Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices 53703 

1See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 

and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended: 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality 

Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fred Presses from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated September 23, 

2009 (‘‘Petition’’). 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the Vietnamese exporters 

that supplied that non–Vietnamese 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred, and in the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during the review period. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply 

with this requirement could result in 

the Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO as explained in 

the administrative protective order 

itself. 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 the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: October 13, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–25209 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–570–959) 

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High–Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet–Fed Presses from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yasmin Nair and Joseph Shuler, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3813 and (202) 

482–1293, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On September 23, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a petition 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’’), domestic 

producers of certain coated paper 

suitable for high–quality print graphics 

using sheet–fed presses (‘‘coated 

paper’’).1 In response to the 

Department’s requests, Petitioners 

provided timely information 

supplementing the Petition on October 

2, 2009, and October 6, 2009. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

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

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of coated paper in the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’) receive 

countervailable subsidies within the 

meaning of section 701 of the Act, and 

that such imports are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to, an industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

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

Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

investigation (see ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

section below). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is January 

1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by the 

investigation are coated paper products 

from the PRC. For a full description of 

the scope of the investigation, please see 

‘‘Scope of Investigation,’’ in Appendix I 

of this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the 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 

Department’s regulations (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, twenty calendar days 

from the signature date of this notice. 

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 the 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 

determination. 

Consultations 

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

the Act, on September 23, 2009, the 

Department invited representatives of 

the Government of the PRC (‘‘GOC’’) for 

consultations with respect to the CVD 

petition. The GOC did not request such 

consultations, however, on October 13, 

2009, the GOC’s Ministry of Commerce 

submitted to the United States Embassy 

in Beijing, China comments pertaining 

to the Petition. 

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 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
53704 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices 

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 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 coated 

paper described in the scope of the 

investigation 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 the PRC 

(‘‘PRC 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 Central Records Unit, 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 Petition with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

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 Petition, 

at 2–3, Exhibits I–3, I–4, and I–19, and 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

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 Petition, at 3 and Exhibits I–3 and 

I–4, and Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions, dated October 2, 2009, at 22 

and Exhibit 4; see also PRC Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support. 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). See 

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

PRC 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 Petition account for at least 

25 percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product. See PRC 

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 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. 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. See id. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the 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 

CVD investigation that they are 

requesting the Department initiate. See 

id. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC 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 the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that imports of 

coated paper from the PRC 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, 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices 53705 

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 

PRC 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) of the Act requires the 

Department to initiate a CVD proceeding 

whenever an interested party files a 

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 Petitioner(s) supporting the 

allegations. 

The Department has examined the 

CVD petition on coated paper from the 

PRC and finds that it complies with the 

requirements of section 702(b) of the 

Act. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 702(b) of the Act, we are 

initiating a CVD investigation to 

determine whether manufacturers, 

producers, or exporters of coated paper 

in the PRC receive countervailable 

subsidies. For a discussion of evidence 

supporting our initiation determination, 

see Initiation Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

Petition to have provided 

countervailable subsidies to producers 

and exporters of the subject 

merchandise in the PRC: 

A. Preferential Lending to the Coated 

Paper Industry 

1. Policy Loans from State–Owned 

Commercial Banks and Government 

Policy Banks 

2. Fast–Growth High–Yield Forestry 

Program Loans 

B. Income Tax Programs 

1. Income Tax Exemption/Reduction 

under ‘‘Two–Free/Three Half’’ 

Program 

2. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reductions for ‘‘Productive’’ 

Foreign–Invested Enterprises 

(‘‘FIEs’’) 

3. Income Tax Reduction for FIEs 

Purchasing Domestically–Produced 

Equipment 

4. Tax Subsidies to FIEs Based on 

Geographic Location 

5. Preferential Tax Policies for 

Technology or Knowledge– 

Intensive FIEs 

6. Tax Programs for FIEs that are High 

or New Technology Enterprises 

7. Income Tax Reductions for High– 

Technology Industries in 

Guangdong Province 

8. Preferential Tax Policies for 

Research and Development at FIEs 

9. Income Tax Credits for 

Domestically–Owned Companies 

Purchasing Domestically–Produced 

Equipment 

10. Income Tax Exemption Program 

for Export–Oriented FIEs 

11. Corporate Income Tax Refund 

Program for Reinvestment of FIE 

profits in Export–Oriented 

Enterprises 

12. Exemption from City Maintenance 

and Construction Taxes and 

Education Surcharges for FIEs 

C. Indirect Tax and Import Tariff 

Programs 

1. Value Added Tax (‘‘VAT’’) and 

Tariff Exemptions on Imported 

Equipment 

2. VAT Rebates on Domestically 

Produced Equipment 

3. Domestic VAT Refunds for 

Companies Located in the Hainan 

Economic Development Zone 

D. Grant Programs 

1. Funds for Forestry Plantation 

Construction and Management 

2. The State Key Technologies 

Renovation Project Fund 

3. Loan Interest Subsidies for Major 

Industrial Technology Reform 

Projects in Wuhan 

4. Funds for Water Treatment 

Improvement Projects in the 

Songhuajiang Basin 

5. Special Fund for Energy Saving 

Technology Reform in Wuhan and 

Shouguang Municipality 

6. Clean Production Technology Fund 

7. Famous Brands Awards 

E. Provision of Goods or Services for 

Less Than Adequate Remuneration 

(‘‘LTAR’’) 

1. Papermaking Chemicals 

2. Electricity 

3. Land–Use Rights to State Owned 

Enterprises 

F. Economic Development Zone 

Programs 

1. Subsidies in the Nanchang EDZ 

2. Subsidies in the Wuhan EDZ 

3. Subsidies in the Yangpu EDZ 

4. Subsidies in the Zhenjiang EDZ 

For further information explaining why 

the Department is investigating these 

programs, see Initiation Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise in 

the PRC: 

1. State Science and Technology 

Support Scheme 

Petitioners allege that the GOC 

provides grants to support research and 

development under the National Mid– 

term and Long–term Science and 

Technology Plan (2006 – 2020). While 

the Department has relied on policy 

directives such as the 2007 Paper Plan 

and Decision No. 40 to support 

specificity findings with respect to 

policy lending, Petitioners have not 

pointed to any language in these policy 

directives regarding grants to promote 

research and development. Instead, the 

grants are given pursuant to the Science 

and Technology Plan and Petitioners’ 

specificity allegations in this respect are 

based on Section 771(5A)(D)(ii) and 

(D)(iii)(I) of the Act. Regarding the 

former, Petitioners appear to argue that 

because eligibility is not automatic 

((D)(ii)(I)) and/or because the eligibility 

criteria are not clearly set out 

((D)(ii)(III)), the program is specific as a 

matter of law. However, Petitioners have 

misconstrued the structure of (D)(ii) and 

a finding of de jure specificity set forth 

under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. 

Section 771(5A)(D)(ii) does not mean 

that if one or more of the criterion listed 

under this section of the Act is not meet 

then the program is specific as a matter 

of law. To be specific as a matter of law 

the program must meet the standard set 

forth under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the 

Act: the legislation under which the 

program operates expressly limits access 

to the subsidy to an enterprise or 

industry. Petitioners have failed to 

sufficiently allege or support a claim 

that this program is de jure specific 

under Section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. 

Finally, Petitioners have provided no 

support for their claim that the number 

of recipients is limited. Consequently, 

we do not plan on investigating this 

program. 

2. Special Funds for Environmental 

Protection 

Petitioners allege that central, 

provincial, and local government funds, 

in the form of grants or loan interest 

subsidies, are available to support 

certain qualified environmental 

protection projects. Although 

Petitioners point to specific language in 

the Papermaking Plan regarding policy 

support, that Plan was in place from 

2001 – 2005, while the measures 

authorizing these grants were put in 

place after that timeframe. Further, 

Petitioners have not provided evidence 

showing that grants provided pursuant 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
53706 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices 

2 ‘‘ ‘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.’’’ 

3One 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. 

to these authorizations are specific in 

law under Section 771(5A)(D)(i) or in 

fact under Section 771(5A)(D)(iii). We 

do not agree with Petitioners’ claim of 

specificity under Section 771(5A)(D)(ii) 

for the reasons explained above under, 

‘‘State Science and Technology Support 

Scheme.’’ Consequently, we do not plan 

on investigating this program. 

3. Provision of Coal for LTAR 

Petitioners allege that the GOC 

provides coal to Chinese producers of 

coated paper for LTAR. Petitioners have 

not supported their allegation that this 

program is specific to paper producers. 

The program as it relates to electricity 

generation targets the electricity 

industry, not the papermaking industry. 

Further, Petitioners have not supported 

their claim that the paper industry is an 

‘‘export industry.’’ Consequently, we do 

not plan on investigating this program. 

4. Provision of Water for LTAR 

Petitioners allege that the GOC 

provides favored sectors with 

differential water rates and unlimited 

water use. Petitioners have not provided 

sufficient support of a national policy to 

provide water for LTAR to coated paper 

producers. Consequently, we do not 

plan on investigating this program. 

5. Currency Undervaluation 

Petitioners allege that the GOC– 

maintained exchange rate effectively 

prevents the appreciation of the Chinese 

currency (RMB) against the U.S. dollar. 

Therefore, when producers/exporters in 

the PRC sell their dollars at official 

foreign exchange banks, as required by 

law, the producers receive more RMB 

than they otherwise would if the value 

of the RMB were set by market 

mechanisms. In the alternative, 

Petitioners allege that GOC foreign 

exchange market interventions 

constitute a price support (of the U.S. 

dollar vis a vis the RMB), within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(B)(ii). In both 

cases, Petitioners describe the benefit 

conferred as the excess of RMB 

received, over what would have been 

received at a market rate (‘‘excess 

RMB’’) and alleges specificity within the 

meaning of Section 771(5A)(B) of the 

Act by virtue of the fact that ‘‘ there is 

a direct and positive correlation 

between the export activity/export 

earnings and the amount of subsidy 

received.’’ Section 771(5A)(B) of the Act 

describes an export subsidy as ‘‘ a 

subsidy that is, in law or fact, 

contingent upon export performance, 

alone or as 1 of 2 or more conditions.’’ 

Petitioners have failed to sufficiently 

allege that the receipt of the excess RMB 

is contingent on export or export 

performance because receipt of the 

excess RMB is independent of the type 

of transaction or commercial activity for 

which the dollars are converted or of the 

particular company or individuals 

converting the dollars. Consequently, 

we do not plan on investigating this 

program because Petitioners have failed 

to properly allege the specificity 

element. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

expects to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. imports during the 

period of investigation. We intend to 

release the CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order 

(‘‘APO’’) to all parties with access to 

information protected by APO within 

five days of the announcement of the 

initiation of this investigation. 

Interested parties may submit comments 

regarding the CBP data and respondent 

selection within seven calendar days of 

publication of this notice. We intend to 

make our decision regarding respondent 

selection within 20 days of publication 

of this Federal Register notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s 

website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the 

public version of the Petition has been 

provided to the Government of the PRC. 

As soon as and to the extent practicable, 

we will attempt to provide a copy of the 

public version of the Petition to each 

exporter named in the Petition, 

consistent with section 351.203(c)(2) of 

the Department’s regulations 

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 25 days after the date on which 

it receives notice of the initiation, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of subsidized coated paper 

from the PRC are causing material 

injury, or threatening to cause 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; 

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 paperboard2 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 

higher3; 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, 

surface–decorated, 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–thermomechanical 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 multi– 

colored 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, 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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