[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15981-15984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06867]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-854]


Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Initiation of Countervailing 
Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Morris or Shane Subler, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1779 or (202) 482-0189, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition

    On February 26, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition \1\ concerning imports of 
supercalendered paper (SC paper) from Canada, filed in proper form on 
behalf of the Coalition for Fair Paper Imports (the petitioner).\2\ The 
petitioner is an ad hoc association of domestic producers of SC paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 
Supercalendered Paper from Canada (February 26, 2015) (Petition).
    \2\ The Coalition for Fair Paper Imports consists of Madison 
Paper Industries and Verso Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 3 and 13, 2015, we requested information and clarification 
for certain areas of the Petition.\3\ The petitioner responded to these 
requests on March 9 and 16, 2015.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letters from the Department, ``Petition For The 
Imposition Of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Supercalendered 
Paper from Canada: Supplemental Questions'' (March 3, 2015) and 
``Petition For The Imposition Of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 
Supercalendered Paper from Canada: Additional Supplemental 
Question'' (March 13, 2015).
    \4\ See Letters from the petitioner, ``Supercalendered Paper 
From Canada/Petitioner's Response To The Department's Questions 
Regarding The Petition'' (March 9, 2015) (Petition Supplement) and 
``Supercalendered Paper From Canada/Response to the March 13, 2015 
Additional Supplemental Question for Volume II of the Petition'' 
(March 16, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of Canada 
(the GOC) and certain Canadian provinces are providing countervailable 
subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to 
imports of SC paper from Canada, and that such imports are materially 
injuring, or are threatening material injury to, the domestic industry 
in the United States pursuant to section 701 of the Act. Consistent 
with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by 
information reasonably available to petitioner supporting its 
allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested 
party as defined in section 771(9)(F) of the Act, and that the 
petitioner has demonstrated

[[Page 15982]]

sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the 
investigation the petitioner is requesting.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e., the period 
of investigation (POI), is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is SC paper from Canada. 
For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the 
``Scope of the Investigation'' in Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on the Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, we issued questions to, and 
received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed 
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an 
accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is 
seeking relief.
    As discussed in the preamble to our regulations,\6\ 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 
determination. If scope comments include factual information,\7\ all 
such factual information should be limited to public information. All 
such comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on April 7, 
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. ET on April 17, 2015, which is 10 calendar days 
after the initial comments are due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \7\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request that any factual information the parties consider 
relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this 
time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional 
factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be 
relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission 
to submit the additional information.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic 
Service System (ACCESS).\8\ An electronically filed document must be 
received successfully in its entirety by the time and date noted above. 
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 18022, 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 deadlines noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of our electronic 
filing requirements. Information on help using ACCESS can be found 
at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at 
https://access.trade.vgov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, we notified the GOC 
of the receipt of the Petition. Also, in accordance with section 
702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, we invited representatives of the GOC for 
consultations with respect to the Petition.\9\ Consultations were held 
on March 12, 2015.\10\ This memorandum is on file electronically via 
ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Letter from the Department, ``Supercalendered Paper from 
Canada'' (February 26, 2015).
    \10\ See Ex-Parte Memorandum, ``Ex-Parte Meeting with Officials 
of the Government of Canada on the Countervailing Duty Petition on 
Supercalendered Paper from Canada'' (March 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    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,\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \12\ See 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that SC paper constitutes a 
single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in 
terms of that domestic like product.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Supercalendered Paper from Canada (Initiation Checklist), 
at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Petition 
Covering Supercalendered Paper from Canada (Attachment II). This 
checklist is 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 building.

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

[[Page 15983]]

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this 
notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own 
production of the domestic like product in 2014.\14\ The petitioner 
identifies its individual member companies, Madison Paper Industries 
and Verso Corporation, as the companies constituting the U.S. SC paper 
industry and states that there are no other known producers of SC paper 
in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 
percent of the U.S. industry.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Petition at Volume I, at I-3.
    \15\ Id., at I-3; see also Petition Supplement at 3 and Exhibit 
S-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the data provided in the Petition, Petition Supplement, 
and other information readily available to the Department, we determine 
that the petitioner has established industry support.\16\ First, the 
Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) 
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production 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).\17\ 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 
Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product.\18\ 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 Petition account for 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.\19\ 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(F) of the Act and it has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that 
it is requesting the Department initiate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because Canada is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine 
whether imports of the subject merchandise from Canada materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges 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 petitioner alleges that 
subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under 
section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Petition at Volume I, at I-13--I-14 and Exhibit I-6; 
see also Petition Supplement at 3 and Exhibit S-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price suppression 
or depression, lost sales and revenues, and other adverse impacts on 
the domestic industry, including declining capacity utilization rates 
and shipments, declining employment variables, and decline in domestic 
industry performance.\22\ 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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id., at I-14--I-20 and Exhibits I-7--I-13.
    \23\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of 
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 
Countervailing Duty Petition Covering Supercalendered Paper from 
Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

    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 petitioner 
supporting the allegations. In the Petition, the petitioner alleges 
that producers of SC paper in Canada benefited from countervailable 
subsidies bestowed by the GOC and certain Canadian provincial 
governments. We have examined the Petition and find that it complies 
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 a CVD 
investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or 
exporters of SC Paper from Canada receive countervailable subsidies 
from the GOC and the certain Canadian provincial governments.
    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 28 of the 29 
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision 
to initiate or not to initiate on each program, see Initiation 
Checklist.

Respondent Selection

    The petitioner named four companies as producers/exporters of SC 
paper from Canada.\24\ We will address the question of respondent 
selection subsequent to this initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Petition at Volume II, at Exhibit II-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been 
provided to representatives of the GOC via ACCESS. To the extent 
practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of 
the Petition to each known exporter (as named in the Petition), as 
provided in 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
702(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of SC paper from Canada are materially 
injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.\25\ A 
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being 
terminated; otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See section 703(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires;

[[Page 15984]]

(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 regulation 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. Time limits for the 
submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, 
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to 
submitting factual information in this investigation.

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise 
specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time 
limit established under Part. For submissions that 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. 
Under certain circumstances, we 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, we 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. An extension request 
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited 
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension 
of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 
information in this segment.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\26\ 
The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting 
party does not comply with the certification requirements provided in 
19 CFR 351.303(g) and implemented in the Final Rule.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \27\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, we 
published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents 
Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). 
Parties wishing to participate in this investigation 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: March 18, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is supercalendered 
paper (SC paper). SC paper is uncoated paper that has undergone a 
calendering process in which the base sheet, made of pulp and filler 
(typically, but not limited to, clay, talc, or other mineral 
additive), is processed through a set of supercalenders, a 
supercalender, or a soft nip calender operation.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Supercalendering and soft nip calendering processing, in 
conjunction with the mineral filler contained in the base paper, are 
performed to enhance the surface characteristics of the paper by 
imparting a smooth and glossy printing surface. Supercalendering and 
soft nip calendering also increase the density of the base paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scope of this investigation covers all SC paper regardless 
of basis weight, brightness, opacity, smoothness, or grade, and 
whether in rolls or in sheets. Further, the scope covers all SC 
paper that meets the scope definition regardless of the type of pulp 
fiber or filler material used to produce the paper.
    Specifically excluded from the scope are imports of paper 
printed with final content of printed text or graphics.
    Subject merchandise primarily enters under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4802.61.3035, but 
may also enter under subheadings 4802.61.3010, 4802.62.3000, 
4802.62.6020, and 4802.69.3000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2015-06867 Filed 3-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P