Certain Uncoated Paper From the People's Republic of China and Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 8598-8603 [2015-03337]
Download as PDF
8598
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices
notice. No other changes have been
made to the Preliminary Results.
This corrected preliminary results and
partial rescission is issued and
published in accordance with section
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: February 6, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Appendix II
Companies for which review was
rescinded
1. Aiko Solar
2. Amplesun Solar
3. Beijing Hope Industry
4. Best Solar Hi-tech
5. CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science
Technology Co., Ltd.
6. CEEG Nanjing Renewable Energy Co., Ltd.
7. China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.
8. China Sunergy
9. Chinalight Solar
10. CNPV Dongying Solar Power Co., Ltd.
11. Dai Hwa Industrial
12. EGing
13. ENN Solar Energy
14. General Solar Power
15. Golden Partner Development
16. Goldpoly (Quanzhou)
17. Hairun Photovoltaics Technology Co., Ltd
18. Hanwha Solar One (Qidong) Co., Ltd.
19. Hareon Solar Technology
20. HC Solar Power Co., Ltd.
21. JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd.
22. Jetion Solar (China) Co., Ltd.
23. Jia Yi Energy Technology
24. Jiasheng Photovoltaic Tech.
25. Jiangxi Green Power Co. Ltd.
26. Jiawei Solar Holding
27. Jiawei Solarchina Co. (Shenzhen), Ltd
28. JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
29. Jiutai Energy
30. Linuo Photovoltaic
31. Ningbo Komaes Solar Technology Co.,
Ltd.
32. Perfectenergy
33. Polar Photovoltaics
34. Qiangsheng (QS Solar)
35. QXPV (Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical
Appliance Co., Ltd)
36. Refine Solar
37. Risen Energy Co, Ltd.
38. Risun Solar (JiangXi Ruijing Solar Power
Co., Ltd.)
39. Sanjing Silicon
40. Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy
41. Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.
42. Shanghai Solar Energy Science &
Technology Co., Ltd.
43. Shangpin Solar
44. Shanshan Ulica
45. Shenzhen Global Solar Energy Tech.
46. Shuqimeng Energy Tech
47. Skybasesolar
48. Solargiga Energy Holdings Ltd.
49. Sunflower
50. Sunlink PV
51. Sunvim Solar Technology
52. Tainergy Tech
53. tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
54. Tianjin Jinneng Solar Cell
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:32 Feb 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
55. Topsolar
56. Trony
57. Weihai China Glass Solar
58. Wuxi Sun-shine Power Co., Ltd.
59. Wuxi University Science Park
International Incubator Co., Ltd.
60. Yuhan Sinosola Science & Technology
Co., Ltd.
61. Yuhuan Solar Energy Source Co., Ltd.
62. Yunnan Tianda
63. Yunnan Zhuoye Energy
64. Zhejinag Leye Photovoltaic Science and
Technology Co., Ltd.
65. Zhejiang Top Point Photovoltaic Co., Ltd.
66. Zhejiang Wanxiang Solar Co, Ltd.
67. Zhenjiang Huantai Silicon Science and
Technology Co., Ltd.
Appendix III
Companies for which review will continue,
but not selected for individual review
1. Baoding Jiansheng Photovoltaic
Technology Co., Ltd.
2. Boading Tianwei Yingli New Energy
Resources Co., Ltd.
3. Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy
Resources Co. Ltd.
4. Canadian Solar International Limited
5. Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu)
Inc.
6. Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang)
Inc.
7. Changzhou NESL Solartech Co., Ltd.
8. Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.
9. Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.
10. CSG PVTech Co., Ltd.
11. DelSolar Co., Ltd.
12. De-Tech Trading Limited HK
13. Dongfang Electric (Yixing) MAGI Solar
Power Technology Co., Ltd.
14. Eoplly New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
15. Era Solar Co., Ltd.
16. ET Solar Energy Limited.
17. Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co.,
Ltd.
18. Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny
Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd.
19. Hendigan Group Dmegc Magnetics
20. Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources
Co., Ltd.
21. Himin Clean Energy Holdings Co., Ltd.
22. Innovosolar
23. Jiangsu Green Power PV Co., Ltd.
24. Jiangxi Sunlink PV Technology Ltd.
25. Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology
Co., Ltd.
26. Jiangsu Sunlink PV Technology Co., Ltd.
27. Jiawei Solarchina Co. Ltd.
28. Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.
29. Jinko Solar Import and Export Co., Ltd.
30. Jinko Solar International Limited
31. Konca Solar Cell Co., Ltd.
32. Kuttler Automation Systems (Suzhou) Co.
Ltd.
33. LDK Solar Hi-tech (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
34. LDK Solar Hi-tech (Nanchang)
35. Leye Photovoltaic Science & Technology
Co., Ltd.
36. Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co.,
Ltd.
37. Luoyang Suntech Power Co., Ltd.
38. Magi Solar Technology
39. Motech (Suzhou) Renewable Energy Co.,
Ltd.
40. MS Solar Investments LLC
41. Ningbo Ulica Solar Science & Technology
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Co., Ltd.
42. Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance
Co. Ltd.
43. Ningbo ETDZ Holdings Ltd.
44. Perlight Solar Co., Ltd.
45. ReneSola
46. Renesola Jiangsu Ltd.
47. Shenzen Topray Solar Co., Ltd.
48. Shanghai Machinery Complete
Equipment (Group) Corp., Ltd.
49. Shenglong PV Tech.
50. Shenzhen Suntech Power Co., Ltd.
51. ShunFeng PV
52. Solarbest Energy—Tech (Zhejiang) Co.,
Ltd.
53. Sopray Energy
54. Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd.
55. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Ltd.
56. Suntech Power Co., Ltd.
57. Suzhou Shenglong PV-Tech Co., Ltd.
58. Tianwei New Energy (Chengdu) PV
Module Co., Ltd.
59. Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co,
Ltd.
60. Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science &
Technology Co, Ltd.
61. Topray
62. Upsolar Group, Co. Ltd.
63. Wanxiang Import & Export Co., Ltd.
64. Wuxi Sunshine Power
65. Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd.
66. Yangzhou Rietech Renewal Energy Co.,
Ltd.
67. Yangzhou Suntech Power Co., Ltd.
68. Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited.
69. Yingli Green Energy International
Trading Company Limited.
70. Zhejiang Jiutai New Energy Co. Ltd.
71. Zhejiang Shuqimeng Photovoltaic
Technology Co., Ltd.
72. Zhejiang Xinshun Guangfu Science and
Technology Co., Ltd.
73. Zhejiang ZG-Cells Co, Ltd.
74. Zhenjiang Rietech New Energy Science &
Technology Co., Ltd.
75. Zhiheng Solar Inc.
76. Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy
Sciences & Technology Limited Liability
Company
[FR Doc. 2015–03340 Filed 2–17–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–023, C–560–829]
Certain Uncoated Paper From the
People’s Republic of China and
Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing
Duty Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: February 18,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Tran at (202) 482–1503 or Joy
Zhang at (202) 482–1168 (People’s
Republic of China (PRC)); David
Goldberger at (202) 482–4136 or
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices
Katherine Johnson at (202) 482–4929
(Indonesia), AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The Petitions
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
On January 21, 2015, the Department
of Commerce (Department) received
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions
concerning imports of certain uncoated
paper from the PRC and Indonesia filed
in proper form on behalf of United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers
International Union; Domtar
Corporation; Finch Paper LLC; P.H.
Glatfelter Company; and Packaging
Corporation of America (collectively,
the petitioners). The CVD petitions were
accompanied by antidumping duty (AD)
petitions concerning imports of certain
uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil,
the PRC, Indonesia, and Portugal.1 The
petitioners are domestic producers of
uncoated paper,2 and a certified union
with workers engaged in the
manufacture and production of the
domestic like product in the United
States.3
On January 26 and 27, 2015, the
Department requested information and
clarification for certain areas of the
Petitions.4 The petitioners filed
1 See ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain
Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, China,
Indonesia, and Portugal and Countervailing Duties
on Imports from China and Indonesia,’’ dated
January 21, 2015 (Petitions).
2 See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–2 and Exhibit
I–2.
3 Id. at, I–1—I–2 and Exhibit I–2.
4 See Letter from the Department to the
petitioners entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain
Uncoated Paper from the People’s Republic of
China (PRC): Supplemental Questions,’’ dated
January 26, 2015 (PRC Deficiency Questionnaire);
Letter from the Department to the petitioners,
‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from
Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People’s Republic
of China, and Portugal, and Countervailing Duties
on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from
Indonesia and the People’s Republic of China:
Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 26, 2015
(General Issues Questionnaire); Letter from the
Department to the petitioners entitled ‘‘Petition for
the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports
of Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia:
Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 27, 2015
(Indonesia Deficiency Questionnaire); and
Memorandum to the File entitled ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Certain Uncoated Paper from the People’s Republic
of China: Addendum to Supplemental Questions,’’
dated January 27, 2015 (PRC Addendum).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:32 Feb 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
responses to these requests on January
29 and 30, 2015.5
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘the Act’’), the petitioners allege that
the Government of the PRC (GOC) and
the Government of Indonesia (GOI) are
providing countervailable subsidies
(within the meaning of sections 701 and
771(5) of the Act) to imports of certain
uncoated paper from the PRC and
Indonesia, respectively, and that such
imports are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, an
industry in the United States. Also,
consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the
Act, the Petitions are accompanied by
information reasonably available to the
petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because the
petitioners are interested parties as
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of
the Act. The Department also finds that
the petitioners demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
initiation of the CVD investigations that
the petitioners are requesting.6
Period of Investigations
The period of the investigation for
both the PRC and Indonesia is January
1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.7
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these
investigations is certain uncoated paper
from the PRC and Indonesia. For a full
description of the scope of these
investigations, see the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigations’’ in Appendix I of this
notice.
Comments on Scope of the
Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the
Department issued questions to, and
received responses from, the petitioners
pertaining to the proposed scope to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petitions would be an accurate
5 See
Letter from the petitioners entitled ‘‘Certain
Uncoated Paper From The People’s Republic Of
China/Petitioners’ Response To The Department’s
Questions Regarding The Petition,’’ dated January
29, 2015 (PRC CVD Supplement); Letter from the
petitioners entitled ‘‘Certain Uncoated Paper From
Indonesia/Petitioners’ Response To The
Department’s Questions Regarding The Petition,’’
dated January 30, 2015 (Indonesia CVD
Supplement); and Letter from the petitioners
entitled ‘‘Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia,
Brazil, The People’s Republic of China, Indonesia,
And Portugal/Petitioners’ Response To The
Department’s General Questions Regarding The
Petition,’’ dated January 30, 2015 (General Issues
Supplement).
6 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions’’ section below.
7 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8599
reflection of the products for which the
domestic industry is seeking relief.8
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations,9 we are
setting aside a period for interested
parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage (scope). The period for scope
comments 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 determinations. If scope
comments include factual information
(see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such
factual information should be limited to
public information. All such comments
must be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time (‘‘EST’’) on March 2,
2015, which is 20 calendar days from
the signature date of this notice. Any
rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information, must be filed by
5:00 p.m. EST on March 12, 2015,
which is 10 calendar days after the
initial comments deadline.10
The Department requests that any
factual information the parties consider
relevant to the scope of the
investigations be submitted during this
time period. However, if a party
subsequently finds that additional
factual information pertaining to the
scope of the investigations may be
relevant, the party may contact the
Department and request permission to
submit the additional information. All
such comments must be filed on the
records of the PRC and Indonesia CVD
investigations, as well as the concurrent
Australia, Brazil, the PRC, Indonesia,
and Portugal AD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using
Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(ACCESS).11 An electronically-filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by the time and date it is
8 See General Issues Questionnaire; see also
General Issues Supplement.
9 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties;
Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
10 According to the Department practice, when a
date falls on a weekend or a federal holiday,
submissions become due the next business day; see
Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next
Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative
Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act
of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
11 On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and
Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and
Compliance’s AD and CVD Centralized Electronic
Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’) to AD and CVD
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
The Web site location was changed from https://
iaaccess.trade.gov to https://access.trade.gov. The
Final Rule changing the reference to the Regulations
can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
8600
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices
due. Documents excepted from the
electronic submission requirements
must be filed manually (i.e., in paper
form) with Enforcement and
Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room
1870, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230, and
stamped with the date and time of
receipt by the applicable deadlines.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of
the Act, the Department notified
representatives of the GOC and the GOI
of the receipt of the Petitions. Also, in
accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii)
of the Act, the Department provided
representatives of the GOC and the GOI
the opportunity for consultations with
respect to the Petitions.12 Consultations
were held with the GOC on February 5,
2015. Consultations were held with the
GOI on February 9, 2015. All
memoranda are on file electronically via
ACCESS.13
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions
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
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 to poll the
‘‘industry.’’
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product, or
those producers whose collective output
of a domestic like product constitutes a
major proportion of the total domestic
production of the product. Thus, to
12 See Letter of Invitation from the Department to
the GOI dated January 21, 2015, and Letter of
Invitation from the Department to the GOC dated
January 26, 2015.
13 See supra fn.10 for information pertaining to
ACCESS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:32 Feb 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
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,14 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.15
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 Petitions).
With regard to the domestic like
product, the petitioners do not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigations. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we determined that uncoated
paper constitutes a single domestic like
product and we analyzed industry
support in terms of that domestic like
product.16
In determining whether the
petitioners have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered
the industry support data contained in
section 771(10) of the Act.
USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988),
aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
16 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Uncoated
Paper from the People’s Republic of China (PRC
CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II,
Analysis of Industry Support for the Petitions
Covering Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the
People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal
(Attachment II); and Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Uncoated
Paper from Indonesia (Indonesia CVD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are
dated concurrently with this notice and on file
electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents
filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central
Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department
of Commerce building.
the Petitions with reference to the
domestic like product as defined in the
‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in
Appendix I of this notice. To establish
industry support, the petitioners
provided their shipments of the
domestic like product in 2014, and
compared their shipments to the
estimated total shipments of the
domestic like product for the entire
domestic industry.17 Because total
industry production data for the
domestic like product for 2014 are not
reasonably available and the petitioners
have established that shipments are a
reasonable proxy for production data,18
we relied upon the shipment data
provided by the petitioners for purposes
of measuring industry support.19
Based on the data provided in the
Petitions, supplemental submission, and
other information readily available to
the Department, we determine that the
petitioners have established industry
support.20 First, the Petitions
established support from domestic
producers (or workers) accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
shipments 21 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).22 Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) 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 Petitions
account for at least 25 percent of the
total shipments of the domestic like
product.23 Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) 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 Petitions
account for more than 50 percent of the
shipments of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petitions.24 Accordingly, the
14 See
15 See
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17 See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–2 through
I–4 and Exhibit I–3; see also General Issues
Supplement, at 5–8 and Exhibits I–S4 through I–S7.
18 See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–3 and
Exhibit I–4.
19 For further discussion, see PRC CVD Checklist
and Indonesia CVD Checklist, at Attachment II.
20 Id.
21 As mentioned above, the petitioners have
established that shipments are a reasonable proxy
for production data. Section 351.203(e)(1) of the
Department’s regulations states ‘‘production levels
may be established by reference to alternative data
that the Secretary determines to be indicative of
production levels.’’
22 See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
PRC CVD Checklist and Indonesia CVD Checklist,
at Attachment II.
23 Id.
24 Id.
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices
Department determines that the
Petitions were filed on behalf of the
domestic industry within the meaning
of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because they
are interested parties as defined in
sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and
they have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
CVD investigations that they are
requesting the Department initiate.25
Injury Test
Because Indonesia and the PRC are
‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’
within the meaning of section 701(b) of
the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to these investigations.
Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject
merchandise from Indonesia and the
PRC materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, a U.S. industry.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that imports of
the subject merchandise are benefitting
from countervailable subsidies and that
such imports are causing, or threaten to
cause, material injury to the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product. The petitioners allege that
subject imports exceed the negligibility
threshold of three percent provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.26 In
CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the
Act provides that imports of subject
merchandise from developing countries
must exceed the negligibility threshold
of four percent. The petitioners also
demonstrate that subject imports from
Indonesia, which has been designated as
a developing country under section
771(36)(A) of the Act, exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(B) of the Act.27
The petitioners contend that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share;
underselling and price suppression or
depression; lost sales and revenues;
adverse impact on the domestic
industry, including mill closures,
decline in production, and decline in
shipments; reduced employment
variables; and adverse impact on
financial performance.28 We assessed
25 Id.
26 See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–23, I–24 and
Exhibit I–12; see also General Issues Supplement,
at 11 and Exhibit I–S11.
27 Id.
28 See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–22 through
I–43 and Exhibits I–3 and I–10 through I–26; see
also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 8–11 and
Exhibits I–S1 and I–S8 through I–S13.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:32 Feb 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
the allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury, threat of
material injury, and causation, and we
determined that these allegations are
properly supported by adequate
evidence and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation.29
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigations
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
the Department to initiate a CVD
investigation whenever an interested
party files a CVD 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 the petitioners
supporting the allegations.
The petitioners allege that producers/
exporters of certain uncoated paper in
the PRC and Indonesia benefited from
countervailable subsidies bestowed by
the governments of these countries,
respectively. The Department examined
the Petitions and finds that they comply
with the requirements of section
702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in
accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the
Act, we are initiating CVD
investigations to determine whether
manufacturers, producers, or exporters
of certain uncoated paper from the PRC
and Indonesia receive countervailable
subsidies from the governments of these
countries, respectively.
The PRC
Based on our review of the petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on 21 of the 22 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision to initiate or not
initiate on each program, see the PRC
CVD Initiation Checklist.
Indonesia
Based on our review of the petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on 14 of the 15 alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision to initiate or not
initiate on each program, see the
Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist.
A public version of the initiation
checklist for each investigation is
available on ACCESS and at https://
trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1),
29 See Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist and
PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain
Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People’s
Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8601
unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determinations no later
than 65 days after the date of this
initiation.
Respondent Selection
The petitioners named eight
companies as producers/exporters of
certain uncoated paper from the PRC
and six companies as producers/
exporters of certain uncoated paper
from Indonesia.30 Following standard
practice in CVD investigations, the
Department will, where appropriate,
select respondents based on U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
data for U.S. imports of uncoated paper
during the period of investigation under
the following Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) numbers: 4802.56.1000,
4802.56.2000, 4802.56.3000,
4802.56.4000, 4802.56.6000,
4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040,
4802.57.1000, 4802.57.2000,
4802.57.3000, and 4802.57.4000. We
intend to release CBP data under
Administrative Protective Order (APO)
to all parties with access to information
protected by APO shortly after the
announcement of these case initiations.
The Department invites comments
regarding CBP data and respondent
selection within five calendar days of
publication of this Federal Register
notice. Comments must be filed
electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically-filed document must be
received successfully in its entirety by
the Department’s electronic records
system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EST by the
date noted above. 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 Web
site at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version
of the Petitions have been provided to
the GOC and GOI via ACCESS. To the
extent practicable, we will attempt to
provide a copy of the public version of
the Petitions to each known exporter (as
named in the Petitions), consistent with
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We notified the ITC of our initiation,
as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
30 See
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–7.
18FEN1
8602
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petitions were filed, whether there
is a reasonable indication that imports
of certain uncoated paper from the PRC
and/or Indonesia are materially injuring,
or threatening material injury to, a U.S.
industry.31 A negative ITC
determination for either country will
result in the investigation being
terminated with respect to that
country;32 otherwise, these
investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Submission of Factual Information
On April 10, 2013, the Department
published Definition of Factual
Information and Time Limits for
Submission of Factual Information:
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10,
2013), which modified two regulations
related to AD and CVD proceedings: The
definition of factual information (19
CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits
for the submission of factual
information (19 CFR 351.301). The final
rule identifies five categories of factual
information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21),
which are summarized as follows: (i)
Evidence submitted in response to
questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted
in support of allegations; (iii) publicly
available information to value factors
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure
the adequacy of remuneration under 19
CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed
on the record by the Department; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). The final rule
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted and, if the information is
submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation
identifying the information already on
the record that the factual information
seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The
final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301
so that, rather than providing general
time limits, there are specific time limits
based on the type of factual information
being submitted. These modifications
are effective for all proceeding segments
initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and
thus are applicable to these
investigations. Interested parties should
review the final rule, available at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/
1304frn/2013–08227.txt, prior to
31 See
section 703(a) of the Act.
19:32 Feb 17, 2015
Revised Extension of Time Limits
Regulation
On September 20, 2013, the
Department modified its regulation
concerning the extension of time limits
for submissions in AD and CVD
proceedings.33 The modification
clarifies that parties may request an
extension of time limits before a time
limit established under Part 351 expires,
or as otherwise specified by the
Secretary. In general, an extension
request will be considered untimely if it
is filed after the time limit established
under Part 351 expires. For submissions
which are due from multiple parties
simultaneously, an extension request
will be considered untimely if it is filed
after 10:00 a.m. on the due date.
Examples include, but are not limited
to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual
information to value factors under 19
CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR
351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification
and correction information filed
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3)
comments concerning the selection of a
surrogate country and surrogate values
and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning
CBP data; and (5) quantity and value
questionnaires. Under certain
circumstances, the Department may
elect to specify a different time limit by
which extension requests will be
considered untimely for submissions
which are due from multiple parties
simultaneously. In such a case, the
Department will inform parties in the
letter or memorandum setting forth the
deadline (including a specified time) by
which extension requests must be filed
to be considered timely. This
modification also requires that an
extension request must be made in a
separate, stand-alone submission, and
clarifies the circumstances under which
the Department will grant untimelyfiled requests for the extension of time
limits. These modifications are effective
for all segments initiated on or after
October 21, 2013, and thus are
applicable to these investigations.
Interested parties should review
Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule,
available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/201322853.htm, prior to submitting factual
information in these investigations.
33 See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR
57790 (September 20, 2013).
32 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
submitting factual information in these
investigations.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.34
Parties are hereby reminded that revised
certification requirements are in effect
for company/government officials, as
well as their representatives.
Investigations initiated on the basis of
petitions filed on or after August 16,
2013, and other segments of any AD or
CVD proceedings initiated on or after
August 16, 2013, should use the formats
for the revised certifications provided at
the end of the Final Rule.35 The
Department intends to reject factual
submissions if the submitting party does
not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, the Department
published Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures;
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate
in these investigations should ensure
that they meet the requirements of these
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the
Act.
Dated: February 10, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these
investigations includes uncoated paper in
sheet form; weighing at least 40 grams per
square meter but not more than 150 grams
per square meter; that either is a white paper
with a GE brightness level1 of 85 or higher
34 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’); see also frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
1 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 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.
‘‘Colored paper’’ as used in this scope definition
means a paper with a hue other than white that
reflects one of the primary colors of magenta,
35 See
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices
or is a colored paper; whether or not surfacedecorated, printed (except as described
below), embossed, perforated, or punched;
irrespective of the smoothness of the surface;
and irrespective of dimensions (Certain
Uncoated Paper).
Certain Uncoated Paper includes (a)
uncoated free sheet paper that meets this
scope definition; (b) uncoated groundwood
paper produced from bleached chemithermo-mechanical pulp (BCTMP) that meets
this scope definition; and (c) any other
uncoated paper that meets this scope
definition regardless of the type of pulp used
to produce the paper.
Specifically excluded from the scope are
(1) paper printed with final content of
printed text or graphics and (2) lined paper
products, typically school supplies,
composed of paper that incorporates straight
horizontal and/or vertical lines that would
make the paper unsuitable for copying or
printing purposes.
Imports of the subject merchandise are
provided for under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
categories 4802.56.1000, 4802.56.2000,
4802.56.3000, 4802.56.4000, 4802.56.6000,
4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040, 4802.57.1000,
4802.57.2000, 4802.57.3000, and
4802.57.4000. Some imports of subject
merchandise may also be classified under
4802.62.1000, 4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000,
4802.62.5000, 4802.62.6020, 4802.62.6040,
4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, 4802.69.3000,
4811.90.8050 and 4811.90.9080. While
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2015–03337 Filed 2–17–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–918]
Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the
People’s Republic of China; 2013–
2014; Partial Rescission of the Sixth
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On November 28, 2014, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of
initiation of an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on steel
wire garment hangers from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) based on
multiple timely requests for an
administrative review. The review
covers 42 companies. Based on
withdrawals of the requests for review
of certain companies from M&B Metal
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
yellow, and cyan (red, yellow, and blue) or a
combination of such primary colors.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:32 Feb 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Petitioner’’), and
Hangzhou Yingqing Material Co. Ltd
(‘‘Yingqing Material’’), we are now
rescinding this administrative review
with respect to 35 companies.
DATES: Effective Date: February 18,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Katie Marksberry, AD/CVD Operations,
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)
482–7906.
Background
In October 2014, the Department
received multiple timely requests to
conduct an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on steel wire
garment hangers from the PRC.1 Based
upon these requests, on November 28,
2014, the Department published a notice
of initiation of an administrative review
of the Order covering the period October
1, 2013, to September 30, 2014.2 The
Department initiated the administrative
review with respect to 42 companies.3
On December 19, 2014, Petitioner
withdrew its request for an
administrative review on 35
companies.4 Additionally, on February
2, 2015, Yingqing Material withdrew its
request for a review of itself.5
Partial Rescission
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if a party
who requested the review withdraws
the request within 90 days of the date
of publication of notice of initiation of
the requested review. All requests for
administrative reviews on the 35
companies listed in the Appendix were
withdrawn.6 Accordingly, we are
rescinding this review, in part, with
1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Steel
Wire Garment Hangers From the People’s Republic
of China, 73 FR 58111 (October 6, 2008) (‘‘Order’’).
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR
70850 (November 28, 2014).
3 Id.
4 See Letter to the Department from Petitioners,
Re: Petitioner’s Withdrawal of Review Requests for
Specific Companies, dated December 19, 2014.
5 See Letter to the Department from Yingqing
Material; Re: Withdrawal from Review, dated
February 2, 2015.
6 As stated in Change in Practice in NME Reviews,
the Department will no longer consider the nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’) entity as an exporter
conditionally subject to administrative reviews. See
Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of
Change in Department Practice for Respondent
Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and
Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy
Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78
FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8603
respect to these entities, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Assessment
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. For the companies
for which this review is rescinded,
antidumping duties shall be assessed at
rates equal to the cash deposit of
estimated antidumping duties required
at the time of entry, or withdrawal from
warehouse, for consumption, in
accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of this notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as the only
reminder to importers for whom this
review is being rescinded, as of the
publication date of this notice, 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 the antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. 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 terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751 and
777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: February 6, 2015.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
APPENDIX
1 Da Sheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.
E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM
18FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8598-8603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03337]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-023, C-560-829]
Certain Uncoated Paper From the People's Republic of China and
Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: February 18, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Tran at (202) 482-1503 or Joy
Zhang at (202) 482-1168 (People's Republic of China (PRC)); David
Goldberger at (202) 482-4136 or
[[Page 8599]]
Katherine Johnson at (202) 482-4929 (Indonesia), AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The Petitions
On January 21, 2015, the Department of Commerce (Department)
received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of
certain uncoated paper from the PRC and Indonesia filed in proper form
on behalf of United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union;
Domtar Corporation; Finch Paper LLC; P.H. Glatfelter Company; and
Packaging Corporation of America (collectively, the petitioners). The
CVD petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions
concerning imports of certain uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil,
the PRC, Indonesia, and Portugal.\1\ The petitioners are domestic
producers of uncoated paper,\2\ and a certified union with workers
engaged in the manufacture and production of the domestic like product
in the United States.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, China,
Indonesia, and Portugal and Countervailing Duties on Imports from
China and Indonesia,'' dated January 21, 2015 (Petitions).
\2\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-2 and Exhibit I-2.
\3\ Id. at, I-1--I-2 and Exhibit I-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 26 and 27, 2015, the Department requested information
and clarification for certain areas of the Petitions.\4\ The
petitioners filed responses to these requests on January 29 and 30,
2015.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Letter from the Department to the petitioners entitled
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Certain Uncoated Paper from the People's Republic of China (PRC):
Supplemental Questions,'' dated January 26, 2015 (PRC Deficiency
Questionnaire); Letter from the Department to the petitioners,
``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the
People's Republic of China, and Portugal, and Countervailing Duties
on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia and the People's
Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,'' dated January 26, 2015
(General Issues Questionnaire); Letter from the Department to the
petitioners entitled ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia:
Supplemental Questions,'' dated January 27, 2015 (Indonesia
Deficiency Questionnaire); and Memorandum to the File entitled
``Petitions for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports
of Certain Uncoated Paper from the People's Republic of China:
Addendum to Supplemental Questions,'' dated January 27, 2015 (PRC
Addendum).
\5\ See Letter from the petitioners entitled ``Certain Uncoated
Paper From The People's Republic Of China/Petitioners' Response To
The Department's Questions Regarding The Petition,'' dated January
29, 2015 (PRC CVD Supplement); Letter from the petitioners entitled
``Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia/Petitioners' Response To The
Department's Questions Regarding The Petition,'' dated January 30,
2015 (Indonesia CVD Supplement); and Letter from the petitioners
entitled ``Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, The
People's Republic of China, Indonesia, And Portugal/Petitioners'
Response To The Department's General Questions Regarding The
Petition,'' dated January 30, 2015 (General Issues Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), the petitioners allege that the Government of
the PRC (GOC) and the Government of Indonesia (GOI) are providing
countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and
771(5) of the Act) to imports of certain uncoated paper from the PRC
and Indonesia, respectively, and that such imports are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United
States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the
Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the
petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested
parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. The
Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD
investigations that the petitioners are requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigations
The period of the investigation for both the PRC and Indonesia is
January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is certain uncoated
paper from the PRC and Indonesia. For a full description of the scope
of these investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations'' in
Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions
to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See General Issues Questionnaire; see also General Issues
Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\9\ we
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (scope). The period for scope comments 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 determinations. If scope comments include factual
information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information
should be limited to public information. All such comments must be
filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (``EST'') on March 2, 2015,
which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any
rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed
by 5:00 p.m. EST on March 12, 2015, which is 10 calendar days after the
initial comments deadline.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
\10\ According to the Department practice, when a date falls on
a weekend or a federal holiday, submissions become due the next
business day; see Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next
Business Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines
Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department requests that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department
and request permission to submit the additional information. All such
comments must be filed on the records of the PRC and Indonesia CVD
investigations, as well as the concurrent Australia, Brazil, the PRC,
Indonesia, and Portugal AD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\11\ An electronically-
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
time and date it is
[[Page 8600]]
due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements
must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and
Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and
stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed
the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS'') to AD and CVD Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS). The Web site location was
changed from https://iaaccess.trade.gov to https://access.trade.gov.
The Final Rule changing the reference to the Regulations can be
found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department
notified representatives of the GOC and the GOI of the receipt of the
Petitions. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the
Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOC and the GOI the
opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.\12\
Consultations were held with the GOC on February 5, 2015. Consultations
were held with the GOI on February 9, 2015. All memoranda are on file
electronically via ACCESS.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Letter of Invitation from the Department to the GOI
dated January 21, 2015, and Letter of Invitation from the Department
to the GOC dated January 26, 2015.
\13\ See supra fn.10 for information pertaining to ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
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 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 to poll the ``industry.''
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers
whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major
proportion of the total domestic production of the 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,\14\ 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\15\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 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
Petitions).
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we determined that uncoated paper constitutes
a single domestic like product and we analyzed industry support in
terms of that domestic like product.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Certain Uncoated Paper from the People's Republic of
China (PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of
Industry Support for the Petitions Covering Uncoated Paper from
Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and
Portugal (Attachment II); and Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia
(Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These
checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file
electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is
also available in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided
their shipments of the domestic like product in 2014, and compared
their shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like
product for the entire domestic industry.\17\ Because total industry
production data for the domestic like product for 2014 are not
reasonably available and the petitioners have established that
shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data,\18\ we relied
upon the shipment data provided by the petitioners for purposes of
measuring industry support.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-2 through I-4 and
Exhibit I-3; see also General Issues Supplement, at 5-8 and Exhibits
I-S4 through I-S7.
\18\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-3 and Exhibit I-4.
\19\ For further discussion, see PRC CVD Checklist and Indonesia
CVD Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental
submission, and other information readily available to the Department,
we determine that the petitioners have established industry
support.\20\ First, the Petitions established support from domestic
producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total
shipments \21\ 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).\22\ Second, the domestic producers
(or workers) 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 Petitions account for at least 25 percent of
the total shipments of the domestic like product.\23\ Finally, the
domestic producers (or workers) 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 Petitions account for more than
50 percent of the shipments of the domestic like product produced by
that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petitions.\24\ Accordingly, the
[[Page 8601]]
Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the
domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
\21\ As mentioned above, the petitioners have established that
shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data. Section
351.203(e)(1) of the Department's regulations states ``production
levels may be established by reference to alternative data that the
Secretary determines to be indicative of production levels.''
\22\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC CVD
Checklist and Indonesia CVD Checklist, at Attachment II.
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD
investigations that they are requesting the Department initiate.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Indonesia and the PRC are ``Subsidies Agreement Countries''
within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of
the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must
determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Indonesia and
the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S.
industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry
producing the domestic like product. The petitioners allege that
subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold of three percent
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\26\ In CVD petitions,
section 771(24)(B) of the Act provides that imports of subject
merchandise from developing countries must exceed the negligibility
threshold of four percent. The petitioners also demonstrate that
subject imports from Indonesia, which has been designated as a
developing country under section 771(36)(A) of the Act, exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(B) of the
Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-23, I-24 and Exhibit I-
12; see also General Issues Supplement, at 11 and Exhibit I-S11.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression
or depression; lost sales and revenues; adverse impact on the domestic
industry, including mill closures, decline in production, and decline
in shipments; reduced employment variables; and adverse impact on
financial performance.\28\ We assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and
causation, and we determined that these allegations are properly
supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-22 through I-43 and
Exhibits I-3 and I-10 through I-26; see also General Issues
Supplement, at 1, 8-11 and Exhibits I-S1 and I-S8 through I-S13.
\29\ See Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist and PRC CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Uncoated Paper from
Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and
Portugal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD 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 the petitioners
supporting the allegations.
The petitioners allege that producers/exporters of certain uncoated
paper in the PRC and Indonesia benefited from countervailable subsidies
bestowed by the governments of these countries, respectively. The
Department examined the Petitions and finds that they comply with the
requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating CVD investigations
to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of certain
uncoated paper from the PRC and Indonesia receive countervailable
subsidies from the governments of these countries, respectively.
The PRC
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 21 of the 22
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD Initiation
Checklist.
Indonesia
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 14 of the 15
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Indonesia CVD
Initiation Checklist.
A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation
is available on ACCESS and at https://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Respondent Selection
The petitioners named eight companies as producers/exporters of
certain uncoated paper from the PRC and six companies as producers/
exporters of certain uncoated paper from Indonesia.\30\ Following
standard practice in CVD investigations, the Department will, where
appropriate, select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of uncoated paper during the
period of investigation under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (``HTSUS'') numbers: 4802.56.1000, 4802.56.2000,
4802.56.3000, 4802.56.4000, 4802.56.6000, 4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040,
4802.57.1000, 4802.57.2000, 4802.57.3000, and 4802.57.4000. We intend
to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all
parties with access to information protected by APO shortly after the
announcement of these case initiations. The Department invites comments
regarding CBP data and respondent selection within five calendar days
of publication of this Federal Register notice. Comments must be filed
electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be
received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic
records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EST by the date noted above. 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 Web site at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been
provided to the GOC and GOI via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we
will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions
to each known exporter (as named in the Petitions), consistent with 19
CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
[[Page 8602]]
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of certain uncoated paper from the PRC and/or
Indonesia are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a
U.S. industry.\31\ A negative ITC determination for either country will
result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that
country;\32\ otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See section 703(a) of the Act.
\32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information:
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two
regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: The definition of
factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for
the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule
identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted
in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of
allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration
under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the
Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described
in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual
information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)
the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted
to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already
on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or
correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather
than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits
based on the type of factual information being submitted. These
modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or
after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations.
Interested parties should review the final rule, available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to
submitting factual information in these investigations.
Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation
On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation
concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD
proceedings.\33\ The modification clarifies that parties may request an
extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351
expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an
extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the
time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which
are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will
be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date.
Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs,
filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value
factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of
remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction information
filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the
selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4)
comments concerning CBP data; and (5) quantity and value
questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect
to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be
considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties
simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in
the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a
specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be
considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension
request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and
clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant
untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These
modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after
October 21, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations.
Interested parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule,
available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790
(September 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\34\
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final
Rule.\35\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\35\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (``Final Rule''); see also
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: February 10, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these investigations includes
uncoated paper in sheet form; weighing at least 40 grams per square
meter but not more than 150 grams per square meter; that either is a
white paper with a GE brightness level\1\ of 85 or higher
[[Page 8603]]
or is a colored paper; whether or not surface-decorated, printed
(except as described below), embossed, perforated, or punched;
irrespective of the smoothness of the surface; and irrespective of
dimensions (Certain Uncoated Paper).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 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. ``Colored paper'' as used in this scope definition means a
paper with a hue other than white that reflects one of the primary
colors of magenta, yellow, and cyan (red, yellow, and blue) or a
combination of such primary colors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Uncoated Paper includes (a) uncoated free sheet paper
that meets this scope definition; (b) uncoated groundwood paper
produced from bleached chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp (BCTMP) that
meets this scope definition; and (c) any other uncoated paper that
meets this scope definition regardless of the type of pulp used to
produce the paper.
Specifically excluded from the scope are (1) paper printed with
final content of printed text or graphics and (2) lined paper
products, typically school supplies, composed of paper that
incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines that would
make the paper unsuitable for copying or printing purposes.
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) categories
4802.56.1000, 4802.56.2000, 4802.56.3000, 4802.56.4000,
4802.56.6000, 4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040, 4802.57.1000,
4802.57.2000, 4802.57.3000, and 4802.57.4000. Some imports of
subject merchandise may also be classified under 4802.62.1000,
4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, 4802.62.5000, 4802.62.6020,
4802.62.6040, 4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, 4802.69.3000, 4811.90.8050
and 4811.90.9080. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope of the investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2015-03337 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P