8598 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 

notice. No other changes have been 

made to the Preliminary Results. 

This corrected preliminary results and 

partial rescission is issued and 

published in accordance with section 

751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: February 6, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix II 

Companies for which review was 

rescinded 

1. Aiko Solar 

2. Amplesun Solar 

3. Beijing Hope Industry 

4. Best Solar Hi-tech 

5. CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science 

Technology Co., Ltd. 

6. CEEG Nanjing Renewable Energy Co., Ltd. 

7. China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. 

8. China Sunergy 

9. Chinalight Solar 

10. CNPV Dongying Solar Power Co., Ltd. 

11. Dai Hwa Industrial 

12. EGing 

13. ENN Solar Energy 

14. General Solar Power 

15. Golden Partner Development 

16. Goldpoly (Quanzhou) 

17. Hairun Photovoltaics Technology Co., Ltd 

18. Hanwha Solar One (Qidong) Co., Ltd. 

19. Hareon Solar Technology 

20. HC Solar Power Co., Ltd. 

21. JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd. 

22. Jetion Solar (China) Co., Ltd. 

23. Jia Yi Energy Technology 

24. Jiasheng Photovoltaic Tech. 

25. Jiangxi Green Power Co. Ltd. 

26. Jiawei Solar Holding 

27. Jiawei Solarchina Co. (Shenzhen), Ltd 

28. JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. 

29. Jiutai Energy 

30. Linuo Photovoltaic 

31. Ningbo Komaes Solar Technology Co., 

Ltd. 

32. Perfectenergy 

33. Polar Photovoltaics 

34. Qiangsheng (QS Solar) 

35. QXPV (Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical 

Appliance Co., Ltd) 

36. Refine Solar 

37. Risen Energy Co, Ltd. 

38. Risun Solar (JiangXi Ruijing Solar Power 

Co., Ltd.) 

39. Sanjing Silicon 

40. Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy 

41. Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. 

42. Shanghai Solar Energy Science & 

Technology Co., Ltd. 

43. Shangpin Solar 

44. Shanshan Ulica 

45. Shenzhen Global Solar Energy Tech. 

46. Shuqimeng Energy Tech 

47. Skybasesolar 

48. Solargiga Energy Holdings Ltd. 

49. Sunflower 

50. Sunlink PV 

51. Sunvim Solar Technology 

52. Tainergy Tech 

53. tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 

54. Tianjin Jinneng Solar Cell 

55. Topsolar 

56. Trony 

57. Weihai China Glass Solar 

58. Wuxi Sun-shine Power Co., Ltd. 

59. Wuxi University Science Park 

International Incubator Co., Ltd. 

60. Yuhan Sinosola Science & Technology 

Co., Ltd. 

61. Yuhuan Solar Energy Source Co., Ltd. 

62. Yunnan Tianda 

63. Yunnan Zhuoye Energy 

64. Zhejinag Leye Photovoltaic Science and 

Technology Co., Ltd. 

65. Zhejiang Top Point Photovoltaic Co., Ltd. 

66. Zhejiang Wanxiang Solar Co, Ltd. 

67. Zhenjiang Huantai Silicon Science and 

Technology Co., Ltd. 

Appendix III 

Companies for which review will continue, 

but not selected for individual review 

1. Baoding Jiansheng Photovoltaic 

Technology Co., Ltd. 

2. Boading Tianwei Yingli New Energy 

Resources Co., Ltd. 

3. Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy 

Resources Co. Ltd. 

4. Canadian Solar International Limited 

5. Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) 

Inc. 

6. Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) 

Inc. 

7. Changzhou NESL Solartech Co., Ltd. 

8. Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. 

9. Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. 

10. CSG PVTech Co., Ltd. 

11. DelSolar Co., Ltd. 

12. De-Tech Trading Limited HK 

13. Dongfang Electric (Yixing) MAGI Solar 

Power Technology Co., Ltd. 

14. Eoplly New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. 

15. Era Solar Co., Ltd. 

16. ET Solar Energy Limited. 

17. Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., 

Ltd. 

18. Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny 

Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd. 

19. Hendigan Group Dmegc Magnetics 

20. Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources 

Co., Ltd. 

21. Himin Clean Energy Holdings Co., Ltd. 

22. Innovosolar 

23. Jiangsu Green Power PV Co., Ltd. 

24. Jiangxi Sunlink PV Technology Ltd. 

25. Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology 

Co., Ltd. 

26. Jiangsu Sunlink PV Technology Co., Ltd. 

27. Jiawei Solarchina Co. Ltd. 

28. Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. 

29. Jinko Solar Import and Export Co., Ltd. 

30. Jinko Solar International Limited 

31. Konca Solar Cell Co., Ltd. 

32. Kuttler Automation Systems (Suzhou) Co. 

Ltd. 

33. LDK Solar Hi-tech (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. 

34. LDK Solar Hi-tech (Nanchang) 

35. Leye Photovoltaic Science & Technology 

Co., Ltd. 

36. Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., 

Ltd. 

37. Luoyang Suntech Power Co., Ltd. 

38. Magi Solar Technology 

39. Motech (Suzhou) Renewable Energy Co., 

Ltd. 

40. MS Solar Investments LLC 

41. Ningbo Ulica Solar Science & Technology 

Co., Ltd. 

42. Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance 

Co. Ltd. 

43. Ningbo ETDZ Holdings Ltd. 

44. Perlight Solar Co., Ltd. 

45. ReneSola 

46. Renesola Jiangsu Ltd. 

47. Shenzen Topray Solar Co., Ltd. 

48. Shanghai Machinery Complete 

Equipment (Group) Corp., Ltd. 

49. Shenglong PV Tech. 

50. Shenzhen Suntech Power Co., Ltd. 

51. ShunFeng PV 

52. Solarbest Energy—Tech (Zhejiang) Co., 

Ltd. 

53. Sopray Energy 

54. Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd. 

55. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Ltd. 

56. Suntech Power Co., Ltd. 

57. Suzhou Shenglong PV-Tech Co., Ltd. 

58. Tianwei New Energy (Chengdu) PV 

Module Co., Ltd. 

59. Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co, 

Ltd. 

60. Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & 

Technology Co, Ltd. 

61. Topray 

62. Upsolar Group, Co. Ltd. 

63. Wanxiang Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

64. Wuxi Sunshine Power 

65. Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. 

66. Yangzhou Rietech Renewal Energy Co., 

Ltd. 

67. Yangzhou Suntech Power Co., Ltd. 

68. Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited. 

69. Yingli Green Energy International 

Trading Company Limited. 

70. Zhejiang Jiutai New Energy Co. Ltd. 

71. Zhejiang Shuqimeng Photovoltaic 

Technology Co., Ltd. 

72. Zhejiang Xinshun Guangfu Science and 

Technology Co., Ltd. 

73. Zhejiang ZG-Cells Co, Ltd. 

74. Zhenjiang Rietech New Energy Science & 

Technology Co., Ltd. 

75. Zhiheng Solar Inc. 

76. Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy 

Sciences & Technology Limited Liability 

Company 

[FR Doc. 2015–03340 Filed 2–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–023, C–560–829] 

Certain Uncoated Paper From the 

People’s Republic of China and 

Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing 

Duty Investigations 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 18, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Tran at (202) 482–1503 or Joy 

Zhang at (202) 482–1168 (People’s 

Republic of China (PRC)); David 

Goldberger at (202) 482–4136 or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 8599 

1See ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain 

Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, China, 

Indonesia, and Portugal and Countervailing Duties 

on Imports from China and Indonesia,’’ dated 

January 21, 2015 (Petitions). 

2See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–2 and Exhibit 

I–2. 

3 Id. at, I–1—I–2 and Exhibit I–2. 

4See Letter from the Department to the 

petitioners entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain 

Uncoated Paper from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC): Supplemental Questions,’’ dated 

January 26, 2015 (PRC Deficiency Questionnaire); 

Letter from the Department to the petitioners, 

‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping 

Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from 

Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People’s Republic 

of China, and Portugal, and Countervailing Duties 

on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from 

Indonesia and the People’s Republic of China: 

Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 26, 2015 

(General Issues Questionnaire); Letter from the 

Department to the petitioners entitled ‘‘Petition for 

the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports 

of Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia: 

Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 27, 2015 

(Indonesia Deficiency Questionnaire); and 

Memorandum to the File entitled ‘‘Petitions for the 

Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Certain Uncoated Paper from the People’s Republic 

of China: Addendum to Supplemental Questions,’’ 

dated January 27, 2015 (PRC Addendum). 

5See Letter from the petitioners entitled ‘‘Certain 

Uncoated Paper From The People’s Republic Of 

China/Petitioners’ Response To The Department’s 

Questions Regarding The Petition,’’ dated January 

29, 2015 (PRC CVD Supplement); Letter from the 

petitioners entitled ‘‘Certain Uncoated Paper From 

Indonesia/Petitioners’ Response To The 

Department’s Questions Regarding The Petition,’’ 

dated January 30, 2015 (Indonesia CVD 

Supplement); and Letter from the petitioners 

entitled ‘‘Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, 

Brazil, The People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, 

And Portugal/Petitioners’ Response To The 

Department’s General Questions Regarding The 

Petition,’’ dated January 30, 2015 (General Issues 

Supplement). 

6See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions’’ section below. 

7 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

8See General Issues Questionnaire; see also 

General Issues Supplement. 

9See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; 

Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 

10According to the Department practice, when a 

date falls on a weekend or a federal holiday, 

submissions become due the next business day; see 

Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next 

Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative 

Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act 

of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 

11On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and 

Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and 

Compliance’s AD and CVD Centralized Electronic 

Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’) to AD and CVD 

Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 

The Web site location was changed from http://

iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The 

Final Rule changing the reference to the Regulations 

can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014). 

Katherine Johnson at (202) 482–4929 

(Indonesia), AD/CVD Operations, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The Petitions 

On January 21, 2015, the Department 

of Commerce (Department) received 

countervailing duty (CVD) petitions 

concerning imports of certain uncoated 

paper from the PRC and Indonesia filed 

in proper form on behalf of United 

Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union; Domtar 

Corporation; Finch Paper LLC; P.H. 

Glatfelter Company; and Packaging 

Corporation of America (collectively, 

the petitioners). The CVD petitions were 

accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) 

petitions concerning imports of certain 

uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, 

the PRC, Indonesia, and Portugal.1 The 

petitioners are domestic producers of 

uncoated paper,2 and a certified union 

with workers engaged in the 

manufacture and production of the 

domestic like product in the United 

States.3

On January 26 and 27, 2015, the 

Department requested information and 

clarification for certain areas of the 

Petitions.4 The petitioners filed 

responses to these requests on January 

29 and 30, 2015.5

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), the petitioners allege that 

the Government of the PRC (GOC) and 

the Government of Indonesia (GOI) are 

providing countervailable subsidies 

(within the meaning of sections 701 and 

771(5) of the Act) to imports of certain 

uncoated paper from the PRC and 

Indonesia, respectively, and that such 

imports are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to, an 

industry in the United States. Also, 

consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the 

Act, the Petitions are accompanied by 

information reasonably available to the 

petitioners supporting their allegations. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 

of the domestic industry because the 

petitioners are interested parties as 

defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of 

the Act. The Department also finds that 

the petitioners demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

initiation of the CVD investigations that 

the petitioners are requesting.6

Period of Investigations 

The period of the investigation for 

both the PRC and Indonesia is January 

1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.7

Scope of the Investigations 

The product covered by these 

investigations is certain uncoated paper 

from the PRC and Indonesia. For a full 

description of the scope of these 

investigations, see the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigations’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of the 

Investigations 

During our review of the Petitions, the 

Department issued questions to, and 

received responses from, the petitioners 

pertaining to the proposed scope to 

ensure that the scope language in the 

Petitions would be an accurate 

reflection of the products for which the 

domestic industry is seeking relief.8

As discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations,9 we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage (scope). The period for scope 

comments is intended to provide the 

Department with ample opportunity to 

consider all comments and to consult 

with parties prior to the issuance of the 

preliminary determinations. If scope 

comments include factual information 

(see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such 

factual information should be limited to 

public information. All such comments 

must be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time (‘‘EST’’) on March 2, 

2015, which is 20 calendar days from 

the signature date of this notice. Any 

rebuttal comments, which may include 

factual information, must be filed by 

5:00 p.m. EST on March 12, 2015, 

which is 10 calendar days after the 

initial comments deadline.10

The Department requests that any 

factual information the parties consider 

relevant to the scope of the 

investigations be submitted during this 

time period. However, if a party 

subsequently finds that additional 

factual information pertaining to the 

scope of the investigations may be 

relevant, the party may contact the 

Department and request permission to 

submit the additional information. All 

such comments must be filed on the 

records of the PRC and Indonesia CVD 

investigations, as well as the concurrent 

Australia, Brazil, the PRC, Indonesia, 

and Portugal AD investigations. 

Filing Requirements 

All submissions to the Department 

must be filed electronically using 

Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System 

(ACCESS).11 An electronically-filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the time and date it is 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8600 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 

12See Letter of Invitation from the Department to 

the GOI dated January 21, 2015, and Letter of 

Invitation from the Department to the GOC dated 

January 26, 2015. 

13See supra fn.10 for information pertaining to 

ACCESS. 

14See section 771(10) of the Act. 

15See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 

2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. 

v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), 

aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). 

16For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Uncoated 

Paper from the People’s Republic of China (PRC 

CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, 

Analysis of Industry Support for the Petitions 

Covering Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the 

People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal 

(Attachment II); and Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Uncoated 

Paper from Indonesia (Indonesia CVD Initiation 

Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are 

dated concurrently with this notice and on file 

electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents 

filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central 

Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department 

of Commerce building. 

17See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–2 through 

I–4 and Exhibit I–3; see also General Issues 

Supplement, at 5–8 and Exhibits I–S4 through I–S7. 

18See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–3 and 

Exhibit I–4. 

19For further discussion, see PRC CVD Checklist 

and Indonesia CVD Checklist, at Attachment II. 

20 Id. 

21As mentioned above, the petitioners have 

established that shipments are a reasonable proxy 

for production data. Section 351.203(e)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations states ‘‘production levels 

may be established by reference to alternative data 

that the Secretary determines to be indicative of 

production levels.’’ 

22See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

PRC CVD Checklist and Indonesia CVD Checklist, 

at Attachment II. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. 

due. Documents excepted from the 

electronic submission requirements 

must be filed manually (i.e., in paper 

form) with Enforcement and 

Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room 

1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20230, and 

stamped with the date and time of 

receipt by the applicable deadlines. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of 

the Act, the Department notified 

representatives of the GOC and the GOI 

of the receipt of the Petitions. Also, in 

accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) 

of the Act, the Department provided 

representatives of the GOC and the GOI 

the opportunity for consultations with 

respect to the Petitions.12 Consultations 

were held with the GOC on February 5, 

2015. Consultations were held with the 

GOI on February 9, 2015. All 

memoranda are on file electronically via 

ACCESS.13

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

‘‘industry.’’ 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product, or 

those producers whose collective output 

of a domestic like product constitutes a 

major proportion of the total domestic 

production of the product. Thus, to 

determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (ITC), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product,14 they do so 

for different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law.15

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the Petitions). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, the petitioners do not offer a 

definition of the domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we determined that uncoated 

paper constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product.16

In determining whether the 

petitioners have standing under section 

702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petitions with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. To establish 

industry support, the petitioners 

provided their shipments of the 

domestic like product in 2014, and 

compared their shipments to the 

estimated total shipments of the 

domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry.17 Because total 

industry production data for the 

domestic like product for 2014 are not 

reasonably available and the petitioners 

have established that shipments are a 

reasonable proxy for production data,18

we relied upon the shipment data 

provided by the petitioners for purposes 

of measuring industry support.19

Based on the data provided in the 

Petitions, supplemental submission, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department, we determine that the 

petitioners have established industry 

support.20 First, the Petitions 

established support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

shipments 21 of the domestic like 

product and, as such, the Department is 

not required to take further action in 

order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling).22 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) met the statutory 

criteria for industry support under 

section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petitions 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total shipments of the domestic like 

product.23 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) met the statutory 

criteria for industry support under 

section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petitions 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

shipments of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petitions.24 Accordingly, the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 8601 

25 Id. 

26See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–23, I–24 and 

Exhibit I–12; see also General Issues Supplement, 

at 11 and Exhibit I–S11. 

27 Id. 

28See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–22 through 

I–43 and Exhibits I–3 and I–10 through I–26; see 

also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 8–11 and 

Exhibits I–S1 and I–S8 through I–S13. 

29See Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist and 

PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 

Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain 

Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People’s 

Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal. 30See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–7. 

Department determines that the 

Petitions were filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 

of the domestic industry because they 

are interested parties as defined in 

sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and 

they have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

CVD investigations that they are 

requesting the Department initiate.25

Injury Test 

Because Indonesia and the PRC are 

‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’ 

within the meaning of section 701(b) of 

the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 

applies to these investigations. 

Accordingly, the ITC must determine 

whether imports of the subject 

merchandise from Indonesia and the 

PRC materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The petitioners allege that imports of 

the subject merchandise are benefitting 

from countervailable subsidies and that 

such imports are causing, or threaten to 

cause, material injury to the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product. The petitioners allege that 

subject imports exceed the negligibility 

threshold of three percent provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.26 In 

CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the 

Act provides that imports of subject 

merchandise from developing countries 

must exceed the negligibility threshold 

of four percent. The petitioners also 

demonstrate that subject imports from 

Indonesia, which has been designated as 

a developing country under section 

771(36)(A) of the Act, exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(B) of the Act.27

The petitioners contend that the 

industry’s injured condition is 

illustrated by reduced market share; 

underselling and price suppression or 

depression; lost sales and revenues; 

adverse impact on the domestic 

industry, including mill closures, 

decline in production, and decline in 

shipments; reduced employment 

variables; and adverse impact on 

financial performance.28 We assessed 

the allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 

determined that these allegations are 

properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation.29

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigations 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

the Department to initiate a CVD 

investigation whenever an interested 

party files a CVD petition on behalf of 

an industry that: (1) Alleges the 

elements necessary for an imposition of 

a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; 

and (2) is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to the petitioners 

supporting the allegations. 

The petitioners allege that producers/ 

exporters of certain uncoated paper in 

the PRC and Indonesia benefited from 

countervailable subsidies bestowed by 

the governments of these countries, 

respectively. The Department examined 

the Petitions and finds that they comply 

with the requirements of section 

702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the 

Act, we are initiating CVD 

investigations to determine whether 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of certain uncoated paper from the PRC 

and Indonesia receive countervailable 

subsidies from the governments of these 

countries, respectively. 

The PRC 

Based on our review of the petition, 

we find that there is sufficient 

information to initiate a CVD 

investigation on 21 of the 22 alleged 

programs. For a full discussion of the 

basis for our decision to initiate or not 

initiate on each program, see the PRC 

CVD Initiation Checklist. 

Indonesia 

Based on our review of the petition, 

we find that there is sufficient 

information to initiate a CVD 

investigation on 14 of the 15 alleged 

programs. For a full discussion of the 

basis for our decision to initiate or not 

initiate on each program, see the 

Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist. 

A public version of the initiation 

checklist for each investigation is 

available on ACCESS and at http://

trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. 

In accordance with section 703(b)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), 

unless postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determinations no later 

than 65 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Respondent Selection 

The petitioners named eight 

companies as producers/exporters of 

certain uncoated paper from the PRC 

and six companies as producers/

exporters of certain uncoated paper 

from Indonesia.30 Following standard 

practice in CVD investigations, the 

Department will, where appropriate, 

select respondents based on U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

data for U.S. imports of uncoated paper 

during the period of investigation under 

the following Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) numbers: 4802.56.1000, 

4802.56.2000, 4802.56.3000, 

4802.56.4000, 4802.56.6000, 

4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040, 

4802.57.1000, 4802.57.2000, 

4802.57.3000, and 4802.57.4000. We 

intend to release CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

to all parties with access to information 

protected by APO shortly after the 

announcement of these case initiations. 

The Department invites comments 

regarding CBP data and respondent 

selection within five calendar days of 

publication of this Federal Register 

notice. Comments must be filed 

electronically using ACCESS. An 

electronically-filed document must be 

received successfully in its entirety by 

the Department’s electronic records 

system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EST by the 

date noted above. We intend to make 

our decision regarding respondent 

selection within 20 days of publication 

of this Federal Register notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s Web 

site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), copies of the public version 

of the Petitions have been provided to 

the GOC and GOI via ACCESS. To the 

extent practicable, we will attempt to 

provide a copy of the public version of 

the Petitions to each known exporter (as 

named in the Petitions), consistent with 

19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We notified the ITC of our initiation, 

as required by section 702(d) of the Act. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8602 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 

31See section 703(a) of the Act. 

32 Id. 

33See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 

57790 (September 20, 2013). 

34See section 782(b) of the Act. 

35See Certification of Factual Information to 

Import Administration During Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 

17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’); see also frequently asked 

questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_

info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 

1One of the key measurements of any grade of 

paper is brightness. Generally speaking, the brighter 

the paper the better the contrast between the paper 

and the ink. Brightness is measured using a GE 

Reflectance Scale, which measures the reflection of 

light off a grade of paper. One is the lowest 

reflection, or what would be given to a totally black 

grade, and 100 is the brightest measured grade. 

‘‘Colored paper’’ as used in this scope definition 

means a paper with a hue other than white that 

reflects one of the primary colors of magenta, 

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 45 days after the date on which 

the Petitions were filed, whether there 

is a reasonable indication that imports 

of certain uncoated paper from the PRC 

and/or Indonesia are materially injuring, 

or threatening material injury to, a U.S. 

industry.31 A negative ITC 

determination for either country will 

result in the investigation being 

terminated with respect to that 

country;32 otherwise, these 

investigations will proceed according to 

statutory and regulatory time limits. 

Submission of Factual Information 

On April 10, 2013, the Department 

published Definition of Factual 

Information and Time Limits for 

Submission of Factual Information: 

Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 

2013), which modified two regulations 

related to AD and CVD proceedings: The 

definition of factual information (19 

CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits 

for the submission of factual 

information (19 CFR 351.301). The final 

rule identifies five categories of factual 

information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), 

which are summarized as follows: (i) 

Evidence submitted in response to 

questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted 

in support of allegations; (iii) publicly 

available information to value factors 

under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure 

the adequacy of remuneration under 19 

CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed 

on the record by the Department; and (v) 

evidence other than factual information 

described in (i)–(iv). The final rule 

requires any party, when submitting 

factual information, to specify under 

which subsection of 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(21) the information is being 

submitted and, if the information is 

submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 

factual information already on the 

record, to provide an explanation 

identifying the information already on 

the record that the factual information 

seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The 

final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 

so that, rather than providing general 

time limits, there are specific time limits 

based on the type of factual information 

being submitted. These modifications 

are effective for all proceeding segments 

initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and 

thus are applicable to these 

investigations. Interested parties should 

review the final rule, available at http:// 

enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/

1304frn/2013–08227.txt, prior to 

submitting factual information in these 

investigations. 

Revised Extension of Time Limits 

Regulation 

On September 20, 2013, the 

Department modified its regulation 

concerning the extension of time limits 

for submissions in AD and CVD 

proceedings.33 The modification 

clarifies that parties may request an 

extension of time limits before a time 

limit established under Part 351 expires, 

or as otherwise specified by the 

Secretary. In general, an extension 

request will be considered untimely if it 

is filed after the time limit established 

under Part 351 expires. For submissions 

which are due from multiple parties 

simultaneously, an extension request 

will be considered untimely if it is filed 

after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. 

Examples include, but are not limited 

to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual 

information to value factors under 19 

CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the 

adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 

351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification 

and correction information filed 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) 

comments concerning the selection of a 

surrogate country and surrogate values 

and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning 

CBP data; and (5) quantity and value 

questionnaires. Under certain 

circumstances, the Department may 

elect to specify a different time limit by 

which extension requests will be 

considered untimely for submissions 

which are due from multiple parties 

simultaneously. In such a case, the 

Department will inform parties in the 

letter or memorandum setting forth the 

deadline (including a specified time) by 

which extension requests must be filed 

to be considered timely. This 

modification also requires that an 

extension request must be made in a 

separate, stand-alone submission, and 

clarifies the circumstances under which 

the Department will grant untimelyfiled requests for the extension of time 

limits. These modifications are effective 

for all segments initiated on or after 

October 21, 2013, and thus are 

applicable to these investigations. 

Interested parties should review 

Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 

available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013- 

22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 

information in these investigations. 

Certification Requirements 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD or CVD 

proceeding must certify to the accuracy 

and completeness of that information.34

Parties are hereby reminded that revised 

certification requirements are in effect 

for company/government officials, as 

well as their representatives. 

Investigations initiated on the basis of 

petitions filed on or after August 16, 

2013, and other segments of any AD or 

CVD proceedings initiated on or after 

August 16, 2013, should use the formats 

for the revised certifications provided at 

the end of the Final Rule.35 The 

Department intends to reject factual 

submissions if the submitting party does 

not comply with the applicable revised 

certification requirements. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 

January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 

22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate 

in these investigations should ensure 

that they meet the requirements of these 

procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 

appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the 

Act. 

Dated: February 10, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigations 

The merchandise covered by these 

investigations includes uncoated paper in 

sheet form; weighing at least 40 grams per 

square meter but not more than 150 grams 

per square meter; that either is a white paper 

with a GE brightness level1 of 85 or higher 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 8603 

yellow, and cyan (red, yellow, and blue) or a 

combination of such primary colors. 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Steel 

Wire Garment Hangers From the People’s Republic 

of China, 73 FR 58111 (October 6, 2008) (‘‘Order’’). 

2See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 

70850 (November 28, 2014). 

3 Id. 

4See Letter to the Department from Petitioners, 

Re: Petitioner’s Withdrawal of Review Requests for 

Specific Companies, dated December 19, 2014. 

5See Letter to the Department from Yingqing 

Material; Re: Withdrawal from Review, dated 

February 2, 2015. 

6As stated in Change in Practice in NME Reviews, 

the Department will no longer consider the nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’) entity as an exporter 

conditionally subject to administrative reviews. See 

Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of 

Change in Department Practice for Respondent 

Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and 

Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy 

Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 

FR 65963 (November 4, 2013). 

or is a colored paper; whether or not surfacedecorated, printed (except as described 

below), embossed, perforated, or punched; 

irrespective of the smoothness of the surface; 

and irrespective of dimensions (Certain 

Uncoated Paper). 

Certain Uncoated Paper includes (a) 

uncoated free sheet paper that meets this 

scope definition; (b) uncoated groundwood 

paper produced from bleached chemithermo-mechanical pulp (BCTMP) that meets 

this scope definition; and (c) any other 

uncoated paper that meets this scope 

definition regardless of the type of pulp used 

to produce the paper. 

Specifically excluded from the scope are 

(1) paper printed with final content of 

printed text or graphics and (2) lined paper 

products, typically school supplies, 

composed of paper that incorporates straight 

horizontal and/or vertical lines that would 

make the paper unsuitable for copying or 

printing purposes. 

Imports of the subject merchandise are 

provided for under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

categories 4802.56.1000, 4802.56.2000, 

4802.56.3000, 4802.56.4000, 4802.56.6000, 

4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040, 4802.57.1000, 

4802.57.2000, 4802.57.3000, and 

4802.57.4000. Some imports of subject 

merchandise may also be classified under 

4802.62.1000, 4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, 

4802.62.5000, 4802.62.6020, 4802.62.6040, 

4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, 4802.69.3000, 

4811.90.8050 and 4811.90.9080. While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

investigations is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03337 Filed 2–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–918] 

Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the 

People’s Republic of China; 2013– 

2014; Partial Rescission of the Sixth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 28, 2014, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on steel 

wire garment hangers from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) based on 

multiple timely requests for an 

administrative review. The review 

covers 42 companies. Based on 

withdrawals of the requests for review 

of certain companies from M&B Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Petitioner’’), and 

Hangzhou Yingqing Material Co. Ltd 

(‘‘Yingqing Material’’), we are now 

rescinding this administrative review 

with respect to 35 companies. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 18, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie Marksberry, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–7906. 

Background 

In October 2014, the Department 

received multiple timely requests to 

conduct an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on steel wire 

garment hangers from the PRC.1 Based 

upon these requests, on November 28, 

2014, the Department published a notice 

of initiation of an administrative review 

of the Order covering the period October 

1, 2013, to September 30, 2014.2 The 

Department initiated the administrative 

review with respect to 42 companies.3

On December 19, 2014, Petitioner 

withdrew its request for an 

administrative review on 35 

companies.4 Additionally, on February 

2, 2015, Yingqing Material withdrew its 

request for a review of itself.5

Partial Rescission 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

who requested the review withdraws 

the request within 90 days of the date 

of publication of notice of initiation of 

the requested review. All requests for 

administrative reviews on the 35 

companies listed in the Appendix were 

withdrawn.6 Accordingly, we are 

rescinding this review, in part, with 

respect to these entities, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 

Assessment 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. For the companies 

for which this review is rescinded, 

antidumping duties shall be assessed at 

rates equal to the cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties required 

at the time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of this notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to importers for whom this 

review is being rescinded, as of the 

publication date of this notice, of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return or destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751 and 

777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: February 6, 2015. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

APPENDIX 

1 Da Sheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES