Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review, 18896-18898 [2017-08211]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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 https://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 https://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 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
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly at https://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 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
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://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
