8608 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 

1United 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 known as (the petitioners)). 

2See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping 

Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from 

Australia, Brazil, the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC), Indonesia, and Portugal; and Countervailing 

Duties on Imports from the People’s Republic of 

China and Indonesia, dated January 21, 2015 

(Petitions). 

3See Petitions. 

4See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–2 and Exhibit 

I–2. 

5 Id., at I–1–I–2 and Exhibit I–2. 

6See Letter from the Department to the 

petitioners entitled ‘‘Re: 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 Supplemental 

Questionnaire), and country-specific letters from 

the Department to the petitioners concerning 

supplemental questions on each of the countryspecific records, dated January 26, 2015. 

7See Memorandum to the File from Whitney 

Schalbik, Import Policy Analyst, entitled ‘‘Re: 

Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 

on Imports of Uncoated Paper from Australia, 

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

and Portugal and Countervailing Duties on Imports 

of Uncoated Paper from the People’s Republic of 

China and Indonesia; Subject: Phone Call with 

Counsel to the Petitioners’’ dated January 27, 2015. 

8See Letter from the petitioners to the 

Department entitled ‘‘Re: Certain Uncoated Paper 

from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People’s 

Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners’ 

Response to the Department’s January 26, 2015 

Supplemental Questions—Portugal Dumping 

Allegation’’ dated January 29, 2015 (Portugal 

Supplement). 

9See Letter from the petitioners to the 

Department entitled ‘‘Re: Certain Uncoated Paper 

from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People’s 

Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners’ 

Response to the Department’s General Questions 

Regarding the Petition’’ dated January 30, 2015 

(General Issues Supplement); Letter from the 

petitioners to the Department entitled ‘‘Re: Certain 

Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, 

the People’s Republic of China, and Portugal— 

Petitioners’ Response to the Department’s January 

26, 2015, Supplemental Questionnaire: Australia 

Dumping Allegation’’ dated January 30, 2015 

(Australia Supplement); Letter from the petitioners 

to the Department entitled ‘‘Re: Certain Uncoated 

Paper from Brazil—Petitioners’ Response to the 

Department’s Questions Regarding the Petition’’ 

dated January 30, 2015 (Brazil Supplement); Letter 

from the petitioners to the Department entitled ‘‘Re: 

Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, 

Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China, and 

Portugal—Petitioners’ Response to the Department’s 

January 26, 2015, Supplemental Questionnaire: 

Indonesia Dumping Allegation’’ dated January 30, 

2015 (Indonesia AD Supplement); and Letter from 

the petitioners to the Department entitled ‘‘Re: 

Certain Uncoated Paper from the PRC—Petitioners’ 

Response to the Department’s Questions Regarding 

the Petition’’ dated January 30, 2015 (PRC AD 

Supplement). 10See Memorandum to the File from Michael 

Martin, Lead Accountant, Office of Accounting, 

from Angie Sepulveda, Senior Accountant, entitled 

‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 

on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from 

Australia: Financial Expense,’’ dated February 2, 

2015; Letter from the Department to the petitioners 

entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain 

Uncoated Paper from Brazil: Second Supplemental 

Questions’’, dated February 2, 2015; Letter from the 

Department to the petitioners entitled ‘‘Petition for 

the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports 

of Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia: Second 

Supplemental Questions’’, dated February 2, 2015; 

and Letter from the Department to the petitioners 

entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain 

Uncoated Paper from the People’s Republic of 

China: PRC: Second Supplemental Questions,’’ 

dated February 2, 2015. 

11See Letter from the petitioners to the 

Department entitled ‘‘Re: Certain Uncoated Paper 

from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People’s 

Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners’ 

Response to the Department’s February 2, 2015, 

Supplemental Questions—Australia Dumping 

Allegation’’ dated February 3, 2015 (Australia 

Second Supplement); Letter from the petitioners to 

the Department entitled ‘‘Re: Certain Uncoated 

Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People’s 

Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners’ 

Response to the Department’s February 2, 2015, 

Supplemental Questions—Brazil Dumping 

Allegation’’ dated February 3, 2015 (Brazil Second 

Supplement); Letter from the petitioners to the 

Department entitled ‘‘Re: Certain Uncoated Paper 

from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People’s 

Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners’ 

Response to the Department’s February 2, 2015, 

Supplemental Questions—Indonesia Dumping 

Allegation’’ dated February 3, 2015 (Second 

Indonesia AD Supplement); and Letter from the 

petitioners to the Department entitled ‘‘Re: Certain 

Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, 

the People’s Republic offo China, and Portugal— 

Petitioners’/Petitioners’ Response to the 

additional time is needed to allow for 

additional recruitment and marketing in 

support of the Mission. Applications 

will now be accepted through March 13, 

2014 (and after that date if space 

remains and scheduling constraints 

permit). Interested U.S. companies and 

trade associations/organizations 

providing cyber security software and 

critical infrastructure goods and services 

which have not already submitted an 

application are encouraged to do so. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce 

will review applications and make 

selection decisions on a rolling basis in 

accordance with the Notice published at 

79 FR 58746 (September 30, 2014) The 

applicants selected will be notified as 

soon as possible. 

Contact Information 

Gemal Brangman, International Trade 

Specialist, Trade Missions, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Washington, 

DC 20230, Tel: 202–482–3773, Fax: 

202–482–9000, Gemal.Brangman@

trade.gov. 

Frank Spector, 

Trade Missions Program. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03341 Filed 2–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–FP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–602–807, A–351–842, A–570–022, A–560– 

828, A–471–807] 

Certain Uncoated Paper From 

Australia, Brazil, the People’s Republic 

of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: 

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigations 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 18, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George McMahon or Eve Wang at (202) 

482–1167 or (202) 482–6231 (Australia); 

Julia Hancock or Paul Walker at (202) 

482–1394 or (202) 482–0413 (Brazil); 

Christopher Hargett or Stephanie Moore 

at (202) 482–4161 or (202) 482–3692 

(the People’s Republic of China (PRC)); 

Stephen Bailey or Blaine Wiltse at (202) 

482–0193 or (202) 482–6345 

(Indonesia); and Kabir Archuletta at 

(202) 482–2593 (Portugal), AD/CVD 

Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, 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 (the Department) received 

the antidumping duty (AD) petitions 

concerning imports of certain uncoated 

paper (uncoated paper) from Australia, 

Brazil, the PRC, Indonesia, and Portugal, 

filed in proper form on behalf of the 

petitioners.1,2 The Petitions were 

accompanied by two countervailing 

duty (CVD) petitions on imports of 

uncoated paper from the PRC and 

Indonesia.3 The petitioners are domestic 

producers of uncoated paper,4 and a 

certified union with workers engaged in 

the manufacture and production of the 

domestic like product in the United 

States.5

On January 26, 2015, the Department 

requested additional information and 

clarification of certain areas of the 

Petitions.6 Additionally, on January 27, 

2015, the Department held a 

teleconference call with the petitioners 

regarding issues in the Petition on the 

PRC and the scope of the Petitions.7 The 

petitioners filed responses to these 

requests on January 29, 2015, and 

January 30, 2015.8,9 On February 2 and 

3, 2015, the Department requested 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petitions on 

Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and the 

PRC.10 The petitioners filed responses 

to these requests on February 3, 2015.11


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 8609 

Department’s February 2, 2015, Supplemental 

Department’s Additional Questions—China 

Dumping Allegation ‘‘Regarding the Petition,’’ 

dated February 3, 2015 (the PRC Second PRC AD 

Supplement). 

12See Memorandum to the File from George 

McMahon, Case Analyst, Office III, entitled 

‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 

on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from 

Australia: Phone Call with Cousel for Petitioners,’’ 

dated February 3, 2015. 

13See Letter from the petitioners to the 

Department entitled ‘‘Re: Certain Uncoated Paper 

from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People’s 

Republic of China, and Portugal—Petitioners’ 

Submission of Revised Information Per the 

Department of Commerce’s Request—Australia 

Dumping Allegation’’ dated February 4, 2015 

(Australia Third Supplement). 

14See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions’’ section below. 

15See General Issues Supplemental 

Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement. 

16See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 

17See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 

Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 

39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the Department’s 

electronic filing requirements, which went into 

effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using 

ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/ 

help.aspx and the handbook can be found at https:// 

access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20

Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf. 

18On 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 references to the 

Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 

(November 20, 2014). 

Additionally, on February 3, 2015, the 

Department issued a third request for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petition on 

Australia.12 The petitioners filed their 

response to the Department’s third 

request on the Petition on Australia on 

February 4, 2015.13

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), the petitioners allege that imports 

of uncoated paper from Australia, 

Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(LTFV) within the meaning of section 

731 of the Act, and that such imports 

are materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. Also, consistent with 

section 732(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 these 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 AD investigations that 

the petitioners are requesting.14

Periods of Investigation 

Because the Petitions were filed on 

January 21, 2015, the periods of 

investigation (POI) are, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.204(b)(1), as follows: January 1, 

2014, through December 31, 2014, for 

Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and 

Portugal; and July 1, 2014, through 

December 31, 2014, for the PRC. 

Scope of the Investigations 

The product covered by these 

investigations is uncoated paper from 

Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, 

and Portugal. For a full description of 

the scope of these investigations, see the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. 

Comments on the 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.15

As discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations, we are setting 

aside a period for interested parties to 

raise issues regarding product coverage 

(scope).16 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 determination. 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 

Daylight Time (EDT) 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. EDT on March 12, 2015, 

which is 10 calendar days after the 

initial comments. 

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 each of the concurrent AD 

and CVD 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).17,18 An electronically-filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the time and date when 

it is 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. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for AD Questionnaires 

The Department requests comments 

from interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

uncoated paper to be reported in 

response to the Department’s AD 

questionnaires. This information will be 

used to identify the key physical 

characteristics of the subject 

merchandise in order to report the 

relevant factors and costs of production 

accurately as well as to develop 

appropriate product-comparison 

criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they feel 

are relevant to the development of an 

accurate list of physical characteristics. 

Specifically, they may provide 

comments as to which characteristics 

are appropriate to use as: 1) General 

product characteristics and 2) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is 

not always appropriate to use all 

product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful 

commercial differences among products. 

In other words, although there may be 

some physical product characteristics 

utilized by manufacturers to describe 

uncoated paper, it may be that only a 

select few product characteristics take 

into account commercially meaningful 

physical characteristics. In addition, 

interested parties may comment on the 

order in which the physical 

characteristics should be used in 

matching products. Generally, the 

Department attempts to list the most 

important physical characteristics first 

and the least important characteristics 

last. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8610 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 

19See section 771(10) of the Act. 

20See 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)). 

21For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Uncoated Paper 

from Australia (Australia AD 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); 

Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Uncoated Paper from Brazil (Brazil AD 

Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping 

Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Uncoated 

Paper from the People’s Republic of China (PRC AD 

Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping 

Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Uncoated 

Paper from Indonesia (Indonesia AD Initiation 

Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Uncoated Paper 

from Portugal (Portugal AD 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. 

22See 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. 

23See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–3 and 

Exhibit I–4. 

24For further discussion, see Australia AD 

Initiation Checklist, Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, 

PRC AD Initiation Checklist, Indonesia AD 

Initiation Checklist, and Portugal AD Initiation 

Checklist, at Attachment II. 

25 Id. 

26As 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.’’ 

27See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

Australia AD Initiation Checklist, Brazil AD 

Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, 

Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, and Portugal AD 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

28 Id. 

29 Id. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the AD questionnaires, all 

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

EDT on March 2, 2015, which is 20 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. Any rebuttal comments 

must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on 

March 12, 2015. All comments and 

submissions to the Department must be 

filed electronically using ACCESS, as 

explained above, on the records of the 

Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, PRC, and 

Portugal LTFV investigations. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(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 732(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,19 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.20

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.21

In determining whether the 

petitioners have standing under section 

732(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.22 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,23

we relied upon the shipment data 

provided by the petitioners for purposes 

of measuring industry support.24

Based on the data provided in the 

Petitions, supplemental submissions, 

and other information readily available 

to the Department, we determine that 

the petitioners have established 

industry support.25 First, the Petitions 

established support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

shipments 26 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).27 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) met the statutory 

criteria for industry support under 

section 732(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.28 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) met the statutory 

criteria for industry support under 

section 732(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.29 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the 

Petitions were filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 8611 

30 Id. 

31See 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. 

32See 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. 

33See Australia AD Initiation Checklist, Brazil 

AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation 

Checklist, Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, and 

Portugal AD 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. 

34The petitioners stated and the Department 

confirmed that U.S. import data from were available 

through November 2014 at the time of the petition 

filing. Accordingly, the U.S. import data covers the 

period January 2014—November 2014. See Volume 

II of the Petition at II–19 and Exhibit II–42; see also 

Australia AD Supplement, at II–SQ–7. 

35See Australia AD Initiation Checklist for further 

information on this U.S. price calculation. 

36See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist. 

37See id. 

38See id. 

39See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist. 

40See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 

41See id. 

42The petitioners also calculated an AUV using 

export data from Portugal. Because the AUVs 

calculated from U.S. import data are available and 

the petitioners did not claim the U.S. import data 

are unreliable, we have relied on the AUVs the 

petitioners calculated using U.S. import data, in 

accordance with our normal practice with respect 

to calculating AUVs. See Portugal AD Initiation 

Checklist. See Portugal AD Initiation Checklist. 

43See Portugal AD Initiation Checklist. 

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 AD 

investigations that they are requesting 

the Department initiate.30

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (NV). In addition, the petitioners 

allege that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.31

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.32 We have 

assessed the allegations and supporting 

evidence regarding material injury, 

threat of material injury, and causation, 

and we have determined that these 

allegations are properly supported by 

adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation.33

Allegations of Sales at LTFV 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at LTFV upon which 

the Department based its decision to 

initiate investigations of imports of 

uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, 

Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal. The 

sources of data for the deductions and 

adjustments relating to U.S. price and 

NV are discussed in greater detail in the 

country-specific initiation checklists. 

Export Price 

For Australia, the petitioners based 

U.S. export price (EP) on the average 

unit value (AUV) of imports from 

Australia obtained from ITC Dataweb 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (HTSUS) subheading, 

4802.56.1000, for the period of January 

through November 2014 (the most 

recent data available for the POI). The 

petitioners state that all imports of 

uncoated paper from Australia entered 

under this HTSUS subheading during 

the POI,34 and that this HTSUS 

subheading appears to include data for 

imports of uncoated paper most 

comparable to the products used to 

calculate NV.35

For Brazil, the petitioners based EP on 

a price quote for subject merchandise 

produced in Brazil by a producer of 

uncoated paper and AUVs of U.S. 

imports from Brazil obtained from ITC 

Dataweb under HTSUS subheadings 

4802.56.1000 and 4802.56.7040 36 for 

the period of January through November 

2014 (the most recent data available for 

the POI). The petitioners state that these 

HTSUS subheadings most closely 

correspond to the specific product that 

is the basis for NV.37 The price quote is 

supported by an affidavit from a person 

that directly received this information.38

For Indonesia, the petitioners based 

EP on the AUVs of U.S. imports from 

Indonesia obtained from ITC Dataweb 

under HTSUS subheadings 

4802.56.1000 and 4802.56.7040 for the 

period of January through November 

2014 (the most recent data available for 

the POI). The petitioners state that these 

HTSUS subheadings cover uncoated 

paper most comparable to the products 

used to calculate NV. The petitioners 

also based EP on transaction-specific 

prices. To do so, the petitioners 

obtained ship manifest data from the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s 

(CBP) Automated Manifest System 

(AMS), compiled by Stewart Trade Data 

Services, Inc., and directly linked 

monthly U.S. port-specific import 

statistics by HTSUS subheading 

(obtained via Department of Commerce, 

Foreign Trade Division Merchandise 

Imports and Stewart Trade Data 

Services, Inc.) for imports of uncoated 

paper to shipments by the Indonesian 

producer(s) identified in the ship 

manifest data.39

For the PRC, the petitioners based EP 

on the AUV of U.S. imports from the 

PRC obtained from ITC Dataweb under 

HTSUS subheading 4802.56.7040 for the 

period of July through November 2014 

(the most recently available data for the 

POI). The petitioners assert that this 

HTSUS subheading most closely 

corresponds to the product used to 

calculate NV. The petitioners also based 

EP on producer-specific prices for a PRC 

producer of uncoated paper for 

shipments from the PRC under HTSUS 

subheading 4802.56.7040 during the 

period of July through November 2014. 

The petitioners obtained ship manifest 

data from CBP’s AMS, via Datamyne, 

and linked monthly U.S. port-specific 

import statistics (obtained from the U.S. 

Census Bureau via Datamyne), for 

imports of uncoated paper entered 

under HTSUS subheading 4802.56.7040 

to shipments by the PRC producer 

identified in the ship manifest data. 40

With respect to the PRC, the 

petitioners originally provided import 

statistics and ship manifest data for 

imports of uncoated paper from the PRC 

and Hong Kong to use as the basis for 

calculating EP, alleging that imports 

from the PRC are being transshipped 

through Hong Kong and that imports 

from Hong Kong are actually imports 

from the PRC. Because the allegation of 

transshipment is more appropriately 

dealt with in the course of the 

investigation, we have relied on the 

AUV of imports of uncoated paper from 

the PRC and the producer-specific 

prices for the PRC producer’s shipments 

that are clearly designated as originating 

from the PRC in both the official import 

statistics and the ship manifest data for 

purposes of the initiation.41

For Portugal, the petitioners based EP 

on the AUVs of U.S. imports from 

Portugal obtained from ITC Dataweb 

under HTSUS subheadings 

4802.56.4000 and 4802.56.7040 42 for 

the period January through November 

2014 (the most recent data available for 

the POI). The petitioners state that these 

HTSUS subheadings cover uncoated 

paper most comparable to the products 

used to calculate NV.43

For each country’s respective AUV, 

price quote, and/or transaction-specific 

price, that forms the basis of EP, the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8612 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 

44For further information on the U.S. price 

calculation, see Australia AD Initiation Checklist, 

Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, Indonesia AD 

Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, 

and Portugal AD Initiation Checklist. 

45See Australia AD Initiation Checklist; Brazil 

AD Initiation Checklist; Indonesia AD Initiation 

Checklist; and Portugal AD Initiation Checklist. 

46The petitioners submitted several other 

methods as potential options to calculate NV but 

because we are using the aforementioned prices as 

the basis for NV, in accordance with our standard 

methodology, the Department is not using the other 

NV calculation methods provided by the petitioners 

for purposes of determining antidumping duty 

margins for purposes of initiation. See Australia AD 

Initiation Checklist; Brazil AD Initiation Checklist; 

Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist; and Portugal AD 

Initiation Checklist. 

47 Id. 

48 Id. 

49See Volume VII of the Petitions, at VII–6, VII– 

7. 

50See Volume VII of the Petition, at Exhibits 18– 

20, and 22—23. 

51See Volume VII of the Petition, at 7, citing 

Memorandum to Minoo Hatton, ‘‘Request for a list 

of Surrogate Countries for a New Shipper Review 

of the Antidumping Duty Order on Small Diameter 

Graphite Electrodes from the People’s Republic of 

China’’ (September 30, 2014). 

52See Volume VII of the Petition, at VII–7 through 

VII–9. 

53See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i). 

54See Volume VII of the Petition, at 13 and 

Exhibit VII–18; PRC AD Supplement, at Exhibit 

VII–S5. 

55See Volume VII of the Petition, at 14–16. 

56See Volume VII of the Petition, at 14 and 

Exhibit VII–20. 

57 Id. 

58See PRC Supplement, at 2 and Exhibit VII–S4. 

59 Id., at 7 and Exhibit II–11; see also PRC AD 

Supplement, at 5, item 9, and Exhibits II–S7 and II– 

S8. 

60See Volume VII of the Petitions, at 15 and 

Exhibit VII–23. 

61 Id. 

62 Id. 

63 Id. 

64 Id. 

petitioners, based on the stated terms of 

delivery, deducted from these prices the 

adjustments, charges, and expenses 

associated with exporting and 

delivering the product to the U.S. 

customer, where appropriate.44

Normal Value 

For Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and 

Portugal, the petitioners based NV on 

price quotes or price information from 

producer(s) and/or distributors/resellers 

of uncoated paper.45 46 For each country, 

the petitioners provided an affidavit or 

declaration from a market researcher for 

the price quotes or price information 

that specified the price and quantity, 

terms of delivery, and terms of 

payment.47 Additionally, the petitioners 

made deductions for adjustments, 

charges, and movement expenses 

consistent with the terms of delivery, 

where applicable.48

With respect to the PRC, the 

petitioners state that the Department has 

a long-standing policy of treating the 

PRC as a non-market economy (NME) 

country for antidumping purposes.49 In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, the presumption of NME status 

remains in effect until revoked by the 

Department. The Department has not 

revoked the PRC’s NME status as of the 

date of these Petitions. Moreover, no 

recent changes to the PRC’s economy 

require reconsideration of its NME 

status. Accordingly, the NV of the 

product is appropriately based on 

factors of production (FOPs), valued in 

a surrogate market-economy country in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act. In the course of the investigation 

covering merchandise from the PRC, all 

parties, including the public, will have 

the opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issues of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

For the PRC, the petitioners 

calculated NV using the NME 

methodology prescribed by the 

applicable statute and regulations. The 

petitioners provided the FOPs used in 

the manufacture of uncoated paper and 

valued FOPs based on a market 

economy country selected as a 

surrogate.50

The petitioners identified South 

Africa as a country that is economically 

comparable to the PRC, based on percapita GNI data.51 The petitioners 

contend that South Africa is the 

appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because it is at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country, and is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise, 

i.e., uncoated paper. The petitioners 

further state that the South African data 

for valuing the FOPs for uncoated paper 

are available and reliable.52 Based on 

the information provided by the 

petitioners, we believe it is appropriate 

to use South Africa as a surrogate 

country for initiation purposes. 

Interested parties will have the 

opportunity to submit comments 

regarding surrogate-country selection 

and will be provided an opportunity to 

submit publicly available information to 

value FOPs no later than 30 days before 

the scheduled date of the preliminary 

determination.53

Factors of Production 

Because the petitioners do not have 

access to actual FOPs for any PRC 

manufacturers, the petitioners based 

consumption rates, including direct 

materials, labor, energy, and packing, 

for the production of merchandise 

under consideration on the experience 

of a U.S. producer.54 The petitioners 

valued the FOPs using surrogate value 

information from South Africa.55

Valuation of Raw Materials 

The petitioners valued the direct 

material FOPs using publicly available 

South African import data obtained 

from Global Trade Atlas (GTA) in U.S. 

dollars for the period May 2014 through 

October 2014.56 The petitioners 

excluded all import values from all 

countries previously determined by the 

Department to maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies, from countries previously 

determined by the Department to be 

NME countries, and from unspecified 

partner countries.57

Valuation of Labor 

The petitioners calculated the labor 

expense rate using 2012 data for South 

Africa from the International Labor 

Organization (ILO).58 The petitioners 

adjusted this rate for inflation using the 

consumer price index for South Africa 

published by the International Monetary 

Fund and converted the rate to U.S. 

dollars using the POI average exchange 

rate.59

Valuation of Energy and Water 

The petitioners valued electricity 

using rates published by Eskom, a South 

African electricity generator, effective 

April 2014 to March 2015.60 The 

petitioners valued natural gas using the 

prices charged for piped natural gas by 

Sasol Gas Limited, reported by the 

Energy Regulator of South Africa, for the 

period April 2012 through March 

2013.61 The petitioners converted 

natural gas values from cost per 

kiloJoule to cost per million British 

thermal units, adjusted for inflation 

using the South African producer price 

index, and converted to U.S. dollars 

using POI average exchange rates.62 The 

petitioners valued hog fuel and fuel oil 

#2 from South African import 

statistics.63 The petitioners valued water 

using water rates reported by Rand 

Water, a water service provider in South 

Africa, for the period July 2010 through 

June 2011, adjusted for inflation and 

converted to U.S. dollars.64

Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, 

General and Administrative Expenses, 

and Profit 

The petitioners calculated surrogate 

financial ratios (i.e., factory overhead 

expenses, selling, general, and 

administrative expenses (SG&A), and 

profit) based on the 2013 financial 

statements of Mondi Ltd (Mondi), a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 8613 

65See Volume VII at of the Petitions, at 14 and 

Exhibits VII–19, VII–20 and VII–22. 

66See Australia AD Initiation Checklist; Brazil 

AD Initiation Checklist; and Indonesia AD Initiation 

Checklist. 

67See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, at 833 (1994). 

68 Id. 

69 Id. 

70 Id. 

71See Australia AD Initiation Checklist. 

72See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist. 

73See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist. 

74See Australia AD Initiation Checklist; Brazil 

AD Initiation Checklist; and Indonesia AD Initiation 

Checklist. 

75See Australia AD Initiation Checklist. 

76See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist. 

77See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist. 

South African producer of identical 

merchandise. 

Valuation of Packing Inputs 

The petitioners valued packing 

materials using publicly available South 

African import data obtained from GTA. 

The petitioners valued labor associated 

with packing using information 

published by the ILO.65

Sales-Below-Cost Allegation 

The petitioners also provided 

information demonstrating reasonable 

grounds to believe or suspect that sales 

of uncoated paper in the Australian, 

Brazilian, and Indonesian markets were 

made at prices below the cost of 

production (COP) within the meaning of 

section 773(b) of the Act and requested 

that the Department conduct a countrywide sales-below-cost investigation of 

uncoated paper imports from Australia, 

Brazil, and Indonesia.66

With respect to sales-below-cost 

allegations in the context of 

investigations, the Statement of 

Administrative Action (SAA) 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act states that an allegation 

of sales below COP need not be specific 

to individual exporters or producers.67

The SAA states further that ‘‘Commerce 

will consider allegations of below-cost 

sales in the aggregate for a foreign 

country . . . on a country-wide basis for 

purposes of initiating an antidumping 

investigation.’’ 68 Consequently, the 

Department intends to consider the 

petitioners’ allegations on a countrywide basis for each respective country 

for purposes of this initiation. 

Finally, the SAA provides that section 

773(b)(2)(A) of the Act retains the 

requirement that the Department have 

‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect that below-cost sales have 

occurred before initiating such an 

investigation.’’ 69 ‘‘ ‘Reasonable grounds’ 

will exist when an interested party 

provides specific factual information on 

costs and prices, observed or 

constructed, indicating that sales in the 

foreign market in question are at belowcost prices.’’ 70 As explained in the 

‘‘Cost of Production’’ section below, we 

find reasonable grounds exist that 

indicate sales in Australia, Brazil, and 

Indonesia were made at below-cost 

prices. 

Cost of Production 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the 

Act, COP consists of the cost of 

manufacturing (COM); selling, general, 

and administrative (SG&A) expenses; 

financial expenses; and packing 

expenses. 

For Australia, the petitioners 

calculated COM (except for 

depreciation) based on the experience of 

a U.S. producer adjusted for known 

differences between the United States 

and Australia, during the proposed POI. 

The petitioners multiplied the U.S. 

producer’s usage quantities by publiclyavailable data to value the inputs used 

to manufacture uncoated paper in 

Australia. To determine the 

depreciation, SG&A, and financial 

expense rates, the petitioners relied on 

financial statements of a producer of 

uncoated paper in Australia.71

For Brazil, the petitioners calculated 

COM (except for depreciation) based on 

the experience of a U.S. producer 

adjusted for known differences between 

the United States and Brazil, during the 

proposed POI. The petitioners 

multiplied the U.S. producer’s usage 

quantities by publicly-available data to 

value the inputs used to manufacture 

uncoated paper in Brazil. To determine 

the depreciation, SG&A, and financial 

expense rates, the petitioners relied on 

financial statements of a producer of 

uncoated paper in Brazil.72

For Indonesia, the petitioners 

calculated COM based on the 

experience of a U.S. producer adjusted 

for known differences between the 

United States and Indonesia during the 

proposed POI. The petitioners 

multiplied the U.S. producer’s usage 

quantities by publicly-available data to 

value the inputs used to manufacture 

uncoated paper in Indonesia. To 

determine the depreciation, SG&A, and 

financial expense rates, the petitioners 

relied on financial statements of a 

producer of uncoated paper in 

Indonesia.73

Based upon a comparison of the exfactory price of the foreign like product 

in the home market to the COP of the 

product for Australia, Brazil, and 

Indonesia, respectively, we find 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales of the foreign like product in 

the home market were made below the 

COP, within the meaning of section 

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act.74

Accordingly, the Department is 

initiating a country-wide cost 

investigation relating to sales of 

uncoated paper in Australia, Brazil, and 

Indonesia, respectively. 

Normal Value Based on Constructed 

Value 

For Australia, because they alleged 

sales below cost, pursuant to sections 

773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, 

the petitioners also calculated NV based 

on constructed value (CV). The 

petitioners calculated CV using the 

same average COM, SG&A, financial 

expense, and packing figures used to 

compute the COP. The petitioners relied 

on the same financial statements used as 

the basis for the depreciation and SG&A 

expense rates to calculate the profit rate. 

However, because these financial 

statements did not report a profit, the 

petitioners conservatively did not 

include a profit rate.75

For Brazil, because they alleged sales 

below cost, pursuant to sections 

773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, 

the petitioners also calculated NV based 

on CV. The petitioners calculated CV 

using the same average COM, SG&A, 

financial expense, and packing figures 

used to compute the COP. The 

petitioners relied on the same financial 

statements used as the basis for the 

depreciation and SG&A expense rates to 

calculate the profit rate. However, 

because these financial statements did 

not report a profit, the petitioners 

conservatively did not include a profit 

rate.76

For Indonesia, because they alleged 

sales below cost, pursuant to sections 

773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, 

the petitioners also calculated NV based 

on CV. The petitioners calculated CV 

using the same average COM, SG&A, 

financial expense, and packing figures 

used to compute the COP. The 

petitioners relied on the same financial 

statements used as the basis for the 

depreciation and SG&A expense rates to 

calculate the profit rate.77

Fair Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by the 

petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of uncoated paper from 

Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, 

and Portugal are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value. Based on comparisons of EP 

to NV (based on home market price and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8614 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 

78See Australia AD Initiation Checklist. 79See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist. 80See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist. 81See Portugal AD Initiation Checklist. 82See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 83See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–7. 84See Certain Steel Nails From India, the 

Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Sultanate of 

Oman, Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey, and the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of LessThan-Fair-Value Investigations, 79 FR 36019, 36024 

(June 25, 2014). 

85See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–7. 

86See Volume II of the Petitions, at II–1–II–2 at 

footnote 1, and Exhibit II–3; Volume V of the 

Petitions, at V–1 through V–2 and Exhibit V–1; 

Volume VI of the Petitions, at Exhibits VI–1 and VI– 

2. 

87See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–7. 

88See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf 

(Policy Bulletin 05.1). 

89Although in past investigations this deadline 

was 60 days, consistent with section 351.301(a) of 

the Department’s regulations, which states that ‘‘the 

Secretary may request any person to submit factual 

information at any time during a proceeding,’’ this 

deadline is now 30 days. 

constructed value) in accordance with 

section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated 

dumping margin(s) for uncoated paper 

from: 1) Australia range from 49.90 

percent to 222.46 percent; 78 2) Brazil 

range from 86.90 percent to 172.07 

percent; 79 3) Indonesia range from 

12.08 to 66.82 percent; 80 and 4) 

Portugal range from 2.23 to 22.59 

percent.81 Based on comparisons of EP 

to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) 

of the Act, the estimated dumping 

margins for uncoated paper from the 

PRC range from 243.65 to 271.87 

percent.82

Initiation of LTFV Investigations 

Based upon the examination of the 

AD Petitions on uncoated paper from 

Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, 

and Portugal, we find that the Petitions 

meet the requirements of section 732 of 

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD 

investigations to determine whether 

imports of uncoated paper from 

Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, 

and Portugal are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at LTFV. 

In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) 

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

unless postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determinations no later 

than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Respondent Selection 

The petitioners named six companies 

as producers/exporters of uncoated 

paper from Indonesia.83 Following 

standard practice in AD investigations 

involving market-economy countries, 

the Department will, where appropriate, 

select respondents based on CBP data 

for U.S. imports of uncoated paper 

under 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. For 

Indonesia, we intend to release CBP 

data under Administrative Protective 

Order (APO) to all parties with access to 

information protected by APO within 

five-business days of publication of this 

Federal Register notice.84 The 

Department invites comments regarding 

respondent selection within seven days 

of publication of this Federal Register 

notice. 

Although the Department normally 

relies on import data from CBP to select 

a limited number of producers/exporters 

for individual examination in AD 

investigations, the Petitions identified 

only one company as a producer/

exporter of uncoated paper in Australia: 

Paper Australia Pty. Ltd.; two 

companies as producers/exporters of 

uncoated paper in Brazil: International 

Paper and Suzano Papel e Celulose S.A.; 

and one company as a producer/

exporter of uncoated paper in Portugal: 

Portucel/Soporcel.85 In addition, the 

petitioners provided information from 

independent third party sources as 

support for identifying those producers/ 

exporters from Australia, Brazil, and 

Portugal.86 Furthermore, we currently 

know of no additional producers/

exporters of merchandise under 

consideration from these countries. 

Accordingly, the Department intends to 

examine all known producers/exporters 

in the investigations for Australia, 

Brazil, and Portugal (i.e., the companies 

cited above for each respective 

investigation). We invite interested 

parties to comment on this issue. Parties 

wishing to comment must do so within 

five days of the publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. 

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. 

With respect to the PRC, the 

petitioners identified eight potential 

respondents.87 In accordance with our 

standard practice for respondent 

selection in cases involving NME 

countries, we intend to issue quantityand-value questionnaires to each 

potential respondent and base 

respondent selection on the responses 

received. In addition, the Department 

will post the quantity-and-value 

questionnaire along with filing 

instructions on the Enforcement and 

Compliance Web site at http://

www.trade.gov/enforecement/news.asp. 

Exporters/producers of uncoated 

paper from the PRC that do not receive 

quantity-and-value questionnaires by 

mail may still submit a quantity-andvalue response and can obtain a copy 

from the Enforcement and Compliance 

Web site. The quantity-and-value 

questionnaire must be submitted by all 

the PRC exporters/producers no later 

than February 24, 2015, which is two 

weeks from the signature date of this 

notice. All quantity-and-value 

questionnaires must be filed 

electronically via ACCESS. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in an NME investigation, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

application.88 The specific requirements 

for submitting a separate-rate 

application in the PRC investigation are 

outlined in detail in the application 

itself, which is available on the 

Department’s Web site at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-seprate.html. The separate-rate application 

will be due 30 days after publication of 

this initiation notice.89 For exporters 

and producers who submit a separaterate application and have been selected 

as mandatory respondents, these 

exporters and producers will only be 

eligible for consideration for separaterate status when they respond to all 

parts of the questionnaire as mandatory 

respondents. The Department requires 

that respondents from the PRC submit a 

response to both the quantity-and-value 

questionnaire and the separate-rate 

application by their respective 

deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

Use of Combination Rates 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in an NME investigation. 

Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its NME Investigation will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. 

Note, however, that one rate is calculated for 

the exporter and all of the producers which 

supplied subject merchandise to it during the 

period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 8615 

90See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6–7 (emphasis 

added). 

91See section 733(a) of the Act. 

92 Id. 

93See Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 

(September 20, 2013). 94See section 782(b) of the Act. 

rates’’ because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation. 

* * * * * 

This practice is necessary to prevent the 

avoidance of payment of antidumping duties 

by firms shifting exports through exporters 

with the lowest assigned cash-deposit rates. 

The Department’s previous practice of 

accounting for changes in producers during 

administrative reviews is not sufficient to 

prevent these activities, because in many 

industries, producer can appear and 

disappear frequently prior to the 

administrative review. Only by limiting the 

application of the separate rate to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers can the Department prevent the 

‘‘funneling’’ of subject merchandise through 

the exporters with the lowest rates.90

Therefore, for the Department to grant 

separate-rate status, the identity of all 

producers supplying a particular 

exporter eligible for a separate rate must 

be public information to ensure that 

CBP can apply the rate to the proper 

combination of exporter(s) and 

producer(s) eligible for a particular rate. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), copies of the public version 

of the Petitions have been provided to 

the governments of Australia, Brazil, 

Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal via 

ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we 

will attempt to provide a copy of the 

public version of the Petitions to each 

exporter named in the Petitions, as 

provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

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 uncoated paper from Australia, 

Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and/or 

Portugal are materially injuring or 

threatening material injury to a U.S. 

industry.91 A negative ITC 

determination for any country will 

result in the investigation being 

terminated with respect to that 

country; 92 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, 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. 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.93 The modification 

clarifies that parties may request an 

extension of time limits before a time 

limit established under 19 CFR 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 

section 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure 

the adequacy of remuneration under 

section 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2) filed 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and 

rebuttal, clarification and correction 

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 untimely filed 

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. Review Extension 

of Time Limits, 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.94

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
8616 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2015 / Notices 

95See 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, 

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

combination of such primary colors. 

the end of the Final Rule.95 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 3627 (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 in 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.203(c). 

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 level 1 of 85 or higher 

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 ground wood 

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. 2015–03338 Filed 2–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Second Japan-U.S. Decommissioning 

and Remediation Fukushima Recovery 

Forum, Tokyo, Japan April 9–10, 2015 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Event Description 

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s 

International Trade Administration 

(ITA), with the support of the U.S. 

Department of Energy, is organizing the 

second Japan-United States 

Decommissioning and Remediation 

Fukushima Recovery Forum 

(‘‘Fukushima Recovery Forum’’) on 

April 9–10, 2015 in Tokyo, Japan. 

Building on the first Fukushima 

Recovery Forum held in February 2014, 

the 2nd Fukushima Recovery Forum 

will continue to develop U.S.-Japanese 

cooperation on Fukushima recovery 

efforts. The event will allow U.S. firms 

to hear from Japanese Ministries, 

utilities, and commissioning entities on 

the status of Fukushima recovery. It will 

be a forum for U.S. and Japanese firms 

to make contacts while sharing 

experiences, expertise, and lessons 

learned in remediation and 

decommissioning, including work 

underway at Fukushima Dai-ichi 

Nuclear Power Station, and in Tohoku, 

the area affected by the accident at 

Fukushima. The event also addresses 

interest in cooperation in areas related 

to nuclear power as Japan moves 

forward with its plan for restarting its 

nuclear reactors and decommissioning 

some of its commercial reactor fleet. 

U.S. firms will also network with 

Japanese firms and identify potential 

business partners. 

ITA hopes that this cooperation 

between the U.S. and Japanese private 

sectors will lead to solutions that will 

enhance Fukushima recovery efforts. 

ITA is seeking the participation of a 

maximum of 25 U.S. companies or 

representatives of trade organizations 

that produce technology or provide 

services in the decommissioning or 

remediation sector, including water 

treatment and waste management. Staff 

from the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s Global Markets, Industry & 

Analysis (I&A), and U.S. & Foreign 

Commercial Service (CS) units will also 

be available in Tokyo to provide export 

counseling and civil nuclear trade 

policy guidance to participating 

companies. 

Support for the Fukushima Recovery 

Forum was confirmed at meetings of the 

U.S-Japan Bilateral Commission on Civil 

Nuclear Cooperation. The Bilateral 

Commission is a senior-level, forum for 

consultations on mutual issues of 

concern to further strengthen bilateral 

cooperation and advance shared 

interests in the area of civil nuclear 

cooperation. The Bilateral Commission 

is chaired by the Department of Energy 

and Japan’s Ministry of Economy, 

Trade, and Industry (METI). 

The Decommissioning and 

Environmental Management Working 

Group (DEMWG) under the Bilateral 

Commission addresses the long-term 

consequences of the Fukushima 

accident, including facility 

decommissioning, spent fuel storage, 

decontamination, and remediation of 

contaminated areas. The Fukushima 

Recovery Forum is under the auspices 

of the DEMWG to further industry 

cooperation in support of Fukushima 

recovery efforts. 

Event Goals 

The Fukushima Recovery Forum is an 

event to bring together U.S. and 

Japanese private sector firms in the 

remediation, decommissioning, and 

waste management industries to 

develop relationships that will assist 

with the recovery of the Fukushima 

region. The Forum is intended to create 

better market opportunities for U.S. 

companies. It will do this by: 

• Allowing U.S. firms to meet key 

Japanese officials involved in the 

planning of decommissioning, 

remediation, and other work related to 

Fukushima Recovery. 

• Creating a venue where U.S. and 

Japanese firms can share experiences, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES