Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 59223 

1The respondents are: PT. Pindo Deli Pulp & 

Paper Mills (PD), PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia, 

Tbk (TK), PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Tbk (IK) 

(collectively PD/TK/IK). In the preliminary 

determination, we determined it appropriate to treat 

PD, TK, and IK as one entity for margin calculation 

purposes because they met the regulatory criteria 

for collapsing. See Memorandum to John M. 

Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, from the Team entitled, 

‘‘Whether To Treat Respondents as a Single Entity 

for Margin Calculation Purposes in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Coated 

Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics 

Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia,’’ dated 

April 21, 2010. No party commented on this 

preliminary determination and we found nothing at 

verification that would otherwise compel us to 

reverse this determination. Therefore, we have 

continued to treat these affiliated companies as one 

entity in the final determination. 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 20, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—List of Issues 

Case Issues: 

Comment 1: Whether to Grant MarketOriented Industry (‘‘MOI’’) Status to the 

Coated Paper Industry 

Comment 2A: Whether Simultaneous 

Application of Countervailing Duties 

(‘‘CVDs’’) and Antidumping Duties 

Calculated Using the NME Methodology is 

Contrary to Law 

Comment 2B: Whether Simultaneous 

Application of Countervailing Duties and 

Antidumping Duties Calculated Using the 

NME Methodology to Imports of the Same 

Products Results in the Imposition of 

Double Remedies 

Comment 3: Whether Targeted Dumping Test 

Violates the Administrative Procedures Act 

(‘‘APA’’) and is Flawed 

Comment 4: Whether to Revise the Targeted 

Dumping Analysis in Light of APP-China’s 

Minor Corrections Filed at Verification 

Comment 5: Whether the Department Should 

Apply Zeroing 

Comment 6: Application of Adverse Facts 

Available (‘‘AFA’’) to Sun Paper Companies 

Comment 7: Whether to Apply MarketOriented Economy (‘‘MOE’’) Treatment to 

APP-China 

Comment 8: Whether to Apply AFA to All 

Sales and Expense Information of GPS 

Comment 9: Whether to Reclassify Certain 

APP-China Sales from Export Price (‘‘EP’’)- 

to ‘‘Constructed Export Price (‘‘CEP’’) 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Should Reject APP-China’s Minor 

Correction 

Comment 11: Whether the Department 

Should Deduct Certain Rebates for APPChina 

Comment 12: Whether the Department 

Should Deduct Certain Commission 

Expenses 

Comment 13: Whether the Department 

Should Correct Certain Ministerial Errors 

Comment 14: Whether to Deduct Domestic 

Inland Insurance from U.S. Price 

Comment 15: Application of Foreign Truck 

Freight 

Comment 16: Whether to Treat All of APPChina’s Market Economy (‘‘ME’’) Pulp 

Purchases as Market Economy Purchases 

(‘‘MEPs’’) 

Comment 17: Whether to Accept APPChina’s ME Purchases from Thailand and 

Korea 

Comment 18: Whether to Employ the 33 

Percent Threshold for GE Group’s ME 

Purchases 

Comment 19: Valuation of Calcium 

Carbonate Ore (‘‘CCORE’’) 

Comment 20: Valuation of Optical Brightener 

(‘‘OBA/OBAS/OBAL’’) 

Comment 21: Valuation of Masculine Starch 

Transforming Agent (‘‘MSTA’’) 

Comment 22: Valuation of Tapioca Starch 

(‘‘TSTARCH’’) 

Comment 23: Valuation of Wet End Starch 

(‘‘WESTARCH’’) 

Comment 24: Valuation of Dispersing Agent 

A (‘‘DISPERSANTA’’) 

Comment 25: Valuation of Tackifier 

Comment 26: Valuation of Hypochlorous 

Natrium/Sodium Hypochlorite (‘‘BACLO/ 

NACLO’’) 

Comment 27: Valuation of Coating Binding 

Agent (‘‘CBA’’) 

Comment 28: Valuation of Coating Starch 

(‘‘CSTARCH’’) 

Comment 29: Valuation of Surface Sizing 

Starch (‘‘SSS’’) 

Comment 30: Selection of Labor Rate 

Comment 31: Valuation of Brokerage & 

Handling 

Comment 32: Whether the Department 

Should Include Certain Direct Selling 

Expenses in the Calculation of SG&A 

[FR Doc. 2010–24159 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–560–823] 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

determines that certain coated paper 

suitable for high-quality print graphics 

using sheet-fed presses (certain coated 

paper) from Indonesia is being, or is 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less-than-fair-value (LTFV), as provided 

in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 27, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gemal Brangman or Brian Smith, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3773 and 

(202) 482–1766, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 6, 2010, the Department of 

Commerce (Department) published in 

the Federal Register the preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV in the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

certain coated paper from Indonesia. 

See Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

75 FR 24885 (May 6, 2010) (Preliminary 

Determination). 

On May 10, 2010, the respondents1 in 

this investigation alleged a ministerial 

error in the Department’s preliminary 

margin calculation. 

On May 14, 2010, the Department 

issued a post-preliminary analysis for 

PD/TK/IK evaluating whether the use of 

quarterly cost averaging periods was 

warranted in this investigation. See 

Memorandum to Neal Halper, Director, 

Office of Accounting, entitled 

‘‘Alternative Cost Averaging Period 

Analysis Memorandum—PT Pabrik 

Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk., PT Pindo Deli 

Pulp and Paper Mills, and PT Indah Kiat 

Pulp Tbk,’’ dated May 14, 2010. Based 

on the data and methodology described 

in this memorandum, we found that the 

change in the total cost of 

manufacturing recognized by PD/TK/IK 

during the period of investigation (POI) 

for its highest-volume products sold in 

the U.S. and home markets did not meet 

the Department’s standard for 

significance (i.e., greater than 25 percent 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
59224 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 

2No party commented on the Department’s postpreliminary quarterly cost analysis and we found 

nothing at verification that warrants the reversal of 

this determination. Therefore, we have continued to 

apply our normal POI-average cost methodology in 

the final determination. 

3The petitioners include the following 

companies: Appleton Coated LLC, NewPage 

Corporation, S.D. Warren Company d/b/a/Sappi 

Fine Paper North America, and the United Steel, 

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, 

Allied Industrial and Service Workers International 

Union. 

4 ‘‘ ‘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.’ ’’ 

5One 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. 

change from the high to the low 

quarter). See Certain Welded Stainless 

Steel Pipes From the Republic of Korea: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 31242 

(June 30, 2009) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. Therefore, we determined 

that no change to our normal POIaverage cost methodology was 

warranted in this case.2

On May 11, 2010, we issued the cost 

verification agenda to PD/TK/IK. 

On May 19, 2010, we determined that 

the error alleged by PD/TK/IK in its May 

10, 2010, submission was a ministerial 

error, but not a significant ministerial 

error as defined by 19 CFR 351.224(g), 

and stated that we would correct this 

error for purposes of the final 

determination. See Memorandum from 

The Team to James Maeder, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations Office 2, entitled 

‘‘Respondent’s Allegation of Ministerial 

Error in the Preliminary Determination,’’ 

dated May 19, 2010. 

On June 1, 2010, we issued a sales 

supplemental questionnaire to PD/TK/ 

IK and received PD/TK/IK’s response to 

this questionnaire on June 16, 2010. 

On June 4, 2010, we issued the sales 

verification agenda to PD/TK/IK. 

During May and June 2010, we 

verified the sales and cost of production 

(COP) questionnaire responses of PD/ 

TK/IK. During June and July 2010, we 

issued the COP and sales verification 

reports. See Memorandum to The File 

entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost 

Response of PT Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi 

Kimia Tbk., PT Pindo Deli Pulp and 

Paper Mills, and PT Indah Kiat Pulp and 

Paper Tbk. in the Antidumping 

Investigation of Certain Coated Paper 

Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics 

Using Sheet-Fed Presses From 

Indonesia,’’ dated June 29, 2010; 

Memorandum to The File entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of 

(Affiliated Company) in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses (Coated Paper) From Indonesia,’’ 

dated July 26, 2010; Memorandum to 

The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the 

Sales Response of PT Pindo Deli Pulp & 

Paper Mills and PT Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi 

Kimia, Tbk in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Coated Paper 

Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics 

Using Sheet-Fed Presses (Coated Paper) 

From Indonesia,’’ dated July 26, 2010; 

Memorandum to The File entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of 

PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Tbk. and 

(Affiliated Company) in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed 

Presses (Coated Paper) From Indonesia,’’ 

dated July 30, 2010; and Memorandum 

to The File entitled ‘‘Verification of the 

Sales Response of (Affiliated Company) 

in the Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet-Fed Presses (Coated Paper) From 

Indonesia,’’ dated July 30, 2010. 

On August 3, 2010, we issued a 

memorandum addressing certain scope 

issues in this investigation. See 

Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from Susan Kuhbach, 

Director, Office 1, entitled ‘‘Scope’’ 

(August 3, 2010 Scope Memorandum). 

On August 10 and 16, 2010, 

respectively, the petitioners3 in this 

investigation and PD/TK/IK each 

submitted case and rebuttal briefs on all 

issues excluding scope. On August 18 

and 25, 2010, the Department met with 

the petitioners’ and PD/TK/IK’s 

counsels, respectively, to discuss the 

issues raised in these case and rebuttal 

briefs. See the Department’s memoranda 

to the file entitled, ‘‘Meeting With 

Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated August 18, 

2010, and ‘‘Meeting With the 

Respondent Counsel,’’ dated August 25, 

2010. 

On August 20, 2010, PD/TK/TK filed 

its case brief on scope issues, and on 

August 24, 2010, the petitioners filed 

their rebuttal brief on scope issues. 

Period of Investigation 

The POI is July 1, 2008, to June 30, 

2009. This period corresponds to the 

four most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition. 

See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise under investigation 

includes certain coated paper and 

paperboard4 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; 5

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, surface-decorated, 

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, 

4810.22.1000, 4810.22.50, 4810.22.6000, 

4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000, 

4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70, 4810.32, 

4810.39 and 4810.92. While HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

Following the Preliminary 

Determination, on August 3, 2010, the 

Department issued a decision 

memorandum addressing three scope 

issues in this and the concurrent 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations on certain coated paper 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 59225 

6These investigations include Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan, 75 

FR 14569 (March 26, 2010), Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from Indonesia: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 16431 (April 

1, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1; 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) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

from Indonesia and the People’s 

Republic of China: (1) Whether to clarify 

the scope of these investigations to 

exclude multi-ply coated paper and 

paperboard; (2) whether to modify the 

scope language by striking the phrase 

‘‘suitable for high-quality print 

graphics;’’ and (3) whether to add three 

HTSUS numbers which may include inscope merchandise (i.e., HTSUS 

4810.32, 4810.39 and 4810.92). See 

August 3, 2010 Scope Memorandum. 

For the reasons explained in the August 

3, 2010, Scope Memorandum, the 

Department determined that: (1) Multiply products that otherwise meet the 

description of the scope of the 

investigations are not excluded from the 

scope; (2) the ‘‘suitable for high-quality 

print graphics’’ language should not be 

deleted from the scope; and (3) the three 

HTSUS numbers at issue should be 

added to the scope. 

The Department subsequently 

provided the interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on its postpreliminary scope determination. In 

response, the respondents in these 

investigations filed a case brief on 

August 20, 2010, and the petitioners 

filed a rebuttal brief on August 24, 2010. 

Based on the Department’s analysis of 

these comments and the factual records 

of these investigations, the Department 

continues to find that multi-ply coated 

paper and paperboard are not excluded 

from the scope of the investigations, that 

the ‘‘suitable for high-quality print 

graphics’’ language should be 

maintained, and that the three HTSUS 

numbers listed above should be added 

to the scope. For a complete discussion 

of the parties’ comments and the 

Department’s position, see ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Certain Coated 

Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print 

Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from 

the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice and 

incorporated herein by reference. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues (except scope issues) raised 

in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted 

by the parties to this investigation are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Less-Than-FairValue Investigation of Certain Coated 

Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print 

Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from 

Indonesia’’ from Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration (Decision Memo), dated 

concurrently with this notice, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. A list of 

the issues that parties have raised and 

to which we have responded, all of 

which are in the Decision Memo, is 

attached to this notice as an appendix. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this investigation 

and the corresponding 

recommendations in the Decision 

Memo, which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit, Room 1117 of the 

Commerce Department. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision Memo 

can be accessed directly on the Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Decision 

Memo are identical in content. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the sales and COP 

information submitted by PD/TK/IK for 

use in our final determination. We used 

standard verification procedures 

including an examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, and 

original source documents provided by 

the respondent. Our sales and cost 

verification results are outlined in 

separate verification reports. See 

‘‘Background’’ section above for a list of 

verification reports the Department has 

issued in this investigation. The 

verification reports are on file and 

available in the Central Records Unit, 

Room 1117 of the Commerce 

Department. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculations for 

PD/TK/IK. For a discussion of these 

changes, see the ‘‘Margin Calculations’’ 

section of the Decision Memo. 

Targeted Dumping 

The statute allows the Department to 

employ the average-to-transaction 

margin calculation methodology under 

the following circumstances: (1) There 

is a pattern of export prices that differ 

significantly among purchasers, regions 

or periods of time; and (2) the 

Department explains why such 

differences cannot be taken into account 

using the average-to-average or 

transaction-to-transaction methodology. 

See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

conducted customer, regional, and timeperiod targeted dumping analyses based 

on timely allegations of targeted 

dumping filed by the petitioners, using 

the methodology adopted in Certain 

Steel Nails from the United Arab 

Emirates: Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 

FR 33985 (June 16, 2008), and Certain 

Steel Nails from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 

2008), and applied in more recent 

investigations.6 As a result, we 

preliminarily determined that, with 

respect to sales by PD/TK/IK for certain 

customers, regions and time periods, 

there was a pattern of prices that 

differed significantly. However, we also 

found that these differences could be 

taken into account using the average-toaverage methodology because the 

average-to-average methodology did not 

conceal differences in the patterns of 

prices between the targeted and nontargeted groups by averaging low-priced 

sales to the targeted group with highpriced sales to the non-targeted group. 

We stated further that the standard 

average-to-average methodology took 

into account the price difference 

because the alternative average-totransaction methodology yielded no 

difference in the margin or yielded a 

difference in the margin that was so 

insignificant relative to the size of the 

resulting margin as to be immaterial. 

Therefore, for the preliminary 

determination, we applied the standard 

average-to-average methodology to all of 

PD/TK/IK’s U.S. sales. See Preliminary 

Determination at 75 FR 24887–24888. 

For the final determination, we 

performed our targeted-dumping 

analysis following the methodology 

employed in the Preliminary 

Determination, after making certain 

revisions to PD/TK/IK’s reported data 

based on verification findings and the 

comments submitted by the parties, as 

enumerated in the ‘‘Margin 

Calculations’’ section of the Decision 

Memo. Because the results of our final 

targeted-dumping analysis were 

consistent with those of our preliminary 

targeted-dumping analysis, we have 

continued to apply the standard 

average-to-average methodology to all of 

PD/TK/IK’s U.S. sales in the final 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
59226 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 

determination. For further discussion, 

see the Decision Memo at Comment 1. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all imports of subject 

merchandise that are entered or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after May 6, 2010, 

the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to continue to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond for all companies 

based on the estimated weightedaverage dumping margins shown below. 

The suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the weightedaverage dumping margins are as follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average 

margin (percent) 

PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk./PT. Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper/PT. Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk ......................... 20.13 

All Others ............................................................................................................................................................................. 20.13 

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 and de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. PD/TK/IK is the 

only respondent in this investigation for 

which the Department calculated a 

company-specific rate. Therefore, for 

purposes of determining the all-others 

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

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

PD/TK/IK, as referenced above. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 

FR 30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999); Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 72 FR 30753, 

30757 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 

60636 (October 25, 2007); and Certain 

Magnesia Carbon Bricks from Mexico: 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 45097 

(August 2, 2010). 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our final determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

imports of the subject merchandise are 

causing material injury, or threat of 

material injury, to an industry in the 

United States. If the ITC determines that 

material injury or threat of injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

This notice will serve as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 20, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix—Issues in Decision Memo 

Comments 

Comment 1: Targeted Dumping 

Comment 2: Capitalization of Foreign 

Exchange Losses in Log Costs 

Comment 3: Market Price for Certain Logs 

Comment 4: Inclusion of Sawmill Logs in Log 

Costs 

Comment 5: Transfer Price for Logs 

Comment 6: IK’s Pulp Costs 

Comment 7: General and Administrative 

(G&A) Expenses 

Comment 8: Financial Expenses 

Comment 9: Unreported Sales to Puerto Rico 

Comment 10: Treatment of Bank Charges, 

Loading Fees, Administrative (ADM) Fees, 

and Automatic Manifest System (AMS) 

Fees 

Comment 11: Billing Adjustments 

Comment 12: Rebates 

Comment 13: Freight Revenue 

Comment 14: International Freight 

Comment 15: Foreign Inland Freight 

Comment 16: Treatment of Certain U.S. Sales 

[FR Doc. 2010–24160 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XZ25 

Fisheries of the South Atlantic, Gulf of 

Mexico, and Caribbean; Southeastern 

Data, Assessment, and Review 

(SEDAR); Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of SEDAR Steering 

Committee Meeting. 

SUMMARY: The SEDAR Steering 

Committee will meet to discuss the 

SEDAR assessment schedule, budget, 

and the SEDAR process. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

DATES: The SEDAR Steering Committee 

will meet on Tuesday, October 5 

through Thursday, October 7, 2010. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific 

dates and times. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Embassy Suites Historic Charleston, 

337 Meeting Street, Charleston, SC 

29403. telephone: (843) 723–6900. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Carmichael, SEDAR Program Manager, 

SEDAR/SAFMC, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES