83 FR 39414 - Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper From Canada: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 154 (August 9, 2018)

The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain uncoated groundwood paper (UGW paper) from Canada. The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ``Final Determination'' section of this notice.

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39414-39418]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17017]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-122-862]


Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper From Canada: Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that 
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters 
of certain uncoated groundwood paper (UGW paper) from Canada. The 
period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 
2016. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ``Final 
Determination'' section of this notice.

DATES: Applicable August 9, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Crespo or Whitley Herndon, AD/
CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

[[Page 39415]]

(202) 482-3693 or (202) 482-6274, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    This final determination is made in accordance with section 705 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The events that occurred 
since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination \1\ on January 
16, 2018, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is 
hereby adopted by this notice.\2\ The Issues and Decision Memorandum 
also details the changes we made since the Preliminary Determination to 
the subsidy rates calculated for the mandatory respondents and all 
other producers/exporters. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a 
public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and 
Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic 
Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at 
http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central 
Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. 
In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the 
electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical 
in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada: 
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and 
Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty 
Determination, 83 FR 2133 (January 16, 2018) (Preliminary 
Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. See 
also Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada: Amended 
Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 FR 16050 (April 
13, 2018).
    \2\ See Memorandum ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of 
Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada'' dated concurrently 
with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is UGW paper from Canada. 
For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see 
Appendix I.

Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in 
the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are 
discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues 
that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, January 2018 through May 
2018 Commerce conducted verifications related to the subsidy 
information reported by the Government of Canada, British Columbia, 
Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Qu[eacute]bec, as 
well as Catalyst,\3\ Kruger,\4\ Resolute,\5\ and White Birch.\6\ We 
used standard verification procedures, including an examination of 
relevant accounting records and original source documents provided by 
the respondents.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, 
Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with 
Catalyst Paper Corporation: Catalyst Paper, Catalyst Pulp Operations 
Limited, and Catalyst Pulp and Paper Sales Inc. (collectively 
Catalyst). These findings are unchanged for purposes of the Final 
Determination.
    \4\ As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, 
Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with 
Kruger Trois-Rivieres L.P.: Kruger Publication Papers Inc., Corner 
Brook Pulp and Paper Limited, Kruger Energy Bromptonville LP, Kruger 
Holdings L.P., Kruger Holdings GP Inc., and Kruger Inc. 
(collectively Kruger). These findings are unchanged for purposes of 
the Final Determination.
    \5\ As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, 
Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with 
Resolute FP Canada Inc.: Resolute FP Canada, Fibrek General 
Partnership (Fibrek), and Resolute Growth (collectively Resolute). 
These findings are unchanged for purposes of the Final 
Determination.
    \6\ As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, 
Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with 
White Birch Paper Canada Company NSULC: Papier Masson WB (White 
Birch) LP, FF Soucy WB LP, and Stadacona WB LP (collectively White 
Birch). These findings are unchanged for purposes of the Final 
Determination.
    \7\ See Memorandum ``Verification of the Questionnaire Responses 
of Catalyst Paper Corporation,'' dated February 13, 2018; Memorandum 
``Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the Government of 
British Columbia and, in Part, the Government of Canada,'' dated 
February 13, 2018; Memorandum ``Verification of the Questionnaire 
Responses of White Birch Paper Canada Company,'' dated March 28, 
2018; Memorandum ``Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of 
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,'' dated April 17, 2018; 
Memorandum ``Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the 
Government of Canada,'' dated April 18, 2018; Memorandum 
``Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the Government of 
Nova Scotia,'' dated May 18, 2018; Memorandum ``Verification of the 
Questionnaire Responses of Resolute FP Canada Inc.,'' dated June 6, 
2018; Memorandum ``Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of 
the Government of Qu[eacute]bec,'' dated June 6, 2018; Memorandum 
``Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the Government of 
Ontario,'' dated June 7, 2018; Memorandum ``Verification of Kruger's 
Questionnaire Responses,'' dated June 7, 2018; and Memorandum 
``Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the Government of 
Qu[eacute]bec,'' dated June 18, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methodology

    Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 
701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, 
Commerce determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial 
contribution by an ``authority'' that confers a benefit to the 
recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.\8\ For a full description 
of the methodology underlying our final determination, see the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding 
financial contribution; see section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding 
benefit; see section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from 
parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made 
certain changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations since the 
Preliminary Determination and the Post-Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum.\9\ As a result of these changes, we have also revised the 
``all-others'' rate. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum and accompanying memoranda.\10\ Although there 
was a substantial change to the scope of the investigation after the 
Preliminary Determination, we did not, nor did any party suggest, that 
we collect revised sales or export information from the respondents. 
Therefore, we have not reconsidered our respondent selection and we 
continue to treat all respondents as ``individually investigated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Memorandum ``Post-Preliminary Analysis of Countervailing 
Duty Investigation: Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada,'' 
dated June 18, 2018 (Post-Preliminary Analysis Memorandum).
    \10\ See Memoranda ``Countervailing Duty Investigation of 
Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada: Final Determination 
Calculation Memorandum for Catalyst,'' ``Countervailing Duty 
Investigation of Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada: 
Final Determination Calculation Memorandum for Resolute FP Canada 
and its cross-owned affiliates (Resolute),'' ``Countervailing Duty 
Investigation of Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada: 
Final Determination Calculation Memorandum for White Birch Paper 
Canada Company (White Birch),'' and ``Countervailing Duty 
Investigation of Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada: All 
Others Rate Calculation for Final Determination,'' each dated 
concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``All-Others'' Rate

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, Commerce 
must determine an estimated ``all-others'' rate for all exporters and 
producers not individually examined.

[[Page 39416]]

Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies not 
individually investigated, Commerce will determine an ``all-others'' 
rate equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates 
established for exporters and producers individually investigated, 
excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and 
any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Where all 
of the rates for investigated companies are zero or de minimis, or 
based entirely on facts otherwise available, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) 
of the Act instructs Commerce to establish an ``all-others'' rate using 
``any reasonable method.''
    In this investigation, Commerce calculated individual estimated 
countervailable subsidy rates for Catalyst, Kruger, and Resolute that 
are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise 
available. Therefore, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, 
Commerce calculated the ``all-others'' rate using a weighted-average of 
the individual estimated subsidy rates calculated for these examined 
respondents (excluding the de minimis rate determined for White Birch) 
using each company's business proprietary data for the merchandise 
under consideration.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Memorandum ``Countervailing Duty Investigation of 
Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper from Canada: All Others Rate 
Calculation for Final Determination,'' date concurrently with this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination

    We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates 
to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Ad valorem
                         Company                           subsidy rate
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Paper Corporation \12\.........................            3.38
Kruger Trois-Rivieres L.P \13\..........................            9.53
Resolute FP Canada Inc \14\.............................            9.81
White Birch Paper Canada Company NSULC \15\.............          * 0.82
All-Others..............................................            8.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (de minimis)

Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, 
Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with 
Catalyst Paper Corporation: Catalyst Paper, Catalyst Pulp Operations 
Limited, and Catalyst Pulp and Paper Sales Inc. These findings are 
unchanged for purposes of the Final Determination.
    \13\ As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, 
Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with 
Kruger Trois-Rivieres L.P.: Kruger Publication Papers Inc., Corner 
Brook Pulp and Paper Limited, Kruger Energy Bromptonville LP, Kruger 
Holdings L.P., Kruger Holdings GP Inc., and Kruger Inc.
    \14\ As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, 
Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with 
Resolute FP Canada Inc.: Resolute FP Canada, Fibrek General 
Partnership (Fibrek), and Resolute Growth. These findings are 
unchanged for purposes of the Final Determination.
    \15\ As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, 
Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with 
White Birch Paper Canada Company NSULC: Papier Masson WB (White 
Birch) LP, FF Soucy WB LP, and Stadacona WB LP. These findings are 
unchanged for purposes of the Final Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to 
section 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of 
subject merchandise from Canada (other than those produced and exported 
by White Birch because its preliminary rate was de minimis), that were 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
January 16, 2018, the date of publication of the Preliminary 
Determination. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we 
subsequently instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of 
liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, on or after May 16, 2018, but to continue the 
suspension of liquidation of all entries from January 16, 2018, through 
May 15, 2018 (with the exception entries produced and exported by White 
Birch).
    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final 
affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and 
reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the 
Act, requiring a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of 
subject merchandise, other than those produced and exported by White 
Birch because its rate is de minimis, in the amounts indicated above. 
If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material 
injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all 
estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the 
suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written 
consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, 
in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will make its 
final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United 
States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by 
reason of imports of UGW paper from Canada no later than 45 days after 
our final determination.

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury 
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties 
subject to the APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction 
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 violation which is subject to sanction.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: August 1, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain 
paper that has not been coated on either side and with 50 percent or 
more of the cellulose fiber content consisting of groundwood pulp, 
including groundwood pulp made from recycled paper, weighing not 
more than 90 grams per square meter. Groundwood pulp includes all 
forms of pulp produced from a mechanical pulping process, such as 
thermo-mechanical process (TMP), chemi-thermo mechanical process 
(CTMP), bleached chemi-thermo mechanical process (BCTMP) or any 
other mechanical pulping process. The scope includes paper shipped 
in any form, including but not limited to both rolls and sheets.
    Certain uncoated groundwood paper includes but is not limited to 
standard newsprint, high bright newsprint, book publishing, and 
printing and writing papers.

[[Page 39417]]

The scope includes paper that is white, off-white, cream, or 
colored.
    Specifically excluded from the scope are imports of certain 
uncoated groundwood paper printed with final content of printed text 
or graphic. Also excluded are papers that otherwise meet this 
definition, but which have undergone a supercalendering process.\16\ 
Additionally, excluded are papers that otherwise meet this 
definition, but which have undergone a creping process over the 
entire surface area of the paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Supercalendering imparts a glossy finish produced by the 
movement of the paper web through a supercalender which is a stack 
of alternating rollers of metal and cotton (or other softer 
material). The supercalender runs at high speed and applies 
pressure, heat, and friction which glazes the surface of the paper, 
imparting gloss to the surface and increasing the paper's smoothness 
and density.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also excluded are uncoated groundwood construction paper and 
uncoated groundwood manila drawing paper in sheet or roll format. 
Excluded uncoated groundwood construction paper and uncoated 
groundwood manila drawing paper: (a) Have a weight greater than 61 
grams per square meter; (b) have a thickness greater than 6.1 
caliper, i.e., greater than .0061'' or 155 microns; (c) are produced 
using at least 50 percent thermomechanical pulp; and (d) have a 
shade, as measured by CIELAB, as follows: L* less than or 75.0 or b* 
greater than or equal to 25.0.
    Also excluded is uncoated groundwood directory paper that: (a) 
Has a basis weight of 34 grams per square meter or less; and (b) has 
a thickness of 2.6 caliper mils or 66 microns or less.
    Certain uncoated groundwood paper is classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) in several 
subheadings, including 4801.00.0120, 4801.00.0140, 4802.61.1000, 
4802.61.2000, 4802.61.3110, 4802.61.3191, 4802.61.6040, 
4802.62.1000, 4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, 4802.62.6140, 
4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, and 4802.69.3000. Subject merchandise 
may also be imported under several additional subheadings including 
4805.91.5000, 4805.91.7000, and 4805.91.9000.\17\ Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The following HTSUS numbers are no longer active as of 
January 1, 2017: 4801.00.0020, 4801.00.0040, 4802.61.3010, 
4802.61.3091, and 4802.62.6040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix II

List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

Summary
Background
    Case History
    Period of Investigation
    Scope of the Investigation
    Scope Comments
Subsidies Valuation Information
    A. Allocation Period
    B. Attribution of Subsidies
    C. Denominators
    D. Creditworthiness
    E. Equityworthiness
    F. Loan Benchmarks and Interest Rates
Analysis of Programs
    A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable
    B. Programs Determined Not to Provide Measurable Benefits During 
the POI
    C. Programs Determined Not To Be Used During the POI
    D. Programs Determined To Be Not Countervailable in this 
Investigation
    E. Programs Not Further Examined
    F. Programs Deferred Until a Subsequent Administrative Review
Analysis of Comments
General Issues
    Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should Adjust Its Calculation of the 
All-Others Rate to Exclude Rates Based on AFA
    Comment 2: Whether Commerce Established the Requisite Level of 
Industry Support for Initiating This Investigation
    Comment 3: Whether Commerce Must Examine the Full Scope of 
Downstream Effects
    Comment 4: Whether Commerce Properly Requested Respondent 
Interested Parties to Report ``Other Assistance''
    Comment 5: Whether to Continue to Find Certain Programs Not 
Used, Not Measurable, or Having No Benefit
Bankruptcy/Change in Ownership Issues
    Comment 6: Whether Subsidies Received Prior to 2011 Were 
Extinguished by Resolute's Emergence from Bankruptcy
    Comment 7: Whether Resolute's Acquisition of Fibrek Extinguished 
Any Prior Fibrek Subsidies
    Comment 8: Whether White Birch's Bankruptcy Proceedings 
Constitute a CIO
Sales Denominator Issues
    Comment 9: Whether Commerce Should Revise Kruger's Denominators
    Comment 10: Whether Commerce Should Revise Resolute's 
Denominators
    Comment 11: Whether Commerce Should Revise White Birch's 
Denominators
Unreported Assistance Issues
    Comment 12: Whether Electricity Sold by PREI Provides a 
Countervailable Subsidy to Catalyst
    Comment 13: Whether Commerce Should Assign an AFA Rate to Kruger 
for its Failure to Report Payments Related to the Hydro-
Qu[eacute]bec Connection of Electricity Sub-Station Program
    Comment 14: Whether Commerce Should Assign an AFA Rate for 
CBPP's Failure to Report Payments Received for Two Studies
    Comment 15: Whether Commerce Should Apply AFA to White Birch's 
Two Undisclosed Tax Credits
General Stumpage and Wood Fiber LTAR Issues
    Comment 16: Whether Commerce Must Use In-Jurisdiction Benchmarks 
to Determine Whether a Benefit Has Been Provided
    Comment 17: Whether Commerce Must Conduct a Stumpage Pass-
Through Analysis
    Comment 18: Whether Woodchips from Sawmills Are Subsidized
    Comment 19: Whether Commerce Must Compare Average Benchmark 
Prices to Average Transaction Prices
Ontario Stumpage Issues
    Comment 20: Whether Pulpwood is Subsidized
    Comment 21: Whether Ontario's Stumpage Market is Distorted
Qu[eacute]bec Stumpage Issues
    Comment 22: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Public Stumpage Market Is 
Distorted
    Comment 23: Whether Commerce Erred in Calculating a Benefit for 
White Birch under the Provision of Stumpage for LTAR Program
Nova Scotia Benchmark Issues
    Comment 24: Whether Commerce Should Use a Nova Scotia Benchmark 
as a Basis of Finding Subsidization of Stumpage in Ontario and 
Qu[eacute]bec
    Comment 25: Whether the Nova Scotia Benchmark Should be Adjusted
Log Export Restraint Issues
    Comment 26: Whether the Log and Wood Residue Export Restraints 
Provide a Financial Contribution
    Comment 27: Whether the Export Permitting Process Materially 
Restrains Export Activity
    Comment 28: Whether to Apply Adverse Inferences to Catalyst's 
Log Delivery Costs
    Comment 29: Whether Commerce May Use NAWFR Benchmark Information
    Comment 30: The Appropriate Benchmark Source for the British 
Columbia Log and Wood Residue Export Restraints
    Comment 31: Whether to Exclude U.S. Exports to the UAE from the 
Benchmark Data
    Comment 32: The Appropriate Freight Amounts to Apply to the 
Benchmark Values
    Comment 33: The Appropriate Freight Amounts to Apply to 
Catalyst's Purchases of Woodchips, Sawdust, and Hog Fuel
    Comment 34: Whether Commerce Should Exclude Logs and Chips 
Dedicated to the Production of Kraft Pulp
    Comment 35: Whether to Account for Negative Transactions in 
Catalyst's Wood Purchase Database
Purchase of Goods for MTAR Issues
    Comment 36: Whether the Purchase of Electricity was a Purchase 
of a Good or Service
    Comment 37: Whether Commerce Erred in Using Sales of Electricity 
as the Benchmark for Provincial Utility Purchases of Electricity
    Comment 38: Whether Purchases of Electricity Were ``Market 
Based''
    Comment 39: Whether Commerce Should Use a Different Benchmark 
for Purchases of Electricity from the IESO
    Comment 40: Whether Commerce Used the Wrong Benchmark for 
Countervailing Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's Purchases of Electricity from 
KEBLP
    Comment 41: Whether the Provincial Utility Purchases of 
Electricity Are Tied to Sales of Non-Subject Merchandise
    Comment 42: Whether Commerce Should Countervail BC Hydro's EPAs
    Comment 43: Whether Commerce Used the Wrong Benchmark for 
Countervailing BC Hydro's Purchases of Electricity
    Comment 44: The Appropriate Benefit Calculation for BC Hydro 
EPAs

[[Page 39418]]

    Comment 45: Whether BC Hydro's EPAs are De Facto Specific
    Comment 46: Whether Commerce Should Include all Elements of 
Kruger's Electric Service Rates in its Benchmark
    Comment 47: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's Purchase of 
Electricity for MTAR was Specific
    Comment 48: Whether the IESO Purchases Electricity
    Comment 49: Whether the IESO's Purchase of Electricity for MTAR 
is Specific
    Comment 50: Whether Commerce Should Countervail Tariff 29 and/or 
Use it as a Benchmark
    Comment 51: Whether the Government of Canada's Provision of 
C$130 Million for Resolute's Expropriated Assets Provides a Benefit
Tax Program Issues
    Comment 52: Whether the ACCA for Class 29 Assets Tax Program is 
Specific
    Comment 53: Whether the School Tax Credit for Class 4 Major 
Industrial Properties Provides a Financial Contribution
    Comment 54: Whether the School Tax Credit for Class 4 Major 
Industrial Properties is Specific
    Comment 55: Whether the Coloured Fuel Tax Rate Provides a 
Financial Contribution
    Comment 56: Whether the Coloured Fuel Tax Rate is Specific
    Comment 57: Whether Catalyst Benefited from the Coloured Fuel 
Tax Rate
    Comment 58: Whether the Powell River City Tax Exemption Program 
Provides a Financial Contribution
    Comment 59: The Appropriate Benefit Calculation for the Powell 
River City Tax Exemption Program
    Comment 60: Whether Commerce Properly Determined the Amount of 
the Subsidy Kruger Received from Property Tax Exemptions
    Comment 61: Whether the Qu[eacute]bec SR&ED Tax Credit \18\ is 
De Facto Specific
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Also called the Qu[eacute]bec Scientific Research and 
Development Tax Credit in the Preliminary Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 62: Whether the Tax Credit for the Acquisition of 
Manufacturing and Processing Equipment in Qu[eacute]bec is Specific
    Comment 63: Whether the Tax Credit for Pre-Competitive Research 
is Specific
    Comment 64: Whether the Credit for Fees and Dues Paid to a 
Research Consortium is Specific
    Comment 65: Whether Qu[eacute]bec's Tax Credit for Construction 
and Repair of Roads and Bridges Provides a Financial Contribution 
and a Benefit
Grant Program Issues: Electricity
    Comment 66: Whether Agreements to Curtail Consumption of 
Electricity are Grants
    Comment 67: Whether the Power Smart Subprograms are De Jure/De 
Facto Specific
    Comment 68: The Appropriate Benefit for the Power Smart: Load 
Curtailment Program
    Comment 69: The Correct Calculation for the BC Hydro Power Smart 
TMP and Incentives Subprograms
    Comment 70: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's IEO Program Is 
Specific
    Comment 71: Whether Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec's Industrial Systems 
Program/Energy Efficiency Program is Countervailable
    Comment 72: Whether the Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec Special L Rate for 
Industrial Customers Affected by Budworm Confers a Benefit
    Comment 73: Whether the IESO Demand Response Is Specific
    Comment 74: Whether the Ontario IEI Program is Specific
    Comment 75: Whether the Ontario IEI Program is Tied to Non-
Subject Merchandise
    Comment 76: Whether Capacity Assistance Payments to CBPP Are 
Specific
    Comment 77: Whether the Capacity Assistance Fees Paid to CBPP 
Provided a Benefit
Grant Program Issues: Other
    Comment 78: Whether the Canada-BC Job Grant Program is Specific
    Comment 79: Whether Emploi-Qu[eacute]bec Programs are Specific
    Comment 80: Whether Emploi-Qu[eacute]bec Programs are Recurring
    Comment 81: Whether the PCIP Provides a Benefit
    Comment 82: Whether the Paix des Braves Program Provides a 
Countervailable Benefit
    Comment 83: Whether the Investment Program in Public Forests 
Affected by Natural or Anthropogenic Disturbance Provides a 
Countervailable Benefit
    Comment 84: Whether the FPInnovations Ash Development Project 
Provides a Countervailable Benefit
    Comment 85: Whether the PAREGES Program is Specific and Confers 
a Benefit
    Comment 86: Whether the Ontario Forest Roads Funding Program is 
Countervailable
    Comment 87: Whether the EcoPerformance Program is Specific and 
Confers a Benefit
Equity Program Issues
    Comment 88: Whether Preferred Shares Issued by Kruger Inc./KPPI 
in 2012 were Debt or Equity
    Comment 89: Whether Any Benefit in the 2012 Debt-to-Equity 
Conversion Is Attributable to Kruger Inc.
    Comment 90: How to Determine the Benefit for KPPI's 2012 Loan 
Forgiveness
    Comment 91: Whether IQ's 2015 Investment in KHLP Was Tied to 
Non-Subject Merchandise
    Comment 92: Whether the Equityworthiness Analysis for KHLP in 
2015 is Correct
    Comment 93: Whether KHLP was Equityworthy
Loan Program Issues
    Comment 94: Whether CBPP was Creditworthy
    Comment 95: Whether Commerce Erred in Calculating the Benchmark 
for CBPP's 2014 Loan
    Comment 96: Whether Interest Due from the Government of 
Newfoundland and Labrador Loan to CBPP and Paid in 2017 Provided No 
Benefit in the POI
    Comment 97: Whether Commerce Erred in Its Benefit Calculation 
for the IQ Loan Guarantee to KEBLP
Company-Specific Issues
Catalyst
    Comment 98: How to Treat Catalyst's Unreported Log and Wood 
Fiber Purchases
Resolute
    Comment 99: Whether Commerce Should Use Resolute's Revised SR&ED 
Tax Credit
White Birch
    Comment 100: Whether Commerce Correctly Determined the Dates of 
Approval for the MFOR Worker Training Grants to White Birch's 
Stadacona Mill
Conclusion

[FR Doc. 2018-17017 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P