Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 59217 

to parties subject to an 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 the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 20, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Comments and Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum 

General Issues 

Comment 1 Application of CVD Law to the 

PRC 

Comment 2 Application of the CVD Law to 

NMEs and the Administrative Protection 

Act 

Comment 3 Double Counting/Overlapping 

Remedies 

Comment 4 Cutoff Date for Identifying 

Subsidies 

Currency 

Comment 5 Opportunity to Comment and 

the Initiation Standard 

Comment 6 The Determination Not To 

Investigate the Alleged Currency Subsidy 

Comment 7 The Department’s Analysis of a 

Unified Rate of Exchange 

Scope 

Comment 8 Burden Imposed on 

Respondents 

Comment 9 Whether Multi-ply Paperboard 

Was Intended To Be in the Scope 

Comment 10 Physical Characteristics and 

End-use Applications Distinguish Multiply Paper From the Covered Merchandise 

Comment 11 Whether the Department 

Should Retain the ‘‘Suitability’’ Language 

in the Scope Description 

Comment 12 Whether Inclusion of Multiply Paper in the Scope Affects Respondent 

Selection 

Comment 13 Scope Expansion Violates 

Standing and Injury Requirements 

Chemicals for LTAR 

Comment 14 Benchmarks—Papermaking 

Chemicals 

Comment 15 Provision of Papermaking 

Chemicals for LTAR—Specificity 

Comment 16 Government Ownership and 

Determining Whether a Financial 

Contribution Has Occurred 

Preferential Lending to the Coated Paper 

Industry 

Comment 17 Whether Chinese Banks Are 

Authorities 

Comment 18 Whether the Policy Loan 

Program Is Specific 

Lending Benchmarks 

Comment 19 Whether Negative Real 

Interest Rates Should Be Excluded From 

the Regression 

Comment 20 Whether the Regression Is 

Statistically Valid 

Comment 21 Should the Department Use an 

In-Country Benchmark 

Comment 22 Terms of Loan Rates in the 

IMF Data 

Comment 23 Whether the Long-Term and 

Discount Rates Are Flawed 

Provision of Land for LTAR 

Comment 24 Whether HYDC Is an 

Authority 

Comment 25 Financial Contribution 

Comment 26 Whether To Use an In-country 

Benchmark 

Comment 27 Whether There Are Flaws in 

the Thai Benchmark 

Comment 28 Specificity of Land for LTAR 

Based on AFA 

Issues Related to Sun Companies 

Comment 29 Whether To Use Revised Sales 

Values for the Sun Companies 

Comment 30 Whether To Apply Adverse 

Facts Available to Sun Companies’ 

Unreported Loans 

Comment 31 Whether To Apply Facts 

Available to Sun Companies’ Unreported 

Cross-Owned Companies 

Issues Related to Gold Companies 

Comment 32 Whether To Grant the Gold 

Companies an EV Adjustment 

Comment 33 Creditworthiness 

Comment 34 Whether To Adjust the 

Uncreditworthiness Benchmark 

Comment 35 GE Sales Denominator 

Comment 36 Whether To Attribute 

Subsidies Received by Input Suppliers 

Whose Inputs Are Not Used for 

Merchandise Exported to the United States 

Comment 37 Whether the Department 

Should Attribute Subsidies From Pulp 

Producers Based on the Percentage of Total 

Pulp Sales to the Paper Producers Covered 

Comment 38 Whether To Countervail 

Additional Financing Reported by the Gold 

Companies 

Comment 39 Whether To Adjust the Gold 

Companies’ Interest Calculation 

Comment 40 Whether To Adjust JHP’s 

Reported VAT and Duty Exemptions on 

Imported Equipment 

Comment 41 Whether To Use an 

Alternative Electricity Benchmark 

Comment 42 Whether To Apply AFA to 

JAP and JHP Caustic Soda Purchases 

[FR Doc. 2010–24184 Filed 9–24–10; 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: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 27, 

2010. 

SUMMARY: On May 6, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of certain 

coated paper suitable for high-quality 

print graphics using sheet-fed presses 

(‘‘coated paper’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). We invited 

interested parties to comment on our 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV. Based on our analysis of the 

comments we received, we have made 

changes to our margin calculations for 

the mandatory respondents. The final 

dumping margins for this investigation 

are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lindsey Novom and Demitri 

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: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on May 6, 2010. See 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, 

75 FR 24892, (May 6, 2010) 

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

On May 19, 2010, Shandong Sun 

Paper Industry Joint Stock Co., Ltd., 

Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co., 

Ltd., Shandong International Paper and 

Sun Coated Paperboard Co., Ltd., 

International Paper and Sun 

Cartonboard Co., Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Sun 

Paper Companies’’) ceased participating 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
59218 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 

1See letter from Sun Paper Companies, regarding 

‘‘Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality 

Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from the 

People’s Republic of China; Withdrawal from 

Antidumping Case,’’ dated May 19, 2010. 

2See Memorandum to the file, ‘‘Wage Rate Data,’’ 

dated July 16, 2010. 

in the investigation.1 On May 10, 2010, 

Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘GE’’), Gold Huasheng Paper Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘GHS’’), Gold East (Hong Kong) Trading 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘GEHK’’), Ningbo Zhonghua 

Paper Co., Ltd. (‘‘NBZH’’), Ningbo Asia 

Pulp and Paper Co., Ltd. (‘‘NAPP’’), 

collectively referred to as the ‘‘GE 

Group,’’ or ‘‘APP-China,’’ alleged that the 

Department made ministerial errors in 

its Preliminary Determination. On May 

13, 2010, APP-China and 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’’) submitted comments on 

APP-China’s allegations. On June 9, 

2010, the Department released a memo 

detailing the errors it found to be 

‘‘clerical’’ in nature, but determined not 

to amend the Preliminary Determination 

as the ministerial errors were not 

significant under 19 CFR 351.224(g). 

In a Memo to the File, on May 19, 

2010, regarding ‘‘Phone Call Regarding 

Factual Information Submission and 

Tackifier Input,’’ the Department 

requested information with respect to 

APP-China’s ‘‘tackifier’’ input. On May 

21, 2010, APP-China submitted the 

input data. APP-China and Shandong 

Chenming Paper Holding Ltd. 

(‘‘Chenming’’) also submitted a marketoriented industry (‘‘MOI’’) submission, 

on May 19, 2010. 

Between May 26, 2010, and June 25, 

2010, the Department conducted 

verifications of several of the APP-China 

entities and their affiliated U.S. reseller 

Global Paper Solutions Inc. (‘‘GPS’’). The 

Department released both verification 

reports for these companies on July 21, 

2010. See the ‘‘Verification’’ section 

below for additional information. 

Petitioners submitted a request for a 

public hearing on May 28, 2010, and 

June 3, 2010, respectively. On August 6, 

2010, APP-China and Petitioners filed 

timely requests for a withdrawal of 

request for a public hearing. 

APP-China and Petitioners submitted 

surrogate value comments on June 29, 

2010. On July 6, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted rebuttal comments on this 

information. On July 27, 2010, the 

Department requested a revised factors 

of production (‘‘FOP’’) and sales 

database from APP-China, and on July 

30, 2010, APP-China submitted the 

requested databases to the Department. 

On August 5, 2010, case briefs were 

filed by Petitioners, APP-China, and the 

Government of China (‘‘GOC’’), APPChina, and Chenming, collectively, 

submitted a separate case brief on 

August 5, 2010. On August 10, 2010, 

Petitioners filed their rebuttal brief, and 

on August 11, 2010, APP-China filed its 

rebuttal brief. The Department released 

labor wage rate data on July 16, 2010.2

Petitioners and APP-China submitted 

comments on the labor wage rate data 

on July 23, 2010. The Department 

released additional (Honduran) labor 

wage rate data on August 5, 2010, and 

Petitioners submitted comments on this 

information on August 9, 2010. On 

August 12, 2010, APP-China requested 

that the Department reject parts of 

Petitioners’ August 10, 2010 rebuttal 

brief because it contains certain new 

information. On August 16, 2010, 

Petitioners submitted a response to 

APP-China’s request. On August 17, 

2010, the Department rejected APPChina’s request and continued to accept 

the Petitioners’ rebuttal brief as filed 

because the information at issue already 

existed on the record of this 

investigation. On August 19, 2010, APPChina submitted a request for 

reconsideration, and Petitioners 

submitted a request to remove APPChina’s request for reconsideration from 

the record on August 23, 2010. On 

September 1, 2010, the Department 

rejected APP-China’s August 19, 2010, 

request for reconsideration and 

Petitioners’ August 23, 2010 submission 

because they contained untimely filed 

written arguments within the meaning 

of 19 CFR 351.309 of the Department’s 

regulations. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.302(d), the Department removed the 

submissions from the record of the 

proceeding and has not considered them 

for purposes of the final determination. 

On September 3, 2010 APP-China 

resubmitted its request for 

reconsideration, and Petitioners 

resubmitted their request to remove 

APP-China’s request for reconsideration. 

On September 16, 2010, the Department 

issued its final response not to reject 

Petitioners’ rebuttal brief. 

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 

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 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) numbers 

which may include in-scope 

merchandise (i.e., HTSUS 4810.32, 

4810.39 and 4810.92). See August 3, 

2010, Memorandum to Ronald K. 

Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, from Susan 

Kuhbach, Director, Office 1, entitled 

‘‘Scope’’ (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. 

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). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 59219 

3 ‘‘ ‘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.’ ’’ 

4One 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. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 

we verified the information submitted 

by APP-China for use in our final 

determination. See the Department’s 

verification reports on the record of this 

investigation in the Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 7046 of the main 

Department building, with respect to 

these entities. For all verified 

companies, we used standard 

verification procedures, including the 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by 

respondents. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All non-scope issues raised in the 

case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Investigation of Certain Coated Paper 

Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics 

Using Sheet-Fed Presses from the 

People’s Republic of China: Issues and 

Decision Memorandum,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice and 

hereby adopted in this notice (‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum’’). A list of 

the issues which parties have raised and 

to which we have responded in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum is 

attached to this notice as Appendix I. 

The Issues and Decision Memorandum 

is a public document on file in the CRU 

and is accessible on the Web at 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

• Sun Paper Companies did not 

submit a complete database of all 

reportable U.S. sales, refused to undergo 

verification, and withdrew from 

participating in the investigation. We 

have also found that Sun Paper 

Companies did not demonstrate that 

they are entitled to a separate rate, and 

are therefore part of the PRC entity. 

Thus, we have applied total adverse 

facts available (‘‘AFA’’) to the PRC 

entity, which includes Sun Paper 

Companies. See ‘‘Use of Facts Available’’ 

and ‘‘PRC-Wide Rate’’ sections below. 

See also Comment 6 of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

• For APP-China, we made the 

following changes since the Preliminary 

Determination: 

Æ We revised the targeted dumping 

analysis to include another customer 

alleged by Petitioners. See Comment 4 

of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

Æ The Department has revised APPChina’s margin calculation to 

incorporate minor corrections submitted 

at verification, as well as other minor 

discrepancies noted in the verification 

report. See Comments 10 and 11 of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. See 

also the public version of the APP-China 

Verification report on file in the CRU. 

Æ The Department is no longer 

deducting certain commissions from 

those sales classified as ‘‘Channel 1’’ 

sales, based on APP-China’s minor 

correction from verification. See 

Comment 12 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

Æ The Department has made 

corrections to the Preliminary 

Determination that we found to be 

‘‘clerical’’ in nature in our Ministerial 

Error Memo. See Comment 13 of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Æ The Department has revised the 

calculation of foreign truck freight to 

include the weight of the packing. See 

Comment 15 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

Æ The Department has revised the 

calculation of domestic inland 

insurance and brokerage and handling 

to include the weight of the packing. 

See Final Analysis Memo. 

Æ The Department has revised the 

surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) for tapioca starch 

(‘‘TSTARCH’’). For the final 

determination, the Department is 

valuing TSTARCH using the Indonesian 

HTS category 110814, labeled ‘‘Manioc 

(cassava) starch.’’ See Comment 22 of 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Æ The Department is using HTS 

category 3906.90.90, labeled ‘‘other 

acrylic polymers in other forms,’’ to 

value the non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

portion of APP-China’s tackifier input. 

See Comment 25 of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

Æ The Department has revised the SV 

for surface sizing starch (‘‘SSS’’). For the 

final determination, the Department is 

valuing SSS using the Indian HTS 

category 3505.10.00, labeled ‘‘dextrins 

and other modified starches (for 

example, pregelantinized or esterified 

starches).’’ See Comment 29 of the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. 

Æ We have revised the calculation of 

the wage rate. See Comment 30 of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Æ We have revised the brokerage and 

handling surrogate value. See Comment 

31 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation includes certain coated 

paper and paperboard 3 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;4 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 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 

investigations is dispositive. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
59220 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 

5See, 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). 

6For the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department applied partial AFA to Sun Paper 

Companies for failing to report all reportable U.S. 

sales made during the POI. See Preliminary 

Determination, 75 FR at 24901–24902. 

reasons: (1) It is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC, pursuant 

to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) 

we have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the FOPs. See 

Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 

24898. For the final determination, we 

received no comments on surrogate 

country selection and made no changes 

to our findings with respect to the 

selection of a surrogate country. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as 

amplified by Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 

19 CFR 351.107(d). 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that the four mandatory 

respondents (i.e., GE, GHS (and their 

affiliates, NAPP and NBZH), Tianzhang, 

and IP Paperboard/IP Cartonboard), and 

the separate-rate respondent Chenming, 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate-rate status. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by GE, GHS (their 

affiliates, NAPP and NBZH), and 

Chenming demonstrates both a de jure 

and de facto absence of government 

control, with respect to their respective 

exports of the merchandise under 

investigation, and, thus are eligible for 

separate-rate status. See Preliminary 

Determination, 75 FR at 24899–24900. 

However, we are no longer finding that 

Tianzhang, and IP Paperboard/IP 

Cartonboard are eligible for separate rate 

status, as they withdrew from 

participating in the investigation. 

Margin for the Separate Rate Company 

As discussed above, the Department 

continues to find that Chenming has 

demonstrated its eligibility for a 

separate rate. Consistent with the 

Department’s practice, as the separate 

rate, we have established a margin for 

Chenming based on the rate we 

calculated for the cooperating 

mandatory respondent, APP-China.5

Use of Facts Available (‘‘FA’’) 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not on the 

record, or an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information requested by the 

Department, (B) fails to provide such 

information by the deadline, or in the 

form or manner requested, (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding, or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified, as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain its 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits, subject to section 782(e) of 

the Act, the Department may disregard 

all or part of the original and subsequent 

responses, as appropriate. Pursuant to 

section 782(e) of the Act, the 

Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the administering authority 

finds that an interested party has not 

acted to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information, the 

administering authority may, in 

reaching its determination, use an 

inference that is adverse to that party. 

The adverse inference may be based 

upon: (1) The petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation under 

this title, (3) any previous review under 

section 751 of the Act or determination 

under section 753 of the Act, or (4) any 

other information placed on the record. 

Because Sun Paper Companies ceased 

participating in the instant 

investigation, the Department was not 

able to conduct verification of Sun 

Paper Companies’ responses. 

Verification is integral to the 

Department’s analysis because it allows 

the Department to satisfy itself that it is 

relying upon accurate information and 

calculating dumping margins as 

accurately as possible. By failing to 

participate in verification, Sun Paper 

Companies prevented the Department 

from verifying its reported information, 

including separate rates information, 

and significantly impeded the 

proceeding. In addition, by not 

permitting verification, Sun Paper 

Companies failed to demonstrate that 

they operate free of government control 

and are entitled to a separate rate. 

Accordingly, Sun Paper Companies is 

considered part of the PRC-wide entity 

for purposes of this final determination. 

Thus, we find that, in accordance with 

sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C) and (D) of the 

Act, the use of FA for the PRC-wide 

entity (which includes Sun Paper 

Companies) is appropriate for this final 

determination. 

First, the PRC-wide entity, which 

includes Sun Paper Companies, failed to 

submit a full and proper database of all 

sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers 

during the POI. Accordingly, we find 

that the PRC wide entity withheld 

information requested by the 

Department pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.6 Second, we 

find that the PRC-wide entity, which 

includes the Sun Paper Companies, 

significantly impeded the Department’s 

proceeding pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, by failing to 

provide the requested information and 

by refusing to allow verification of their 

data. Based on the above, we have 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 59221 

7See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8932 (February 23, 1998). 8See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the 

Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 

(November 18, 2005); See also, SAA at 870. 9See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 

(December 28, 2005) unchanged in final, 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 10. 

10See 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 21, 2000), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Facts 

Available.’’ 

11See 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. 

12See 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 

Continued 

determined that the PRC-wide entity, 

which includes the Sun Paper 

Companies, failed to act to the best of 

its ability by not providing the 

requested information and by ceasing 

their participation in the proceeding. 

Therefore, we have determined that 

when selecting from among FA, an 

adverse inference is warranted for the 

PRC-wide entity, including the Sun 

Paper Companies, pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act. 

The PRC-Wide Rate 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

a NME country are subject to 

government control, and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section, below, 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate (i.e., 

the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters 

of subject merchandise from the PRC. 

These other companies did not 

demonstrate entitlement to a separate 

rate. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the 

People’s Republic of China; Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 

(May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate 

applies to all entries of subject 

merchandise except for entries from the 

companies eligible for separate rate 

status. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department 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. 

Further, we treated these PRC 

producers/exporters as part of the PRCwide entity because they did not apply 

for a separate rate. As a result, we found 

that the use of FA was appropriate to 

determine the PRC-wide rate pursuant 

to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. See 

Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 

24900–02. 

Thus, in the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department 

determined that, in selecting from 

among the FA, an adverse inference is 

appropriate because the PRC-wide 

entity failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability to comply with 

requests for information. See Id. As 

AFA, we preliminarily assigned to the 

PRC-wide entity a rate of 135.8 percent, 

the highest calculated rate from the 

petition. See id; see also Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 

1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). 

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

that, if an interested party (A) withholds 

information requested by the 

Department, (B) fails to provide such 

information by the deadline, or in the 

form or manner requested, (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding, or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified, the Department shall use, 

subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the 

Act, facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Because the PRC-wide entity (including 

Sun Paper Companies) did not respond 

to our requests for information, 

withheld information requested by the 

Department, and did not allow their 

information to be verified, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the 

Act, we determine, as in the Preliminary 

Determination, that the use of facts 

otherwise available is appropriate to 

determine the PRC-wide rate. 

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the 

Department may rely on information 

derived from (1) The petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 

Department selects a rate that is 

sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the 

purpose of the facts available rule to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner.’’ 7 It is 

also the Department’s practice to select 

a rate that ensures ‘‘that the party does 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ 8

Generally, the Department finds 

selecting the highest rate in any segment 

of the proceeding as AFA to be 

appropriate.9 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.10 In the instant 

investigation, as AFA, we have assigned 

to the PRC-wide entity the highest 

petition rate, recalculated using the 

revised wage rate, on the record of this 

proceeding that can be corroborated. See 

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

Presses From Indonesia and the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 

53710 (October 20, 2009) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’), and Memorandum to the File, 

regarding ‘‘Recalculation of Petition 

Margins,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice. The Department determines that 

this information is the most appropriate 

from the available sources to effectuate 

the purposes of AFA. 

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 FA, 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.’’ 11 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.12


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
59222 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

13See Comment 30 of Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

14See Id. See also Memorandum to the File, 

regarding ‘‘Recalculation of Petition Margins,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

15See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 24905. 

16See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries’’ dated April 5, 2005, available 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html. 

The AFA rate that the Department 

used is from the Petition; however, we 

have updated the labor wage rate used 

to calculate the Petition rates. The 

Department’s practice is not to 

recalculate dumping margins provided 

in petitions, but rather to corroborate 

the applicable petition rate when 

applying that rate as AFA. In the instant 

case, however, the surrogate wage rate 

used in the Petition was based upon the 

Department’s methodology that the 

Federal Circuit invalidated in Dorbest 

II.13 In light of the Federal Circuit 

decision to invalidate the wage rate 

methodology, the Department has 

adjusted the petition rate using the 

surrogate value for labor used in this 

final determination.14

The AFA rate that the Department 

used is from the Petition. To corroborate 

the AFA margin that we have selected, 

we compared this margin to the 

transaction-specific margins we found 

for the cooperating mandatory 

respondents. We found that the margin 

of 135.83 percent has probative value 

because it is in the range of the 

transaction-specific margins that we 

found for APP-China during the period 

of investigation. See APP-China’s Final 

Analysis Memo. Accordingly, we find 

this rate is reliable and relevant, 

considering the record information, and 

thus, has probative value. See 

Memorandum to the File, regarding 

‘‘Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Entity 

Rate and for the Final Determination in 

the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

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

Presses from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice. Given that numerous PRC-wide 

entities did not respond to the 

Department’s requests for information 

and that Sun Paper Companies, which 

is part of the PRC-wide entity, ceased 

participating in the investigation, the 

Department concludes that the updated 

petition rate of 135.83 percent, as total 

AFA for the PRC-wide entity, is 

sufficiently adverse to prevent these 

respondents from benefitting from their 

lack of cooperation. See SAA at 870. 

Accordingly, we found that the rate of 

135.83 percent is corroborated to the 

extent practicable within the meaning of 

section 776(c) of the Act. 

The PRC-wide rate applies to all 

entries of the merchandise under 

investigation except for entries from 

APP-China and Chenming, as they have 

demonstrated eligibility for a separate 

rate. These companies and their 

corresponding antidumping duty cash 

deposit rates are listed below in the 

‘‘Final Determination’’ section of this 

notice. 

Combination Rates 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.15 This 

practice is described in the Separate 

Rate Policy Bulletin.16

Final Determination 

The weighted-average dumping 

margin percentages are as follows: 

Exporter Producer Percent 

margin 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.60 

Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd .................................... 7.60 

PRC-Wide Entity* ........................................................................... ....................................................................................................... 135.83 

* The PRC-Wide Entity includes the Sun Paper Companies. 

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). 

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 entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination 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 final determination; (2) for 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. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will, within 

45 days, determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
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