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)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 154 (August 9, 2018)
| Page Range | 39414-39418 | |
| FR Document | 2018-17017 |
[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
![39414 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 154 / Thursday, August 9, 2018 / Notices
publicly or under an administrative (TMP), chemi-thermo mechanical process II. Background
protective order (APO), without the (CTMP), bleached chemi-thermo mechanical III. Scope of the Investigation
written consent of the Assistant process (BCTMP) or any other mechanical IV. Changes Since the Preliminary
Secretary for Enforcement and pulping process. The scope includes paper Determination
shipped in any form, including but not V. Discussion of the Issues
Compliance. limited to both rolls and sheets. General
Because the final determination in Certain uncoated groundwood paper Comment 1: Whether There was Sufficient
this proceeding is affirmative, in includes but is not limited to standard Industry Support to Initiate this
accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the newsprint, high bright newsprint, book Investigation
Act, the ITC will make its final publishing, and printing and writing papers. Comment 2: Respondent Selection and
determination as to whether the The scope includes paper that is white, off- Calculation of the ‘‘All Others’’ Rate
domestic industry in the United States white, cream, or colored. Comment 3: Differential Pricing
is materially injured, or threatened with Specifically excluded from the scope are Methodology
material injury, by reason of imports of imports of certain uncoated groundwood Catalyst
paper printed with final content of printed Comment 4: Fixed Asset Impairment for
UGW paper from Canada no later than
text or graphic. Also excluded are papers that Catalyst
45 days after our final determination. If otherwise meet this definition, but which Comment 5: Treatment of Catalyst’s Home
the ITC determines that material injury have undergone a supercalendering process.6 Market Barter Sales
or threat of material injury does not Additionally, excluded are papers that Comment 6: Treatment of Catalyst’s Sales
exist, the proceeding will be terminated otherwise meet this definition, but which Which May Have Been Destined for
and all cash deposits will be refunded. have undergone a creping process over the Mexico
If the ITC determines that such injury entire surface area of the paper. Comment 7: Insurance Recovery Costs for
does exist, Commerce will issue an Also excluded are uncoated groundwood Catalyst
antidumping duty order directing CBP construction paper and uncoated Comment 8: Catalyst’s Home Market Bank
groundwood manila drawing paper in sheet Charges
to assess, upon further instruction by
or roll format. Excluded uncoated Comment 9: Errors in Catalyst’s
Commerce, antidumping duties on all groundwood construction paper and Preliminary Determination Margin
imports of the subject merchandise, uncoated groundwood manila drawing paper: Program
other than those produced and exported (a) Have a weight greater than 61 grams per Comment 10: Verification Corrections for
by Resolute, and those produced and square meter; (b) have a thickness greater Catalyst
exported by White Birch, because their than 6.1 caliper, i.e., greater than .0061’’ or Resolute
rates are zero, entered, or withdrawn 155 microns; (c) are produced using at least Comment 11: Resolute’s Short-Term U.S.
from warehouse, for consumption on or 50 percent thermomechanical pulp; and (d) Dollar Borrowing Rate
after the effective date of the suspension have a shade, as measured by CIELAB, as Comment 12: Treatment of Resolute’s
follows: L* less than or 75.0 or b* greater Corporate Level Costs
of liquidation.
than or equal to 25.0. VI. Recommendation
Notification Regarding Administrative Also excluded is uncoated groundwood [FR Doc. 2018–17020 Filed 8–8–18; 8:45 am]
Protective Orders (APO) directory paper that: (a) Has a basis weight
of 34 grams per square meter or less; and (b) BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
This notice serves as a reminder to has a thickness of 2.6 caliper mils or 66
parties subject to APO of their microns or less.
responsibility concerning the Certain uncoated groundwood paper is DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
disposition of proprietary information classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
disclosed under APO in accordance Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) in International Trade Administration
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely several subheadings, including 4801.00.0120,
notification of the return or destruction 4801.00.0140, 4802.61.1000, 4802.61.2000, [C–122–862]
4802.61.3110, 4802.61.3191, 4802.61.6040,
of APO materials, or conversion to 4802.62.1000, 4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper
judicial protective order, is hereby 4802.62.6140, 4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, From Canada: Final Affirmative
requested. Failure to comply with the and 4802.69.3000. Subject merchandise may Countervailing Duty Determination
regulations and the terms of an APO is also be imported under several additional
a sanctionable violation. subheadings including 4805.91.5000, AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
This determination and this notice are 4805.91.7000, and 4805.91.9000.7 Although International Trade Administration,
issued and published pursuant to the HTSUS subheadings are provided for Department of Commerce.
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. convenience and customs purposes, the SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
written description of the merchandise is (Commerce) determines that
Dated: August 1, 2018. dispositive.
Gary Taverman, countervailable subsidies are being
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed provided to producers and exporters of
and Countervailing Duty Operations, in the Issues and Decision certain uncoated groundwood paper
Performing the non-exclusive functions and Memorandum (UGW paper) from Canada. The period
duties of the Assistant Secretary for I. Summary
of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016,
Enforcement and Compliance. through December 31, 2016. For
6 Supercalendering imparts a glossy finish information on the estimated subsidy
Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation
produced by the movement of the paper web rates, see the ‘‘Final Determination’’
The merchandise covered by this
through a supercalender which is a stack of section of this notice.
alternating rollers of metal and cotton (or other
investigation includes certain paper that has DATES: Applicable August 9, 2018.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
softer material). The supercalender runs at high
not been coated on either side and with 50 speed and applies pressure, heat, and friction FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
percent or more of the cellulose fiber content which glazes the surface of the paper, imparting David Crespo or Whitley Herndon, AD/
consisting of groundwood pulp, including gloss to the surface and increasing the paper’s
groundwood pulp made from recycled paper, smoothness and density. CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement
weighing not more than 90 grams per square 7 The following HTSUS numbers are no longer
and Compliance, International Trade
meter. Groundwood pulp includes all forms active as of January 1, 2017: 4801.00.0020,
Administration, U.S. Department of
of pulp produced from a mechanical pulping 4801.00.0040, 4802.61.3010, 4802.61.3091, and Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
process, such as thermo-mechanical process 4802.62.6040. NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Aug 08, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_39568/page/1.svg)
![39418 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 154 / Thursday, August 9, 2018 / Notices
Comment 45: Whether BC Hydro’s EPAs Comment 69: The Correct Calculation for Comment 97: Whether Commerce Erred in
are De Facto Specific the BC Hydro Power Smart TMP and Its Benefit Calculation for the IQ Loan
Comment 46: Whether Commerce Should Incentives Subprograms Guarantee to KEBLP
Include all Elements of Kruger’s Electric Comment 70: Whether Hydro-Québec’s IEO Company-Specific Issues
Service Rates in its Benchmark Program Is Specific Catalyst
Comment 47: Whether Hydro-Québec’s Comment 71: Whether Hydro-Québec’s Comment 98: How to Treat Catalyst’s
Purchase of Electricity for MTAR was Industrial Systems Program/Energy Unreported Log and Wood Fiber
Specific Efficiency Program is Countervailable Purchases
Comment 48: Whether the IESO Purchases Comment 72: Whether the Hydro-Québec Resolute
Electricity Special L Rate for Industrial Customers Comment 99: Whether Commerce Should
Comment 49: Whether the IESO’s Purchase Affected by Budworm Confers a Benefit Use Resolute’s Revised SR&ED Tax
of Electricity for MTAR is Specific Comment 73: Whether the IESO Demand Credit
Comment 50: Whether Commerce Should Response Is Specific White Birch
Countervail Tariff 29 and/or Use it as a Comment 74: Whether the Ontario IEI Comment 100: Whether Commerce
Program is Specific Correctly Determined the Dates of
Benchmark
Comment 75: Whether the Ontario IEI Approval for the MFOR Worker Training
Comment 51: Whether the Government of
Program is Tied to Non-Subject Grants to White Birch’s Stadacona Mill
Canada’s Provision of C$130 Million for
Merchandise Conclusion
Resolute’s Expropriated Assets Provides
a Benefit Comment 76: Whether Capacity Assistance [FR Doc. 2018–17017 Filed 8–8–18; 8:45 am]
Tax Program Issues Payments to CBPP Are Specific
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Comment 77: Whether the Capacity
Comment 52: Whether the ACCA for Class
Assistance Fees Paid to CBPP Provided
29 Assets Tax Program is Specific
a Benefit
Comment 53: Whether the School Tax DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Grant Program Issues: Other
Credit for Class 4 Major Industrial
Comment 78: Whether the Canada-BC Job
Properties Provides a Financial International Trade Administration
Grant Program is Specific
Contribution
Comment 79: Whether Emploi-Québec [C–475–819]
Comment 54: Whether the School Tax
Programs are Specific
Credit for Class 4 Major Industrial
Comment 80: Whether Emploi-Québec Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary
Properties is Specific
Programs are Recurring Results of Countervailing Duty
Comment 55: Whether the Coloured Fuel
Comment 81: Whether the PCIP Provides a Administrative Review and Partial
Tax Rate Provides a Financial Benefit
Contribution Comment 82: Whether the Paix des Braves
Rescission; 2016
Comment 56: Whether the Coloured Fuel Program Provides a Countervailable
Tax Rate is Specific AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
Benefit International Trade Administration,
Comment 57: Whether Catalyst Benefited Comment 83: Whether the Investment
from the Coloured Fuel Tax Rate Department of Commerce.
Program in Public Forests Affected by SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
Comment 58: Whether the Powell River Natural or Anthropogenic Disturbance
City Tax Exemption Program Provides a Provides a Countervailable Benefit
(Commerce) is conducting an
Financial Contribution Comment 84: Whether the FPInnovations administrative review of the
Comment 59: The Appropriate Benefit Ash Development Project Provides a countervailing duty (CVD) order on
Calculation for the Powell River City Tax Countervailable Benefit certain pasta from Italy. The period of
Exemption Program Comment 85: Whether the PAREGES review (POR) is January 1, 2016,
Comment 60: Whether Commerce Properly Program is Specific and Confers a Benefit through December 31, 2016.
Determined the Amount of the Subsidy Comment 86: Whether the Ontario Forest
Kruger Received from Property Tax DATES: Applicable August 9, 2018.
Roads Funding Program is
Exemptions Countervailable FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Comment 61: Whether the Québec SR&ED Comment 87: Whether the EcoPerformance Mary Kolberg, AD/CVD Operations,
Tax Credit 18 is De Facto Specific Program is Specific and Confers a Benefit Office I, Enforcement and Compliance,
Comment 62: Whether the Tax Credit for Equity Program Issues International Trade Administration,
the Acquisition of Manufacturing and Comment 88: Whether Preferred Shares U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Processing Equipment in Québec is Issued by Kruger Inc./KPPI in 2012 were Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
Specific Debt or Equity DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1785.
Comment 63: Whether the Tax Credit for Comment 89: Whether Any Benefit in the
Pre-Competitive Research is Specific SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
2012 Debt-to-Equity Conversion Is
Comment 64: Whether the Credit for Fees Attributable to Kruger Inc. Background
and Dues Paid to a Research Consortium Comment 90: How to Determine the
is Specific Benefit for KPPI’s 2012 Loan Forgiveness On September 13, 2017, Commerce
Comment 65: Whether Québec’s Tax Credit Comment 91: Whether IQ’s 2015 published a notice of initiation of an
for Construction and Repair of Roads and Investment in KHLP Was Tied to Non- administrative review of the CVD order
Bridges Provides a Financial Subject Merchandise on certain pasta from Italy for the POR.1
Contribution and a Benefit Comment 92: Whether the From October 10, 2017 to December 12,
Grant Program Issues: Electricity Equityworthiness Analysis for KHLP in 2017, eight of the producers/exporters of
Comment 66: Whether Agreements to 2015 is Correct subject merchandise subject to this
Curtail Consumption of Electricity are Comment 93: Whether KHLP was
Grants
review timely withdrew their request for
Equityworthy
Comment 67: Whether the Power Smart Loan Program Issues
review. Thus, we are rescinding this
Subprograms are De Jure/De Facto Comment 94: Whether CBPP was review with respect to these eight
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Specific Creditworthy producers/exporters. Commerce is
Comment 68: The Appropriate Benefit for Comment 95: Whether Commerce Erred in conducting this review of one remaining
the Power Smart: Load Curtailment Calculating the Benchmark for CBPP’s producer/exporter of subject
Program 2014 Loan merchandise: GR.A.M.M. S.r.l.
Comment 96: Whether Interest Due from
18 Also called the Québec Scientific Research and the Government of Newfoundland and 1 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Development Tax Credit in the Preliminary Labrador Loan to CBPP and Paid in 2017 Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR
Determination. Provided No Benefit in the POI 42974 (September 13, 2017) (Initiation Notice).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Aug 08, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_39568/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-08-09 01:11:47
Document Modified: 2018-08-09 01:11:47
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Dates | Applicable August 9, 2018. | |
| 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: (202) 482-3693 or (202) 482-6274, respectively. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 39414 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR