39414 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 154 / Thursday, August 9, 2018 / Notices 

6Supercalendering imparts a glossy finish 

produced by the movement of the paper web 

through a supercalender which is a stack of 

alternating rollers of metal and cotton (or other 

softer material). The supercalender runs at high 

speed and applies pressure, heat, and friction 

which glazes the surface of the paper, imparting 

gloss to the surface and increasing the paper’s 

smoothness and density. 

7The following HTSUS numbers are no longer 

active as of January 1, 2017: 4801.00.0020, 

4801.00.0040, 4802.61.3010, 4802.61.3091, and 

4802.62.6040. 

publicly or under an administrative 

protective order (APO), without the 

written consent of the Assistant 

Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Because the final determination in 

this proceeding is affirmative, in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, the ITC will make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

UGW paper from Canada no later than 

45 days after our final determination. If 

the ITC determines that material injury 

or threat of material injury does not 

exist, the proceeding will be terminated 

and all cash deposits will be refunded. 

If the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, Commerce will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess, upon further instruction by 

Commerce, antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise, 

other than those produced and exported 

by Resolute, and those produced and 

exported by White Birch, because their 

rates are zero, entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the effective date of the suspension 

of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders (APO) 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to APO of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

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 the terms of an APO is 

a sanctionable violation. 

This determination and this notice are 

issued and published pursuant to 

sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 1, 2018. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

Performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation includes certain paper that has 

not been coated on either side and with 50 

percent or more of the cellulose fiber content 

consisting of groundwood pulp, including 

groundwood pulp made from recycled paper, 

weighing not more than 90 grams per square 

meter. Groundwood pulp includes all forms 

of pulp produced from a mechanical pulping 

process, such as thermo-mechanical process 

(TMP), chemi-thermo mechanical process 

(CTMP), bleached chemi-thermo mechanical 

process (BCTMP) or any other mechanical 

pulping process. The scope includes paper 

shipped in any form, including but not 

limited to both rolls and sheets. 

Certain uncoated groundwood paper 

includes but is not limited to standard 

newsprint, high bright newsprint, book 

publishing, and printing and writing papers. 

The scope includes paper that is white, offwhite, cream, or colored. 

Specifically excluded from the scope are 

imports of certain uncoated groundwood 

paper printed with final content of printed 

text or graphic. Also excluded are papers that 

otherwise meet this definition, but which 

have undergone a supercalendering process.6

Additionally, excluded are papers that 

otherwise meet this definition, but which 

have undergone a creping process over the 

entire surface area of the paper. 

Also excluded are uncoated groundwood 

construction paper and uncoated 

groundwood manila drawing paper in sheet 

or roll format. Excluded uncoated 

groundwood construction paper and 

uncoated groundwood manila drawing paper: 

(a) Have a weight greater than 61 grams per 

square meter; (b) have a thickness greater 

than 6.1 caliper, i.e., greater than .0061’’ or 

155 microns; (c) are produced using at least 

50 percent thermomechanical pulp; and (d) 

have a shade, as measured by CIELAB, as 

follows: L* less than or 75.0 or b* greater 

than or equal to 25.0. 

Also excluded is uncoated groundwood 

directory paper that: (a) Has a basis weight 

of 34 grams per square meter or less; and (b) 

has a thickness of 2.6 caliper mils or 66 

microns or less. 

Certain uncoated groundwood paper is 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) in 

several subheadings, including 4801.00.0120, 

4801.00.0140, 4802.61.1000, 4802.61.2000, 

4802.61.3110, 4802.61.3191, 4802.61.6040, 

4802.62.1000, 4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, 

4802.62.6140, 4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, 

and 4802.69.3000. Subject merchandise may 

also be imported under several additional 

subheadings including 4805.91.5000, 

4805.91.7000, and 4805.91.9000.7 Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise is 

dispositive. 

Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed 

in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Investigation 

IV. Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

V. Discussion of the Issues 

General 

Comment 1: Whether There was Sufficient 

Industry Support to Initiate this 

Investigation 

Comment 2: Respondent Selection and 

Calculation of the ‘‘All Others’’ Rate 

Comment 3: Differential Pricing 

Methodology 

Catalyst 

Comment 4: Fixed Asset Impairment for 

Catalyst 

Comment 5: Treatment of Catalyst’s Home 

Market Barter Sales 

Comment 6: Treatment of Catalyst’s Sales 

Which May Have Been Destined for 

Mexico 

Comment 7: Insurance Recovery Costs for 

Catalyst 

Comment 8: Catalyst’s Home Market Bank 

Charges 

Comment 9: Errors in Catalyst’s 

Preliminary Determination Margin 

Program 

Comment 10: Verification Corrections for 

Catalyst 

Resolute 

Comment 11: Resolute’s Short-Term U.S. 

Dollar Borrowing Rate 

Comment 12: Treatment of Resolute’s 

Corporate Level Costs 

VI. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2018–17020 Filed 8–8–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–122–862] 

Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper 

From Canada: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

certain uncoated groundwood paper 

(UGW paper) from Canada. The period 

of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, 

through December 31, 2016. For 

information on the estimated subsidy 

rates, see the ‘‘Final Determination’’ 

section of this notice. 

DATES: Applicable August 9, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Crespo or Whitley Herndon, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement 

and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 154 / Thursday, August 9, 2018 / Notices 39415 

1See Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from 

Canada: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final 

Determination with Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination, 83 FR 2133 (January 16, 2018) 

(Preliminary Determination) and accompanying 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum. See also 

Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada: 

Amended Preliminary Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 83 FR 16050 (April 13, 2018). 

2See Memorandum ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Determination in the 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain 

Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum). 

3As discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum, Commerce has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with Catalyst Paper 

Corporation: Catalyst Paper, Catalyst Pulp 

Operations Limited, and Catalyst Pulp and Paper 

Sales Inc. (collectively Catalyst). These findings are 

unchanged for purposes of the Final Determination. 

4As discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum, Commerce has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with Kruger TroisRivieres L.P.: Kruger Publication Papers Inc., Corner 

Brook Pulp and Paper Limited, Kruger Energy 

Bromptonville LP, Kruger Holdings L.P., Kruger 

Holdings GP Inc., and Kruger Inc. (collectively 

Kruger). These findings are unchanged for purposes 

of the Final Determination. 

5As discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum, Commerce has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with Resolute FP 

Canada Inc.: Resolute FP Canada, Fibrek General 

Partnership (Fibrek), and Resolute Growth 

(collectively Resolute). These findings are 

unchanged for purposes of the Final Determination. 

6As discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum, Commerce has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with White Birch 

Paper Canada Company NSULC: Papier Masson WB 

(White Birch) LP, FF Soucy WB LP, and Stadacona 

WB LP (collectively White Birch). These findings 

are unchanged for purposes of the Final 

Determination. 

7See Memorandum ‘‘Verification of the 

Questionnaire Responses of Catalyst Paper 

Corporation,’’ dated February 13, 2018; 

Memorandum ‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire 

Responses of the Government of British Columbia 

and, in Part, the Government of Canada,’’ dated 

February 13, 2018; Memorandum ‘‘Verification of 

the Questionnaire Responses of White Birch Paper 

Canada Company,’’ dated March 28, 2018; 

Memorandum ‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire 

Responses of the Government of Newfoundland and 

Labrador,’’ dated April 17, 2018; Memorandum 

‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the 

Government of Canada,’’ dated April 18, 2018; 

Memorandum ‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire 

Responses of the Government of Nova Scotia,’’ 

dated May 18, 2018; Memorandum ‘‘Verification of 

the Questionnaire Responses of Resolute FP Canada 

Inc.,’’ dated June 6, 2018; Memorandum 

‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the 

Government of Que ́bec,’’ dated June 6, 2018; 

Memorandum ‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire 

Responses of the Government of Ontario,’’ dated 

June 7, 2018; Memorandum ‘‘Verification of 

Kruger’s Questionnaire Responses,’’ dated June 7, 

2018; and Memorandum ‘‘Verification of the 

Questionnaire Responses of the Government of 

Que ́bec,’’ dated June 18, 2018. 

