63806 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices 

1The petitioner is the Seaman Paper Company of 

Massachusetts, Inc. 

2Max Fortune also requested in its May 28, 2010, 

letter that the Department grant an additional 

extension of the deadline to submit case and 

rebuttal briefs and extend the final results deadline. 

3See the Department’s memorandum to the file 

entitled, ‘‘Data on Labor Wage,’’ dated July 14, 2010. 

4See the Department’s memorandum to the file 

entitled, ‘‘Wage Rate Calculation—Error in Currency 

Conversion of the Hourly Wage Rate for El 

Salvador,’’ dated July 15, 2010. 

5See the Department’s memoranda to the file 

entitled, ‘‘Ex Parte Meeting with Counsel for Max 

Fortune Industrial Limited and Max Fortune (FZ) 

Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune),’’ dated July 

26, 2010, and ‘‘Ex Parte Meeting with the 

Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated July 26, 2010. 

6See the Department’s memorandum to the file 

entitled, ‘‘Honduras Data on Labor Wage Rate,’’ 

dated August 9, 2010 (August 9, 2010 

memorandum). 

7Since October 11, 2010, is a federal holiday, the 

final results are due on the next business day, 

October 12, 2010. 

sample based on industry groupings and 

annual sales size. We will provide 

report forms to the firms covered by this 

survey in January 2011 and will require 

their responses within 30 days after 

receipt. Responses to AWTS are 

required by law (Title 13 U.S.C. 

Sections 182, 224, and 225). The sample 

of firms selected will provide, with 

measurable reliability, statistics on 

annual sales, e-commerce sales, 

purchases, total operating expenses, 

year-end inventories held both inside 

and outside the Unites States, 

commissions, total operating revenue, 

and gross selling value for 2010. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information subject to 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) unless that 

collection of information displays a 

current valid Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) control number. In 

accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 

3501–3521, OMB approved the AWTS 

under OMB control number 0607–0195. 

Based upon the foregoing, I have 

directed that the annual survey be 

conducted for the purpose of collecting 

these data. 

Dated: October 12, 2010. 

Robert M. Groves, 

Director, Bureau of the Census. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26149 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–894] 

Certain Tissue Paper Products From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the 2008–2009 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On April 13, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the 2008–2009 administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain tissue paper products from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC) 

covering the period March 1, 2008, 

through February 28, 2009. This 

administrative review covers two 

exporters of the subject merchandise: 

Max Fortune Industrial Limited (Max 

Fortune) and Seaman Paper Asia Co., 

Ltd. (Seaman Paper Asia). We invited 

interested parties to comment on the 

preliminary results. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes to the margin calculations. The 

weighted-average dumping margins are 

listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: October 18, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith or Gemal Brangman, 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) 482–1766 or (202) 482– 

3773, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 13, 2010, the Department 

published the preliminary results of this 

administrative review. See Certain 

Tissue Paper Products From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of the 2008–2009 Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 18812 (April 13, 2010) 

(Preliminary Results). In response to the 

interested parties’ requests, we extended 

the deadlines for submitting case and 

rebuttal briefs for consideration in the 

final results of this administrative 

review. 

On May 13, 2010, Max Fortune 

requested a hearing. 

On May 28, 2010, Max Fortune 

requested the public disclosure of 

certain information designated as 

business proprietary that was included 

in the petitioner’s 1 September 15, 2009, 

submissions and examined by the 

Department during verification.2 On 

June 8, 2010, the Department informed 

Max Fortune that it was unable to grant 

its May 28, 2010, request because doing 

so would reveal the source of the 

information for which the Department 

granted the petitioner business 

proprietary treatment. 

On June 25, 2010, Max Fortune 

submitted its case brief. Neither Seaman 

Paper Asia nor the petitioner submitted 

case briefs. On July 1, 2010, the 

petitioner submitted its rebuttal brief. 

On July 14, 2010, the Department 

notified the parties that as a result of the 

recent decision in Dorbest Limited et al. 

v. United States, No. 2009–1257, –1266 

(Fed. Cir. May 14, 2010) (Dorbest), 

issued by the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), 

the Department would be reconsidering 

its valuation of the labor wage rate in 

this review. The Department placed 

export data on the record of the review 

and gave parties a specified period of 

time to comment on the narrow issue of 

the labor wage value and the 

methodology proposed to value labor for 

margin calculation purposes in light of 

the CAFC’s decision in Dorbest.3 On 

July 15, 2010, the Department corrected 

certain wage rate data placed on the 

record on July 14, 2010.4

On July 20, 2010, Max Fortune 

withdrew its May 13, 2010, request for 

a hearing. No other party in this review 

requested a hearing. 

On July 22, 2010, Max Fortune 

submitted comments on the wage rate 

data and proposed methodology the 

Department placed on the record on July 

14, 2010. 

On July 23, 2010, the Department held 

meetings with Max Fortune’s and the 

petitioner’s counsels to discuss the 

issues raised in Max Fortune’s case 

brief.5

On August 9, 2010, the Department 

placed on the record an additional 

clarification/correction of the surrogate 

wage rate data contained in the 

Department’s July 14, 2010, 

memorandum.6

On August 9, 2010, the Department 

postponed the final results of this 

review until October 11, 2010.7See 

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Tissue 

Paper Products From the People’s 

Republic of China, 75 FR 49888 (August 

16, 2010). 

On August 16, 2010, Max Fortune 

submitted comments and additional 

data regarding the wage rate issue in 

response to the Department’s August 9, 

2010, memorandum. 

On September 21 and 24, 2010, the 

Department held additional meetings 

with Max Fortune’s and the petitioner’s 

counsels, respectively, to discuss the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices 63807 

8See the Department’s memoranda to the file 

entitled, ‘‘Ex Parte Meeting with Counsel for Max 

Fortune Industrial Limited and Max Fortune (FZ) 

Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune),’’ dated 

September 21, 2010, and ‘‘Ex Parte Meeting with the 

Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated September 30, 2010. 

9On January 30, 2007, at the direction of U.S. 

Customs and Border protection (CBP), the 

Department added the following HTSUS 

classifications to the AD/CVD module for tissue 

paper: 4802.54.3100, 4802.54.6100, and 

4823.90.6700. However, we note that the six-digit 

classifications for these numbers were already listed 

in the scope. 

10See the petitioner’s submission on September 

15, 2009. 

11See Max Fortune’s submission dated October 

19, 2009. 

12See Memorandum from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 

entitled ‘‘Whether To Assign Max Fortune Industrial 

Limited (Max Fortune HK) and Max Fortune (FZ) 

Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune Fuzhou) 

(collectively Max Fortune) a Margin Based on 

Adverse Facts Available in the Preliminary 

Results,’’ dated April 7, 2010. 

issues raised in Max Fortune’s case 

brief.8

We have conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the 

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

19 CFR 351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is March 

1, 2008, through February 28, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The tissue paper products covered by 

this order are cut-to-length sheets of 

tissue paper having a basis weight not 

exceeding 29 grams per square meter. 

Tissue paper products subject to this 

order may or may not be bleached, dyecolored, surface-colored, glazed, surface 

decorated or printed, sequined, 

crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The 

tissue paper subject to this order is in 

the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue 

paper with a width equal to or greater 

than one-half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue 

paper may be flat or folded, and may be 

packaged by banding or wrapping with 

paper or film, by placing in plastic or 

film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for 

distribution and use by the ultimate 

consumer. Packages of tissue paper 

subject to this order may consist solely 

of tissue paper of one color and/or style, 

or may contain multiple colors and/or 

styles. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

does not have specific classification 

numbers assigned to them under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Subject 

merchandise may be under one or more 

of several different subheadings, 

including: 4802.30, 4802.54, 4802.61, 

4802.62, 4802.69, 4804.31.1000, 

4804.31.2000, 4804.31.4020, 

4804.31.4040, 4804.31.6000, 4804.39, 

4805.91.1090, 4805.91.5000, 

4805.91.7000, 4806.40, 4808.30, 

4808.90, 4811.90, 4823.90, 4802.50.00, 

4802.90.00, 4805.91.90, 9505.90.40. The 

tariff classifications are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive.9

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are the following tissue paper products: 

(1) Tissue paper products that are 

coated in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of 

a kind used in floral and food service 

applications; (2) tissue paper products 

that have been perforated, embossed, or 

die-cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., 

disposable sanitary covers for toilet 

seats; (3) toilet or facial tissue stock, 

towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind 

used for household or sanitary 

purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs 

of cellulose fibers (HTSUS 

4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00). 

Separate Rates 

In our Preliminary Results at 75 FR 

18814, we determined that both Max 

Fortune and Seaman Paper Asia met the 

criteria for the application of a separate 

rate, as both companies are wholly 

foreign-owned companies registered and 

located in Hong Kong. We have not 

received any information since the 

issuance of the Preliminary Results that 

provides a basis for the reconsideration 

of this determination. Therefore, the 

Department continues to find that Max 

Fortune and Seaman Paper Asia both 

meet the criteria for a separate rate for 

purposes of the final results of this 

review. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

In the Preliminary Results, we applied 

total adverse facts available (AFA) to 

Max Fortune pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) and 776(b) of 

the Act, because we determined based 

on our findings at verification and our 

analysis of the record information, that 

we could not rely upon the data 

submitted by Max Fortune to calculate 

an accurate dumping margin. 

As explained in the Preliminary 

Results at 75 FR 18814–18815, the 

petitioner placed on the record a 

substantial amount of information, 

supporting its allegations that, among 

other things, Max Fortune did not 

report: (1) Multiple affiliates involved in 

the production and/or sale of the subject 

merchandise exported to the United 

States during the POR; and (2) multiple 

unaffiliated suppliers of raw materials 

and converting services involved in the 

production of the subject merchandise 

exported to the United States during the 

POR.10 The petitioner obtained the 

information supporting its allegations 

from a foreign market researcher (FMR), 

and the company that furnished this 

data to the FMR later became a part of 

this proceeding in order to provide the 

Department the ability to conduct 

verification of these data. In response to 

the allegations made by the petitioner, 

Max Fortune asserted that its PRC 

affiliate, Max Fortune (FZ) Paper 

Products Co., Ltd. Fuzhou (Max Fortune 

Fuzhou), produced all of the tissue 

paper it sold to the United States during 

the POR.11

After conducting verification of the 

data submitted on the record by Max 

Fortune and the other company referred 

to above, we found that for certain U.S. 

sales reported by Max Fortune in its 

U.S. sales listing which we selected for 

examination at verification, Max 

Fortune Fuzhou was not the only 

producer of the tissue paper sold in 

those transactions, contrary to Max 

Fortune’s representations throughout 

this review.12 As a result, we concluded 

that Max Fortune withheld critical 

information (i.e., the identities of 

additional tissue paper suppliers and/or 

processors associated with the tissue 

paper it sold to the United States during 

the POR, and their respective factors of 

production (FOP) data), and in so doing, 

significantly impeded this proceeding 

and precluded the Department from 

being able to calculate an accurate 

dumping margin for Max Fortune in this 

review based on its reported data. We 

also stated that based upon our 

verification of the two companies, our 

experience in conducting such 

verifications, the number and level of 

detail of documents supplied by the 

other company, and our careful analysis 

of the record, we could not conclude 

that the documents supplied by Max 

Fortune were the actual documents used 

in the transactions at issue. 

Therefore, we were unable to verify 

any of Max Fortune’s FOP data. Given 

the nature and extent of the information 

in Max Fortune’s possession which Max 

Fortune withheld from disclosure (i.e., 

the actual documentation associated 

with its U.S. sales transactions), we 

concluded that Max Fortune failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with the Department’s 

request for information in this review. 

Consequently, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) and 776(b) of 

the Act, we found it appropriate to 

apply total AFA to Max Fortune in the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

63808 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices 

13See Shanghai Taoen, International Trading 

Company v. United States, 360 F.Supp. 2d. 1339, 

1344 (CIT 2005) (finding that the application of 

total AFA was warranted in light of evidence on the 

record that the respondent ‘‘purposely withheld’’ 

and provided misleading information to avoid a 

higher dumping margin). 

14See Memorandum to The File from Case 

Analysts entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales and 

Factors Questionnaire Response of Max Fortune 

(FZ) Paper Products Co., Ltd. and Max Fortune 

Industrial Limited in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated April 7, 2010 (Max Fortune Verification 

Report) at page 23. 

15Memorandum to The File from Case Analysts 

entitled ‘‘Verification of Data Submitted by 

{Anonymous Company} in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated April 7, 2010 at pages 10–16. 

Preliminary Results.13 Consistent with 

the statute, court precedent, and 

numerous other cases cited in the 

Preliminary Results at 75 FR 18815, as 

AFA, we assigned Max Fortune the 

highest rate on the record of any 

segment of this proceeding, i.e., 112.64 

percent. We determined in the 

Preliminary Results that this rate was 

fully corroborated, consistent with 

section 776(c) of the Act. See 

Preliminary Results at 75 FR 18815. 

For these final results of review, Max 

Fortune provided comments in its case 

brief disputing the Department’s 

preliminary AFA decision, and the 

petitioner provided rebuttal comments. 

In its case brief, Max Fortune raises 

questions regarding the accuracy and 

reliability of the data provided by the 

other company which the Department 

verified and used as the basis for 

determining that the documents 

supplied by Max Fortune were not the 

actual documents used in the 

transactions at issue. Furthermore, Max 

Fortune contends that the Department’s 

verification of its data was flawless and, 

therefore, cannot support the 

application of AFA to Max Fortune, 

particularly in light of the irregularities 

and unexplained inconsistencies which 

Max Fortune alleges are present in the 

data and accounting records provided 

by the other company which served as 

the basis for the Department’s 

preliminary decision not to rely on Max 

Fortune’s data. 

Upon consideration of the arguments 

of the parties and further review of the 

entire administrative record, including 

the other company‘s extensive and 

detailed data which Max Fortune alleges 

are not reliable, we continue to find it 

appropriate to apply total AFA to Max 

Fortune. Although much of the data 

Max Fortune provided to the 

Department was aggregate and general, 

Max Fortune is correct in its claim that 

nothing in its response, when viewed in 

isolation and on its face, made it evident 

that Max Fortune supplied the 

Department with documents not used in 

its transactions. However, at 

verification, for example, when 

Department officials requested more 

specific labor records, Max Fortune was 

unable to supply such data.14 This was 

consistent with other record 

information—Max Fortune provided 

adequate general documentation but 

could not give more specific 

information on request. The other 

company, however, unlike Max Fortune, 

supplied the Department with an 

extensive amount of detailed 

information.15 Thus, after reviewing the 

record evidence as a whole, we find that 

it impugns the veracity of the data Max 

Fortune presented to the Department, 

both in its questionnaire responses and 

at verification for its reported U.S. sales 

made during the POR. For complete 

discussion, see Comment 1 of the 

Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from Susan H. 

Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, 

entitled ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

the 2008–2009 Administrative Review 

of Certain Tissue Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC)’’ 

(Issues and Decision Memorandum) 

accompanying this Federal Register 

notice; and Memorandum from the 

Team to The File, entitled, ‘‘Analysis of 

Data-Specific Items Raised in the Case 

Brief Submitted by Max Fortune 

Industrial Limited (Max Fortune HK) 

and Max Fortune (FZ) Paper Products 

Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune Fuzhou) 

(collectively Max Fortune),’’ dated 

October 12, 2010. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act states that 

the Department may use ‘‘facts 

available’’ if, inter alia, an interested 

party (A) withholds information that has 

been requested by the Department; (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) if 

information is supplied by a company 

that cannot be ‘‘verified as provided in 

section 782(i).’’ All of these provisions 

apply in this case, as Max Fortune’s 

misrepresentations call into question 

the veracity of the FOP data Max 

Fortune submitted in this review. 

As noted above, the Department has 

concluded that Max Fortune 

mischaracterized and withheld 

information from the Department that 

was fundamental and material to the 

Department’s dumping margin analysis. 

For multiple U.S. sales transactions in 

its U.S. sales listing, Max Fortune 

should have reported FOP data for 

tissue paper supplied and/or processed 

by unaffiliated companies. Instead, Max 

Fortune misled the Department by 

claiming it produced and processed all 

of the tissue paper included in its U.S. 

sales listing. Therefore, its actions 

significantly impeded the Department’s 

ability to conduct this administrative 

review. Further, its actions have led us 

to conclude that the information and 

records provided by its PRC affiliated 

producer, Max Fortune Fuzhou, at 

verification are not reliable. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 

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

have concluded that the application of 

facts available is warranted in this case 

with respect to Max Fortune. 

Section 776(b) of the Act states that if 

the Department concludes that a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information, it may ‘‘use an 

inference that is adverse to the interests 

of that party.’’ It is the Department’s 

practice to make an adverse inference 

‘‘to ensure that the party does not obtain 

a more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 

103–316 at 870 (1994) (SAA) at 870. In 

this case, Max Fortune has provided 

documents on the record that were not 

the actual documents used with respect 

to the U.S. sales transactions at issue. 

Accordingly, Max Fortune did not act to 

the best of its ability when it provided 

the Department with incorrect and 

misleading characterizations with 

respect to its agreement with other 

companies and the tissue paper 

included in its reported U.S. sales 

transactions, and Max Fortune Fuzhou’s 

sourcing from other PRC tissue paper 

suppliers of some of that tissue paper. 

Consequently, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) and section 

776(b) of the Act, we find it appropriate 

to apply total AFA to Max Fortune in 

this review. To calculate an 

antidumping duty margin for Max 

Fortune, even based on partial adverse 

facts available, would effectively reward 

Max Fortune’s efforts to create an 

administrative record that cannot be 

verified and otherwise does not reflect 

the actual chain of production and 

processing of the U.S. sales transaction 

at issue. As a result, the Department has 

no confidence in any information 

supplied by Max Fortune for dumping 

margin calculation purposes. Thus, the 

application of total AFA is appropriate 

in this case. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices 63809 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that 

when the Department selects from 

among the facts otherwise available and 

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the 

Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

the Department’s disposal. To 

corroborate the information, the 

Department seeks to determine that the 

information used has probative value. 

See SAA at 870. The Department has 

determined that to have probative value, 

information must be reliable and 

relevant. See Certain Tissue Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Final 

Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

58642 (October 16, 2007), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

For the final results, as AFA, we have 

continued to assign Max Fortune the 

highest rate on the record for any 

segment of this proceeding—i.e., 112.64 

percent. This rate represents the highest 

rate from the petition in the less-thanfair-value investigation segment of this 

proceeding. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of 

China, 70 FR 7475 (February 14, 2005). 

We find that the 112.64 percent rate 

is both reliable and relevant. See 

Preliminary Results at 75 FR 18815, and 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. Thus, we have concluded 

it has probative value. As a result, we 

determine that the 112.64 percent rate is 

corroborated to the extent practicable 

for the purposes of this administrative 

review, in accordance with section 

776(c) of the Act, and may reasonably be 

applied as AFA to the exports of the 

subject merchandise by Max Fortune. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by the parties and to 

which we have responded are addressed 

in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, which is hereby adopted 

by this notice. A list of the issues raised, 

all of which are in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, is attached to 

this notice as Appendix I. Parties can 

find a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in the briefs and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 

7046 of the Department of Commerce. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on the Web at 

http://trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes From the Preliminary Results 

Based on the information submitted 

and our analysis of the comments 

received, we made one change to the 

margin calculations for Seaman Paper 

Asia. Specifically, we recalculated the 

surrogate wage rate used to value 

Seaman Paper Asia’s labor costs. See 

Comment 2 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for further discussion. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

antidumping duty margins exist in these 

final results for the period March 1, 

2008, through February 28, 2009: 

CERTAIN TISSUE PAPER PRODUCTS FROM THE PRC 

Individually reviewed exporter 2008–2009 administrative review 

Weighted-average 

percent margin 

(percent) 

Seaman Paper Asia Company Ltd .............................................................................................................................................. 0.00 

Max Fortune Industrial Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................... 112.64 

Assessment 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this review. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), for Seaman Paper Asia, 

we calculated an importer-specific ad 

valorem duty assessment rate based on 

the ratio of the total amount of dumping 

duties calculated for the examined sale 

to the total entered value of the 

examined sale because Seaman Paper 

Asia reported entered value 

information. Where the importerspecific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

With respect to Max Fortune, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate 

entries at the PRC-wide rate of 112.64 

percent. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the notice of final results 

of the administrative review for all 

shipments of certain tissue paper 

products from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) A cash 

deposit rate of 0.00 percent will be 

required for certain tissue paper 

products from the PRC exported by 

Seaman Paper Asia; (2) a cash deposit 

rate of 112.64 percent will be required 

for certain tissue paper products from 

the PRC exported by Max Fortune; (3) 

for previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (4) 

for all other PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise, which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be PRC-wide 

rate of 112.64 percent; and (5) for all 

non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter that supplied that non-PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as the final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this review period. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in the Secretary’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and in the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

63810 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of the 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. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results of review in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: October 12, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix—List of Issues 

Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts 

Available to Max Fortune 

Comment 2: Appropriate Surrogate Labor 

Rate 

[FR Doc. 2010–26194 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XZ74 

Fisheries of the South Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, 

Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); 

Assessment Webinar 8 for SEDAR 22 

Yellowedge Grouper and Tilefish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 22 Gulf of 

Mexico yellowedge grouper and tilefish 

assessment webinar 8. 

SUMMARY: The SEDAR 22 assessments of 

the Gulf of Mexico stocks of yellowedge 

grouper and tilefish will consist of a 

series of workshops and webinars: A 

Data Workshop, a series of Assessment 

webinars, and a Review Workshop. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

DATES: The eighth SEDAR 22 

Assessment Process webinar will be 

held on Wednesday, November 3, 2010 

from 10 a.m. to approximately 2 p.m. 

(Eastern). The established times may be 

adjusted as necessary to accommodate 

the timely completion of discussion 

relevant to the assessment process. Such 

adjustments may result in the meeting 

being extended from, or completed prior 

to the time established by this notice. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held 

via webinar. The webinar is open to 

members of the public. Those interested 

in participating should contact Julie 

Neer at SEDAR (See FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an 

invitation providing webinar access 

information. 

A listening station will be available at 

the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council office located at 2203 N. Lois 

Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. 

Those interested in participating via the 

listening station should contact Julie A. 

Neer at SEDAR (See FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 1 day 

prior to the webinar. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 

Faber Place, Suite 201, North 

Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 

571–4366; e-mail: Julie.neer@safmc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

of Mexico, South Atlantic, and 

Caribbean Fishery Management 

Councils, in conjunction with NOAA 

Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commissions 

have implemented the Southeast Data, 

Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 

process, a multi-step method for 

determining the status of fish stocks in 

the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a threestep process including: (1) Data 

Workshop, (2) Assessment Process 

utilizing webinars and (3) Review 

Workshop. The product of the Data 

Workshop is a data report which 

compiles and evaluates potential 

datasets and recommends which 

datasets are appropriate for assessment 

analyses. The product of the Assessment 

Process is a stock assessment report 

which describes the fisheries, evaluates 

the status of the stock, estimates 

biological benchmarks, projects future 

population conditions, and recommends 

research and monitoring needs. The 

assessment is independently peer 

reviewed at the Review Workshop. The 

product of the Review Workshop is a 

Summary documenting Panel opinions 

regarding the strengths and weaknesses 

of the stock assessment and input data. 

Participants for SEDAR Workshops are 

appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South 

Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery 

Management Councils and NOAA 

Fisheries Southeast Regional Office and 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 

Participants include data collectors and 

database managers; stock assessment 

scientists, biologists, and researchers; 

constituency representatives including 

fishermen, environmentalists, and 

NGO’s; International experts; and staff 

of Councils, Commissions, and state and 

federal agencies. 

SEDAR 22 Assessment Webinar VIII 

Using datasets recommended from the 

Data Workshop, participants will 

employ assessment models to evaluate 

stock status, estimate population 

benchmarks and management criteria, 

and project future conditions. 

Participants will recommend the most 

appropriate methods and configurations 

for determining stock status and 

estimating population parameters. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to the Council office 

(see ADDRESSES) at least 1 business day 

prior to the meeting. 

Dated: October 13, 2010. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26126 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1709] 

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; 

SICK, Inc. (Photo-Electronic Industrial 

Sensors); Bloomington, MN 

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act 

provides for ‘‘* * * the establishment 

* * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 

entry of the United States, to expedite 

and encourage foreign commerce, and 

for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to 

qualified corporations the privilege of 

establishing foreign-trade zones in or 

adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection ports of entry; 

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15 

CFR part 400) provide for the 

establishment of special-purpose 

subzones when existing zone facilities 

cannot serve the specific use involved, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES