Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 53703-53707 [E9-25210]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the Vietnamese exporters
that supplied that non–Vietnamese
exporter. These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C–570–959)
Notification to Importers
Certain Coated Paper Suitable for
High–Quality Print Graphics Using
Sheet–Fed Presses from the People’s
Republic of China: Initiation of
Countervailing Duty Investigation
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) 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.
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yasmin Nair and Joseph Shuler, AD/
CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3813 and (202)
482–1293, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notification of Interested Parties
The Petition
On September 23, 2009, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) received a petition filed
in proper form by 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
(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’), domestic
producers of certain coated paper
suitable for high–quality print graphics
using sheet–fed presses (‘‘coated
paper’’).1 In response to the
Department’s requests, Petitioners
provided timely information
supplementing the Petition on October
2, 2009, and October 6, 2009.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘the Act’’), Petitioners allege that
manufacturers, producers, or exporters
of coated paper in the People’s Republic
of China (‘‘PRC’’) receive
countervailable subsidies within the
meaning of section 701 of the Act, and
that such imports are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury
to, an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because they are
interested parties as defined in section
771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, and
cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during the review period. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply
with this requirement could result in
the Department’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO as explained in
the administrative protective order
itself. 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 the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: October 13, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–25209 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Oct 19, 2009
Jkt 220001
1 See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701
and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended:
Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality
Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fred Presses from the
People’s Republic of China, dated September 23,
2009 (‘‘Petition’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53703
Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’)
investigation (see ‘‘Determination of
Industry Support for the Petition’’
section below).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is January
1, 2008, through December 31, 2008.
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by the
investigation are coated paper products
from the PRC. For a full description of
the scope of the investigation, please see
‘‘Scope of Investigation,’’ in Appendix I
of this notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we
discussed the scope with Petitioners to
ensure that it is an accurate reflection of
the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations (Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19,
1997)), we are setting aside a period for
interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage. The
Department encourages all interested
parties to submit such comments by
November 2, 2009, twenty calendar days
from the signature date of this notice.
Comments should be addressed to
Import Administration’s APO/Dockets
Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
The period of the scope consultations is
intended to provide the Department
with ample opportunity to consider all
comments and to consult with parties
prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determination.
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of
the Act, on September 23, 2009, the
Department invited representatives of
the Government of the PRC (‘‘GOC’’) for
consultations with respect to the CVD
petition. The GOC did not request such
consultations, however, on October 13,
2009, the GOC’s Ministry of Commerce
submitted to the United States Embassy
in Beijing, China comments pertaining
to the Petition.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
53704
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices
petition account for: (i) at least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International
Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is
responsible for determining whether
‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been
injured, must also determine what
constitutes a domestic like product in
order to define the industry. While both
the Department and the ITC must apply
the same statutory definition regarding
the domestic like product (see section
771(10) of the Act), they do so for
different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department’s
determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this
may result in different definitions of the
like product, such differences do not
render the decision of either agency
contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v.
United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct.
Int’l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel
Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988),
aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert.
denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
which is like, or in the absence of like,
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, Petitioners offer a definition of
domestic like product that includes
sheeter rolls (rolls of certain coated
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Oct 19, 2009
Jkt 220001
paper intended to be slit and used in
sheet–fed presses) and, therefore, is
broader than the scope of the
investigation, which does not include
sheeter rolls. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that coated
paper described in the scope of the
investigation and sheeter rolls constitute
a single domestic like product and we
have analyzed industry support in terms
of that domestic like product. For a
discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Countervailing
Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Certain Coated Paper from the PRC
(‘‘PRC Initiation Checklist’’) at
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Petitions Covering
Certain Coated Paper from the People’s
Republic of China and Indonesia, dated
concurrently with this notice and on file
in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117
of the main Department of Commerce
building.
In determining whether Petitioners
have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered
the industry support data contained in
the Petition with reference to the
domestic like product as defined in the
Petition. To establish industry support,
Petitioners provided their own 2008
shipments of the domestic like product,
as well as one supporting company’s
(SMART Papers) 2008 shipments, and
compared the total to the 2008
shipments of the entire domestic
industry. See Volume I of the Petition,
at 2–3, Exhibits I–3, I–4, and I–19, and
Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions,
dated October 2, 2009, at 19–22 and
Exhibit 4. Petitioners estimated total
2008 shipments of the domestic like
product based on the American Forest &
Paper Association annual Coated
Printing Papers Survey. See Volume I of
the Petition, at 3 and Exhibits I–3 and
I–4, and Supplement to the AD/CVD
Petitions, dated October 2, 2009, at 22
and Exhibit 4; see also PRC Initiation
Checklist at Attachment II.
Our review of the data provided in the
Petition, supplemental submissions, and
other information readily available to
the Department indicates that
Petitioners have established industry
support. First, the Petition established
support from domestic producers (or
workers) accounting for more than 50
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and, as such, the
Department is not required to take
further action in order to evaluate
industry support (e.g., polling). See
section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment
II. Second, the domestic producers (or
workers) have met the statutory criteria
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for industry support under section
702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who
support the Petition account for at least
25 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product. See PRC
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
Finally, the domestic producers (or
workers) have met the statutory criteria
for industry support under section
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who
support the Petition account for more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
Petition. Accordingly, the Department
determines that the Petition was filed on
behalf of the domestic industry within
the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the
Act. See id.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because they are
interested parties as defined in sections
771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act and
they have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
CVD investigation that they are
requesting the Department initiate. See
id.
Injury Test
Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies
Agreement Country’’ within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act,
section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to
this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC
must determine whether imports of the
subject merchandise from the PRC
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that imports of
coated paper from the PRC are
benefitting from countervailable
subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material
injury to the domestic industry
producing certain coated paper. In
addition, Petitioners allege that
subsidized imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioners contend that the industry’s
injured condition is illustrated by
reduced market share, underselling and
price depressing and suppressing
effects, increased import penetration,
lost sales and revenue, reduced
production, capacity, and capacity
utilization, reduced shipments and
inventories, reduced employment, and
reduced financial performance. We have
assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury,
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices
Technology or Knowledge–
Intensive FIEs
6. Tax Programs for FIEs that are High
or New Technology Enterprises
7. Income Tax Reductions for High–
Technology Industries in
Guangdong Province
8. Preferential Tax Policies for
Research and Development at FIEs
9. Income Tax Credits for
Domestically–Owned Companies
Purchasing Domestically–Produced
Equipment
threat of material injury, and causation,
and we have determined that these
allegations are properly supported by
adequate evidence and meet the
statutory requirements for initiation. See
PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment
III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Petitions Covering
Certain Coated Paper from the People’s
Republic of China and Indonesia.
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation
Section 702(b) of the Act requires the
Department to initiate a CVD proceeding
whenever an interested party files a
petition on behalf of an industry that:
(1) alleges the elements necessary for an
imposition of a duty under section
701(a) of the Act; and (2) is
accompanied by information reasonably
available to Petitioner(s) supporting the
allegations.
The Department has examined the
CVD petition on coated paper from the
PRC and finds that it complies with the
requirements of section 702(b) of the
Act. Therefore, in accordance with
section 702(b) of the Act, we are
initiating a CVD investigation to
determine whether manufacturers,
producers, or exporters of coated paper
in the PRC receive countervailable
subsidies. For a discussion of evidence
supporting our initiation determination,
see Initiation Checklist.
We are including in our investigation
the following programs alleged in the
Petition to have provided
countervailable subsidies to producers
and exporters of the subject
merchandise in the PRC:
A. Preferential Lending to the Coated
Paper Industry
1. Policy Loans from State–Owned
Commercial Banks and Government
Policy Banks
2. Fast–Growth High–Yield Forestry
Program Loans
B. Income Tax Programs
cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
1. Income Tax Exemption/Reduction
under ‘‘Two–Free/Three Half’’
Program
2. Local Income Tax Exemption and
Reductions for ‘‘Productive’’
Foreign–Invested Enterprises
(‘‘FIEs’’)
3. Income Tax Reduction for FIEs
Purchasing Domestically–Produced
Equipment
4. Tax Subsidies to FIEs Based on
Geographic Location
5. Preferential Tax Policies for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Oct 19, 2009
Jkt 220001
10. Income Tax Exemption Program
for Export–Oriented FIEs
11. Corporate Income Tax Refund
Program for Reinvestment of FIE
profits in Export–Oriented
Enterprises
12. Exemption from City Maintenance
and Construction Taxes and
Education Surcharges for FIEs
C. Indirect Tax and Import Tariff
Programs
1. Value Added Tax (‘‘VAT’’) and
Tariff Exemptions on Imported
Equipment
2. VAT Rebates on Domestically
Produced Equipment
3. Domestic VAT Refunds for
Companies Located in the Hainan
Economic Development Zone
D. Grant Programs
1. Funds for Forestry Plantation
Construction and Management
2. The State Key Technologies
Renovation Project Fund
3. Loan Interest Subsidies for Major
Industrial Technology Reform
Projects in Wuhan
4. Funds for Water Treatment
Improvement Projects in the
Songhuajiang Basin
5. Special Fund for Energy Saving
Technology Reform in Wuhan and
Shouguang Municipality
6. Clean Production Technology Fund
7. Famous Brands Awards
E. Provision of Goods or Services for
Less Than Adequate Remuneration
(‘‘LTAR’’)
1. Papermaking Chemicals
2. Electricity
3. Land–Use Rights to State Owned
Enterprises
F. Economic Development Zone
Programs
1. Subsidies in the Nanchang EDZ
2. Subsidies in the Wuhan EDZ
3. Subsidies in the Yangpu EDZ
4. Subsidies in the Zhenjiang EDZ
For further information explaining why
the Department is investigating these
programs, see Initiation Checklist.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53705
We are not including in our
investigation the following programs
alleged to benefit producers and
exporters of the subject merchandise in
the PRC:
1. State Science and Technology
Support Scheme
Petitioners allege that the GOC
provides grants to support research and
development under the National Mid–
term and Long–term Science and
Technology Plan (2006 – 2020). While
the Department has relied on policy
directives such as the 2007 Paper Plan
and Decision No. 40 to support
specificity findings with respect to
policy lending, Petitioners have not
pointed to any language in these policy
directives regarding grants to promote
research and development. Instead, the
grants are given pursuant to the Science
and Technology Plan and Petitioners’
specificity allegations in this respect are
based on Section 771(5A)(D)(ii) and
(D)(iii)(I) of the Act. Regarding the
former, Petitioners appear to argue that
because eligibility is not automatic
((D)(ii)(I)) and/or because the eligibility
criteria are not clearly set out
((D)(ii)(III)), the program is specific as a
matter of law. However, Petitioners have
misconstrued the structure of (D)(ii) and
a finding of de jure specificity set forth
under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
Section 771(5A)(D)(ii) does not mean
that if one or more of the criterion listed
under this section of the Act is not meet
then the program is specific as a matter
of law. To be specific as a matter of law
the program must meet the standard set
forth under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the
Act: the legislation under which the
program operates expressly limits access
to the subsidy to an enterprise or
industry. Petitioners have failed to
sufficiently allege or support a claim
that this program is de jure specific
under Section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
Finally, Petitioners have provided no
support for their claim that the number
of recipients is limited. Consequently,
we do not plan on investigating this
program.
2. Special Funds for Environmental
Protection
Petitioners allege that central,
provincial, and local government funds,
in the form of grants or loan interest
subsidies, are available to support
certain qualified environmental
protection projects. Although
Petitioners point to specific language in
the Papermaking Plan regarding policy
support, that Plan was in place from
2001 – 2005, while the measures
authorizing these grants were put in
place after that timeframe. Further,
Petitioners have not provided evidence
showing that grants provided pursuant
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
53706
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices
to these authorizations are specific in
law under Section 771(5A)(D)(i) or in
fact under Section 771(5A)(D)(iii). We
do not agree with Petitioners’ claim of
specificity under Section 771(5A)(D)(ii)
for the reasons explained above under,
‘‘State Science and Technology Support
Scheme.’’ Consequently, we do not plan
on investigating this program.
3. Provision of Coal for LTAR
Petitioners allege that the GOC
provides coal to Chinese producers of
coated paper for LTAR. Petitioners have
not supported their allegation that this
program is specific to paper producers.
The program as it relates to electricity
generation targets the electricity
industry, not the papermaking industry.
Further, Petitioners have not supported
their claim that the paper industry is an
‘‘export industry.’’ Consequently, we do
not plan on investigating this program.
4. Provision of Water for LTAR
Petitioners allege that the GOC
provides favored sectors with
differential water rates and unlimited
water use. Petitioners have not provided
sufficient support of a national policy to
provide water for LTAR to coated paper
producers. Consequently, we do not
plan on investigating this program.
5. Currency Undervaluation
Petitioners allege that the GOC–
maintained exchange rate effectively
prevents the appreciation of the Chinese
currency (RMB) against the U.S. dollar.
Therefore, when producers/exporters in
the PRC sell their dollars at official
foreign exchange banks, as required by
law, the producers receive more RMB
than they otherwise would if the value
of the RMB were set by market
mechanisms. In the alternative,
Petitioners allege that GOC foreign
exchange market interventions
constitute a price support (of the U.S.
dollar vis a vis the RMB), within the
meaning of section 771(5)(B)(ii). In both
cases, Petitioners describe the benefit
conferred as the excess of RMB
received, over what would have been
received at a market rate (‘‘excess
RMB’’) and alleges specificity within the
meaning of Section 771(5A)(B) of the
Act by virtue of the fact that ‘‘ there is
a direct and positive correlation
between the export activity/export
earnings and the amount of subsidy
received.’’ Section 771(5A)(B) of the Act
describes an export subsidy as ‘‘ a
subsidy that is, in law or fact,
contingent upon export performance,
alone or as 1 of 2 or more conditions.’’
Petitioners have failed to sufficiently
allege that the receipt of the excess RMB
is contingent on export or export
performance because receipt of the
excess RMB is independent of the type
of transaction or commercial activity for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Oct 19, 2009
Jkt 220001
which the dollars are converted or of the
particular company or individuals
converting the dollars. Consequently,
we do not plan on investigating this
program because Petitioners have failed
to properly allege the specificity
element.
Respondent Selection
For this investigation, the Department
expects to select respondents based on
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. imports during the
period of investigation. We intend to
release the CBP data under
Administrative Protective Order
(‘‘APO’’) to all parties with access to
information protected by APO within
five days of the announcement of the
initiation of this investigation.
Interested parties may submit comments
regarding the CBP data and respondent
selection within seven calendar days of
publication of this notice. We intend to
make our decision regarding respondent
selection within 20 days of publication
of this Federal Register notice.
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b).
Instructions for filing such applications
may be found on the Department’s
website at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of the Petition has been
provided to the Government of the PRC.
As soon as and to the extent practicable,
we will attempt to provide a copy of the
public version of the Petition to each
exporter named in the Petition,
consistent with section 351.203(c)(2) of
the Department’s regulations
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 702(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 25 days after the date on which
it receives notice of the initiation,
whether there is a reasonable indication
that imports of subsidized coated paper
from the PRC are causing material
injury, or threatening to cause material
injury, to a U.S. industry. See section
703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC
determination will result in the
investigation being terminated;
otherwise, the investigation will
proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: October 13, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation includes certain coated
paper and paperboard2 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
higher3; 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–thermomechanical pulp (‘‘BCTMP’’) that meets
this scope definition; and (c) any other
coated paper that meets this scope
definition.
Certain Coated Paper is typically (but
not exclusively) used for printing multi–
colored 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,
2 ‘‘ ‘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.’’’
3 One 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.
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices
4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000,
4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70. While
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. E9–25210 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C–423–809)
Assessment
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium: Rescission of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Montoro or Mary Kolberg, at
(202) 482–0238 or (202) 482–1785,
respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
the requested review. On September 22,
2009, AMS Belgium withdrew its
request for review within the 90-day
period. Therefore, in response to AMS
Belgium’s withdrawal of its request for
an administrative review, and as no
other party requested a review, the
Department is rescinding this
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on stainless
steel plate in coils from Belgium for the
period January 1, 2008, through
December 31, 2008.
On May 1, 2009, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published a notice announcing the
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the countervailing duty order
on stainless steel plate in coils from
Belgium. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 74
FR 20278 (May 1, 2009). On June 1,
2009, ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium
N.V. (‘‘AMS Belgium’’) timely requested
an administrative review covering the
period January 1, 2008, through
December 31, 2008. In accordance with
19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department
published a notice initiating an
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on stainless
steel plate in coils from Belgium. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 74 FR 30052 (June 24, 2009).
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess countervailing duties at the
cash deposit rate in effect on the date of
entry, for entries during the period
January 1, 2008, through December 31,
2008. The Department intends to issue
appropriate assessment instructions to
CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of this notice of rescission
of administrative review. In addition,
pursuant to an injunction issued in
ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v.
United States, CIT No. 08–00434, on
January 16, 2009, the Department must
continue to suspend liquidation of
entries made by AMS Belgium pending
a conclusive court decision in that
action.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Order
This notice serves as a final reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protection orders (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition 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 sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR
351.213(d)(4).
Rescission of Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(l), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if the party
that requested a review withdraws the
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the notice of initiation of
Dated: October 13, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. E9–25200 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Oct 19, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53707
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–560–824]
Certain Coated Paper From Indonesia:
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gene Calvert or Dana Mermelstein,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3586 or (202) 482–
1391, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On September 23, 2009, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) received a countervailing
duty (‘‘CVD’’) petition concerning
imports of certain coated paper suitable
for high-quality print graphics using
sheet-fed presses (‘‘certain coated
paper’’) from Indonesia filed in proper
form by Appleton Coated LLC, NewPage
Corporation, Sappi Fine Paper North
America, and the United Steel, Paper
and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union
(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). See
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties: Certain Coated
Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print
Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from
Indonesia,’’ dated September 23, 2009
(Indonesia CVD Petition). On September
29, October 5, and October 7, 2009, the
Department issued additional requests
for information and clarification of
certain areas of the Indonesia CVD
Petition. Based on the Department’s
requests, Petitioners timely filed
additional information pertaining to the
Indonesia CVD Petition on October 2,
October 6, and October 9, 2009
(hereinafter, ‘‘Supplement to the
Indonesia CVD Petition,’’ dated October
2, 2009, ‘‘Second Supplement to the
Indonesia CVD Petition,’’ dated October
6, 2009, and ‘‘Third Supplement to the
Indonesia CVD Petition,’’ dated October
9, 2009).
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
(‘‘the Act’’), Petitioners allege that
producers/exporters of certain coated
paper in Indonesia received
countervailable subsidies within the
meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53703-53707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25210]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C-570-959)
Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics
Using Sheet-Fed Presses from the People's Republic of China: Initiation
of Countervailing Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Nair and Joseph Shuler, AD/CVD
Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3813 and (202) 482-1293,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On September 23, 2009, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
received a petition filed in proper form by 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 (collectively, ``Petitioners''), domestic producers
of certain coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using
sheet-fed presses (``coated paper'').\1\ In response to the
Department's requests, Petitioners provided timely information
supplementing the Petition on October 2, 2009, and October 6, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as Amended: Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-
Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fred Presses from the People's
Republic of China, dated September 23, 2009 (``Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), Petitioners allege that manufacturers,
producers, or exporters of coated paper in the People's Republic of
China (``PRC'') receive countervailable subsidies within the meaning of
section 701 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring,
or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined
in section 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, and Petitioners have
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the
countervailing duty (``CVD'') investigation (see ``Determination of
Industry Support for the Petition'' section below).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is January 1, 2008, through December
31, 2008.
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by the investigation are coated paper products
from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the investigation,
please see ``Scope of Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with
Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations (Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19,
1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise
issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all
interested parties to submit such comments by November 2, 2009, twenty
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Comments should
be addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230. The period of the scope consultations is intended
to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all
comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the
preliminary determination.
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, on September 23,
2009, the Department invited representatives of the Government of the
PRC (``GOC'') for consultations with respect to the CVD petition. The
GOC did not request such consultations, however, on October 13, 2009,
the GOC's Ministry of Commerce submitted to the United States Embassy
in Beijing, China comments pertaining to the Petition.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
[[Page 53704]]
petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production
of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition.
Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the
petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) poll the industry or
rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically valid sampling method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (``ITC''),
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry''
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product (see section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.
Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988), aff'd
865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners offer a
definition of domestic like product that includes sheeter rolls (rolls
of certain coated paper intended to be slit and used in sheet-fed
presses) and, therefore, is broader than the scope of the
investigation, which does not include sheeter rolls. Based on our
analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined
that coated paper described in the scope of the investigation and
sheeter rolls constitute a single domestic like product and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a
discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Coated
Paper from the PRC (``PRC Initiation Checklist'') at Attachment II,
Analysis of Industry Support for the Petitions Covering Certain Coated
Paper from the People's Republic of China and Indonesia, dated
concurrently with this notice and on file in the Central Records Unit,
Room 1117 of the main Department of Commerce building.
In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the Petition. To establish industry support, Petitioners
provided their own 2008 shipments of the domestic like product, as well
as one supporting company's (SMART Papers) 2008 shipments, and compared
the total to the 2008 shipments of the entire domestic industry. See
Volume I of the Petition, at 2-3, Exhibits I-3, I-4, and I-19, and
Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated October 2, 2009, at 19-22 and
Exhibit 4. Petitioners estimated total 2008 shipments of the domestic
like product based on the American Forest & Paper Association annual
Coated Printing Papers Survey. See Volume I of the Petition, at 3 and
Exhibits I-3 and I-4, and Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated
October 2, 2009, at 22 and Exhibit 4; see also PRC Initiation Checklist
at Attachment II.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support. First,
the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers)
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling). See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC Initiation
Checklist at Attachment II. Second, the domestic producers (or workers)
have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section
702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers)
who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product. See PRC Initiation Checklist
at Attachment II. Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met
the statutory criteria for industry support under section
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers)
who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1)
of the Act. See id.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined
in sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act and they have
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD
investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate. See id.
Injury Test
Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that imports of coated paper from the PRC are
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the domestic industry
producing certain coated paper. In addition, Petitioners allege that
subsidized imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depressing
and suppressing effects, increased import penetration, lost sales and
revenue, reduced production, capacity, and capacity utilization,
reduced shipments and inventories, reduced employment, and reduced
financial performance. We have assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury,
[[Page 53705]]
threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that
these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet
the statutory requirements for initiation. See PRC Initiation Checklist
at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Petitions Covering Certain Coated Paper
from the People's Republic of China and Indonesia.
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation
Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD
proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of
an industry that: (1) alleges the elements necessary for an imposition
of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by
information reasonably available to Petitioner(s) supporting the
allegations.
The Department has examined the CVD petition on coated paper from
the PRC and finds that it complies with the requirements of section
702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the
Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether
manufacturers, producers, or exporters of coated paper in the PRC
receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence
supporting our initiation determination, see Initiation Checklist.
We are including in our investigation the following programs
alleged in the Petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC:
A. Preferential Lending to the Coated Paper Industry
1. Policy Loans from State-Owned Commercial Banks and Government
Policy Banks
2. Fast-Growth High-Yield Forestry Program Loans
B. Income Tax Programs
1. Income Tax Exemption/Reduction under ``Two-Free/Three Half''
Program
2. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reductions for ``Productive''
Foreign-Invested Enterprises (``FIEs'')
3. Income Tax Reduction for FIEs Purchasing Domestically-Produced
Equipment
4. Tax Subsidies to FIEs Based on Geographic Location
5. Preferential Tax Policies for Technology or Knowledge-Intensive
FIEs
6. Tax Programs for FIEs that are High or New Technology
Enterprises
7. Income Tax Reductions for High-Technology Industries in
Guangdong Province
8. Preferential Tax Policies for Research and Development at FIEs
9. Income Tax Credits for Domestically-Owned Companies Purchasing
Domestically-Produced Equipment
10. Income Tax Exemption Program for Export-Oriented FIEs
11. Corporate Income Tax Refund Program for Reinvestment of FIE
profits in Export-Oriented Enterprises
12. Exemption from City Maintenance and Construction Taxes and
Education Surcharges for FIEs
C. Indirect Tax and Import Tariff Programs
1. Value Added Tax (``VAT'') and Tariff Exemptions on Imported
Equipment
2. VAT Rebates on Domestically Produced Equipment
3. Domestic VAT Refunds for Companies Located in the Hainan
Economic Development Zone
D. Grant Programs
1. Funds for Forestry Plantation Construction and Management
2. The State Key Technologies Renovation Project Fund
3. Loan Interest Subsidies for Major Industrial Technology Reform
Projects in Wuhan
4. Funds for Water Treatment Improvement Projects in the
Songhuajiang Basin
5. Special Fund for Energy Saving Technology Reform in Wuhan and
Shouguang Municipality
6. Clean Production Technology Fund
7. Famous Brands Awards
E. Provision of Goods or Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration
(``LTAR'')
1. Papermaking Chemicals
2. Electricity
3. Land-Use Rights to State Owned Enterprises
F. Economic Development Zone Programs
1. Subsidies in the Nanchang EDZ
2. Subsidies in the Wuhan EDZ
3. Subsidies in the Yangpu EDZ
4. Subsidies in the Zhenjiang EDZ
For further information explaining why the Department is investigating
these programs, see Initiation Checklist.
We are not including in our investigation the following programs
alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise
in the PRC:
1. State Science and Technology Support Scheme
Petitioners allege that the GOC provides grants to support research
and development under the National Mid-term and Long-term Science and
Technology Plan (2006 - 2020). While the Department has relied on
policy directives such as the 2007 Paper Plan and Decision No. 40 to
support specificity findings with respect to policy lending,
Petitioners have not pointed to any language in these policy directives
regarding grants to promote research and development. Instead, the
grants are given pursuant to the Science and Technology Plan and
Petitioners' specificity allegations in this respect are based on
Section 771(5A)(D)(ii) and (D)(iii)(I) of the Act. Regarding the
former, Petitioners appear to argue that because eligibility is not
automatic ((D)(ii)(I)) and/or because the eligibility criteria are not
clearly set out ((D)(ii)(III)), the program is specific as a matter of
law. However, Petitioners have misconstrued the structure of (D)(ii)
and a finding of de jure specificity set forth under section
771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Section 771(5A)(D)(ii) does not mean that if
one or more of the criterion listed under this section of the Act is
not meet then the program is specific as a matter of law. To be
specific as a matter of law the program must meet the standard set
forth under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act: the legislation under
which the program operates expressly limits access to the subsidy to an
enterprise or industry. Petitioners have failed to sufficiently allege
or support a claim that this program is de jure specific under Section
771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Finally, Petitioners have provided no support
for their claim that the number of recipients is limited. Consequently,
we do not plan on investigating this program.
2. Special Funds for Environmental Protection
Petitioners allege that central, provincial, and local government
funds, in the form of grants or loan interest subsidies, are available
to support certain qualified environmental protection projects.
Although Petitioners point to specific language in the Papermaking Plan
regarding policy support, that Plan was in place from 2001 - 2005,
while the measures authorizing these grants were put in place after
that timeframe. Further, Petitioners have not provided evidence showing
that grants provided pursuant
[[Page 53706]]
to these authorizations are specific in law under Section 771(5A)(D)(i)
or in fact under Section 771(5A)(D)(iii). We do not agree with
Petitioners' claim of specificity under Section 771(5A)(D)(ii) for the
reasons explained above under, ``State Science and Technology Support
Scheme.'' Consequently, we do not plan on investigating this program.
3. Provision of Coal for LTAR
Petitioners allege that the GOC provides coal to Chinese producers
of coated paper for LTAR. Petitioners have not supported their
allegation that this program is specific to paper producers. The
program as it relates to electricity generation targets the electricity
industry, not the papermaking industry. Further, Petitioners have not
supported their claim that the paper industry is an ``export
industry.'' Consequently, we do not plan on investigating this program.
4. Provision of Water for LTAR
Petitioners allege that the GOC provides favored sectors with
differential water rates and unlimited water use. Petitioners have not
provided sufficient support of a national policy to provide water for
LTAR to coated paper producers. Consequently, we do not plan on
investigating this program.
5. Currency Undervaluation
Petitioners allege that the GOC-maintained exchange rate
effectively prevents the appreciation of the Chinese currency (RMB)
against the U.S. dollar. Therefore, when producers/exporters in the PRC
sell their dollars at official foreign exchange banks, as required by
law, the producers receive more RMB than they otherwise would if the
value of the RMB were set by market mechanisms. In the alternative,
Petitioners allege that GOC foreign exchange market interventions
constitute a price support (of the U.S. dollar vis a vis the RMB),
within the meaning of section 771(5)(B)(ii). In both cases, Petitioners
describe the benefit conferred as the excess of RMB received, over what
would have been received at a market rate (``excess RMB'') and alleges
specificity within the meaning of Section 771(5A)(B) of the Act by
virtue of the fact that `` there is a direct and positive correlation
between the export activity/export earnings and the amount of subsidy
received.'' Section 771(5A)(B) of the Act describes an export subsidy
as `` a subsidy that is, in law or fact, contingent upon export
performance, alone or as 1 of 2 or more conditions.'' Petitioners have
failed to sufficiently allege that the receipt of the excess RMB is
contingent on export or export performance because receipt of the
excess RMB is independent of the type of transaction or commercial
activity for which the dollars are converted or of the particular
company or individuals converting the dollars. Consequently, we do not
plan on investigating this program because Petitioners have failed to
properly allege the specificity element.
Respondent Selection
For this investigation, the Department expects to select
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data
for U.S. imports during the period of investigation. We intend to
release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (``APO'') to
all parties with access to information protected by APO within five
days of the announcement of the initiation of this investigation.
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and
respondent selection within seven calendar days of publication of this
notice. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection
within 20 days of publication of this Federal Register notice.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such
applications may be found on the Department's website at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of
the public version of the Petition has been provided to the Government
of the PRC. As soon as and to the extent practicable, we will attempt
to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each
exporter named in the Petition, consistent with section 351.203(c)(2)
of the Department's regulations
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date
on which it receives notice of the initiation, whether there is a
reasonable indication that imports of subsidized coated paper from the
PRC are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material
injury, to a U.S. industry. See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being
terminated; otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: October 13, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain coated
paper and paperboard\2\ 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\3\; 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ `` `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.'''
\3\ One 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 that meets this scope definition.
Certain Coated Paper is typically (but not exclusively) used for
printing multi-colored 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,
[[Page 53707]]
4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000, 4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70. While
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the scope of the investigation is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. E9-25210 Filed 10-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