8See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act 

regarding financial contribution; see section 

771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; see section 

771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. 

9See Memorandum ‘‘Post-Preliminary Analysis of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation: Certain 

Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada,’’ dated 

June 18, 2018 (Post-Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum). 

10See Memoranda ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Investigation of Certain Uncoated Groundwood 

Paper from Canada: Final Determination 

Calculation Memorandum for Catalyst,’’ 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain 

Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada: Final 

Determination Calculation Memorandum for 

Resolute FP Canada and its cross-owned affiliates 

(Resolute),’’ ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada: 

Final Determination Calculation Memorandum for 

White Birch Paper Canada Company (White 

Birch),’’ and ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada: 

All Others Rate Calculation for Final 

Determination,’’ each dated concurrently with this 

notice. 

(202) 482–3693 or (202) 482–6274, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This final determination is made in 

accordance with section 705 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

The events that occurred since 

Commerce published the Preliminary 

Determination 1 on January 16, 2018, are 

discussed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, which is hereby adopted 

by this notice.2 The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum also details the changes 

we made since the Preliminary 

Determination to the subsidy rates 

calculated for the mandatory 

respondents and all other producers/ 

exporters. 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/index.html. 

The signed Issues and Decision 

Memorandum and the electronic 

version of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The product covered by this 

investigation is UGW paper from 

Canada. For a complete description of 

the scope of the investigation, see 

Appendix I. 

Analysis of Subsidy Programs and 

Comments Received 

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. A 

list of the issues that parties raised, and 

to which we responded in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum, is attached 

to this notice as Appendix II. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, January 2018 through May 2018 

Commerce conducted verifications 

related to the subsidy information 

reported by the Government of Canada, 

British Columbia, Newfoundland and 

Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and 

Que ́bec, as well as Catalyst,3 Kruger,4

Resolute,5 and White Birch.6 We used 

standard verification procedures, 

including an examination of relevant 

accounting records and original source 

documents provided by the 

respondents.7

Methodology 

Commerce conducted this 

investigation in accordance with section 

701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy 

programs found countervailable, 

Commerce determines that there is a 

subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by 

an ‘‘authority’’ that confers a benefit to 

the recipient, and that the subsidy is 

specific.8 For a full description of the 

methodology underlying our final 

determination, see the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our review and analysis of 

the comments received from parties, 

and minor corrections presented at 

verification, we made certain changes to 

the respondents’ subsidy rate 

calculations since the Preliminary 

Determination and the Post-Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum.9 As a result of 

these changes, we have also revised the 

‘‘all-others’’ rate. For a discussion of 

these changes, see the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum and 

accompanying memoranda.10 Although 

there was a substantial change to the 

scope of the investigation after the 

Preliminary Determination, we did not, 

nor did any party suggest, that we 

collect revised sales or export 

information from the respondents. 

Therefore, we have not reconsidered our 

respondent selection and we continue to 

treat all respondents as ‘‘individually 

investigated.’’ 

‘‘All-Others’’ Rate 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, Commerce 

must determine an estimated ‘‘allothers’’ rate for all exporters and 

producers not individually examined. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39416 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 154 / Thursday, August 9, 2018 / Notices 

11See Memorandum ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Investigation of Certain Uncoated Groundwood 

Paper from Canada: All Others Rate Calculation for 

Final Determination,’’ date concurrently with this 

notice. 

12As discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum, Commerce has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with Catalyst Paper 

Corporation: Catalyst Paper, Catalyst Pulp 

Operations Limited, and Catalyst Pulp and Paper 

Sales Inc. These findings are unchanged for 

purposes of the Final Determination. 

