Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review, 18896-18898 [2017-08211]

Download as PDF 18896 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 77 / Monday, April 24, 2017 / Notices Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of the AD Orders on CTL plate from India, Indonesia, and Korea. jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Scope of the Orders The products covered under the Orders are certain hot-rolled carbonquality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and (2) flatrolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products to be included in the scope of the Orders are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or nonrectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within the scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the Orders are high strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The merchandise subject to the Orders is currently classifiable in the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by the Orders is dispositive. The Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:48 Apr 21, 2017 Jkt 241001 by this notice, provides a full description of the scope of the Orders.5 APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. Analysis of Comments Received A complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin of dumping that is likely to prevail if the Orders were revoked. 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 http://access.trade.gov and 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 Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing the results of the reviews and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Final Results of Reviews Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the AD Orders on CTL plate from India, Indonesia, and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the margin of dumping that is likely to prevail would be at rates up to 42.39 percent for India, up to 52.42 percentage for Indonesia, and up to 4.64 percent for Korea. Administrative Protective Orders This notice serves as the only 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(a). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an 5 See the Department’s memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from India, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated: March 31, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2017–08174 Filed 4–21–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–122–854] Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an expedited review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on supercalendered paper (SC paper) from Canada. The period of review (POR) for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. We determine that Irving Paper Limited received countervailable subsidies during the POR and that Catalyst received de minimis countervailable subsidies. As a result of this determination, we are excluding Catalyst from the countervailing duty order on SC paper from Canada. DATES: Effective April 24, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toby Vandall or Peter Zukowski, AD/ CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1664 and (202) 482–0189, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background The Department published the Preliminary Results of the expedited review on November 28, 2016.1 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Results, as well as a full 1 See Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review, 81 FR 85520 (November 28, 2016) (Preliminary Results). E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM 24APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 77 / Monday, April 24, 2017 / Notices discussion of the issues raised by parties for the final results, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 2 issued concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice. 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 http:// 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 Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is SC paper from Canada. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3 Methodology jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES The Department has conducted this CVD expedited review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The subsidy programs under review, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at the Appendix. Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to Catalyst’s and Irving’s subsidy rate calculations since the Preliminary Results. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum and the Final Calculation Memoranda.4 We calculated a CVD rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise that requested an expedited review. 2 See Department Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Supercalendered Paper from Canada’’ (dated concurrently with this notice). 3 Id. 4 Id; see also Department Memorandum, ‘‘Final Results Calculations for Catalyst Paper’’ (April 17, 2017); see also Department Memorandum, ‘‘Final Results Calculations for Irving Paper Limited’’ (April 17, 2017). VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:48 Apr 21, 2017 Jkt 241001 Final Results of the Expedited Review As a result of this expedited review, we determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be: Company Subsidy rate Catalyst Paper Corporation (Catalyst). Irving Paper Limited (Irving) .. 0.94 percent (de minimis). 5.87 percent. Cash Deposit Instructions Pursuant to section 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iii), the final results of this expedited review will not be the basis for the assessment of countervailing duties. Upon the issuance of these final results, the Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the companies subject to this expedited review, at the rates shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this expedited review. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iv), because we have determined a countervailable subsidy rate for Catalyst that is de minimis, with these final results of expedited review, we determine to exclude Catalyst from the countervailing duty order. The Department’s practice with respect to exclusions of companies from a countervailing duty order is to exclude the subject merchandise both produced and exported by those companies.5 As a result, we will instruct CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of SC paper produced and exported by Catalyst, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results. In addition, we will instruct CBP to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, all suspended entries of shipments of SC paper produced and exported by Catalyst, and to refund all cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties collected on all such shipments. Merchandise which Catalyst exports but does not produce, as well as merchandise Catalyst produces but is exported by another 5 See, e.g. Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 81 FR 48387 (July 25, 2016). PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18897 company, remains subject to the countervailing duty order. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return 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 sanctionable violation. This determination is issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k). Dated: April 17, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Subsidies Valuation V. Analysis of Programs VI. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: The Correct de minimis Rate in an Expedited Review Comment 2: Whether To Exclude or Revoke Catalyst from the Order Comment 3: Whether the Powell River City Revitalization Area Tax Exemption Program Provided a Financial Contribution to Catalyst Comment 4: Whether To Recognize the Change in Catalyst’s Property Values in Calculating the Benefit of the Powell River City Revitalization Area Tax Exemption Program Comment 5: Whether To Use 2007–2009 or 2009 Alone To Measure the Benefit for the Powell River City Revitalization Area Tax Exemption Program Comment 6: Whether To Consider Catalyst’s Former Properties as an Offset to the Benefit of the Powell River City Revitalization Area Tax Exemption Program Comment 7: Whether To Consider Catalyst’s One-Third Interest in the PRSC Limited Partnership in the Benefit Calculation of the Powell River City Revitalization Area Tax Exemption Program Comment 8: Whether BC Hydro’s Power Smart Industrial Energy Manager Program Is De Jure or De Facto Specific Comment 9: Whether the ThermoMechanical Pulp (TMP) Subprogram of the BC Hydro Power Smart Program Is a Recurring Program Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Revise its Nonrecurring Subsidy Benefit Calculation of the BC Hydro Power Smart TMP Subprogram E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM 24APN1 jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 18898 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 77 / Monday, April 24, 2017 / Notices Comment 11: Whether the British Columbia (BC) Ban on Exports of Logs and Wood Residue Is a Countervailable Subsidy Comment 12: Whether the BC Ban on Exports of Logs and Wood Residue Provides a Financial Contribution Comment 13: Whether the Department Should Use Tier 1 Benchmarks in BC Comment 14: Whether the Department Failed To Apply Its Own Evidentiary Standards on the BC Ban on Exports of Logs and Wood Residue Comment 15: Whether the Department Needs To Conduct a Feedback Effect Analysis Comment 16: Whether the Department Should Use a Transaction-ByTransaction Calculation Methodology for the BC Ban on Exports of Logs and Wood Residue Comment 17: Whether the Department Should Revise the Transportation Cost for Logs Purchased in BC by Catalyst Comment 18: Whether the Department Selected the Appropriate Log Benchmarks Comment 19: Whether the Wood Chip Benchmark Dataset Is Distortive Comment 20: Whether the Department Should Revise the Wood Chip Benchmark Transportation Cost Comment 21: Whether the Department Should Revise the Transportation Cost Applied to Catalyst’s Purchases of Wood Chips in BC Comment 22: Whether the Department Should Adjust the Sawdust and Hog Fuel Calculations Based Upon Changes to the Wood Chip Benchmark Comment 23: Whether the Government of New Brunswick Provided Stumpage to Irving for LTAR Comment 24: Whether the Department Should Grant an Adjustment to New Brunswick (NB) Stumpage Rates Comment 25: Whether the Department Should Use a Transaction-ByTransaction Calculation Methodology for NB Stumpage Comment 26: Whether the Department Should Zero Comparisons That Generate Negative Benefits Comment 27: Whether the Large Industrial Renewable Energy Purchase Program (LIREPP) Confers a Benefit on the Irving Companies Comment 28: The Workforce Expansion Program Is Not Specific Comment 29: The New Brunswick R&D Tax Credit Is Not Specific Comment 30: Whether the Benefit to JDIL From the Federal Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program (FPPGTP) Is Countervailable Comment 31: Whether the GNB’s Reimbursement of Silviculture and License Management Expenses Is Countervailable Comment 32: Whether the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance (ACCA) for Class 29 Assets Is Specific and Whether It Is a Tax Credit Comment 33: Whether the Benefit Calculation for the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit (AITC) Must Be Adjusted for VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:48 Apr 21, 2017 Jkt 241001 the Additional Taxes That Were Paid as a Result of the Program Comment 34: Sales Denominators for Benfefits Received by Cross-Owned Input Suppliers Must Include All Sales of the Downstream Product VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2017–08211 Filed 4–21–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Title: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Voluntary Release Reports. OMB Control Number: 0648–0628. Form Number(s): None. Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection). Number of Respondents: 7. Average Hours per Response: 5 minutes. Burden Hours: 1 hour (rounded up). Needs and Uses: This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFMCA, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is to ensure that conservation and management measures promote, to the extent practicable, implementation of scientific research programs that include the tagging and releasing of Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS). The currently approved information collection allows the public to submit volunteered geographic and biological information relating to HMS releases in order to populate an interactive Web site mapping tool. This Web page attracts visitors who are interested in Atlantic HMS and contains information and links to promote HMS tagging programs that the general public can support or become involved with. All submissions are voluntary. Information is used to raise awareness for releasing Atlantic HMS and HMS tagging programs, and is not used as representative results. Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other for- PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; and State, Local, or Tribal government. Frequency: On occasion. Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to OIRA_Submission@ omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. Dated: April 18, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 2017–08158 Filed 4–21–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Notice of 2016 schedule of fees. AGENCY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) charges fees to designated contract markets and registered futures associations to recover the costs incurred by the Commission in the operation of its program of oversight of self-regulatory organization rule enforcement programs, specifically National Futures Association (‘‘NFA’’), a registered futures association, and the designated contract markets. The calculation of the fee amounts charged for 2016 by this notice is based upon an average of actual program costs incurred during fiscal year (‘‘FY’’) 2013, FY 2014, and FY 2015. DATES: Effective: Each self-regulatory organization is required to remit electronically the applicable fee on or before June 23, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jean Buhler, Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission; (202) 418–5089; Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. For information on electronic payment, contact Jennifer Fleming; (202) 418–5034; Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM 24APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 77 (Monday, April 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18896-18898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08211]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-854]


Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Expedited Review

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an 
expedited review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on 
supercalendered paper (SC paper) from Canada. The period of review 
(POR) for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2014, through 
December 31, 2014. We determine that Irving Paper Limited received 
countervailable subsidies during the POR and that Catalyst received de 
minimis countervailable subsidies. As a result of this determination, 
we are excluding Catalyst from the countervailing duty order on SC 
paper from Canada.

DATES: Effective April 24, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toby Vandall or Peter Zukowski, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1664 and (202) 482-
0189, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Results of the expedited 
review on November 28, 2016.\1\ A summary of the events that occurred 
since the Department published the Preliminary Results, as well as a 
full

[[Page 18897]]

discussion of the issues raised by parties for the final results, may 
be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum \2\ issued concurrently 
with, and hereby adopted by, this notice. 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 http://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 
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum 
and the electronic version are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Preliminary Results 
of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review, 81 FR 85520 (November 28, 
2016) (Preliminary Results).
    \2\ See Department Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum 
for the Final Results of Expedited Review of the Countervailing Duty 
Order on Supercalendered Paper from Canada'' (dated concurrently 
with this notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is SC paper from Canada. A full 
description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methodology

    The Department has conducted this CVD expedited review in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k). For a full description of the 
methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum. The subsidy programs under review, and the issues raised in 
the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties, are discussed in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties 
raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, is attached to this notice at the Appendix.
    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from 
parties, we made certain changes to Catalyst's and Irving's subsidy 
rate calculations since the Preliminary Results. For a discussion of 
these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum and the Final 
Calculation Memoranda.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id; see also Department Memorandum, ``Final Results 
Calculations for Catalyst Paper'' (April 17, 2017); see also 
Department Memorandum, ``Final Results Calculations for Irving Paper 
Limited'' (April 17, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We calculated a CVD rate for each producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise that requested an expedited review.

Final Results of the Expedited Review

    As a result of this expedited review, we determine the 
countervailable subsidy rates to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Company                           Subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Paper Corporation (Catalyst).....  0.94 percent
                                            (de minimis).
Irving Paper Limited (Irving).............  5.87 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Instructions

    Pursuant to section 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iii), the final results of 
this expedited review will not be the basis for the assessment of 
countervailing duties. Upon the issuance of these final results, the 
Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect 
cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the companies 
subject to this expedited review, at the rates shown above, on 
shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final 
results of this expedited review. These cash deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iv), because we have determined a 
countervailable subsidy rate for Catalyst that is de minimis, with 
these final results of expedited review, we determine to exclude 
Catalyst from the countervailing duty order. The Department's practice 
with respect to exclusions of companies from a countervailing duty 
order is to exclude the subject merchandise both produced and exported 
by those companies.\5\ As a result, we will instruct CBP to discontinue 
the suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits of 
estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of SC paper produced 
and exported by Catalyst, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results. 
In addition, we will instruct CBP to liquidate, without regard to 
countervailing duties, all suspended entries of shipments of SC paper 
produced and exported by Catalyst, and to refund all cash deposits of 
estimated countervailing duties collected on all such shipments. 
Merchandise which Catalyst exports but does not produce, as well as 
merchandise Catalyst produces but is exported by another company, 
remains subject to the countervailing duty order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g. Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from 
India, Italy, Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China: 
Countervailing Duty Order, 81 FR 48387 (July 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of the return 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 sanctionable 
violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.214(k).

    Dated: April 17, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Subsidies Valuation
V. Analysis of Programs
VI. Analysis of Comments
    Comment 1: The Correct de minimis Rate in an Expedited Review
    Comment 2: Whether To Exclude or Revoke Catalyst from the Order
    Comment 3: Whether the Powell River City Revitalization Area Tax 
Exemption Program Provided a Financial Contribution to Catalyst
    Comment 4: Whether To Recognize the Change in Catalyst's 
Property Values in Calculating the Benefit of the Powell River City 
Revitalization Area Tax Exemption Program
    Comment 5: Whether To Use 2007-2009 or 2009 Alone To Measure the 
Benefit for the Powell River City Revitalization Area Tax Exemption 
Program
    Comment 6: Whether To Consider Catalyst's Former Properties as 
an Offset to the Benefit of the Powell River City Revitalization 
Area Tax Exemption Program
    Comment 7: Whether To Consider Catalyst's One-Third Interest in 
the PRSC Limited Partnership in the Benefit Calculation of the 
Powell River City Revitalization Area Tax Exemption Program
    Comment 8: Whether BC Hydro's Power Smart Industrial Energy 
Manager Program Is De Jure or De Facto Specific
    Comment 9: Whether the Thermo-Mechanical Pulp (TMP) Subprogram 
of the BC Hydro Power Smart Program Is a Recurring Program
    Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Revise its 
Nonrecurring Subsidy Benefit Calculation of the BC Hydro Power Smart 
TMP Subprogram

[[Page 18898]]

    Comment 11: Whether the British Columbia (BC) Ban on Exports of 
Logs and Wood Residue Is a Countervailable Subsidy
    Comment 12: Whether the BC Ban on Exports of Logs and Wood 
Residue Provides a Financial Contribution
    Comment 13: Whether the Department Should Use Tier 1 Benchmarks 
in BC
    Comment 14: Whether the Department Failed To Apply Its Own 
Evidentiary Standards on the BC Ban on Exports of Logs and Wood 
Residue
    Comment 15: Whether the Department Needs To Conduct a Feedback 
Effect Analysis
    Comment 16: Whether the Department Should Use a Transaction-By-
Transaction Calculation Methodology for the BC Ban on Exports of 
Logs and Wood Residue
    Comment 17: Whether the Department Should Revise the 
Transportation Cost for Logs Purchased in BC by Catalyst
    Comment 18: Whether the Department Selected the Appropriate Log 
Benchmarks
    Comment 19: Whether the Wood Chip Benchmark Dataset Is 
Distortive
    Comment 20: Whether the Department Should Revise the Wood Chip 
Benchmark Transportation Cost
    Comment 21: Whether the Department Should Revise the 
Transportation Cost Applied to Catalyst's Purchases of Wood Chips in 
BC
    Comment 22: Whether the Department Should Adjust the Sawdust and 
Hog Fuel Calculations Based Upon Changes to the Wood Chip Benchmark
    Comment 23: Whether the Government of New Brunswick Provided 
Stumpage to Irving for LTAR
    Comment 24: Whether the Department Should Grant an Adjustment to 
New Brunswick (NB) Stumpage Rates
    Comment 25: Whether the Department Should Use a Transaction-By-
Transaction Calculation Methodology for NB Stumpage
    Comment 26: Whether the Department Should Zero Comparisons That 
Generate Negative Benefits
    Comment 27: Whether the Large Industrial Renewable Energy 
Purchase Program (LIREPP) Confers a Benefit on the Irving Companies
    Comment 28: The Workforce Expansion Program Is Not Specific
    Comment 29: The New Brunswick R&D Tax Credit Is Not Specific
    Comment 30: Whether the Benefit to JDIL From the Federal Pulp 
and Paper Green Transformation Program (FPPGTP) Is Countervailable
    Comment 31: Whether the GNB's Reimbursement of Silviculture and 
License Management Expenses Is Countervailable
    Comment 32: Whether the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance 
(ACCA) for Class 29 Assets Is Specific and Whether It Is a Tax 
Credit
    Comment 33: Whether the Benefit Calculation for the Atlantic 
Investment Tax Credit (AITC) Must Be Adjusted for the Additional 
Taxes That Were Paid as a Result of the Program
    Comment 34: Sales Denominators for Benfefits Received by Cross-
Owned Input Suppliers Must Include All Sales of the Downstream 
Product
VII. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2017-08211 Filed 4-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P