition to economic surprises (relative to forecasts), realized first-quarter GDP has noticeably underperformed other quarters since the financial crisis, for various reasons.
Market Realist –
Reasons the US economy stalled in 1Q15
The US economy stalled in 2014 for several reasons, including seasonality, weather, strength of the dollar, the West Coast port strike, and the oil price slump.
The first quarter has been historically been below par. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates the average annualized first quarter growth to be 0.6% and the rest of the year to be 2.9% (2010–2014). A rebound can be expected over the year.
The United States faced an unusually harsh winter, which was a drag on output. Even the weaker-than-expected March jobs report with a meager 126,000 job additions could include the weather as a factor. The above graph shows how far more than the historical norm were held back from their jobs due to the weather in March.
[marketrealist-chart id=400696]
Dollar strength (UUP) also adversely affected output. The dollar has been on the rise since mid-2014, as you can see in the above graph. It has risen almost 22% over the past year. The rise in the dollar crimps business spending.
Corporate earnings and revenues of S&P 500 (VOO) (SPY) companies with more than 50% of their businesses abroad are expected to suffer by almost 10% in 1Q15, as estimated by FactSet.
West Coast port strike
The West Coast Port strike also contributed to the slowdown. The strike was instrumental in narrowing the trade gap, or the difference between imports and exports, to its lowest level since 2009. Exports declined to $186.25 billion, a drop of 1.6% in February.
Oil effect
The oil price slump (USO) (BNO) of 2014 undermined business investments, especially in the mining and exploration sector. The low prices have hurt production in the energy sector, which has led to a fall in output. Schlumberger (SLB) and Halliburton have already announced cuts in spending. As reported by Reuters, Schlumberger aims to reduce capital spending for 2015 by $500 million to $2.5 billion. Halliburton (HAL) has estimated a 15% cut in spending to $2.8 billion.


Dakar, the fashionable African capital
Gustavo Augusto-Vieira
Adama Pari (right) and a model from Dakar Fashion Week
Dakar, the capital of Senegal, is internationally renowned for having hosted, up to 2008, the most important rally in the world. However, for the past 15 years, it has been considered as the African fashion capital. And this is where one of the most important events in this sector takes place annually, the Dakar Fashion Week. The latest edition, held in June 2016, reunited 20 stylists from ten nationalities and launched new fashion proposals to the market, such as Inass Saghdaoui, Moroccan, who has been noteworthy for her asymmetric shapes and unconventional materials utilized in her creations. Designers and buyers from various regions, such as Johannesburg, Casablanca, and Lagos go there seeking original designs and also multiple trends the local fashion provides.
Daker Fashion Week has not only possibly placed Senegal on the international fashion map but the country is also recognized as a place populated by elegant people. "We have always been a fashionable country. But fashion in a traditional manner. We have always worn the "boubou" [a local typical outfit] and we even make things out of silk. Now, as years have gone by, we have introduced modernity", confirms Adama Paris, stylist. She was original name in the Congo was Adama Amanda Ndiaye, she created the event in 2002. She is the daughter of a Senegalese diplomats and lived in France with her family and then she became interested in fashion when was still quite young. She quit her job in a bank and returned to Senegal. "Don't you have a Fashion Week like in France?" she remembers asking at that time. "And they told me they didn't. So, I created one".
The event began just funded by Adama's own money, but now we count on diverse sponsors and coverage from large-scale press vehicles, such as the Vogue Magazine and The New York Times newspaper. "People know me, but there is still a struggle for getting financial support. But, I know it is easier now than when I first started", she compares "My reputation on the continent has been made this way, by speaking about my project with influential people. Now I am fighting a great deal to get funding and economic perks from the industry. We are not just designing fashion for the sake of fashion".
According to Adama, Dakar Fashion Week has sought to go beyond just fashion shows and is trying to organize and professionalize the fashion sector on the continent. There have been meetings with designers and business people resulting in the creation of a television program on fashion, featuring her and also the creation of the African Federation of Fashion Designers. "We have met to define next year's fashion calendar for Africa", she reveals. The idea is to prepare a calendar including such important events on the continent as: Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week, held in Johannesburg, South Africa, Lagos Fashion and Design Week (LFDW), held in Nigeria, Angola Fashion Week (AFW) and the International Festival of African Fashion (FIMA), created by Alphadi, in Nigerian by the stylist in 1998, sponsored by Unesco, and even other editions can be held in various countries.
"I think African fashion is growing quite a lot and quickly", evaluates Adama Paris. "The local production is a great opportunity for everybody, because our continent is so vast and there are so many resources. And the costs here are lower than in Europe". During the course of the 15 years of Dakar Fashion Week, it has already reunited at least one thousand 200 professionals from the fashion industry. "Investors are looking at Africa and now we have the opportunity to make joint business ventures. We are tired of seeing people who come to our country and taking all our resources away from us. Now, I am part of this generation that wants its own fashion".
Dakar Fashion Week
Brazilian exchange
In April 2015, at the São Paulo Fashion Week (SPFW) the Africa Africans Fashion was on the catwalks. On that occasion, the visitors could check out five African stylists on the catwalks: Palesa Mokubung (South Africa), Amaka "Maki" Osakwe (Nigeria), Jamil Walji (Kenya), Xuly Bët (Mali) and Imane Ayissi (Cameroun). The idea of the organizers of the show was to trace a panorama on the contemporary visual designs of the African continent through the artist works arising from diverse countries.
"We put the most contemporary on display related to African fashion design, through the individuality of each stylist. It was also extremely important to make Africa achieve closer relations with Brazil, where Black culture is so ever present and important", said the Nigerian editor and art director Andy Okoroafor, who was the curator of the Show. "We wish African fashion to be understood and absorbed by the Brazilian public in general and also by the Afro-Brazilian stylists", Emanoel Araujo commented, curatorial director of the Afro-Brazil Museu, who is a partner of SPFW in this initiative. "I am glad to put on display my designs and participate in a project to disclose African culture", stated Palesa Mokubung, the South African. She was in São Paulo participating in the Exhibit, together with her colleagues Jamil Walji and Amaka "Maki" Osakwe. Currently, in spite of being called the Rally Dakar, the famous Rally event takes place annually in South American countries; as well as the African style, which are sought to transverse the ocean and conquer new followers.
3 Trillions of dollars is the approximate amount the fashion industry transacts annually, including the textile, wearing apparel, footwear, and luxury fashion sectors. The source of this information is from the World Trade Organization (WTO). There are an overall 59 million people employed in the textile sector.
Kaftan, the traditional Moroccan fashion
Contrary to Dakar Fashion Week that wagers on global markets, Caftan du Maroc is an event focused on promoting traditional kaftan Moroccan fashion, a type of handmade tunic or robe. This has been in progress for 21 years partnering with the country's government, the event is held in various world capitals, such as Paris, London, and Amsterdam.
"The activities are planned to provide the visitors an imaginary escape to distant lands, to a world of beautiful clothing, unforgettable cuisine, and romantic entertainment and sounds", explains Loubna Ennadir, directress of the North American edition that was held in Washington DC last November. The fashion show displayed 25 models by six renowned stylists. The US$ 185 dollar entrance fee also included a typical Moroccan dinner.
Ethiopia: the large fashion factory
In search of competiveness and generating jobs, in such countries as Ethiopia, Kenya, Ivory Coast, Mauritius, Ghana, and South Africa, this country has invested in implementing wearing apparel and footwear factories. The Hawassa industrial park was inaugurated in Ethiopia in June 2016 and it provides 1.3 million square meters of space and houses 21 clothing, fabric, purses/bags, and footwear factories, which will double the job positions for Ethiopians in this sector. The space will generate 1 billion dollars in exportation revenues, 10 times greater than the current volume.
The new industrial park once it is completely operating will generate 60,000 job positions in one single location, more than the current 53,000 industrial textile jobs nowadays in Ethiopia. It was built by the Chinese China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation for 250 million dollars, invested by the Ethiopian government; the industrial park is located 275 kilometers from Addis Ababa, the capital city.
Hawassa provides enormous industrial sheds for meeting the needs of international manufactures, but there are even smaller industrial sheds for Ethiopian fashion companies and from other African counties as well. There are such fashion companies as PVH Corp. (owner of the Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger brands), the giant Swiss fast-fashion H&M company, and the Chinese Wuxi Jinmao Foreign Trade Company, as these are among the 15 foreign companies renting industrial sheds in the park, as well as others from India, Sri Lanka, and China, as well as six Ethiopian companies.
Ethiopia is nowadays at the center of the attention of global companies due to the low overhead compared to its main competitors, such as China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Besides that, the country also has the potential to become a source of raw materials: there is over 3.2 million hectares of land including an appropriate climate or growing cotton and other natural fibers; although, only 7% of the land is currently being harnessed for crop growing.
GTBank Fashion Weekend brings together designers in Nigeria
Event in Dakar unites Brazilian and Senegalese entrepreneurs
Senegal opens Museum of Black Civilizations
Dakar: A reference city


All Products Technical Articles Services
ELISAPro
FA Buffers & Mounting Fluids
Serology Reference Testing
Raw Material & Serum Testing
9CFR Virus Testing
Sterility Testing
Bovine Polyomavirus
Senecavirus A (SVA) Testing
EMA & EP Virus Testing
Virus Bank Characterization
Cell Line Characterization
Mycosplasma Testing
Custom Testing
Testing with VMRD
Biologics Testing Submission
About VMRD
Is Equine Infectious Anemia (EIA) Still a Threat?
Travis C. McGuire, D.V.M., Ph.D., Director of Research | May. 2009
EIA is still clearly a threat; however the threat is less than in the 1970s. The overall percentage of EIA positive horses among those tested in the United States decreased from near 4% in 1972 to <0.01% in 20051. Prior to the mid-1990s, 92% of the positive horses were in a "hot zone" (see illustration) of states that included the South (including Texas and Oklahoma) and parts of the Midwest1. Since the mid-1990s there have been clusters of EIA occurring in states outside the hot zone that can be seen on the website, which contains complete data and maps on EIA testing in the United States from 1972 to 2007. Notable increases in positive horses outside the hot zone states include those in Nevada in 2003; South Dakota in 2001; Utah in 2000; North Dakota in 1999; Utah, Oregon and Indiana in 1998; South Dakota in 1997; Idaho in 1996; and New York and Michigan in 1995. For 2006, the percent positive horses among those tested varied by state from zero in 27 states to 0.048% in Mississippi where 20 of 41,331 samples were positive. It seems that infected horses in the hot zone states continue transmission and that sometimes transmission occurs in states outside the hot zone. Infections in the states inside and outside the hot zone are due to transmission from infected horses, although the sources of the infected horses are not always known.
A documented outbreak of EIA outside the United States demonstrates the threat of an infected horse. On June 15, 2006, the first case of EIA was reported in the Republic of Ireland2 and by November 14, 2006, the number of cases in the Republic of Ireland was 263. All the 26 cases appeared to be epidemiologically linked. In August of 2006 the first case of EIA occurred in Northern Ireland and the case was epidemiologically linked to the outbreak in the Republic of Ireland3. The source of the outbreak in the Republic of Ireland was thought to be due to the use of an unauthorized veterinary medical product2. Regardless of the source of the initial infection with EIA virus, there was transmission to other horses. In this outbreak, the first horse infected was documented to be a threat to other horses.
Transmission of EIA from an infected horse usually occurs by blood transfer to a non-infected horse. Blood transfer and transmission occurs naturally by biting insects such as horseflies and deerflies following interrupted feeding on an infected horse1. Blood transfer and transmission also occurs from the use of blood-contaminated needles and equipment. Transmission with other body fluids may occur. Recent quantification of EIA virus RNA by RT-PCR demonstrated significant RNA copies in nasal, buccal and genital secretions obtained from swabs; however, the quantities were always less than in plasma4. Transmission from horses in the carrier-state with low-level viremia is much less probable than from an acute case with high-level viremia. The practical problem in EIA control and in determining the threat from a particular EIA-infected horse is distinguishing whether the infected horse has a high- or low-level viremia. Further, depending on the horse and the duration of infection, periods of low-level viremia are interrupted with episodes of high-level viremia increasing the potential for transmission.
1. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahss/equine/eia/eia_info_sheet.pdf
2. Reynolds, DI. Equine infectious anaemia in Ireland. Veterinary Record 159:187, 2006.
3. Menzies F, Patterson T. Description of the first case of equine infectious anaemia in Northern Ireland. Veterinary Record 159:753-754, 2006.
4. Quinlivan M, Cook RF, Cullinane A. Real-time quantitative RT-PCR and PCR assays for a novel European field isolate of equine infectious anaemia virus based sequence determination of the gag gene. Veterinary Record 160:611-618, 2007.
E: Products Support
E: Biologics Testing Support
Copyright © 2023 VMRD, Inc.