Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Notices 15981 

1See Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing 

Duties on Supercalendered Paper from Canada 

(February 26, 2015) (Petition). 

2The Coalition for Fair Paper Imports consists of 

Madison Paper Industries and Verso Corporation. 

3See 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). 

4See 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). 

any way in any transaction involving 

any commodity, software or technology 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as 

‘‘item’’) exported or to be exported from 

the United States that is subject to the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(‘‘EAR’’), or in any other activity subject 

to the EAR including, but not limited to: 

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using 

any license, License Exception, or 

export control document; 

B. Carrying on negotiations 

concerning, or ordering, buying, 

receiving, using, selling, delivering, 

storing, disposing of, forwarding, 

transporting, financing, or otherwise 

servicing in any way, any transaction 

involving any item exported or to be 

exported from the United States that is 

subject to the EAR, or in any other 

activity subject to the EAR; or 

C. Benefitting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the EAR, or in any 

other activity subject to the EAR. 

Second, that no person may, directly 

or indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of a Denied Person any item subject to 

the EAR; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

a Denied Person of the ownership, 

possession, or control of any item 

subject to the EAR that has been or will 

be exported from the United States, 

including financing or other support 

activities related to a transaction 

whereby a Denied Person acquires or 

attempts to acquire such ownership, 

possession or control; 

C. Take any action to acquire from or 

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted 

acquisition from a Denied Person of any 

item subject to the EAR that has been 

exported from the United States; 

D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the 

United States any item subject to the 

EAR with knowledge or reason to know 

that the item will be, or is intended to 

be, exported from the United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the EAR that has 

been or will be exported from the 

United States and which is owned, 

possessed or controlled by a Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by a Denied Person if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the EAR that has been or will 

be exported from the United States. For 

purposes of this paragraph, servicing 

means installation, maintenance, repair, 

modification or testing. 

Third, that, after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

Section 766.23 of the EAR, any other 

person, firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to a Denied Person 

by ownership, control, position of 

responsibility, affiliation, or other 

connection in the conduct of trade or 

business may also be made subject to 

the provisions of this Order. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, Flider 

Electronics, LLC d/b/a Trident 

International Corporation, may, at any 

time, appeal this Order by filing a full 

written statement in support of the 

appeal with the Office of the 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast 

Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South 

Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202– 

4022. In accordance with the provisions 

of Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) 

of the EAR, Pavel Semenovich Flider 

and Gennadiy Semenovich Flider may, 

at any time, appeal their inclusion as a 

related person by filing a full written 

statement in support of the appeal with 

the Office of the Administrative Law 

Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing 

Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21202–4022. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may 

seek renewal of this Order by filing a 

written request not later than 20 days 

before the expiration date. Flider 

Electronics, LLC d/b/a Trident 

International Corporation may oppose a 

request to renew this Order by filing a 

written submission with the Assistant 

Secretary for Export Enforcement, 

which must be received not later than 

seven days before the expiration date of 

the Order. 

A copy of this Order shall be sent to 

Flider Electronics LLC d/b/a Trident 

International Corporation and each 

related person, and shall be published 

in the Federal Register. 

This Order is effective upon issuance 

and shall remain in effect for 180 days. 

Dated: March 19, 2015. 

David W. Mills, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06894 Filed 3–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

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. 

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

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

15982 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Notices 

5See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the 

Petition’’ below. 

6See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 

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

7See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21). 

8See 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%20

Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf. 

9See Letter from the Department, 

‘‘Supercalendered Paper from Canada’’ (February 

26, 2015). 

10See 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). 

11See section 771(10) of the Act. 

12See 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)). 

13For 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 

sufficient industry support with respect 

to the initiation of the investigation the 

petitioner is requesting.5

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Notices 15983 

Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department 

building. 

14See Petition at Volume I, at I–3. 

15 Id., at I–3; see also Petition Supplement at 3 

and Exhibit S–3. 

16 Id. 

17See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

18 Id. 

19 Id. 

20 Id. 

21See Petition at Volume I, at I–13—I–14 and 

Exhibit I–6; see also Petition Supplement at 3 and 

Exhibit S–4. 

22 Id., at I–14—I–20 and Exhibits I–7—I–13. 

23See 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. 

24See Petition at Volume II, at Exhibit II–3. 

25See section 703(a) of the Act. 

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

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. 

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

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

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

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. 

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. 

Submission of Factual Information 

Factual information is defined in 19 

CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence 

submitted in response to questionnaires; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

15984 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Notices 

26See section 782(b) of the Act. 

27See 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. 

28Supercalendering 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. 

(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

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

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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD852 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Take of Anadromous Fish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; availability of NMFS 

evaluation of joint state/tribal hatchery 

plans and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW), with the Jamestown 

S’Klallam Tribe, the Lummi Nation, the 

Nooksack Tribe, the Stillaguamish 

Tribes, and the Tulalip Tribes as the 

U.S. v. Washington salmon resource comanagers, has submitted three Hatchery 

and Genetic Management Plans, to be 

considered jointly, to NMFS pursuant to 

the limitation on take prohibitions for 

actions conducted under Limit 6 of the 

4(d) Rule for salmon and steelhead 

promulgated under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). The plans specify 

the propagation of early-returning 

(‘‘early’’) winter steelhead in the 

Dungeness, Nooksack, and 

Stillaguamish River watersheds of 

Washington State. This document serves 

to notify the public of the availability 

for comment of the proposed evaluation 

of the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) as to whether 

implementation of the joint plans will 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival and recovery of ESA-listed 

Puget Sound steelhead, Puget Sound 

Chinook salmon, and Hood Canal 

summer chum salmon. 

This notice further advises the public 

of the availability for review of a draft 

Environmental Assessment of the effects 

of the NMFS determination on the 

subject joint plans. 

DATES: Comments must be received at 

the appropriate address or email 

mailbox (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 

p.m. Pacific time on April 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

proposed evaluation and pending 

determination should be addressed to 

the NMFS Sustainable Fisheries 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES