Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices 53707 

4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000, 

4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70. While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

investigation is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–25210 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–423–809) 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

Belgium: Rescission of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Montoro or Mary Kolberg, at 

(202) 482–0238 or (202) 482–1785, 

respectively; AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 1, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published a notice announcing the 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the countervailing duty order 

on stainless steel plate in coils from 

Belgium. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 74 

FR 20278 (May 1, 2009). On June 1, 

2009, ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium 

N.V. (‘‘AMS Belgium’’) timely requested 

an administrative review covering the 

period January 1, 2008, through 

December 31, 2008. In accordance with 

19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department 

published a notice initiating an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on stainless 

steel plate in coils from Belgium. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 74 FR 30052 (June 24, 2009). 

Rescission of Review 

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

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if the party 

that requested a review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of the notice of initiation of 

the requested review. On September 22, 

2009, AMS Belgium withdrew its 

request for review within the 90-day 

period. Therefore, in response to AMS 

Belgium’s withdrawal of its request for 

an administrative review, and as no 

other party requested a review, the 

Department is rescinding this 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on stainless 

steel plate in coils from Belgium for the 

period January 1, 2008, through 

December 31, 2008. 

Assessment 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess countervailing duties at the 

cash deposit rate in effect on the date of 

entry, for entries during the period 

January 1, 2008, through December 31, 

2008. The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions to 

CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of this notice of rescission 

of administrative review. In addition, 

pursuant to an injunction issued in 

ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v. 

United States, CIT No. 08–00434, on 

January 16, 2009, the Department must 

continue to suspend liquidation of 

entries made by AMS Belgium pending 

a conclusive court decision in that 

action. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protection orders (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: October 13, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–25200 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–560–824] 

Certain Coated Paper From Indonesia: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene Calvert or Dana Mermelstein, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3586 or (202) 482– 

1391, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On September 23, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) received a countervailing 

duty (‘‘CVD’’) petition concerning 

imports of certain coated paper suitable 

for high-quality print graphics using 

sheet-fed presses (‘‘certain coated 

paper’’) from Indonesia filed in proper 

form by Appleton Coated LLC, NewPage 

Corporation, Sappi Fine Paper North 

America, and the United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). See 

‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties: Certain Coated 

Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print 

Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from 

Indonesia,’’ dated September 23, 2009 

(Indonesia CVD Petition). On September 

29, October 5, and October 7, 2009, the 

Department issued additional requests 

for information and clarification of 

certain areas of the Indonesia CVD 

Petition. Based on the Department’s 

requests, Petitioners timely filed 

additional information pertaining to the 

Indonesia CVD Petition on October 2, 

October 6, and October 9, 2009 

(hereinafter, ‘‘Supplement to the 

Indonesia CVD Petition,’’ dated October 

2, 2009, ‘‘Second Supplement to the 

Indonesia CVD Petition,’’ dated October 

6, 2009, and ‘‘Third Supplement to the 

Indonesia CVD Petition,’’ dated October 

9, 2009). 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 

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

producers/exporters of certain coated 

paper in Indonesia received 

countervailable subsidies within the 

meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
53708 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices 

the Act, and that imports from these 

producers/exporters materially injure, 

or threaten material injury to, an 

industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

have filed this CVD petition on behalf 

of the domestic industry because they 

are interested parties as defined in 

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

Act, and Petitioners have demonstrated 

sufficient industry support with respect 

to the CVD investigation that they are 

requesting the Department to initiate 

(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support 

for the CVD Petition,’’ below). 

Period of Investigation 

The anticipated period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’) is calendar year 

2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain coated paper 

from Indonesia. For a full description of 

the scope of this investigation, please 

see the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ in the 

Appendix to this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Indonesia 

CVD Petition, we discussed the scope 

with Petitioners to ensure that it is an 

accurate reflection of the products for 

which the domestic industry is seeking 

relief. Moreover, as discussed in the 

preamble to the regulations (See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a 

period for interested parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage. The 

Department encourages all interested 

parties to submit such comments by 

November 2, 2009. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. 

Consultations 

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

the Act, the Department held 

consultations with the Government of 

Indonesia (‘‘GOI’’) with respect to the 

Indonesia CVD Petition on October 7, 

2009. See Memorandum to The File, 

‘‘Consultations with the Government of 

Indonesia Regarding the Countervailing 

Duty Petition on Certain Coated Paper 

from Indonesia,’’ dated October 9, 2009, 

a public document on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of 

the main Department of Commerce 

building. 

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. 

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

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like 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 United 

States 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 (see section 

771(10) of the Act), 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. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel 

Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), 

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

denied 492 U.S. 919 (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, Petitioners offer a definition of 

domestic like product that includes 

sheeter rolls (rolls of certain coated 

paper intended to be slit and used in 

sheet-fed presses) and, therefore, is 

broader than the scope of the 

investigation, which does not include 

sheeter rolls. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that certain 

coated paper described in the scope of 

the investigations and sheeter rolls 

constitute a single domestic like product 

and we have analyzed industry support 

in terms of that domestic like product. 

For a discussion of the domestic like 

product analysis in this case, see 

Countervailing Duty Investigation 

Initiation Checklist: Certain Coated 

Paper from Indonesia (‘‘Indonesia CVD 

Initiation Checklist’’) at Attachment II, 

Analysis of Industry Support for the 

Petitions Covering Certain Coated Paper 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

Indonesia, dated concurrently with this 

notice and on file in the CRU, Room 

1117 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. 

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing under section 

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

the industry support data contained in 

the Indonesia CVD Petition with 

reference to the domestic like product as 

defined in the Indonesia CVD Petition. 

To establish industry support, 

Petitioners provided their own 2008 

shipments of the domestic like product, 

as well as one supporting company’s 

(SMART Papers) 2008 shipments, and 

compared the total to the 2008 

shipments of the entire domestic 

industry. See Volume I of the Indonesia 

CVD Petition, at 2–3, Exhibits I–3, I–4, 

and I–19, and Supplement to the 

Indonesia CVD Petition, dated October 

2, 2009, at 19–22 and Exhibit 4. 

Petitioners estimated total 2008 

shipments of the domestic like product 

based on the American Forest & Paper 

Association annual Coated Printing 

Papers Survey. See Volume I of the 

Indonesia CVD Petition, at 3 and 

Exhibits I–3 and I–4, and Supplement to 

the Indonesia CVD Petition, dated 

October 2, 2009, at 22 and Exhibit 4; see 

also Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist 

at Attachment II. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices 53709 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Indonesia CVD Petition, supplemental 

submissions, and other information 

readily available to the Department 

indicates that Petitioners have 

established industry support. First, the 

Indonesia CVD 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). See 

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

Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have 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 Indonesia 

CVD Petition account for at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product. See Indonesia 

CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment 

II. Finally, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have 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 Indonesia CVD 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 Indonesia CVD Petition. 

Accordingly, the Department 

determines that the Indonesia CVD 

Petition was filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

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

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Indonesia CVD Petition on 

behalf of the domestic industry because 

they are interested parties as defined in 

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

Act and they have demonstrated 

sufficient industry support with respect 

to the countervailing duty investigation 

that they are requesting the Department 

initiate. See id. 

Injury Test 

Because Indonesia 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 Indonesia 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that imports of 

certain coated paper from Indonesia are 

benefitting from countervailable 

subsidies and that such imports are 

causing, or threaten to cause, material 

injury to the domestic industry 

producing certain coated paper. In 

addition, Petitioners allege that 

subsidized imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

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

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, underselling and 

price depressing and suppressing 

effects, increased import penetration, 

lost sales and revenue, reduced 

production, capacity, and capacity 

utilization, reduced shipments and 

inventories, reduced employment, and 

reduced financial performance. 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. See 

Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment III, ‘‘Analysis of Allegations 

and Evidence of Material Injury and 

Causation’’ for the Petitions Covering 

Certain Coated Paper from the People’s 

Republic of China and Indonesia. 

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 petitioners 

supporting the allegations. 

The Department has examined the 

countervailing duty petition on certain 

coated paper from Indonesia and finds 

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 

producers/exporters of certain coated 

paper from Indonesia receive 

countervailable subsidies. For a 

discussion of evidence supporting our 

initiation determination, see Indonesia 

CVD Initiation Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

Indonesia CVD Petition to provide 

countervailable subsidies to producers/ 

exporters of the subject merchandise: 

1. Provision of Standing Timber for 

Less Than Adequate Remuneration. 

2. Government Prohibition of Log 

Exports. 

3. Government Provision of InterestFree Reforestation Loans. 

4. Debt Forgiveness through the 

Indonesian Government’s Acceptance of 

Financial Instruments with No Market 

Value. 

5. Debt Forgiveness through APP/ 

SMG’s Buyback of its Own Debt from 

the Indonesian Government. 

6. Government Forgiveness of 

Stumpage Obligations. 

7. Tax Incentives for Investment in 

Priority Business Lines and Designated 

Regions: 

a. Corporate Income Tax Deduction; 

b. Accelerated Depreciation and 

Amortization; 

c. Extension of Loss Carryforward; 

d. Reduced Withholding Tax on 

Dividends. 

Respondent Selection 

The petition identifies the Asia Pulp 

& Paper/Sinar Mas Group (APP/SMG), 

through the two Indonesian coated 

paper mills it operates, PT. Pabrik 

Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk. (‘‘Tjiwi Kimia’’) 

and PT Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper 

(‘‘Pindo Deli’’), as the one major 

producer of coated paper in Indonesia. 

We have placed on the record import 

data from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) which supports 

Petitioners’ contention. We note that in 

a recent countervailing duty 

investigation covering coated free sheet 

paper from Indonesia, the Department 

found that the APP/Sinar Mas Group 

produced almost all exports of coated 

paper from Indonesia and that Tjiwi 

Kimia and Pindo Deli are cross-owned 

companies within the APP/SMG family 

of companies, which operates together 

as a vertically integrated paper 

production company. See Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 72 FR 60642 (October 

25, 2007), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

Because record information indicates 

that APP/SMG is the producer of nearly 

all of the coated paper produced in 

Indonesia, we are selecting APP/SMG as 

a mandatory respondent in this 

investigation, pursuant to section 

777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. We will release 

the CBP data under APO to the parties 

covered by APO on the day this 

initiation is announced. We will 

consider comments from interested 

parties on respondent selection. Parties 

wishing to comment must do so within 

five days of the publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Distribution of Copies of the CVD 

Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, copies of the 

public versions of the Indonesia CVD 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
53710 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices 

1 ‘‘ ‘Paperboard’ refers to Certain Coated Paper 

that is heavier, thicker and more rigid than coated 

paper which otherwise meets the product 

description. In the context of Certain Coated Paper, 

paperboard typically is referred to as ‘cover,’ to 

distinguish it from ‘text.’ ’’ 

2One 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 of 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. 

Petition and amendments thereto have 

been provided to the GOI. To the extent 

practicable, we will attempt to provide 

a copy of the public version of the 

Indonesia CVD Petition to each exporter 

named in the petition, as provided 

under 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 

subsidized certain coated paper from 

Indonesia materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. See 

section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative 

ITC determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated; see 

section 703(a)(1) of the Act. Otherwise, 

the investigation will proceed according 

to statutory and regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: October 13, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation includes certain coated 

paper and paperboard 1 in sheets 

suitable for high quality print graphics 

using sheet-fed presses; coated on one 

or both sides with kaolin (China or other 

clay), calcium carbonate, titanium 

dioxide, and/or other inorganic 

substances; with or without a binder; 

having a GE brightness level of 80 or 

higher 2; weighing not more than 340 

grams per square meter; whether gloss 

grade, satin grade, matte grade, dull 

grade, or any other grade of finish; 

whether or not surface-colored, surfacedecorated, printed (except as described 

below), embossed, or perforated; and 

irrespective of dimensions (‘‘Certain 

Coated Paper’’). 

Certain Coated Paper includes (a) 

coated free sheet paper and paperboard 

that meets this scope definition; (b) 

coated groundwood paper and 

paperboard produced from bleached 

chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp 

(‘‘BCTMP’’) that meets this scope 

definition; and (c) any other coated 

paper that meets this scope definition. 

Certain Coated Paper is typically (but 

not exclusively) used for printing multicolored graphics for catalogues, books, 

magazines, envelopes, labels and wraps, 

greeting cards, and other commercial 

printing applications requiring high 

quality print graphics. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

are imports of paper and paperboard 

printed with final content printed text 

or graphics. 

As of 2009, imports of the subject 

merchandise are provided for under the 

following categories of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’): 4810.14.11, 4810.14.1900, 

4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 

4810.14.5000, 4810.14.6000, 4810.14.70, 

4810.19.1100, 4810.19.1900, 

4810.19.2010, 4810.19.2090, 

4810.22.1000, 4810.22.50, 4810.22.6000, 

4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000, 

4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70. While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

investigation is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–25187 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–560–823, A–570–958] 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High-Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia 

and the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gemal Brangman (Indonesia) or Frances 

Veith (People’s Republic of China), AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2 and Office 8, 

respectively, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3773 or (202) 482–4295, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On September 23, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) received Petitions 

concerning imports of certain coated 

paper, suitable for high-quality print 

graphics using sheet fed presses 

(‘‘certain coated paper’’) from Indonesia 

and the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by 

Appleton Coated LLC, NewPage 

Corporation, S.D. Warren Company d/b/ 

a Sappi Fine Paper North America, and 

the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’). See Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 

Certain Coated Paper from Indonesia 

(‘‘Indonesia petition’’) dated September 

23, 2009; and Petition for the Imposition 

of Antidumping Duties on Certain 

Coated Paper from the People’s 

Republic of China dated September 23, 

2009 (‘‘PRC petition’’) (collectively, ‘‘the 

Petitions’’). On September 29, and 

October 7, 2009, the Department issued 

requests for additional information and 

clarification of certain areas of the 

Petitions. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioners filed supplements to 

the Petitions for both countries on 

October 2, 8, and 9, 2009. 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports of 

certain coated paper from Indonesia and 

the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value, within the meaning of section 

731 of the Act, and that such imports 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, an industry in the United 

States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed these Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties as defined in 

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

Act, and they have demonstrated 

sufficient industry support with respect 

to the investigations that they are 

requesting the Department to initiate 

(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support 

for the Petitions’’ below). 

Scope of Investigations 

The products covered by these 

investigations are certain coated paper 

from Indonesia and the PRC. For a full 

description of the scope of the 

investigations, please see the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigations,’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigations 

During our review of the Petitions, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioners to 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES