Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 63535-63537 [2015-26634]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 202 / Tuesday, October 20, 2015 / Notices and the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC). ETTAC was originally chartered in May of 1994. It was most recently re-chartered until August 2016. Dated: October 14, 2015. Edward A. O’Malley, Office Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries. [FR Doc. 2015–26526 Filed 10–19–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Membership of the International Trade Administration Performance Review Board International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of membership on the International Trade Administration’s Performance Review Board. AGENCY: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 4314(c)(4), the International Trade Administration (ITA), Department of Commerce (DOC), announces the appointment of those individuals who have been selected to serve as members of ITA’s Performance Review Board. The Performance Review Board is responsible for (1) reviewing performance appraisals and rating of Senior Executive Service (SES) members and (2) making recommendations to the appointing authority on other performance management issues, such as pay adjustments, bonuses and Presidential Rank Awards for SES members. The appointment of these members to the Performance Review Board will be for a period of twenty-four (24) months. DATES: The period of appointment for those individuals selected for ITA’s Performance Review Board begins on October 20, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Munz, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Human Resources Management, Office of Executive Resources, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Room 51010, Washington, DC 20230, at (202) 482–4051. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 4314(c)(4), the International Trade Administration (ITA), Department of Commerce (DOC), announces the appointment of those individuals who have been selected to serve as members of ITA’s Performance Review Board. The Performance Review Board is responsible for (1) reviewing performance appraisals and rating of mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:55 Oct 19, 2015 Jkt 238001 Senior Executive Service (SES) members and (2) making recommendations to the appointing authority on other performance management issues, such as pay adjustments, bonuses and Presidential Rank Awards for SES members. The appointment of these members to the Performance Review Board will be for a period of twenty-four (24) months. DATES: The period of appointment for those individuals selected for ITA’s Performance Review Board begins on October 20, 2015. The name, position title, and type of appointment of each member of ITA’s Performance Review Board are set forth below by organization: Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA) Praveen M. Dixit, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Trade Policy and Analysis, Career SES (New Member) Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Career SES (New Member) Jennifer L. Pilat, Director, Advocacy Center, Non-Career SES, Political Advisor, (New Member) Timothy Rosado, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer, Career SES, Chairperson Department of Commerce, Office of the Secretary (OS), Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration (CFO/ ASA) Gay G. Shrum, Director for Administrative Programs, Career SES (New Member) Denise A. Yaag, Director, Office of Executive Resources, Office of Human Resources Management, Office of the Secretary/Office of the CFO/ASA, Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. 2015–26576 Filed 10–19–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–122–854] Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of supercalendered paper (SC paper) from AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 63535 Canada. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Mermelstein or David Neubacher, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1391 and (202) 482–5823, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition for Fair Paper Imports. The Coalition for Fair Paper Imports is composed of Madison Paper Industries and Verso Corporation. In addition to the Government of Canada, the mandatory respondents in this investigation are (1) Port Hawkesbury Paper LP, 6879900 Canada Inc., Port Hawkesbury Investments Ltd., Port Hawkesbury Paper GP, Port Hawkesbury Paper Holdings Ltd., Port Hawkesbury Paper Inc., and Pacific West Commercial Corporation (collectively, Port Hawkesbury); and (2) Resolute FP Canada Inc., Fibrek General Partnership, Forest Products Mauricie LP, Produits ´ ´ Forestiers Petit-Paris Inc., and Societe en Commandite Scierie Opitciwan (collectively, Resolute). Case History The events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination 1 on August 3, 2015, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and 1 See Supercalendered Paper from Canada: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 80 FR 45951 (August 3, 2015) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, regarding ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Supercalendered Paper from Canada,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 63536 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 202 / Tuesday, October 20, 2015 / Notices Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ frn/. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is SC paper. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 to this notice. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Methodology The Department conducted this countervailing duty investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix 2. Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents’ subsidy rate calculations since the Preliminary Determination. For this determination, we have relied partially on facts available for Resolute. Further, we have drawn an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available to calculate the ad valorem rate for Resolute, because the company did not act to the best of its ability when responding to the Department’s request for information.3 For further information, see ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences’’ in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for each individually investigated respondent company. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies not individually investigated, we will determine an ‘‘all others’’ rate equal to the weightedaverage countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated the ‘‘all others’’ rate as a weighted average of the rates of Port Hawkesbury and Resolute, using the publicly ranged values for each 3 See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:55 Oct 19, 2015 Jkt 238001 company’s exports of subject merchandise to the United States to calculate the weighted average, because to use the actual sales values risks disclosure of proprietary information.4 We determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Subsidy rate (percent) privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final Port Hawkesbury ........................ 20.18 Resolute ...................................... 17.87 negative injury determination, this All Others .................................... 18.85 notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their As a result of our Preliminary responsibility concerning the Determination, and pursuant to section destruction of proprietary information 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. disclosed under APO in accordance Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely suspend liquidation of all entries of written notification of the return/ subject merchandise from Canada that destruction of APO materials or were entered or withdrawn from conversion to judicial protective order is warehouse, for consumption on or after hereby requested. Failure to comply August 3, 2013, the date of publication with the regulations and terms of an of the Preliminary Determination in the APO is a violation which is subject to Federal Register, and to collect cash sanction. deposits of estimated countervailing This determination is issued and duty at the rates determined in the published pursuant to sections 705(d) Preliminary Determination. and 777(i) of the Act. In accordance with section Dated: October 13, 2015. 705(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are Paul Piquado, directing CBP to continue to suspend Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and liquidation of all imports of the subject Compliance. merchandise from Canada that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, Appendix 1 for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this Register. The suspension of liquidation investigation is supercalendered paper (SC instructions will remain in effect until paper). SC paper is uncoated paper that has further notice. We are also directing undergone a calendering process in which CBP to collect cash deposit of estimated the base sheet, made of pulp and filler countervailing duty at the rates (typically, but not limited to, clay, talc, or identified above. other mineral additive), is processed through We will issue a countervailing duty a set of supercalenders, a supercalender, or order pursuant to section 706(a) of the a soft nip calender operation.1 Act if the United States International The scope of this investigation covers all SC paper regardless of basis weight, Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final brightness, opacity, smoothness, or grade, affirmative injury determination. If the and whether in rolls or in sheets. Further, the ITC determines that material injury, or scope covers all SC paper that meets the threat of material injury, does not exist, scope definition regardless of the type of this proceeding will be terminated and pulp fiber or filler material used to produce all estimated duties deposited or the paper. securities posted as a result of the Specifically excluded from the scope are suspension of liquidation will be imports of paper printed with final content refunded or canceled. of printed text or graphics. Company ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all 4 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Calculation of the All Others Rate for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Supercalendered Paper from Canada,’’ (October 13, 2015). PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Subject merchandise primarily enters under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4802.61.3035, but may also enter under subheadings 4802.61.3010, 4802.62.3000, 4802.62.6020, and 4802.69.3000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 1 Supercalendering and soft nip calendering processing, in conjunction with the mineral filler contained in the base paper, are performed to enhance the surface characteristics of the paper by imparting a smooth and glossy printing surface. Supercalendering and soft nip calendering also increase the density of the base paper. E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 202 / Tuesday, October 20, 2015 / Notices written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Appendix 2 List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Subsidies Valuation a. Period of Investigation b. Allocation Period c. Attribution of Subsidies d. Denominators e. Loan Interest Rate Benchmarks and Discount Rates V. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VI. Analysis of Programs a. Programs Determined to be Countervailable b. Programs Determined To Be Not Used or Not to Confer a Benefit During the POI c. Program Determined To Be Not Countervailable VII. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: The Department’s Selection of Mandatory and Voluntary Respondents Comment 2: The Calculation of the All Other’s Rate Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Allow Irving to Post Bonds Until the Final Results of an Expedited Review Comment 4: Whether Port Hawkesbury is Creditworthy Comment 5: Whether the GNS’ Hot Idle Funding is Extinguished Comment 6: Whether the GNS’ FIF Funding is Extinguished Comment 7: Whether Assistance Under the Outreach Agreement is Countervailable Comment 8: Whether Port Hawkesbury’s Private Stumpage Purchases Provide an Appropriate Benchmark for Port Hawkesbury’s Crown Stumpage Purchases Comment 9: Land for MTAR Comment 10 Whether the NSUARB is an Authority Comment 11: Whether the Government Entrusted or Directed NSPI to Provide a Financial Contribution Comment 12: Whether to Use a Tier 1 Benchmark Comment 13: Whether the Port Hawkesbury LRR is based on Market Principles Comment 14: Whether Steam for LTAR Provides a Countervailable Subsidy Comment 15: Whether the Property Tax Reduction in Richmond County Provides a Countervailable Subsidy Comment 16: Whether the PWCC Indemnity Loan Program Should be Excluded from Port Hawkesbury’s Cash Deposit Rate Comment 17: Whether to Apply AFA to Resolute Comment 18: Whether the Support for the Forest Industry Program (Investissement ´ Quebec Loans) Provides Countervailable Subsidies to Resolute’s SC Paper Production Comment 19: Whether Certain Programs Provides Countervailable Subsidies to Resolute’s SC Paper Production VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Oct 19, 2015 Jkt 238001 Comment 20: Whether Subsidies are Extinguished by Changes in Ownership VIII. Conclusion Appendix I: Acronym and Abbreviation Table Appendix II: Litigation Table Appendix III: Administrative Determinations and Notices Table Appendix IV: Case-Related Documents Appendix V: Miscellaneous Table (Regulatory, Statutory, Articles, etc.) [FR Doc. 2015–26634 Filed 10–19–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Court No. 12–00296] Final Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States Summary On August 3, 2015, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) granted the request of the Department of Commerce (Department) for a voluntary remand in the above-referenced proceeding.1 The Remand Order involves a challenge to the Department’s final determination in a proceeding conducted under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Section 129) related to the Department’s final affirmative antidumping duty (AD) determination on circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (CWP) from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for the period October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007.2 The CIT granted the Department’s request for a voluntary remand ‘‘in light of Commerce’s remand redetermination in Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 12–00298, 1 See Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, Court No. 12–00296 (August 3, 2015) (Remand Order). 2 See Implementation of Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires; Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe; Laminated Woven Sacks; and Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the People’s Republic of China, 77 FR 52683 (August 30, 2012) (Implementation Notice); See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Final Determination: Section 129 Proceeding Pursuant to the WTO Appellate Body’s Findings in WTO DS379 Regarding the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s Republic of China,’’ (July 31, 2012) (Final Determination Memorandum); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 2008) (Final Determination). PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 63537 Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, April 27, 2015, ECF No. 70’’ (CVD Remand Redetermination), which dealt with the companion CWP countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding.3 In the CVD Remand Redetermination, the Department found ‘‘that there is no basis for making an adjustment to the companion AD rates under’’ 19 U.S.C. 1677f–1(f), because no party in the companion CVD proceeding responded to the Department’s request for information concerning the issue of ‘‘double remedies.’’ In light of the CVD Remand Redetermination, we have reconsidered our finding regarding the double remedies adjustment afforded to respondents in the underlying AD proceeding, and found that there is no basis for making an adjustment to the AD rates under 19 U.S.C. 1677f–1(f). As such, in the draft redetermination, we denied the adjustment that we granted the respondents in the Final Determination Memorandum. The Department offered interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Draft Remand.4 On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff Wheatland Tube Company (Wheatland) and Consolidated Plaintiff United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel Corporation) submitted comments on the Draft Remand.5 In their letter, they stated the following: We support the Department’s determination to ‘‘deny { } the adjustment that we granted respondents in the CWP AD Section 129 determination.’’ We have no other comments.6 (footnote omitted) No other interested party submitted comments. For the reasons discussed below, our Draft Remand remains unchanged, and we continue to deny the adjustment that we granted the respondents in the Final Determination Memorandum. Background Section 129 Proceeding On July 22, 2008, upon final affirmative determinations by the Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Department published AD and CVD orders on CWP from the PRC.7 The Government of the 3 See Remand Order. ‘‘Draft Remand Redetermination, Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 12– 00296,’’ (September 18, 2015) (Draft Remand). 5 See Letter from the Domestic Interested Parties to the Department, ‘‘Comments On The Draft Remand Redetermination, Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, Court No. 12–00296’’ (September 23, 2015). 6 Id. at 1. 7 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 42547 (July 22, 2008). 4 See E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 202 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63535-63537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26634]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-854]


Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that 
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters 
of supercalendered paper (SC paper) from Canada. The period of 
investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Mermelstein or David Neubacher, 
AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1391 and (202) 482-5823, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The petitioner in this investigation is the Coalition for Fair 
Paper Imports. The Coalition for Fair Paper Imports is composed of 
Madison Paper Industries and Verso Corporation. In addition to the 
Government of Canada, the mandatory respondents in this investigation 
are (1) Port Hawkesbury Paper LP, 6879900 Canada Inc., Port Hawkesbury 
Investments Ltd., Port Hawkesbury Paper GP, Port Hawkesbury Paper 
Holdings Ltd., Port Hawkesbury Paper Inc., and Pacific West Commercial 
Corporation (collectively, Port Hawkesbury); and (2) Resolute FP Canada 
Inc., Fibrek General Partnership, Forest Products Mauricie LP, Produits 
Forestiers Petit-Paris Inc., and Soci[eacute]t[eacute] en Commandite 
Scierie Opitciwan (collectively, Resolute).

Case History

    The events that have occurred since the Department published the 
Preliminary Determination \1\ on August 3, 2015, are discussed in the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum.\2\ The Issues and Decision Memorandum 
is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and 
Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic 
Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at 
https://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the 
Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce 
building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and

[[Page 63536]]

Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Supercalendered Paper from Canada: Preliminary 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 80 FR 45951 (August 
3, 2015) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary 
Decision Memorandum.
    \2\ See Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 
Compliance, regarding ``Decision Memorandum for the Final 
Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of 
Supercalendered Paper from Canada,'' dated concurrently with this 
notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is SC paper. For a 
complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix 1 
to this notice.

Methodology

    The Department conducted this countervailing duty investigation in 
accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act). The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in 
the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are 
discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby 
adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised, 
and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is 
attached to this notice as Appendix 2. Based on our analysis of the 
comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain 
changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations since the 
Preliminary Determination.
    For this determination, we have relied partially on facts available 
for Resolute. Further, we have drawn an adverse inference in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available to calculate the ad valorem 
rate for Resolute, because the company did not act to the best of its 
ability when responding to the Department's request for information.\3\ 
For further information, see ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 
Adverse Inferences'' in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 
calculated a rate for each individually investigated respondent 
company. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies 
not individually investigated, we will determine an ``all others'' rate 
equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established 
for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any 
zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates 
determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.
    Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 
we have calculated the ``all others'' rate as a weighted average of the 
rates of Port Hawkesbury and Resolute, using the publicly ranged values 
for each company's exports of subject merchandise to the United States 
to calculate the weighted average, because to use the actual sales 
values risks disclosure of proprietary information.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Calculation of the All Others 
Rate for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty 
Investigation of Supercalendered Paper from Canada,'' (October 13, 
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Subsidy
                           Company                               rate
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port Hawkesbury.............................................       20.18
Resolute....................................................       17.87
All Others..................................................       18.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to 
section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject 
merchandise from Canada that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after August 3, 2013, the date of publication of 
the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register, and to collect 
cash deposits of estimated countervailing duty at the rates determined 
in the Preliminary Determination.
    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are 
directing CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of the 
subject merchandise from Canada that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. The suspension of liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice. We are also 
directing CBP to collect cash deposit of estimated countervailing duty 
at the rates identified above.
    We will issue a countervailing duty order pursuant to section 
706(a) of the Act if the United States International Trade Commission 
(ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination. If the ITC 
determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not 
exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties 
deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of 
liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written 
consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury 
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties 
subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of 
proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: October 13, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix 1

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is supercalendered 
paper (SC paper). SC paper is uncoated paper that has undergone a 
calendering process in which the base sheet, made of pulp and filler 
(typically, but not limited to, clay, talc, or other mineral 
additive), is processed through a set of supercalenders, a 
supercalender, or a soft nip calender operation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Supercalendering and soft nip calendering processing, in 
conjunction with the mineral filler contained in the base paper, are 
performed to enhance the surface characteristics of the paper by 
imparting a smooth and glossy printing surface. Supercalendering and 
soft nip calendering also increase the density of the base paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scope of this investigation covers all SC paper regardless 
of basis weight, brightness, opacity, smoothness, or grade, and 
whether in rolls or in sheets. Further, the scope covers all SC 
paper that meets the scope definition regardless of the type of pulp 
fiber or filler material used to produce the paper.
    Specifically excluded from the scope are imports of paper 
printed with final content of printed text or graphics.
    Subject merchandise primarily enters under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4802.61.3035, but 
may also enter under subheadings 4802.61.3010, 4802.62.3000, 
4802.62.6020, and 4802.69.3000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the

[[Page 63537]]

written description of the scope of the investigation is 
dispositive.

Appendix 2

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Investigation
IV. Subsidies Valuation
    a. Period of Investigation
    b. Allocation Period
    c. Attribution of Subsidies
    d. Denominators
    e. Loan Interest Rate Benchmarks and Discount Rates
V. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
VI. Analysis of Programs
    a. Programs Determined to be Countervailable
    b. Programs Determined To Be Not Used or Not to Confer a Benefit 
During the POI
    c. Program Determined To Be Not Countervailable
VII. Analysis of Comments
    Comment 1: The Department's Selection of Mandatory and Voluntary 
Respondents
    Comment 2: The Calculation of the All Other's Rate
    Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Allow Irving to Post 
Bonds Until the Final Results of an Expedited Review
    Comment 4: Whether Port Hawkesbury is Creditworthy
    Comment 5: Whether the GNS' Hot Idle Funding is Extinguished
    Comment 6: Whether the GNS' FIF Funding is Extinguished
    Comment 7: Whether Assistance Under the Outreach Agreement is 
Countervailable
    Comment 8: Whether Port Hawkesbury's Private Stumpage Purchases 
Provide an Appropriate Benchmark for Port Hawkesbury's Crown 
Stumpage Purchases
    Comment 9: Land for MTAR
    Comment 10 Whether the NSUARB is an Authority
    Comment 11: Whether the Government Entrusted or Directed NSPI to 
Provide a Financial Contribution
    Comment 12: Whether to Use a Tier 1 Benchmark
    Comment 13: Whether the Port Hawkesbury LRR is based on Market 
Principles
    Comment 14: Whether Steam for LTAR Provides a Countervailable 
Subsidy
    Comment 15: Whether the Property Tax Reduction in Richmond 
County Provides a Countervailable Subsidy
    Comment 16: Whether the PWCC Indemnity Loan Program Should be 
Excluded from Port Hawkesbury's Cash Deposit Rate
    Comment 17: Whether to Apply AFA to Resolute
    Comment 18: Whether the Support for the Forest Industry Program 
(Investissement Qu[eacute]bec Loans) Provides Countervailable 
Subsidies to Resolute's SC Paper Production
    Comment 19: Whether Certain Programs Provides Countervailable 
Subsidies to Resolute's SC Paper Production
    Comment 20: Whether Subsidies are Extinguished by Changes in 
Ownership
VIII. Conclusion
Appendix I: Acronym and Abbreviation Table
Appendix II: Litigation Table
Appendix III: Administrative Determinations and Notices Table
Appendix IV: Case-Related Documents
Appendix V: Miscellaneous Table (Regulatory, Statutory, Articles, 
etc.)

[FR Doc. 2015-26634 Filed 10-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P