13As discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum, Commerce has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with Kruger TroisRivieres L.P.: Kruger Publication Papers Inc., Corner 

Brook Pulp and Paper Limited, Kruger Energy 

Bromptonville LP, Kruger Holdings L.P., Kruger 

Holdings GP Inc., and Kruger Inc. 

14As discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum, Commerce has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with Resolute FP 

Canada Inc.: Resolute FP Canada, Fibrek General 

Partnership (Fibrek), and Resolute Growth. These 

findings are unchanged for purposes of the Final 

Determination. 

15As discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum, Commerce has found the following 

companies to be cross-owned with White Birch 

Paper Canada Company NSULC: Papier Masson WB 

(White Birch) LP, FF Soucy WB LP, and Stadacona 

WB LP. These findings are unchanged for purposes 

of the Final Determination. 

Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states 

that, for companies not individually 

investigated, Commerce 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. Where all of the 

rates for investigated companies are zero 

or de minimis, or based entirely on facts 

otherwise available, section 

705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act instructs 

Commerce to establish an ‘‘all-others’’ 

rate using ‘‘any reasonable method.’’ 

In this investigation, Commerce 

calculated individual estimated 

countervailable subsidy rates for 

Catalyst, Kruger, and Resolute that are 

not zero, de minimis, or based entirely 

on facts otherwise available. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the 

Act, Commerce calculated the ‘‘allothers’’ rate using a weighted-average of 

the individual estimated subsidy rates 

calculated for these examined 

respondents (excluding the de minimis 

rate determined for White Birch) using 

each company’s business proprietary 

data for the merchandise under 

consideration.11

Final Determination 

We determine the total estimated net 

countervailable subsidy rates to be: 

Company 

Ad valorem 

subsidy rate 

(percent) 

Catalyst Paper Corporation 12 ................................. 3.38 

Kruger Trois-Rivieres L.P13 9.53 

Resolute FP Canada Inc 14 .. 9.81 

White Birch Paper Canada 

Company NSULC 15 .......... * 0.82 

All-Others .............................. 8.54 

* (de minimis) 

Disclosure 

Commerce intends to disclose the 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

to parties in this proceeding in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

As a result of our Preliminary 

Determination and pursuant to section 

703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we 

instructed U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation 

of all entries of subject merchandise 

from Canada (other than those produced 

and exported by White Birch because its 

preliminary rate was de minimis), that 

were entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

January 16, 2018, the date of publication 

of the Preliminary Determination. In 

accordance with section 703(d) of the 

Act, we subsequently instructed CBP to 

discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for CVD purposes for subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, on or after May 16, 

2018, but to continue the suspension of 

liquidation of all entries from January 

16, 2018, through May 15, 2018 (with 

the exception entries produced and 

exported by White Birch). 

If the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (ITC) issues a final 

affirmative injury determination, we 

will issue a CVD order and reinstate the 

suspension of liquidation under section 

706(a) of the Act, requiring a cash 

deposit of estimated CVDs for such 

entries of subject merchandise, other 

than those produced and exported by 

White Birch because its rate is de 

minimis, in the amounts indicated 

above. 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. 

International Trade Commission (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 

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. 

Because the final determination in 

this proceeding is affirmative, in 

accordance with section 705(b) of the 

Act, the ITC will make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

UGW paper from Canada no later than 

45 days after our final determination. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to the 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: August 1, 2018. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation includes certain paper that has 

not been coated on either side and with 50 

percent or more of the cellulose fiber content 

consisting of groundwood pulp, including 

groundwood pulp made from recycled paper, 

weighing not more than 90 grams per square 

meter. Groundwood pulp includes all forms 

of pulp produced from a mechanical pulping 

process, such as thermo-mechanical process 

(TMP), chemi-thermo mechanical process 

(CTMP), bleached chemi-thermo mechanical 

process (BCTMP) or any other mechanical 

pulping process. The scope includes paper 

shipped in any form, including but not 

limited to both rolls and sheets. 

Certain uncoated groundwood paper 

includes but is not limited to standard 

newsprint, high bright newsprint, book 

publishing, and printing and writing papers. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 154 / Thursday, August 9, 2018 / Notices 39417 

16Supercalendering imparts a glossy finish 

produced by the movement of the paper web 

through a supercalender which is a stack of 

alternating rollers of metal and cotton (or other 

softer material). The supercalender runs at high 

speed and applies pressure, heat, and friction 

which glazes the surface of the paper, imparting 

gloss to the surface and increasing the paper’s 

smoothness and density. 

17The following HTSUS numbers are no longer 

active as of January 1, 2017: 4801.00.0020, 

4801.00.0040, 4802.61.3010, 4802.61.3091, and 

4802.62.6040. 

The scope includes paper that is white, offwhite, cream, or colored. 

Specifically excluded from the scope are 

imports of certain uncoated groundwood 

paper printed with final content of printed 

text or graphic. Also excluded are papers that 

otherwise meet this definition, but which 

have undergone a supercalendering 

process.16 Additionally, excluded are papers 

that otherwise meet this definition, but 

which have undergone a creping process over 

the entire surface area of the paper. 

Also excluded are uncoated groundwood 

construction paper and uncoated 

groundwood manila drawing paper in sheet 

or roll format. Excluded uncoated 

groundwood construction paper and 

uncoated groundwood manila drawing paper: 

(a) Have a weight greater than 61 grams per 

square meter; (b) have a thickness greater 

than 6.1 caliper, i.e., greater than .0061’’ or 

155 microns; (c) are produced using at least 

50 percent thermomechanical pulp; and (d) 

have a shade, as measured by CIELAB, as 

follows: L* less than or 75.0 or b* greater 

than or equal to 25.0. 

Also excluded is uncoated groundwood 

directory paper that: (a) Has a basis weight 

of 34 grams per square meter or less; and (b) 

has a thickness of 2.6 caliper mils or 66 

microns or less. 

Certain uncoated groundwood paper is 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) in 

several subheadings, including 4801.00.0120, 

4801.00.0140, 4802.61.1000, 4802.61.2000, 

4802.61.3110, 4802.61.3191, 4802.61.6040, 

4802.62.1000, 4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, 

4802.62.6140, 4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, 

and 4802.69.3000. Subject merchandise may 

also be imported under several additional 

subheadings including 4805.91.5000, 

4805.91.7000, and 4805.91.9000.17 Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise is 

dispositive. 

Appendix II 

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum 

Summary 

Background 

Case History 

Period of Investigation 

Scope of the Investigation 

Scope Comments 

Subsidies Valuation Information 

A. Allocation Period 

B. Attribution of Subsidies 

C. Denominators 

D. Creditworthiness 

E. Equityworthiness 

F. Loan Benchmarks and Interest Rates 

Analysis of Programs 

A. Programs Determined To Be 

Countervailable 

B. Programs Determined Not to Provide 

Measurable Benefits During the POI 

C. Programs Determined Not To Be Used 

During the POI 

D. Programs Determined To Be Not 

Countervailable in this Investigation 

E. Programs Not Further Examined 

F. Programs Deferred Until a Subsequent 

Administrative Review 

Analysis of Comments 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should 

Adjust Its Calculation of the All-Others 

Rate to Exclude Rates Based on AFA 

Comment 2: Whether Commerce 

Established the Requisite Level of 

Industry Support for Initiating This 

Investigation 

Comment 3: Whether Commerce Must 

Examine the Full Scope of Downstream 

Effects 

Comment 4: Whether Commerce Properly 

Requested Respondent Interested Parties 

to Report ‘‘Other Assistance’’ 

Comment 5: Whether to Continue to Find 

Certain Programs Not Used, Not 

Measurable, or Having No Benefit 

Bankruptcy/Change in Ownership Issues 

Comment 6: Whether Subsidies Received 

Prior to 2011 Were Extinguished by 

Resolute’s Emergence from Bankruptcy 

Comment 7: Whether Resolute’s 

Acquisition of Fibrek Extinguished Any 

Prior Fibrek Subsidies 

Comment 8: Whether White Birch’s 

Bankruptcy Proceedings Constitute a CIO 

Sales Denominator Issues 

Comment 9: Whether Commerce Should 

Revise Kruger’s Denominators 

Comment 10: Whether Commerce Should 

Revise Resolute’s Denominators 

Comment 11: Whether Commerce Should 

Revise White Birch’s Denominators 

Unreported Assistance Issues 

Comment 12: Whether Electricity Sold by 

PREI Provides a Countervailable Subsidy 

to Catalyst 

Comment 13: Whether Commerce Should 

Assign an AFA Rate to Kruger for its 

Failure to Report Payments Related to 

the Hydro-Que ́bec Connection of 

Electricity Sub-Station Program 

Comment 14: Whether Commerce Should 

Assign an AFA Rate for CBPP’s Failure 

to Report Payments Received for Two 

Studies 

Comment 15: Whether Commerce Should 

Apply AFA to White Birch’s Two 

Undisclosed Tax Credits 

General Stumpage and Wood Fiber LTAR 

Issues 

Comment 16: Whether Commerce Must 

Use In-Jurisdiction Benchmarks to 

Determine Whether a Benefit Has Been 

Provided 

Comment 17: Whether Commerce Must 

Conduct a Stumpage Pass-Through 

Analysis 

Comment 18: Whether Woodchips from 

Sawmills Are Subsidized 

Comment 19: Whether Commerce Must 

Compare Average Benchmark Prices to 

Average Transaction Prices 

Ontario Stumpage Issues 

Comment 20: Whether Pulpwood is 

Subsidized 

Comment 21: Whether Ontario’s Stumpage 

Market is Distorted 

Que ́bec Stumpage Issues 

Comment 22: Whether Que ́bec’s Public 

Stumpage Market Is Distorted 

Comment 23: Whether Commerce Erred in 

Calculating a Benefit for White Birch 

under the Provision of Stumpage for 

LTAR Program 

Nova Scotia Benchmark Issues 

Comment 24: Whether Commerce Should 

Use a Nova Scotia Benchmark as a Basis 

of Finding Subsidization of Stumpage in 

Ontario and Que ́bec 

Comment 25: Whether the Nova Scotia 

Benchmark Should be Adjusted 

Log Export Restraint Issues 

Comment 26: Whether the Log and Wood 

Residue Export Restraints Provide a 

Financial Contribution 

Comment 27: Whether the Export 

Permitting Process Materially Restrains 

Export Activity 

Comment 28: Whether to Apply Adverse 

Inferences to Catalyst’s Log Delivery 

Costs 

Comment 29: Whether Commerce May Use 

NAWFR Benchmark Information 

Comment 30: The Appropriate Benchmark 

Source for the British Columbia Log and 

Wood Residue Export Restraints 

Comment 31: Whether to Exclude U.S. 

Exports to the UAE from the Benchmark 

Data 

Comment 32: The Appropriate Freight 

Amounts to Apply to the Benchmark 

Values 

Comment 33: The Appropriate Freight 

Amounts to Apply to Catalyst’s 

Purchases of Woodchips, Sawdust, and 

Hog Fuel 

Comment 34: Whether Commerce Should 

Exclude Logs and Chips Dedicated to the 

Production of Kraft Pulp 

Comment 35: Whether to Account for 

Negative Transactions in Catalyst’s 

Wood Purchase Database 

Purchase of Goods for MTAR Issues 

Comment 36: Whether the Purchase of 

Electricity was a Purchase of a Good or 

Service 

Comment 37: Whether Commerce Erred in 

Using Sales of Electricity as the 

Benchmark for Provincial Utility 

Purchases of Electricity 

Comment 38: Whether Purchases of 

Electricity Were ‘‘Market Based’’ 

Comment 39: Whether Commerce Should 

Use a Different Benchmark for Purchases 

of Electricity from the IESO 

Comment 40: Whether Commerce Used the 

Wrong Benchmark for Countervailing 

Hydro-Que ́bec’s Purchases of Electricity 

from KEBLP 

Comment 41: Whether the Provincial 

Utility Purchases of Electricity Are Tied 

to Sales of Non-Subject Merchandise 

Comment 42: Whether Commerce Should 

Countervail BC Hydro’s EPAs 

Comment 43: Whether Commerce Used the 

Wrong Benchmark for Countervailing BC 

Hydro’s Purchases of Electricity 

Comment 44: The Appropriate Benefit 

Calculation for BC Hydro EPAs 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39418 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 154 / Thursday, August 9, 2018 / Notices 

18Also called the Que ́bec Scientific Research and 

Development Tax Credit in the Preliminary 

Determination. 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 

42974 (September 13, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 

Comment 45: Whether BC Hydro’s EPAs 

are De Facto Specific 

Comment 46: Whether Commerce Should 

Include all Elements of Kruger’s Electric 

Service Rates in its Benchmark 

Comment 47: Whether Hydro-Que ́bec’s 

Purchase of Electricity for MTAR was 

Specific 

Comment 48: Whether the IESO Purchases 

Electricity 

Comment 49: Whether the IESO’s Purchase 

of Electricity for MTAR is Specific 

Comment 50: Whether Commerce Should 

Countervail Tariff 29 and/or Use it as a 

Benchmark 

Comment 51: Whether the Government of 

Canada’s Provision of C$130 Million for 

Resolute’s Expropriated Assets Provides 

a Benefit 

Tax Program Issues 

Comment 52: Whether the ACCA for Class 

29 Assets Tax Program is Specific 

Comment 53: Whether the School Tax 

Credit for Class 4 Major Industrial 

Properties Provides a Financial 

Contribution 

Comment 54: Whether the School Tax 

Credit for Class 4 Major Industrial 

Properties is Specific 

Comment 55: Whether the Coloured Fuel 

Tax Rate Provides a Financial 

Contribution 

Comment 56: Whether the Coloured Fuel 

Tax Rate is Specific 

Comment 57: Whether Catalyst Benefited 

from the Coloured Fuel Tax Rate 

Comment 58: Whether the Powell River 

City Tax Exemption Program Provides a 

Financial Contribution 

Comment 59: The Appropriate Benefit 

Calculation for the Powell River City Tax 

Exemption Program 

Comment 60: Whether Commerce Properly 

Determined the Amount of the Subsidy 

Kruger Received from Property Tax 

Exemptions 

Comment 61: Whether the Que ́bec SR&ED 

Tax Credit 18 is De Facto Specific 

Comment 62: Whether the Tax Credit for 

the Acquisition of Manufacturing and 

Processing Equipment in Que ́bec is 

Specific 

Comment 63: Whether the Tax Credit for 

Pre-Competitive Research is Specific 

Comment 64: Whether the Credit for Fees 

and Dues Paid to a Research Consortium 

is Specific 

Comment 65: Whether Que ́bec’s Tax Credit 

for Construction and Repair of Roads and 

Bridges Provides a Financial 

Contribution and a Benefit 

Grant Program Issues: Electricity 

Comment 66: Whether Agreements to 

Curtail Consumption of Electricity are 

Grants 

Comment 67: Whether the Power Smart 

Subprograms are De Jure/De Facto 

Specific 

Comment 68: The Appropriate Benefit for 

the Power Smart: Load Curtailment 

Program 

Comment 69: The Correct Calculation for 

the BC Hydro Power Smart TMP and 

Incentives Subprograms 

Comment 70: Whether Hydro-Que ́bec’s IEO 

Program Is Specific 

Comment 71: Whether Hydro-Que ́bec’s 

Industrial Systems Program/Energy 

Efficiency Program is Countervailable 

Comment 72: Whether the Hydro-Que ́bec 

Special L Rate for Industrial Customers 

Affected by Budworm Confers a Benefit 

Comment 73: Whether the IESO Demand 

Response Is Specific 

Comment 74: Whether the Ontario IEI 

Program is Specific 

Comment 75: Whether the Ontario IEI 

Program is Tied to Non-Subject 

Merchandise 

Comment 76: Whether Capacity Assistance 

Payments to CBPP Are Specific 

Comment 77: Whether the Capacity 

Assistance Fees Paid to CBPP Provided 

a Benefit 

Grant Program Issues: Other 

Comment 78: Whether the Canada-BC Job 

Grant Program is Specific 

Comment 79: Whether Emploi-Que ́bec 

Programs are Specific 

Comment 80: Whether Emploi-Que ́bec 

Programs are Recurring 

Comment 81: Whether the PCIP Provides a 

Benefit 

Comment 82: Whether the Paix des Braves 

Program Provides a Countervailable 

Benefit 

Comment 83: Whether the Investment 

Program in Public Forests Affected by 

Natural or Anthropogenic Disturbance 

Provides a Countervailable Benefit 

Comment 84: Whether the FPInnovations 

Ash Development Project Provides a 

Countervailable Benefit 

Comment 85: Whether the PAREGES 

Program is Specific and Confers a Benefit 

Comment 86: Whether the Ontario Forest 

Roads Funding Program is 

Countervailable 

Comment 87: Whether the EcoPerformance 

Program is Specific and Confers a Benefit 

Equity Program Issues 

Comment 88: Whether Preferred Shares 

Issued by Kruger Inc./KPPI in 2012 were 

Debt or Equity 

Comment 89: Whether Any Benefit in the 

2012 Debt-to-Equity Conversion Is 

Attributable to Kruger Inc. 

Comment 90: How to Determine the 

Benefit for KPPI’s 2012 Loan Forgiveness 

Comment 91: Whether IQ’s 2015 

Investment in KHLP Was Tied to NonSubject Merchandise 

Comment 92: Whether the 

Equityworthiness Analysis for KHLP in 

2015 is Correct 

Comment 93: Whether KHLP was 

Equityworthy 

Loan Program Issues 

Comment 94: Whether CBPP was 

Creditworthy 

Comment 95: Whether Commerce Erred in 

Calculating the Benchmark for CBPP’s 

2014 Loan 

Comment 96: Whether Interest Due from 

the Government of Newfoundland and 

Labrador Loan to CBPP and Paid in 2017 

Provided No Benefit in the POI 

Comment 97: Whether Commerce Erred in 

Its Benefit Calculation for the IQ Loan 

Guarantee to KEBLP 

Company-Specific Issues 

Catalyst 

Comment 98: How to Treat Catalyst’s 

Unreported Log and Wood Fiber 

Purchases 

Resolute 

Comment 99: Whether Commerce Should 

Use Resolute’s Revised SR&ED Tax 

Credit 

White Birch 

Comment 100: Whether Commerce 

Correctly Determined the Dates of 

Approval for the MFOR Worker Training 

Grants to White Birch’s Stadacona Mill 

Conclusion 

[FR Doc. 2018–17017 Filed 8–8–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–475–819] 

Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission; 2016 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

certain pasta from Italy. The period of 

review (POR) is January 1, 2016, 

through December 31, 2016. 

DATES: Applicable August 9, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Kolberg, 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) 482–1785. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 13, 2017, Commerce 

published a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of the CVD order 

on certain pasta from Italy for the POR.1

From October 10, 2017 to December 12, 

2017, eight of the producers/exporters of 

subject merchandise subject to this 

review timely withdrew their request for 

review. Thus, we are rescinding this 

review with respect to these eight 

producers/exporters. Commerce is 

conducting this review of one remaining 

producer/exporter of subject 

merchandise: GR.A.M.M. S.r.l. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES