24892 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

dumping margins, as indicated in the 

chart below. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

WeightedAverage 

margin 

(percent) 

PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia 

Tbk./PT. Pindo Deli Pulp and 

Paper/PT. Indah Kiat Pulp 

and Paper Tbk ...................... 10.62 

All Others .................................. 10.62 

All Others Rate 

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

provides that the estimated ‘‘All Others’’ 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. As mentioned 

above in this notice, the collapsed entity 

(i.e., PD/TK/IK) is the only respondent 

in this investigation for which the 

Department calculated a companyspecific rate. Therefore, for purposes of 

determining the all-others rate and 

pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the 

Act, we are using the weighted-average 

dumping margin calculated for PD/TK/ 

IK, as referenced above. See, e.g., CFS 

from Indonesia, 72 FR at 60637; and 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 

FR 30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999). 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with this preliminary 

determination within five days of the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

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

that a final determination may be 

postponed until not later than 135 days 

after the date of the publication of the 

preliminary determination if, in the 

event of an affirmative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by exporters, 

who account for a significant proportion 

of exports of the subject merchandise, or 

in the event of a negative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by the petitioner. 

The Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), require that requests by 

respondents for postponement of a final 

determination be accompanied by a 

request for extension of provisional 

measures from a four-month period to 

not more than six months. 

On April 13, 2010, PD/TK/IK 

requested that in the event of an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

in this investigation, the Department 

postpone its final determination by 60 

days. At the same time, PD/TK/IK 

requested that the Department extend 

the application of the provisional 

measures prescribed under section 

733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period 

to a six-month period. In accordance 

with section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.210(b)(2), because (1) our 

preliminary determination is 

affirmative, (2) the requesting exporters 

account for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting this request and 

are postponing the final determination 

until no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Suspension of liquidation will 

be extended accordingly. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of the 

Department’s preliminary affirmative 

determination. If the Department’s final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine before the later of 120 

days after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after our final 

determination whether imports of 

coated paper from Indonesia are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

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

section 735(b)(2) of the Act). Because we 

are postponing the deadline for our final 

determination to 135 days from the date 

of the publication of this preliminary 

determination, the ITC will make its 

final determination no later than 45 

days after our final determination. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs to the Department no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the issuance of the last sales or cost 

verification report in this proceeding. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, 

the content of which is limited to the 

issues raised in the case briefs, must be 

filed within five days from the deadline 

date for the submission of case briefs. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(d). A list of 

authorities used, a table of contents, and 

an executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. Executive summaries 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. Further, we request 

that parties submitting briefs and 

rebuttal briefs provide the Department 

with a copy of the public version of 

such briefs on diskette. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, the Department will hold a public 

hearing, if timely requested, to afford 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on arguments raised in case or 

rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 

hearing is requested by an interested 

party. See also 19 CFR 351.310(d). If a 

timely request for a hearing is made in 

this investigation, we intend to hold the 

hearing two days after the rebuttal brief 

deadline date at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at 

a time and in a room to be determined. 

See 19 CFR 351.310. Parties should 

confirm by telephone, the date, time, 

and location of the hearing 48 hours 

before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties, who wish to 

request a hearing, or to participate in a 

hearing if one is requested, must submit 

a written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

1870, within 30 days of the publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. At the hearing, oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

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

Dated: April 28, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10682 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–958] 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet-Fed Presses From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24893 

1See Coated Paper From the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 74 FR 53710 (October 20, 2009) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

2See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice 

and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 

05.1’’), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/ 

bull05–1.pdf. 

3See Investigation Nos. 701–TA–470–471 and 

731–TA–1169–1170 (Preliminary): Coated Paper 

From China, 74 FR 61174 (November 23, 2009). 

4See Coated Paper From the People’s Republic of 

China: Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 75 FR 7447 (February 19, 2010). 

5 ‘‘ ‘Paperboard’ refers to Certain Coated Paper that 

is heavier, thicker and more rigid than coated paper 

which otherwise meets the product description. In 

the context of Certain Coated Paper, paperboard 

typically is referred to as ‘cover,’ to distinguish it 

from ‘text.’ ’’ 

6One of the key measurements of any grade of 

paper is brightness. Generally speaking, the brighter 

the paper the better the contrast between the paper 

and the ink. Brightness is measured using a GE 

Reflectance Scale, which measures the reflection of 

light off of a grade of paper. One is the lowest 

reflection, or what would be given to a totally black 

grade, and 100 is the brightest measured grade. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 6, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) preliminarily determines 

that certain coated paper suitable for 

high-quality print graphics using sheetfed presses (‘‘coated paper’’) from the 

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

being, or is likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

Pursuant to requests from interested 

parties, we are postponing the final 

determination and extending the 

provisional measures from a four-month 

period to not more than six months. 

Accordingly, we will make our final 

determination not later than 135 days 

after publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lindsey Novom or Demitrios 

Kalogeropoulos, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–5256 or (202) 482–2623, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Initiation 

On September 23, 2009, the 

Department received an antidumping 

duty (‘‘AD’’) petition concerning imports 

of coated paper from the PRC filed in 

proper form by Appleton Coated LLC, 

NewPage Corporation, S.D. Warren 

Company d/b/a Sappi Fine Paper North 

America, and United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). See the 

Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 

Pursuant to Sections 701 and 731 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Petition’’), filed on September 23, 

2009. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioners filed supplements to 

the Petitions on October 2, 8, and 9, 

2009. 

The Department initiated this 

investigation on October 13, 2009.1 In 

the Initiation Notice, the Department 

notified parties of the application 

process by which exporters and 

producers may obtain separate-rate 

status in non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

investigations. The process requires 

exporters and producers to submit a 

separate-rate status application 

(‘‘SRA’’) 2 and to demonstrate an absence 

of both de jure and de facto government 

control over its export activities. The 

SRA for this investigation was posted on 

the Department’s Web site http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-news-2009.html on 

October 14, 2009. The due date for filing 

an SRA was December 22, 2009. 

On November 23, 2009, the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

determined that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury by 

reason of imports of coated paper from 

the PRC.3

Period of Investigation 

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

January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. 

This period corresponds to the two most 

recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 

of the filing of the petition, which was 

September 2009. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination 

On January 22, 2010, petitioners made 

a timely request pursuant to section 

733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a 50-day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination. On February 19, 2010, 

the Department published a 

postponement of the preliminary AD 

determination on coated paper from the 

PRC.4

Tolling of Administrative Deadlines 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for 

this preliminary determination is now 

April 28, 2010. See Memorandum to the 

Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 

Import Administration, regarding 

‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As 

a Result of the Government Closure 

During the Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated 

February 12, 2010. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation includes certain coated 

paper and paperboard 5 in sheets 

suitable for high quality print graphics 

using sheet-fed presses; coated on one 

or both sides with kaolin (China or other 

clay), calcium carbonate, titanium 

dioxide, and/or other inorganic 

substances; with or without a binder; 

having a GE brightness level of 80 or 

higher; 6 weighing not more than 340 

grams per square meter; whether gloss 

grade, satin grade, matte grade, dull 

grade, or any other grade of finish; 

whether or not surface-colored, surfacedecorated, printed (except as described 

below), embossed, or perforated; and 

irrespective of dimensions (‘‘Certain 

Coated Paper’’). 

Certain Coated Paper includes (a) 

coated free sheet paper and paperboard 

that meets this scope definition; (b) 

coated groundwood paper and 

paperboard produced from bleached 

chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp 

(‘‘BCTMP’’) that meets this scope 

definition; and (c) any other coated 

paper and paperboard that meets this 

scope definition. 

Certain Coated Paper is typically (but 

not exclusively) used for printing multicolored graphics for catalogues, books, 

magazines, envelopes, labels and wraps, 

greeting cards, and other commercial 

printing applications requiring high 

quality print graphics. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

are imports of paper and paperboard 

printed with final content printed text 

or graphics. 

As of 2009, imports of the subject 

merchandise are provided for under the 

following categories of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’): 4810.14.11, 4810.14.1900, 

4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 

4810.14.5000, 4810.14.6000, 4810.14.70, 

4810.19.1100, 4810.19.1900, 

4810.19.2010, 4810.19.2090, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24894 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

7See ‘‘Scope Comments: Coated Paper Suitable 

For High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses from China and Indonesia,’’ dated 

November 6, 2009. 

8See ‘‘Certain Coated Paper Suitable For HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 

(‘‘Certain Coated Paper’’) from Indonesia and the 

People’s Republic of China: Petitioners’ Rebuttal 

Comments on Scope,’’ dated November 16, 2009. 

9See ‘‘Request to Re-Examine the Department’s 

Industry Support Calculation Coated Paper Suitable 

For High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses from China,’’ dated December 16, 2009. 

10See ‘‘Certain Coated Paper Suitable For HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 

from Indonesia and the People’s Republic of China: 

Petitioners’ Response to Chinese and Indonesian 

Respondents’ Request to Re-examine the 

Department’s Industry Support Calculation,’’ dated 

December 28, 2009. 

11See ‘‘Ex Parte Meeting Regarding Scope: 

Records Documents, Certain Coated Paper Suitable 

For High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses from Indonesia and the People’s Republic 

of China,’’ originally dated February 23, 2010, 

resubmitted on March 12, 2010. 

12See ‘‘Additional Scope Comments: Certain 

Coated Paper Suitable For High-Quality Print 

Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from China and 

Indonesia,’’ dated March 29, 2010. 

13See ‘‘Certain Coated Paper Suitable For HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 

(‘‘Certain Coated Paper’’) from Indonesia and the 

People’s Republic of China: Petitioners’ Rebuttal 

Comments on Scope,’’ dated April 8, 2010. 

14See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 53713. 

15See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined 

Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘China’’)—China’s status as a non-market economy 

(‘‘NME’’),’’ dated August 30, 2006. This document is 

available online at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/ 

prc–nmestatus/prc–lined-paper–memo– 

08302006.pdf. 

16See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 9591 (March 5, 2009) 

(‘‘Kitchen Racks Prelim’’) unchanged in Certain 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 

24, 2009) (‘‘Kitchen Racks Final’’) and Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 4929 

(January 28, 2009) unchanged in Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 

FR 29167 (June 19, 2009). 

4810.22.1000, 4810.22.50, 4810.22.6000, 

4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000, 

4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70. While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

investigations is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations, we set aside a period for 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19, 1997). The Department 

encouraged all interested parties to 

submit such comments within 20 

calendar days of signature of the 

Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 

74 FR at 31692. As we stated in Certain 

Coated Paper Suitable For High-Quality 

Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Alignment of 

Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination With Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination, 75 FR 10774 

(March 9, 2010) (‘‘PRC Coated Paper 

CVD Prelim’’) and Certain Coated Paper 

From Indonesia: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination With 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

75 FR 10761 (March 9, 2010) 

(‘‘Indonesia Coated Paper CVD Prelim’’), 

the Department received scope 

comments from interested parties on 

November 6, 2009,7 November 16, 

2009,8 December 16, 2009,9 December 

28, 2009,10 and March 12, 2010,11 with 

respect to whether multi-ply coated 

paper products are covered by the scope 

of the AD/CVD investigations of coated 

paper from the PRC and Indonesia. As 

the Department stated in the PRC 

Coated Paper CVD Prelim and Indonesia 

Coated Paper CVD Prelim, based on our 

review of the scope, we find that the 

number of plies is not among the 

specific physical characteristics (e.g., 

brightness, coating, weight, etc.) 

defining the subject merchandise. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily find that 

multi-ply coated paper is covered by the 

scope of these investigations, to the 

extent that it meets the description of 

the merchandise in the scope. 

On February 25, 2010, Petitioners 

filed additional comments rebutting 

certain documents filed by the PRC and 

Indonesian respondents which 

contained scope comments and restating 

their prior claims. In response to a 

question the Department posed during 

an ex parte meeting, Petitioners stated 

that the phrase ‘‘suitable for high quality 

print graphics’’ could be stricken from 

the description of the subject 

merchandise without altering the scope 

of these investigations. In the PRC 

Coated Paper CVD Prelim and Indonesia 

Coated Paper CVD Prelim, the 

Department invited interested parties to 

comment within 20 calendar days of 

publication of the PRC Coated Paper 

CVD Prelim and Indonesia Coated 

Paper CVD Prelim with respect to 

whether striking the language ‘‘suitable 

for high quality print graphics’’ from the 

description of the subject merchandise 

would alter the scope of these 

investigations. We received comments 

from interested parties on March 29, 

2010,12 and April 8, 2010.13 Based on 

the information contained in these 

submissions, on April 23, 2010, the 

Department requested additional 

information from Petitioners with 

respect to this scope issue. Petitioners’ 

submission is due May 3, 2010. 

Therefore, we intend to address this 

issue for the final determinations in 

these coated paper AD/CVD 

investigations. 

In their February 25, 2010 

submission, Petitioners also stated that 

the phrase in the scope, ‘‘(c) any other 

coated paper that meets the scope 

definition’’ should also include the word 

‘‘paperboard.’’ As the Department stated 

in the PRC Coated Paper CVD Prelim 

and Indonesia Coated Paper CVD 

Prelim, we agree that the word 

‘‘paperboard’’ was inadvertently omitted 

(e.g., it is already explicitly included in 

the first sentence of the scope language 

and in ‘‘(b)’’ of the second paragraph) 

and have corrected the scope language 

to read ‘‘(c) any other coated paper and 

paperboard that meets this scope 

definition.’’ 

Non-Market Economy Country 

For purposes of initiation, Petitioners 

submitted an LTFV analysis for the PRC 

as an NME.14 The Department’s most 

recent examination of the PRC’s market 

status determined that NME status 

should continue for the PRC.15

Additionally, in two recent 

investigations, the Department also 

determined that the PRC is an NME 

country.16 In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the NME status 

remains in effect until revoked by the 

Department. The Department has not 

revoked the PRC’s status as an NME 

country, and we have therefore treated 

the PRC as an NME in this preliminary 

determination and applied our NME 

methodology. 

Market Oriented Industry Treatment 

In the Amendment to Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Amendment to 

Antidumping Duty Order: ChromePlated Lug Nuts From the People’s 

Republic of China, 57 FR 15052 (April 

24, 1992) (‘‘Lug Nuts From the PRC’’), 

the Department set forth the factors to 

be considered in determining whether 

an MOI exists in an economy which is 

considered an NME for the purposes of 

the antidumping duty law. These factors 

include, but are not limited to: 

— For the merchandise under 

investigation, there must be virtually 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24895 

17See Department’s February 24, 2010, Request 

for Additional Information Concerning MarketOriented Industry Treatment. 

18See MOI Respondents’ March 9 and April 14 

submissions. 

19See Exhibit 1 of Respondents’ February 5, 2010 

submission. 

20See Petitioners’ March 9, 2010 submission. 

21See Petitioners’ March 9, 2010 submission. 

no government involvement in setting 

prices or amounts to be produced. For 

example, state-required production of 

the merchandise, whether for export 

or domestic consumption in the nonmarket economy country would be an 

almost insuperable barrier to finding 

a market-oriented industry (first 

prong). 

—The industry producing the 

merchandise under investigation 

should be characterized by private or 

collective ownership. There may be 

state-owned enterprises in the 

industry but substantial state 

ownership would weigh heavily 

against finding a market-oriented 

industry (second prong). 

—Market-determined prices must be 

paid for all significant inputs, 

whether material or non-material (e.g., 

labor and overhead), and for all but an 

insignificant proportion of all the 

inputs accounting for the total value 

of the merchandise under 

investigation. For example, an input 

price will not be considered marketdetermined if the producers of the 

merchandise under investigation pay 

a state-set price for the input or if the 

input is supplied to the producers at 

government direction. Moreover, if 

there is any state-required production 

in the industry producing the input, 

the share of state-required production 

must be insignificant (third prong). 

If any one of these conditions is not 

met, then, pursuant to sections 

773(c)(1), (3) and (4) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.408, the producers of the 

merchandise under investigation will be 

treated as NME-producers, and the 

normal value will be calculated on the 

basis of the value of the factors of 

production, which to the extent possible 

will be based on prices and costs of the 

factors of production in one or more 

market economy countries that are (A) 

at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the nonmarket 

economy country, and (B) are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

In Lug Nuts From the PRC, the 

Department stated that the test for 

finding such a market-oriented industry 

must begin with a strong presumption 

that such situations do not occur. See 

Lug Nuts From the PRC. The 

presumption against finding a marketoriented industry must prevail unless 

thorough and convincing evidence is 

presented on the record which 

demonstrates that the producers operate 

in an environment of market-based costs 

and prices. See Lug Nuts From the PRC. 

All of the mandatory respondents and 

the separate rate respondent, Chenming 

(collectively, ‘‘MOI Respondents’’), in 

this investigation have claimed that the 

coated paper industry is a marketoriented industry (‘‘MOI’’). In their 

February 5, 24, March 9, and April 14, 

2010, submissions, the MOI 

Respondents claim that the market 

determines the prices for major inputs 

(pulp, China clay, and caustic soda) as 

evidenced by the existence of imports 

and an absence of government price 

controls. In addition, MOI Respondents 

claim that privately held companies and 

foreign-invested enterprises (‘‘FIEs’’) 

account for a significant majority of 

production of these three inputs during 

the POI. MOI Respondents claim that 

the government did not regulate the 

quantity or pricing of subject 

merchandise during the POI and that 

the coated paper industry in the PRC 

consists predominantly of privately held 

companies and FIEs that act according 

to market considerations. Accordingly, 

these MOI Respondents state that these 

submissions demonstrate that the coated 

paper industry is an MOI and, as such, 

is fully entitled to market treatment in 

this investigation. 

On February 5, 2010, MOI 

Respondents provided an initial MOI 

submission addressing the second prong 

(as articulated in Lug Nuts From the 

PRC) and indicated they intended to 

submit additional data and other factual 

evidence in support of their request for 

MOI treatment. After receiving this 

initial submission, the Department 

prompted MOI Respondents to complete 

their submission and address the first 

and third prong (as articulated in Lug 

Nuts From the PRC), as well as address 

the specific inputs of land, capital, and 

labor.17 MOI Respondents provided the 

Department information for three 

material inputs: pulp, caustic soda, and 

China clay, as well as information 

regarding land, capital, and labor.18 On 

March 9 and 19, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted information citing 

deficiencies in MOI Respondents’ MOI 

submissions. MOI Respondents on April 

14, 2010 provided additional 

information in support of their MOI 

claim and provided responses to some 

of the Petitioners’ arguments. 

The Department requires that any 

MOI claim be submitted such that it 

provides sufficient time to consider the 

claim. See, e.g., Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 67314 

(November 17, 2004). While the 

Department has given MOI 

Respondents’ claim full consideration in 

this case, for future cases, the 

Department wishes to clarify that MOI 

Respondents should submit their 

complete MOI claim no later than two 

months after the initiation of a segment 

of a proceeding such that in the event 

of granting MOI treatment to a certain 

industry, this could allow sufficient 

time to request and analyze market 

economy data for use in the 

Department’s determinations. 

For the reasons explained below, the 

Department concludes that the MOI 

Respondents’ claim is insufficient with 

respect to prongs two and three. The 

Department requires that an MOI claim 

cover virtually all of the producers of 

the industry and virtually all inputs. 

See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the 

People’s Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 

(December 31, 1998) (‘‘Preserved 

Mushrooms From the PRC’’). The 

Department finds that the MOI 

Respondents’ claim does not sufficiently 

address the ownership of coated paper 

producers and does not address 

virtually all inputs for the coated paper 

industry. 

With respect to the second prong, 

regarding private or collective 

ownership, the evidence on the record 

is inconclusive with respect to the 

ownership status of enterprises in the 

coated paper industry. MOI 

Respondents themselves identified one 

of the largest producers of coated paper 

as a state-owned enterprise (‘‘SOE’’).19

Petitioners have provided evidence on 

the record that another one of the largest 

producers is also an SOE.20 In addition, 

Petitioners provided information that 

several other enterprises, classified as 

non-SOE by MOI Respondents, are in 

fact state-owned.21 The Department 

further notes that MOI Respondents’ 

April 14, 2010, submission failed to 

address, respond, or otherwise rebut 

Petitioners’ evidence on the record that 

several enterprises are misclassified as 

private, FIE, and collective, and should 

be reclassified as SOEs. For example, 

under Article 4 of China’s Law on 

Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures, 

an enterprise with at least 25 percent 

foreign capital contribution is classified 

as an FIE. For some enterprises, it 

appears that MOI Respondents 

classified enterprises as FIEs in the case 

where an SOE, or company owned by an 

ultimate SOE parent, contributed the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24896 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

22See Exhibit 1 of Respondents’ April 14, 2010 

submission. 

23See MOI Respondents’ March 9, 2010 and April 

14, 2010 submissions. 

24See GE Group’s and Sun Paper and Board’s 

Section D questionnaire responses. 

25 Due to the proprietary nature of this data, 

please see the analysis memos for the GE Group and 

Sun Paper and Board. 

26See Exhibit INPUT–3 of MOI Respondent’s 

March 9, 2010 submission. 

27See MOI Respondents’ April 14, 2010 

submission. 

majority of the capital.22 The 

Department also notes that MOI 

respondents provided no information on 

the ultimate ownership structure of the 

companies that own the coated paper 

producers. Moreover, because the 

information provided by MOI 

Respondents regarding the percentage of 

ownership structure in the coated paper 

industry in China is presented in 

aggregate form on a production basis, as 

opposed to providing enterprise-level 

production data, the Department is 

precluded from performing its own 

calculation of the portion of the coated 

paper industry that is state-owned. For 

all of the above reasons, the Department 

finds that the MOI Respondents’ claim 

is not sufficient with respect to the 

second prong of the MOI test. 

Under the third MOI prong, the 

Department requires that the MOI claim 

provide a sufficient basis to demonstrate 

that ‘‘market determined prices’’ are paid 

for virtually all inputs (emphasis added, 

see Preserved Mushrooms From the 

PRC). With regard to the third prong, the 

MOI claim must provide evidence that 

market determined prices are paid for 

(1) all significant inputs, whether 

material or non-material (e.g., labor and 

overhead), and (2) all but an 

insignificant proportion of the inputs 

accounting for the total value of the 

merchandise under investigation. See 

Lug Nuts From the PRC. The 

Department does not expect MOI 

Respondents’ MOI claim to provide 

ownership documentation for every 

input supplier, and for each and every 

input; the Department, however, does 

require that, at a minimum, a claim at 

least include aggregate information on 

the state-ownership of a material input 

as well as summary information that 

provides sufficient evidence that market 

determined prices are paid (See factors 

cited in the preceding paragraph). 

Aside from the lack of de jure price 

controls, MOI Respondents’ claim with 

respect to whether market prices are 

paid for inputs consists of providing 

ownership information for three input 

producers in addition to the existence of 

imports.23 The mere existence of 

imports, however, without a basis for 

comparison, does not provide a 

sufficient basis for the claim that market 

prices were paid. Import volumes alone 

do not provide a meaningful indicator 

unless they are, inter alia, compared to 

domestic consumption, i.e. the import 

penetration ratio. The Department notes 

that MOI Respondents did not provide 

this metric for any of the inputs. Absent 

or in addition to such information, it 

may also be appropriate to consider: (1) 

Whether the input is subject to any state 

guidance pricing, decrees, circulars, or 

other administratively determined 

reference pricing that is not explicitly 

referred to in the law and, (2) the 

absence of border measures (export 

taxes and quotas) on raw material inputs 

that can depress domestic prices. While 

no one factor, alone, is dispositive, the 

Department finds that MOI Respondents 

did not provide a sufficient basis to 

support the claim for market determined 

prices. 

Additionally, the Department requires 

that the MOI claim provide information 

that addresses virtually all inputs. See, 

e.g., Preserved Mushrooms From the 

PRC. Coated paper production requires 

anywhere from several dozen up to 

hundreds of different material inputs.24

MOI Respondents, however, have only 

provided information on three material 

inputs. For certain coated paper 

products, these three inputs do not 

account for a large portion of the direct 

material cost.25 Further, the Department 

notes that at least one of the inputs has 

substantial state production.26 With 

regard to the remaining material inputs, 

MOI Respondents’ only assertion is to 

reference the mandatory respondents’ 

questionnaire responses.27 As the 

Department has previously stated, the 

MOI claim must encompass the entire 

industry and provide information that 

addresses virtually all inputs. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s 

Republic of China, 62 FR 41347, 41353 

(August 1, 1997); see also Preserved 

Mushrooms From the PRC. 

For the reasons noted above, the 

Department determines that MOI 

Respondents’ MOI claim did not 

provide sufficient evidence as to the 

second and third prongs to warrant the 

Department’s further consideration in 

this investigation of whether producers 

in the coated paper industry operate in 

an environment of market-based costs 

and prices sufficient to overcome the 

strong presumption that an MOI does 

not exist in a nonmarket economy. In 

light of this finding, we do not need to 

reach the issues with respect to the first 

prong or with respect to the claims 

concerning land, capital, and labor. 

Market-Oriented Enterprise Treatment 

On January 21, 2010, Gold East Paper 

(Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. (‘‘GE’’) and Gold 

Huasheng Paper Co., Ltd. (‘‘GHS’’) 

requested that the Department apply its 

market economy (‘‘ME’’) methodology 

when calculating its AD margins for the 

GE Group. In its request, GE and GHS 

presented the following claims as to 

why the Department should afford the 

GE Group market-oriented enterprise 

(‘‘MOE’’) treatment: (1) GE and GHS are 

100 percent foreign owned which 

‘‘signifies that market principles are 

being applied;’’ (2) a significant portion 

of GE and GHS’s material inputs are 

sourced from ME countries and 

‘‘reliance on market economy inputs 

makes it less likely that there will be 

residual influence from the non-market 

economy on the respondents’ 

operations;’’ and (3) GE and GHS are 

subject to a companion countervailing 

duty case. On April 19, 2010, the GE 

Group submitted a ME questionnaire 

response, notwithstanding that the 

Department had not issued the GE 

Group a ME questionnaire. 

As an initial matter, we note that the 

antidumping statute and the 

Departments’ regulations are silent with 

respect to the term ‘‘MOE.’’ Neither the 

statute nor the regulations compel the 

agency to treat some constituents of the 

NME industry as MOEs while treating 

others as NME entities. To date, the 

Department has not adopted any MOE 

exception to the application of the NME 

methodology in any proceeding 

involving an NME country. As we stated 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 

Paper From the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 60632 (Oct. 25, 2007), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1, no 

determination has been made ‘‘whether 

it would be appropriate to introduce a 

market oriented enterprise process’’ in 

NME antidumping investigations. 

Speaking to the complexity of the issue, 

the Department has twice asked for 

public comment on whether it should 

consider granting market-economy 

treatment to individual respondents 

operating in non-market economies, the 

conditions under which individual 

firms should be granted marketeconomy treatment, and how such 

treatment might affect antidumping 

calculations for such qualifying 

respondents. See First MOE Comment 

Request, 72 FR at 29302–03; 

Antidumping Methodologies in 

Proceedings Involving Certain NonMarket Economies: Market-Oriented 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24897 

28Under the NME presumption established by the 

statutory scheme, the only mechanism for market 

economy treatment currently available to 

respondents in NME proceedings is market-oriented 

industry (‘‘MOI’’) classification. Commerce currently 

employs an industry-wide test to determine 

whether, under section 773(c)(1)(B), available 

information in the NME country permits the use of 

the ME methodology for the NME industry 

producing the subject merchandise. The MOI test 

affords NME-country respondents the possibility of 

market economy treatment, but only upon a caseby-case, industry-specific basis. This test is 

performed only upon the request of a respondent. 

See, e.g., Antidumping Methodologies in 

Proceedings Involving Certain Non-Market 

Economies: Market-Oriented Enterprise, 72 FR 

29302, 29302 (May 25, 2007) (‘‘First MOE Comment 

Request’’). 

29 See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Coated Paper 

from the People’s Republic of China: Respondent 

Selection,’’ dated November 25, 2009 (‘‘Respondent 

Selection Memo’’). 

30Specifically filed against Gold East (Jiangsu) 

Co., Ltd.; Gold Huasheng Paper Co., Ltd., Ningbo 

Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd.; and Ningbo Asia Pulp 

and Paper Co., Ltd. 

Enterprise: Request for Comment, 72 FR 

60649 (Oct. 25, 2007) (‘‘Second MOE 

Comment Request’’). The Department 

received numerous comments in 

response to the two Federal Register 

notices. The Department is still 

considering those comments while 

evaluating whether to adopt an official 

policy concerning MOEs. 

Pursuant to section 771(18)(A) of the 

Act, when a country is determined to be 

an NME, it means that the designated 

country, in this case the PRC, ‘‘{d}oes 

not operate on market principles of cost 

or pricing structures, so that sales of 

merchandise in such country do not 

reflect the fair value of the 

merchandise.’’ In accordance with 

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

presumption of NME status remains in 

effect until revoked by the Department. 

The presumption of NME status for the 

PRC has not been revoked by the 

Department and remains in effect for the 

purpose of this investigation. 

Accordingly, the normal value (‘‘NV’’) of 

the product is appropriately based on 

factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) valued in 

a surrogate ME country in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Act, a 

methodology that has been repeatedly 

upheld by the Courts. See, e.g., Sigma 

Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 

1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Nation Ford 

Chem. Co. vs. United States, 166 F.3d 

1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999).28

Selection of Respondents 

In accordance with section 777A(c)(2) 

of the Act, the Department selected the 

four largest exporters of coated paper 

(i.e., GE, GHS, Yanzhou Tianzhang 

Paper Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tianzhang’’), 

and Shandong International Paper and 

Sun Coated Paperboard Co., Ltd./ 

International Paper and Sun 

Cartonboard Co., Ltd. (‘‘IP Paperboard’’ 

and ‘‘IP Cartonboard’’) by volume as the 

mandatory respondents in this 

investigation based on the quantity and 

value (‘‘Q&V’’) information from 

exporters/producers that were identified 

in the Petition, of which five firms filed 

timely Q&V questionnaire responses.29

Of the five Q&V questionnaire 

responses, four companies (GE, GHS, 

Tiangzhang and IP Paperboard/IP 

Cartonboard) filed two consolidated 

Q&V questionnaire responses. 

The Department issued its 

antidumping questionnaire to 

Tianzhang and IP Paperboard/IP 

Cartonboard (collectively, ‘‘Sun Paper 

and Board’’) and GE and GHS on 

November 27, 2009. The Department 

requested that the respondents provide 

a response to section A of the 

Department’s questionnaire on 

December 18, 2009, and a response to 

sections C and D of the questionnaire on 

January 4, 2010. From December 15, 

2009, until the present, the Department 

has granted both respondents several 

extensions for their submissions. 

Sun Paper and Board submitted its 

responses to the section A and sections 

C and D questionnaires on December 29, 

2009 and January 20, 2010, respectively. 

Sun Paper and Board submitted 

responses to the section A and section 

C supplemental questionnaires on 

March 18 and March 25, 2010, 

respectively. The Department received 

Sun Paper and Board’s section D 

supplemental questionnaire response 

and section A and C 2nd supplemental 

questionnaire response on April 9, 2010. 

After the Department requested 

reconciliation of sales in a 

memorandum to the file, Sun Paper and 

Board submitted its reconciliation of 

sales on March 26, 2010. In two 

memorandums to the file requesting 

affiliation information, Sun Paper and 

Board submitted affiliation information 

on April 6, 2010, and April 14, 2010. 

GE, GHS, and its affiliated producers 

Ningbo Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd., 

(‘‘NBZH’’) and Ningbo Asia Pulp and 

Paper Co., Ltd., (‘‘NAPP’’) (collectively, 

‘‘GE Group’’) submitted their section A 

responses on December 23, 2009. GE 

and GHS submitted responses to section 

C and D on January 20, 2010, and 

January 22, 2010, respectively. NAPP 

and NBZH submitted its section C and 

D responses on March 5, 2010. The 

Department received the GE Group’s 

section A supplemental response on 

March 16, 2010. The Department 

received GE, GHS, NBZH’s and NAPP’s 

section C and D supplemental 

questionnaire responses on April 6, 

2010. 

Targeted Dumping 

On March 15, 2010, the Department 

received Petitioners’ allegations of 

targeted dumping by the GE group 30

using a variation of the Department’s 

methodology as established in Certain 

Steel Nails From the United Arab 

Emirates: Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 

FR 33985 (June 16, 2008) (‘‘Steel Nails’’), 

in addition to proposing an alternative 

targeted dumping methodology. Based 

on our examination of the targeted 

dumping allegations filed by Petitioners 

on March 15, 2010, pursuant to 

777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, the 

Department has determined that the 

Petitioners’ allegations sufficiently 

indicate that there is a pattern of export 

prices (or constructed export prices) for 

comparable merchandise that differ 

significantly among purchasers and 

regions. Therefore, for purposes of this 

preliminary determination, we have 

applied the targeted dumping 

methodology established in Steel Nails. 

We have rejected Petitioners’ 

proposed targeted dumping test for 

purposes of the preliminary 

determination, for the same reasons we 

have explained in recent past 

investigations involving targeted 

dumping allegations (see Steel Nails and 

Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Final Determination of Targeted 

Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010) 

(‘‘OCTG’’), where the Department 

rejected use of the ‘‘P/2’’ test). The 

Department will, therefore, continue to 

apply the targeted dumping 

methodology established in Steel Nails, 

and most recently applied in OCTG. 

As a result, the Department has 

applied the targeted dumping analysis 

established in Steel Nails to the GE 

Group’s U.S. sales to targeted customers 

and regions. The methodology we 

employed involves a two-stage test; the 

first stage addresses the pattern 

requirement and the second stage 

addresses the significant-difference 

requirement. See section 

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

Nails. In this test we made all price 

comparisons on the basis of comparable 

merchandise (i.e., by control number or 

CONNUM). The test procedures are the 

same for the customer and region 

targeted-dumping allegations. We based 

all of our targeted-dumping calculations 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24898 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

31See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process, (March 1, 

2004), (‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’) at Attachment II of 

the Department’s Surrogate Country Letter, also 

available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04- 

1.html. 

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

the final determination of this investigation, 

interested parties may submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 

submitted by an interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for 

submission of such factual information. However, 

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

permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on 

the record. The Department generally cannot accept 

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

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

Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

on the U.S. net price which we 

determined for U.S. sales by the GE 

Group in our standard margin 

calculations. For further discussion of 

the test and the results, see 

Memorandum from Bobby Wong to 

Wendy Frankel, regarding the ‘‘Targeted 

Dumping Analysis of the GE Group’’ 

(‘‘Targeted Dumping Memo’’), dated 

concurrently with this notice. As a 

result of our analysis, we preliminarily 

determine that there is a pattern of sales 

for comparable merchandise that differ 

significantly among certain customers 

for the GE Group in accordance with 

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

our practice as discussed in Steel Nails. 

We determine that the standard averageto-average comparison methodology 

does not account for the identified 

pattern of price differences. Therefore, 

consistent with OCTG, we have applied 

the average-to-transaction methodology 

to all sales. 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the 

Act, on April 13, and April 20, 2010, 

respectively, GE Group and Sun Paper 

and Board requested that in the event of 

an affirmative preliminary 

determination in this investigation, the 

Department postpone the final 

determination by 60 days. On April 16, 

2010, Petitioners requested that in the 

event of a negative preliminary 

determination in this investigation, the 

Department postpone the final 

determination by 60 days, as well as the 

deadline to allege critical 

circumstances. Sun Paper and Board, 

and the GE Group, also requested that 

the Department extend the application 

of the provisional measures prescribed 

under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a fourmonth period to a six-month period. In 

accordance with section 733(d) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b), because (1) 

our preliminary determination is 

affirmative, (2) the requesting exporters 

account for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting the requests and 

are postponing the final determination 

until no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Suspension of liquidation will 

be extended accordingly. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 

circumstances, on the NME producer’s 

FOPs valued in a surrogate ME country 

or countries considered to be 

appropriate by the Department. In 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, in valuing the FOPs, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in 

one or more ME countries that are at a 

level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country 

and are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. The sources 

of the surrogate values we have used in 

this investigation are discussed under 

the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section below. 

The Department’s practice with 

respect to determining economic 

comparability is explained in Policy 

Bulletin 04.1,31 which states that ‘‘OP 

{Office of Policy} determines per capita 

economic comparability on the basis of 

per capita gross national income, as 

reported in the most current annual 

issue of the World Development Report 

(The World Bank).’’ The Department 

considers the six countries identified in 

its Surrogate Country List as ‘‘equally 

comparable in terms of economic 

development.’’ See Policy Bulletin 04.1 

at 2. Thus, we find that India, Indonesia, 

the Philippines, Ukraine, Thailand, and 

Peru are all at an economic level of 

development equally comparable to that 

of the PRC. 

Second, Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides 

some guidance on identifying 

comparable merchandise and selecting a 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

Based on the financial statements of 

various Indian producers provided by 

Petitioners in the petition, we find that 

India is a producer of identical 

merchandise. See Petition at Volume IIa, Exhibit 4. Because the Department 

was unable to find production data, we 

are relying on export data to proxy for 

overall production data in this case. Of 

the six countries listed in the Surrogate 

Country List, only India, Indonesia, and 

Thailand are significant exporters of 

coated paper. See Memorandum to the 

File regarding, ‘‘Certain Coated Paper 

Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics 

Using Sheet-Fed Presses (‘‘Certain 

Coated Paper’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Values for 

the Preliminary Determination,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice 

(‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’), at 

Exhibit 1. Consequently, at this time, 

Ukraine, Peru, and the Philippines, are 

not being considered to be appropriate 

surrogate countries for the PRC as they 

are not significant exporters of subject 

coated paper. During the POI, India 

exported over 12,925 MT of comparable 

merchandise, Indonesia exported over 

325,965 MT of comparable 

merchandise, and Thailand exported 

over 9,003 MT of comparable 

merchandise. Thus, India, Indonesia, 

and Thailand are considered as 

appropriate surrogate countries because 

each exported significant quantities of 

comparable merchandise. Finally, we 

have reliable data from India on the 

record that we can use to value the 

FOPs. Petitioners, GE Group, and Sun 

Paper and Board submitted surrogate 

values using Indian sources, suggesting 

greater availability of appropriate 

surrogate value data in India. 

Therefore, the Department is 

preliminarily selecting India as the 

surrogate country on the basis that: (1) 

It is at a similar level of economic 

development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of 

the Act; (2) it is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; and (3) we 

have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the factors of 

production. Thus, we have calculated 

normal value using Indian prices when 

available and appropriate to value 

respondents’ factors of production. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 

determination in an antidumping 

investigation, interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value the FOPs within 40 days after the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

determination.32

Surrogate Value Comments 

Surrogate factor valuation comments 

and surrogate value information with 

which to value the FOPs in this 

proceeding were originally due January 

29, 1010. GE Group and Sun Paper and 

Board requested an extension to submit 

surrogate values on January 25, 2010, 

and January 27, 2010, respectively; on 

January 27, 2010, the Department 

granted this request to extend the 

deadline for submission of surrogate 

value information for all interested 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24899 

33While GEHK is not a producer of coated paper, 

we note that where companies are affiliated, and 

there exists a significant potential for manipulation 

of prices and/or export decisions, the Department 

has found it appropriate to treat those companies 

as a single entity. The Court of International Trade 

(‘‘CIT’’) upheld the Department’s decision to include 

export decisions in its analysis of whether there 

was a significant potential for manipulation. See 

Hontex Enterprises v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 

2d 1323, 1343 (CIT 2003). In this case, not only is 

GEHK an exporter of subject merchandise, but it is 

an exporter of the subject merchandise produced by 

its four affiliated producers of subject merchandise 

(i.e., GE, GHS, NAPP, and NBZH). 

34Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: ‘‘while continuing 

the practice of assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the Department 

will now assign in its NME investigations will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 

however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter 

and all of the producers which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period of investigation. 

This practice applied both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an individually calculated 

separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated 

firms receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination rates’’ 

because such rates apply to specific combinations 

of exporters and one or more producers. The cashdeposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only 

to merchandise both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation.’’ See 

Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6. 

35The one separate-rate applicant is: (1) 

Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd. 

(‘‘Chenming’’). 

parties until February 12, 2010. 

Surrogate value submissions were filed 

February 12, 2010, February 17, 2010, 

February 19, 2010 by Sun Paper and 

Board, GE Group, and Petitioners, 

respectively. GE Group filed rebuttal 

surrogate values comments on February 

22, 2010. Petitioners filed rebuttal 

surrogate values comments on February 

24, 2010, and April 12, 2010. GE filed 

rebuttal surrogate values comments on 

April 12, 2010. For a detailed discussion 

of the surrogate values used in this 

LTFV proceeding, see the ‘‘Factor 

Valuation’’ section below and the 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Affiliation 

Based on the evidence presented in 

Sun Paper and Board’s questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily find 

affiliation between Tianzhang, IP Sun 

Cartonboard, and IP Sun Paperboard 

(‘‘Sun Paper and Board’’) pursuant to 

sections 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act. In 

addition, we find that Shandong Sun 

Paper Industry Joint Stock Co., Ltd. and 

Yanzhou City Jintaiyang Investment Co., 

Ltd. are affiliated pursuant to sections 

771(33)(E) of the Act. Further, we find 

Yanzhou City Jintaiyang Investment Co., 

Ltd. and Jin Rui Group, Inc. to be under 

the common control of the Li family and 

thus constitute a single group (‘‘Li 

Family Group’’) pursuant to section 

771(33)(F) of the Act and section 

351.102(b)(3) of the Department’s 

regulations. Next, we find that 

International Paper Company (‘‘IP 

Company’’) (which includes the 

division, xpedx), International Paper 

International Holdings, International 

Paper Singapore, and International 

Paper Asia (‘‘IP Companies’’) are 

affiliated to each other pursuant to 

section 771(33)(E) of the Act. In 

addition, based on their ownership 

interests, we consider the IP Companies 

to be a single entity. 

We also find that the IP Companies 

and Sun Paper and Board are affiliated 

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

Act. Moreover, we preliminarily find 

that the Li Family Group and the IP 

Companies are affiliated under section 

771(33)(F) of the Act through their 

direct and indirect control over the joint 

venture partnership in IP Sun 

Cartonboard and IP Sun Paperboard, 

producers of subject merchandise. 

In addition, based on the evidence 

presented in Sun Paper and Board’s 

questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that Tianzhang, IP 

Sun Cartonboard, and IP Sun 

Paperboard should be collapsed for the 

purposes of this investigation. This 

finding is based on the determination 

that Tianzhang, IP Sun Cartonboard, 

and IP Sun Paperboard are affiliated, 

that all three companies are producers 

of similar or identical products and no 

retooling would be necessary in order to 

restructure manufacturing priorities, 

and that there is significant potential for 

manipulation of price or production 

between the parties. See 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(1) and (2). 

For further discussion of the 

Department’s affiliation and collapsing 

decisions, see the Department’s 

Memorandum regarding, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Coated Paper from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Affiliation of Tianzhang, IP Sun 

Cartonboard, IP Sun Paperboard, the Li 

Family Group, and the IP Companies, 

and Collapsing of Tianzhang, IP Sun 

Cartonboard, IP Sun Paperboard,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

Based on the evidence presented in 

the GE Group’s questionnaire responses, 

we preliminarily find that GHS, NBZH, 

NAPP, and Gold East (Hong Kong) 

Trading Co., Ltd., (‘‘GEHK’’), a company 

that plays a role in GE, GHS, NBZH, and 

NAPP’s operations involving subject 

merchandise, are affiliated with GE, 

pursuant to sections 771(33)(E) and (F) 

of the Act. In addition, based on the 

evidence presented in their respective 

questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that GE, GHS, NBZH, 

NAPP, and GEHK should be treated as 

a single entity for the purposes of this 

investigation. This finding is based on 

the determination that GE, GHS, NBZH, 

and NAPP are producers of similar or 

identical products and no retooling 

would be necessary in order to 

restructure manufacturing priorities, 

and that GEHK is involved in the export 

of subject merchandise. Further, we find 

that there is significant potential for 

manipulation of price or production 

between the parties.33 See 19 CFR Sec. 

351.401(f)(1) and (2). For further 

discussion of the Department’s 

affiliation and collapsing decision, see 

the Department’s Memorandum titled, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Coated Paper from the People’s 

Republic of China: Affiliation and 

Collapsing of Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) 

Co., Ltd., Gold Huasheng Paper Co., 

Ltd., Ningbo Asia Pulp and Paper Co., 

Ltd., Ningbo Zhoughua Paper Co., Ltd., 

and Gold East (Hong Kong) Trading Co., 

Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice. 

Separate Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department notified parties of the 

application process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate-rate 

status in NME investigations. See 

Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 31695. The 

process requires exporters and 

producers to submit an SRA. See also 

Policy Bulletin 05.1.34 The standard for 

eligibility for a separate rate is whether 

a firm can demonstrate an absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control over its export activities. In this 

instant investigation, the Department 

received a timely-filed SRA from one 

company.35 The four mandatory 

respondents (i.e., GE, GHS, Tianzhang, 

and IP Paperboard/IP Cartonboard), the 

separate-rate respondent Chenming, and 

NAPP and NBZH, GE’s affiliated 

exporters of subject merchandise, 

provided company-specific information 

and each stated that it meets the criteria 

for the assignment of a separate rate. 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to 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. Exporters can 

demonstrate this independence through 

the absence of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24900 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

36See page 8 of GEHK’s financial statements, at 

GE’s December 23, 2009, section A questionnaire 

response at Volume 3. 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further 

developed in 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 ’’). In accordance with 

the separate-rates criteria, the 

Department assigns separate rates in 

NME cases only if respondents can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

export activities. GE, GHS, NBZH, and 

NAPP all indicated that they sold 

subject merchandise through Gold East 

(Hong Kong) Trading Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘GEHK’’). As information on the record 

demonstrates that GEHK is located in 

Hong Kong,36 consistent with our 

practice, we have not conducted a 

separate rate analysis of GEHK. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by all separate 

rate applicants supports a preliminary 

finding of de jure absence of 

government control based on the 

following: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) applicable legislative 

enactments that decentralize control of 

the companies; and (3) formal measures 

by the government decentralizing 

control of companies. See Chenming’s 

SRA submissions, dated December 22, 

2009, and March 25, 2010; GE Group’s 

section A questionnaire submissions 

dated December 23, 2009; and Sun 

Paper and Board’s separate rate 

information in the section A 

questionnaire submissions dated 

December 30, 2009, where the separaterate applicants certified that they had no 

relationship with any level of the PRC 

government with respect to ownership, 

internal management, and business 

operations. 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically, the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

government control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

In this investigation, all separate rate 

applicants each asserted the following: 

(1) That the export prices are not set by, 

and are not subject to, the approval of 

a governmental agency; (2) they have 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; (3) they have 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) they 

retain the proceeds of their export sales 

and make independent decisions 

regarding disposition of profits or 

financing of losses. Additionally, each 

of these companies’ SRA responses 

indicate that its pricing during the POI 

does not involve coordination among 

exporters. See Chenming’s SRA 

submission dated December 22, 2009, 

and March 25, 2010; GE Group’s 

separate rate information in the section 

A questionnaire submissions dated 

December 23, 2009; and Sun Paper and 

Board’s separate rate information in the 

section A questionnaire submissions 

dated December 30, 2009. 

Evidence placed on the record of this 

investigation by Sun Paper and Board, 

GE Group, and Chenming demonstrate 

an absence of de jure and de facto 

government control with respect to their 

respective exports of the merchandise 

under investigation, in accordance with 

the criteria identified in Sparklers and 

Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we are 

preliminarily granting a separate rate to 

these entities. 

Application of Facts Otherwise 

Available and Adverse Facts Available 

The PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-Wide 

Rate 

We issued our request for Q&V 

information to 56 potential Chinese 

exporters of the subject merchandise, in 

addition to posting the Q&V 

questionnaire on the Department’s Web 

site. See Respondent Selection Memo. 

While information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that there are 

numerous producers/exporters of coated 

paper in the PRC, we received only five 

timely filed Q&V responses. Although 

all exporters were given an opportunity 

to provide Q&V information, not all 

exporters provided a response to the 

Department’s Q&V letter. Therefore, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that there were exporters/ 

producers of the subject merchandise 

during the POI from the PRC that did 

not respond to the Department’s request 

for information. We have treated these 

PRC producers/exporters as part of the 

PRC-wide entity because they did not 

apply for a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Kitchen Racks Prelim, unchanged in 

Kitchen Racks Final. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department, (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute, or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that the PRCwide entity was non-responsive. Certain 

companies did not respond to our 

questionnaire requesting Q&V 

information. As a result, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find 

that the use of facts available (‘‘FA’’) is 

appropriate to determine the PRC-wide 

rate. See Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 

2003). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24901 

37See Memo to the File regarding ‘‘IP–Xpedx 

affiliation and Xpedx’s downstream sales,’’ dated 

April 1, 2010. 

38See Sun Paper and Board’s ‘‘Submission of 

Section D, C, and A Supplemental response,’’ dated 

April 14, 2010. 

39See Memo to the File, regarding, 

‘‘Communicating with the Counsel to Sun Paper and 

Board regarding the Department’s request for 

Xpedx’s Downstream Sales dated April 20, 2010. 

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 

Statement of Administrative Action, 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep. 

No. 103–316, 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’); see 

also 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). We find that, because the PRCwide entity did not respond to our 

requests for information, it has failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Furthermore, the PRC-wide entity’s 

refusal to provide the requested 

information constitutes circumstances 

under which it is reasonable to 

conclude that less than full cooperation 

has been shown. See Nippon Steel 

Corporation v. United States, 337 F.3d 

1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (‘‘Nippon 

Steel’’) where the Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit provided an 

explanation of the ‘‘failure to act to the 

best of its ability’’ standard noting that 

the Department need not show 

intentional conduct existed on the part 

of the respondent, but merely that a 

‘‘failure to cooperate to the best of a 

respondent’s ability’’ existed (i.e., 

information was not provided ‘‘under 

circumstances in which it is reasonable 

to conclude that less than full 

cooperation has been shown’’). 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that, in selecting from among the 

facts available, an adverse inference is 

appropriate. 

When employing an adverse 

inference, section 776 of the Act 

indicates that the Department may rely 

upon information derived from the 

petition, the final determination from 

the LTFV investigation, a previous 

administrative review, or any other 

information placed on the record. In 

selecting a rate for adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’), the Department 

selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse 

to ensure that the uncooperative party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

fully cooperated. It is the Department’s 

practice to select, as AFA, the higher of 

the (a) highest margin alleged in the 

petition, or (b) the highest calculated 

rate of any respondent in the 

investigation. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality 

Steel Products From the People’s 

Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 

31, 2000), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Facts 

Available.’’ As AFA, we have 

preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide 

entity a rate of 135.8 percent, the 

highest calculated rate from the petition. 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that this information is the 

most appropriate from the available 

sources to effectuate the purposes of 

AFA. The Department’s reliance on the 

petition rate to determine an AFA rate 

is subject to the requirement to 

corroborate secondary information, 

discussed in the Corroboration section 

below. 

Partial AFA to Sun Paper and Board 

In its questionnaire responses, 

Tianzhang, IP Sun Paperboard, and IP 

Sun Cartonboard stated that they made 

constructed export (‘‘CEP’’) sales through 

their U.S. affiliate, Jin Rui. Jin Rui 

resold some of the three producers/ 

exporters’ subject merchandise to 

xpedx, an operating division of IP 

Company. As stated above in the 

‘‘Affiliation Section,’’ we preliminarily 

find that IP Company, as part of the IP 

Companies, and Sun Paper and Board 

are affiliated pursuant to section 

771(33)(F) of the Act. In addition, as 

explained above, we preliminarily find 

that the IP Companies, of which xpedx 

is a part, and the Li Family Group, of 

which Jin Rui is a part, are affiliated. 

In finding that the Li Family Group 

and the IP Companies are affiliated, we 

find that sales from Jin Rui to xpedx are 

affiliated party transactions, and we 

requested that xpedx report its 

downstream sales of subject 

merchandise during the POI. We 

originally requested this data from Sun 

Paper and Board on March 26, 2010, 

with a due date of April 2, 2010. On 

March 31, 2010, we spoke with 

company officials from xpedx and IP 

Company who claimed that it would be 

difficult to provide xpedx’s downstream 

sales. We detailed the conversation in a 

memo to the file and responded by 

continuing to request xpedx’s sales.37

On April 1, 2010, we granted an 

extension for xpedx to submit its 

downstream sales until April 9, 2010. 

On April 8, 2010, we granted a second 

(partial) extension until April 16, 2010. 

On April 14, 2010,38 Sun Paper and 

Board stated that there were substantial 

operational difficulties in meeting the 

Department’s request, reiterating that on 

April 8, 2010, they had requested an 

extension of time to submit the 

downstream sales. We did not receive 

xpedx’s downstream sales on April 16, 

2010. On April 20, 2010, we received 

communication from counsel to Sun 

Paper and Board that xpedx was not 

going to submit the information 

requested by the Department.39

Nevertheless, subsequently on April 20, 

2010, after the deadline for xpedx to 

submit the required downstream sales 

had passed, we received from Sun Paper 

and Board a request for a further 

extension to submit xpedx’s 

downstream sales until April 27, 2010, 

one day prior to the preliminary 

determination. 

Sun Paper and Board, in its March 31, 

2010, and April 8, 2010, requests for 

extensions to provide the downstream 

sales database, outlined certain 

difficulties in providing the requested 

data. In response, the Department 

granted the first extension request in 

full, and the second extension request in 

part. However, Sun Paper and Board’s 

April 20, 2010, request for extension, 

submitted to the Department four days 

subsequent to the date the downstream 

sales were due, while referencing 

certain circumstances surrounding its 

business relationship with xpedex, did 

not indicate a particular reason for not 

responding timely to the Department’s 

request for information, nor did it 

indicate a reason why it was requesting 

additional time. Based on the above, i.e., 

Sun Paper and Board’s failure to submit 

xpedx’s downstream sales in a timely 

manner, and its untimely submitted 

request for a third extension to do so, 

the Department finds that Sun Paper 

and Board did not cooperate to the best 

of its ability to provide the Department 

with timely information regarding 

xpedx’s downstream sales of the subject 

merchandise, consistent with Nippon 

Steel. 

Thus, Sun Paper and Board failed to 

report information that had been 

requested and significantly impeded 

this proceeding, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(1) and (2)(A), (B) and (C) of the 

of Act, by not reporting certain 

downstream sales of its affiliate, as 

requested by the Department. As a 

result, the Department has determined 

to apply the facts otherwise available for 

the unreported downstream sales. 

Further, because the Department finds 

that Sun Paper and Board failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24902 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

40See Sun Paper and Board’s Analysis Memo. 

41See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479, 6481 

(February 4, 2008), quoting SAA at 870. 

42See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

43See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber From the People’s Republic 

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

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber From the People’s Republic 

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

the Department has determined to use 

an adverse inference when applying 

facts available for the preliminary 

determination. As partial AFA, the 

Department is applying to the 

unreported sales the highest margin 

from the Petition.40

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning merchandise subject to this 

investigation, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation.’’ 41 To ‘‘corroborate’’ 

means that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value. 

Independent sources used to corroborate 

may include, for example, published 

price lists, official import statistics and 

customs data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used.42

The AFA rate that the Department 

used is from the Petition. Petitioners’ 

methodology for calculating the United 

States price and NV in the Petition is 

discussed in the Initiation Notice. To 

corroborate the AFA margin that we 

have selected, we compared this margin 

to the margin we found for the 

mandatory respondents. We found that 

the margin of 135.8 percent has 

probative value because it is in the 

range of the control number 

(CONNUM)-specific margins that we 

found for the GE Group during the 

period of investigation. See GE Group’s 

Analysis Memo. Given that numerous 

PRC-wide entities did not respond to 

the Department’s requests for 

information and that Sun Paper and 

Board failed to report a significant 

portion of U.S. sales, the Department 

concludes that the petition rate of 135.8 

percent, as total AFA for the PRC-wide 

entity and as partial AFA for Sun Paper 

and Board, is sufficiently adverse to 

prevent these respondents from 

benefitting from their lack of 

cooperation. See SAA at 870. 

Accordingly, we find that the rate of 

135.8 percent is corroborated to the 

extent practicable within the meaning of 

section 776(c) of the Act. 

Margin for the Separate Rate Company 

As discussed above, the Department 

received a timely and complete separate 

rate application from Chenming, who is 

an exporter of coated paper from the 

PRC during the POI and who was not 

selected as a mandatory respondent in 

this investigation. Through the evidence 

in its SRA, this company has 

demonstrated its eligibility for a 

separate rate, as discussed above. 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, as the separate rate, we have 

established a margin for Chenming 

based on the average of the rates we 

calculated for the mandatory 

respondents, Sun Paper and Board and 

the GE Group, excluding any rates that 

were zero, de minimis, or based entirely 

on AFA.43

Date of Sale 

19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, ‘‘in 

identifying the date of sale of the 

merchandise under consideration or 

foreign like product, the Secretary 

normally will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter or producer’s 

records kept in the normal course of 

business.’’ In Allied Tube, the CIT noted 

that a ‘‘party seeking to establish a date 

of sale other than invoice date bears the 

burden of producing sufficient evidence 

to ‘satisf{y}’ the Department that ‘a 

different date better reflects the date on 

which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale.’ ’’ 

Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United 

States 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (CIT 

2001) (quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)) 

(‘‘Allied Tube’’). Additionally, the 

Secretary may use a date other than the 

date of invoice if the Secretary is 

satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the exporter 

or producer establishes the material 

terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see 

also Allied Tube, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 

1090–1092. The date of sale is generally 

the date on which the parties agree 

upon all substantive terms of the sale. 

This normally includes the price, 

quantity, delivery terms and payment 

terms. See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod From Trinidad and Tobago: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 62824 

(November 7, 2007), and accompanying 

Issue and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 

From Turkey, 65 FR 15123 (March 21, 

2000), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

For sales by the GE Group, consistent 

with 19 CFR 351.401(i), we used the 

commercial invoice date as the sale date 

because record evidence indicates that 

the terms of were not set until the 

issuance of the commercial invoice. See, 

e.g., GE’s section A response at Exhibit 

A–2 and Volume 5, page 26. See also 

GHS’ section A response at page 21. 

For Sun Paper and Board, we will use 

the pro forma/internal invoice date of 

Jin Rui Group, Sun Paper and Board’s 

U.S. affiliate, as the date of sale because 

based on the record evidence to date, we 

preliminarily find that pro forma/ 

internal invoice date best reflects the 

date on which the essential terms of sale 

are fixed and final. In our analysis of 

Sun Paper and Board’s information, we 

determined that the sale date reported 

in Tianzhang’s January 19, 2010, U.S. 

sales database represents the 

commercial invoice date (which is 

issued to the customer 30–60 days later 

when the product arrives to the 

customer) that Jin Rui chose to record 

the sale of merchandise under 

consideration in its books and records, 

not the date the material terms of the 

sale were established with its U.S. 

customer. On March 19, 2010, we asked 

Jin Rui to provide a new U.S. sales 

database based on the pro forma/ 

internal invoice date, which it did on 

March 26, 2010. We preliminarily 

determine Jin Rui’s pro forma/internal 

invoice date best reflects the date on 

which the essential terms are fixed and 

final. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24903 

44See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

45See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China; Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

46See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2007 

2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order, 74 FR 32539 (July 8, 2009), (unchanged 

in final results) (‘‘07–08 TRBs’’). 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of coated 

paper to the United States by the 

respondents were made at LTFV, we 

compared Export Price (‘‘EP’’) and CEP 

to NV, as described in the ‘‘Constructed 

Export Price,’’ ‘‘Export Price,’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

U.S. Price 

Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, CEP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) in the United States 

before or after the date of importation by 

or for the account of the producer or 

exporter of such merchandise or by a 

seller affiliated with the producer or 

exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 

with the producer or exporter, as 

adjusted under subsections (c) and (d). 

In accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, we used CEP for Sun Paper and 

Board’s U.S. sales because the 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation was sold directly to an 

affiliated purchaser located in the 

United States. In addition, in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, we used CEP for certain U.S. sales 

of the GE Group because the 

merchandise, in these cases, was sold 

directly to an affiliated purchaser 

located in the United States. 

We calculated CEP for Sun Paper and 

Board and the GE Group based on 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. We 

made deductions from the U.S. sales 

price, where applicable, for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included 

such expenses as foreign inland freight 

from the plant to the port of exportation, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

other U.S. transportation, U.S. customs 

duty, U.S. inland freight from port to the 

warehouse, and U.S. inland freight from 

the warehouse to the customer. In 

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

Act, the Department deducted credit 

expenses, inventory carrying costs and 

indirect selling expenses from the U.S. 

price, all of which relate to commercial 

activity in the United States. Finally, we 

deducted CEP profit, in accordance with 

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

Act.44

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we used EP for certain U.S. 

sales of the GE Group. We calculated EP 

based on the packed prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers in, or for 

exportation to, the United States. We 

made deductions, as appropriate, for 

any movement expenses (e.g., foreign 

inland freight from the plant to the port 

of exportation, domestic brokerage, 

international freight to the port of 

importation, etc.) in accordance with 

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

foreign inland freight or foreign 

brokerage and handling fees were 

provided by PRC service providers or 

paid for in renminbi, we based those 

charges on surrogate value rates from 

India. See ‘‘Factor Valuation’’ section 

below for further discussion of surrogate 

value rates. 

In determining the most appropriate 

surrogate values to use in a given case, 

the Department’s stated practice is to 

use period-wide price averages, prices 

specific to the input in question, prices 

that are net of taxes and import duties, 

prices that are contemporaneous with 

the POI, and publicly available data.45

We valued brokerage and handling 

using a simple average of the brokerage 

and handling costs that were reported in 

public submissions that were filed in 

three antidumping duty cases. 

Specifically, we averaged the public 

brokerage and handling expenses 

reported by Navneet Publications (India) 

Ltd. in the 2007–2008 administrative 

review of certain lined paper products 

from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 

2006–2007 antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot-rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India, 

and Himalya International Ltd. in the 

2005–2006 administrative review of 

certain preserved mushrooms from 

India. Because these values were not 

concurrent with the POI, we adjusted 

these rates for inflation using the 

Wholesale Price Indices (‘‘WPI’’) for 

India as published in the International 

Monetary Fund’s (‘‘IMF’s’’) International 

Financial Statistics, available at http:// 

ifs.apdi.net/imf, and then calculated a 

simple average of the three companies’ 

brokerage expense data.46 See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

To value domestic insurance, the 

Department used the publicly 

summarized version of the average 

insurance expenses reported by Agro 

Dutch Industries Limited in a 

submission dated May 24, 2005, in the 

antidumping administrative review of 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

India. 

To value marine insurance, the 

Department used data from RGJ 

Consultants (http:// 

www.rjgconsultants.com/). This source 

provides information regarding the pervalue rates of marine insurance of 

imports and exports to/from various 

countries. 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. See, e.g., Kitchen Racks 

Prelim, 71 FR at 19703 (unchanged in 

Kitchen Racks Final). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publicly available 

information to find an appropriate 

surrogate value to value FOPs, but when 

a producer sources an input from a ME 

and pays for it in a ME currency, the 

Department may value the factor using 

the actual price paid for the input. See 

19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also 

Shakeproof Assembly Components Div 

of Ill v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 

1382–1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming 

the Department’s use of market-based 

prices to value certain FOPs). 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by respondents during the 

POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor-consumption 

rates by publicly available surrogate 

values (except as discussed below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. See, e.g., 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 

(December 4, 2002), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 6; and Final Results of First 

New Shipper Review and First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China, 

66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24904 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

47See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 

1997). 

48See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy 

Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 

71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) 

(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy 

Inputs’’). 

49See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, 71 FR at 61718. 

50See, e.g., Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 

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

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at comment 70. 

Memorandum at Comment 5. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description 

of all surrogate values used for Sun 

Paper and Board and the GE Group can 

be found in the Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

For the preliminary determination, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we used data from the Indian 

Import Statistics and other publicly 

available Indian sources in order to 

calculate surrogate values for Sun Paper 

and Board’s and GE Group’s FOPs 

(direct materials, energy, and packing 

materials) and certain movement 

expenses. In selecting the best available 

information for valuing FOPs in 

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

Act, the Department’s practice is to 

select, to the extent practicable, 

surrogate values which are non-export 

average values, most contemporaneous 

with the POI, product-specific, and taxexclusive. See, e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). The record 

shows that data in the Indian Import 

Statistics, as well as those from the 

other Indian sources, are 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. In those 

instances where we could not obtain 

publicly available information 

contemporaneous to the POI with which 

to value factors, we adjusted the 

surrogate values using, where 

appropriate, the Indian WPI as 

published in the IMF’s International 

Financial Statistics. See, e.g., Kitchen 

Racks, 74 FR at 9600. 

Furthermore, with regard to the 

Indian import-based surrogate values, 

we have disregarded import prices that 

we have reason to believe or suspect 

may be subsidized. We have reason to 

believe or suspect that prices of inputs 

from Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries may be subsidized. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Negative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7. 

Further, guided by the legislative 

history, it is the Department’s practice 

not to conduct a formal investigation to 

ensure that such prices are not 

subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988, 

Conference Report to accompany H.R. 

Rep. 100–576 at 590 (1988) reprinted in 

1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24; see 

also 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) 

unchanged in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated 

Free Sheet Paper From the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 

(October 25, 2007). Rather, the 

Department bases its decision on 

information that is available to it at the 

time it makes its determination. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 

24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged 

in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 

55039 (September 24, 2008). Therefore, 

we have not used prices from these 

countries in calculating the Indian 

import-based surrogate values. 

Additionally, we disregarded prices 

from NME countries. Finally, imports 

that were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded 

from the average value, because the 

Department could not be certain that 

they were not from either an NME 

country or a country with general export 

subsidies. See id. 

Both the GE Group and Sun Paper and 

Board claimed that certain of their 

reported raw material inputs were 

sourced from an ME country and paid 

for in ME currencies. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent 

sources inputs from an ME supplier in 

meaningful quantities (i.e., not 

insignificant quantities), we use the 

actual price paid by respondent for 

those inputs, except when prices may 

have been distorted by findings of 

dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.47

Where we found ME purchases to be of 

significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent or 

more), in accordance with our statement 

of policy as outlined in Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy 

Inputs,48 we used the actual purchases 

of these inputs to value the inputs. 

Accordingly, we valued certain of 

respondents’ inputs using the ME prices 

paid for in ME currencies for the inputs 

where the total volume of the input 

purchased from all ME sources during 

the POI exceeds or is equal to 33 percent 

of the total volume of the input 

purchased from all sources during the 

period. Where the quantity of the 

reported input purchased from ME 

suppliers was below 33 percent of the 

total volume of the input purchased 

from all sources during the POI, and 

were otherwise valid, we weightaveraged the ME input’s purchase price 

with the appropriate surrogate value for 

the input according to their respective 

shares of the reported total volume of 

purchases.49 Where appropriate, we 

added freight to the ME prices of inputs. 

Additionally, consistent with the 

Department’s practice,50 we excluded 

certain of the GE Group’s claimed ME 

purchases which involved a PRC 

intermediary because we find that these 

sales did not occur directly between the 

respondent and an ME supplier. For a 

detailed description of the actual values 

used for the ME inputs reported, see the 

Department’s analysis memoranda dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

For direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression-based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s home page, 

Import Library, Expected Wages of 

Selected NME Countries, revised in 

December 2009. See 2009 Calculation of 

Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 

74 FR 65092 (December 9, 2009), and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24905 

51See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 31695. 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. 

The source of these wage-rate data on 

the Import Administration’s Web site is 

the 2006 and 2007 data in Chapter 5B 

of the International Labour 

Organization’s Yearbook of Labour 

Statistics. Because this regression-based 

wage rate does not separate the labor 

rates into different skill levels or types 

of labor, we have applied the same wage 

rate to all skill levels and types of labor 

reported by the respondents. 

We valued truck freight expenses 

using a per-unit average rate calculated 

from data on the infobanc Web site: 

http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this Web site contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. 

Consistent with past practice and 

these submissions, the Department has 

applied a surrogate value for 

hydrochloric acid using the values 

submitted by the parties from Chemical 

Weekly. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication titled Electricity Tariff & 

Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India, dated March 2008. 

These electricity rates represent actual 

country-wide, publicly available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. 

We valued diesel oil using published 

prices from the International Energy 

Agency: Key World Statistics 2007. We 

used the first quarter 2007 value for 

automotive diesel oil. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

To value water, we used the revised 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation water rates available at 

http://www.midcindia.com/watersupply. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

We calculated the surrogate value for 

steam based upon the April 2007– 

March 2008 financial statement of 

Hindalco Industries Limited. See 1- 

Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic 

Acid From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545 

(March 11, 2009), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 4. We inflated the steam value 

using the appropriate WPI inflator. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

We valued natural gas using April 

through June 2002 data from the Gas 

Authority of India Ltd. Consistent with 

the Department’s recent determination 

in Polyvinyl Alcohol, we averaged the 

base and ceiling gas prices of 2,850 

rupees per 1000 cubic meters (‘‘m3’’) and 

2,150 rupees per 1000 m3, and added a 

transmission charge of 1,150 rupees per 

1000 m3 to calculate a value of Rs 

3.650/cubic meter. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

We used the Indian Bureau of Mines’ 

publication: 2007 edition of the Indian 

Minerals Yearbook (‘‘IBM Yearbook’’) to 

value coal. For this preliminary 

determination, we find that the IBM 

Yearbook’s reported Grade C coal most 

closely matches the coal consumed by 

respondents during the POI. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we used audited financial 

statements of JK Paper Ltd., and 

Seshasayee Paper and Boards, Ltd., each 

covering the fiscal period April 1, 2008, 

through March 31, 2009. The 

Department may consider other publicly 

available financial statements for the 

final determination, as appropriate. 

Currency Conversion 

Where necessary, we made currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars, in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act, based on the exchange rates in 

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

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

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

Act, we intend to verify the information 

from Sun Paper and Board and the GE 

Group upon which we will rely in 

making our final determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.51 This 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1. 

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted-average dumping 

margin percentages are as follows: 

Exporter Producer Percent 

margin 

Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co., Ltd ............................... Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co., Ltd .............................. 89.71 

Shandong International Paper and Sun Coated Paperboard Co., 

Ltd.

Shandong International Paper and Sun Coated Paperboard 

Co., Ltd.

International Paper and Sun Cartonboard Co., Ltd ...................... International Paper and Sun Cartonboard Co., Ltd.

Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd .............................................. Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd ............................................ 30.82 

Gold Huasheng Paper Co., Ltd .................................................... Gold Huasheng Paper Co., Ltd.

Ningbo Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd ................................................. Ningbo Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd.

Ningbo Asia Pulp and Paper Co., Ltd .......................................... Ningbo Asia Pulp and Paper Co., Ltd.

Gold East (Hong Kong) Trading Co., Ltd.

Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd .................................... Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd ................................... 60.27 

PRC-Wide Entity ........................................................................... ...................................................................................................... 135.8 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed to parties in this proceeding 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

coated paper from the PRC as described 

in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The 

rate for the exporter/producer 

combinations listed in the chart above 

will be the rate we have determined in 

this preliminary determination; (2) for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24906 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all 

non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter/producer combination that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

suspension-of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the ITC to make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

coated paper, or sales (or the likelihood 

of sales) for importation, of the 

merchandise under consideration 

within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date on 

which the final verification report is 

issued in this proceeding and rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in case 

briefs, may be submitted no later than 

five days after the deadline date for case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of 

contents, list of authorities used and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. This summary should be 

limited to five pages total, including 

footnotes. The Department also requests 

that parties provide an electronic copy 

of its case and rebuttal brief submissions 

in either a ‘‘Microsoft Word’’ or a ‘‘pdf’’ 

format. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. 

Interested parties, who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. If a request for 

a hearing is made, we intend to hold the 

hearing three days after the deadline of 

submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

location to be determined. See 19 CFR 

351.310. Parties should confirm by 

telephone the date, time, and location of 

the hearing two days before the 

scheduled date. 

We will make our final determination 

no later than 135 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary 

determination, pursuant to section 

735(a)(2) of the Act. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: April 28, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10701 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XW09 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Operation and 

Maintenance of a Liquefied Natural 

Gas Facility off Massachusetts 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; receipt of 

application for letter of authorization; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from Neptune LNG LLC 

(Neptune) for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take marine 

mammals, by harassment, incidental to 

port commissioning and operations, 

including maintenance and repair 

activities, at its Neptune Deepwater 

Port. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an IHA to Neptune to take, by 

Level B harassment only, several species 

of marine mammals during the specified 

activity. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on its intent to promulgate 

regulations governing the take of marine 

mammals over a 5–year period 

incidental to the same activities 

described herein. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than June 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East 

West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. The mailbox address for 

providing email comments is PR1.0648– 

XW09@noaa.gov. NMFS is not 

responsible for e mail comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. Comments sent via e mail, 

including all attachments, must not 

exceed a 10 megabyte file size. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm without change. All 

Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

A copy of the application used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the address specified above, telephoning 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the internet at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 

notice may also be viewed, by 

appointment, during regular business 

hours, at the aforementioned address. 

The Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(Final EIS) on the Neptune LNG 

Deepwater Port License Application is 

available for viewing at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by entering the 

search words ‘‘Neptune LNG.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Candace Nachman, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 713 2289, ext 

156. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES