[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8608-8616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03338]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-602-807, A-351-842, A-570-022, A-560-828, A-471-807]


Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, the People's 
Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: Initiation of Less-Than-
Fair-Value Investigations

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.


DATES:  Effective Date: February 18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George McMahon or Eve Wang at (202) 
482-1167 or (202) 482-6231 (Australia); Julia Hancock or Paul Walker at 
(202) 482-1394 or (202) 482-0413 (Brazil); Christopher Hargett or 
Stephanie Moore at (202) 482-4161 or (202) 482-3692 (the People's 
Republic of China (PRC)); Stephen Bailey or Blaine Wiltse at (202) 482-
0193 or (202) 482-6345 (Indonesia); and Kabir Archuletta at (202) 482-
2593 (Portugal), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On January 21, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received the antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of 
certain uncoated paper (uncoated paper) from Australia, Brazil, the 
PRC, Indonesia, and Portugal, filed in proper form on behalf of the 
petitioners.\1,2\ The Petitions were accompanied by two countervailing 
duty (CVD) petitions on imports of uncoated paper from the PRC and 
Indonesia.\3\ The petitioners are domestic producers of uncoated 
paper,\4\ and a certified union with workers engaged in the manufacture 
and production of the domestic like product in the United States.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union; 
Domtar Corporation; Finch Paper LLC; P.H. Glatfelter Company; and 
Packaging Corporation of America (collectively known as (the 
petitioners)).
    \2\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the 
People's Republic of China (PRC), Indonesia, and Portugal; and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports from the People's Republic of China 
and Indonesia, dated January 21, 2015 (Petitions).
    \3\ See Petitions.
    \4\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-2 and Exhibit I-2.
    \5\ Id., at I-1-I-2 and Exhibit I-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 26, 2015, the Department requested additional 
information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.\6\ 
Additionally, on January 27, 2015, the Department held a teleconference 
call with the petitioners regarding issues in the Petition on the PRC 
and the scope of the Petitions.\7\ The petitioners filed responses to 
these requests on January 29, 2015, and January 30, 2015.\8,9\ On 
February 2 and 3, 2015, the Department requested additional information 
and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions on Australia, 
Brazil, Indonesia, and the PRC.\10\ The petitioners filed responses to 
these requests on February 3, 2015.\11\

[[Page 8609]]

Additionally, on February 3, 2015, the Department issued a third 
request for additional information and clarification of certain areas 
of the Petition on Australia.\12\ The petitioners filed their response 
to the Department's third request on the Petition on Australia on 
February 4, 2015.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Letter from the Department to the petitioners entitled 
``Re: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports 
of Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the 
People's Republic of China, and Portugal, and Countervailing Duties 
on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia and the People's 
Republic of China: Supplemental Questions'' dated January 26, 2015 
(General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire), and country-specific 
letters from the Department to the petitioners concerning 
supplemental questions on each of the country-specific records, 
dated January 26, 2015.
    \7\ See Memorandum to the File from Whitney Schalbik, Import 
Policy Analyst, entitled ``Re: Petitions for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Uncoated Paper from Australia, 
Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Uncoated Paper from the People's 
Republic of China and Indonesia; Subject: Phone Call with Counsel to 
the Petitioners'' dated January 27, 2015.
    \8\ See Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled 
``Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the 
People's Republic of China, and Portugal--Petitioners' Response to 
the Department's January 26, 2015 Supplemental Questions--Portugal 
Dumping Allegation'' dated January 29, 2015 (Portugal Supplement).
    \9\ See Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled 
``Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the 
People's Republic of China, and Portugal--Petitioners' Response to 
the Department's General Questions Regarding the Petition'' dated 
January 30, 2015 (General Issues Supplement); Letter from the 
petitioners to the Department entitled ``Re: Certain Uncoated Paper 
from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, 
and Portugal--Petitioners' Response to the Department's January 26, 
2015, Supplemental Questionnaire: Australia Dumping Allegation'' 
dated January 30, 2015 (Australia Supplement); Letter from the 
petitioners to the Department entitled ``Re: Certain Uncoated Paper 
from Brazil--Petitioners' Response to the Department's Questions 
Regarding the Petition'' dated January 30, 2015 (Brazil Supplement); 
Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled ``Re: Certain 
Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's 
Republic of China, and Portugal--Petitioners' Response to the 
Department's January 26, 2015, Supplemental Questionnaire: Indonesia 
Dumping Allegation'' dated January 30, 2015 (Indonesia AD 
Supplement); and Letter from the petitioners to the Department 
entitled ``Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from the PRC--Petitioners' 
Response to the Department's Questions Regarding the Petition'' 
dated January 30, 2015 (PRC AD Supplement).
    \10\ See Memorandum to the File from Michael Martin, Lead 
Accountant, Office of Accounting, from Angie Sepulveda, Senior 
Accountant, entitled ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 
Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia: 
Financial Expense,'' dated February 2, 2015; Letter from the 
Department to the petitioners entitled ``Petition for the Imposition 
of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from 
Brazil: Second Supplemental Questions'', dated February 2, 2015; 
Letter from the Department to the petitioners entitled ``Petition 
for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain 
Uncoated Paper from Indonesia: Second Supplemental Questions'', 
dated February 2, 2015; and Letter from the Department to the 
petitioners entitled ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 
Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from the People's 
Republic of China: PRC: Second Supplemental Questions,'' dated 
February 2, 2015.
    \11\ See Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled 
``Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the 
People's Republic of China, and Portugal--Petitioners' Response to 
the Department's February 2, 2015, Supplemental Questions--Australia 
Dumping Allegation'' dated February 3, 2015 (Australia Second 
Supplement); Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled 
``Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the 
People's Republic of China, and Portugal--Petitioners' Response to 
the Department's February 2, 2015, Supplemental Questions--Brazil 
Dumping Allegation'' dated February 3, 2015 (Brazil Second 
Supplement); Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled 
``Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the 
People's Republic of China, and Portugal--Petitioners' Response to 
the Department's February 2, 2015, Supplemental Questions--Indonesia 
Dumping Allegation'' dated February 3, 2015 (Second Indonesia AD 
Supplement); and Letter from the petitioners to the Department 
entitled ``Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, 
Indonesia, the People's Republic offo China, and Portugal--
Petitioners'/Petitioners' Response to the Department's February 2, 
2015, Supplemental Department's Additional Questions--China Dumping 
Allegation ``Regarding the Petition,'' dated February 3, 2015 (the 
PRC Second PRC AD Supplement).
    \12\ See Memorandum to the File from George McMahon, Case 
Analyst, Office III, entitled ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Uncoated Paper from 
Australia: Phone Call with Cousel for Petitioners,'' dated February 
3, 2015.
    \13\ See Letter from the petitioners to the Department entitled 
``Re: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the 
People's Republic of China, and Portugal--Petitioners' Submission of 
Revised Information Per the Department of Commerce's Request--
Australia Dumping Allegation'' dated February 4, 2015 (Australia 
Third Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of uncoated 
paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that 
such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury 
to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 
732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information 
reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested 
parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. The 
Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD 
investigations that the petitioners are requesting.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periods of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on January 21, 2015, the periods 
of investigation (POI) are, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), as 
follows: January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, for Australia, 
Brazil, Indonesia, and Portugal; and July 1, 2014, through December 31, 
2014, for the PRC.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is uncoated paper from 
Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal. For a full 
description of the scope of these investigations, see the ``Scope of 
the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on the Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the 
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would 
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic 
industry is seeking relief.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also 
General Issues Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage (scope).\16\ The period for scope comments 
is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to 
consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance 
of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual 
information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information 
should be limited to public information. All such comments must be 
filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on March 2, 2015, which 
is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any 
rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed 
by 5:00 p.m. EDT on March 12, 2015, which is 10 calendar days after the 
initial comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties 
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted 
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that 
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the 
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department 
and request permission to submit the additional information. All such 
comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and 
CVD investigations.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).17,18 An 
electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from 
the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in 
paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 
1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of 
receipt by the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the 
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect 
on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at 
https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and the handbook can be found at 
https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
    \18\ On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed 
the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized 
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS'') to AD and CVD Centralized 
Electronic Service System (``ACCESS''). The Web site location was 
changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. 
The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be 
found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of uncoated paper to be 
reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and 
costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate 
product-comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: 1) General product 
characteristics and 2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, although there 
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers 
to describe uncoated paper, it may be that only a select few product 
characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical 
characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the 
order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching 
products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important 
physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics 
last.

[[Page 8610]]

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments must be 
filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on March 2, 2015, which is 20 calendar days from 
the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed 
by 5:00 p.m. EDT on March 12, 2015. All comments and submissions to the 
Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained 
above, on the records of the Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, PRC, and 
Portugal LTFV investigations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers 
whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major 
proportion of the total domestic production of the product. Thus, to 
determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the 
statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who 
produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission 
(ITC), which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic 
industry'' has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a 
domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the 
Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition 
regarding the domestic like product,\19\ 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \20\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Petitions).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we determined that uncoated paper constitutes 
a single domestic like product and we analyzed industry support in 
terms of that domestic like product.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Uncoated Paper from Australia (Australia AD Initiation Checklist), 
at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Petitions 
Covering Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People's 
Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal (Attachment II); 
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Uncoated Paper 
from Brazil (Brazil AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; 
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Uncoated Paper 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), 
at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Uncoated Paper from Indonesia (Indonesia AD Initiation 
Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Uncoated Paper from Portugal (Portugal AD 
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated 
concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. 
Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the 
Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce 
building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of 
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided 
their shipments of the domestic like product in 2014, and compared 
their shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like 
product for the entire domestic industry.\22\ Because total industry 
production data for the domestic like product for 2014 are not 
reasonably available and the petitioners have established that 
shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data,\23\ we relied 
upon the shipment data provided by the petitioners for purposes of 
measuring industry support.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-2 through I-4 and 
Exhibit I-3; see also General Issues Supplement, at 5-8 and Exhibits 
I-S4 through I-S7.
    \23\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-3 and Exhibit I-4.
    \24\ For further discussion, see Australia AD Initiation 
Checklist, Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation 
Checklist, Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, and Portugal AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department, 
we determine that the petitioners have established industry 
support.\25\ First, the Petitions established support from domestic 
producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total 
shipments \26\ 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).\27\ Second, the domestic producers 
(or workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or 
workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of 
the total shipments of the domestic like product.\28\ Finally, the 
domestic producers (or workers) met the statutory criteria for industry 
support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic 
producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 
50 percent of the shipments of the domestic like product produced by 
that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, 
the Petitions.\29\ Accordingly, the Department determines that the 
Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ As mentioned above, the petitioners have established that 
shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data. Section 
351.203(e)(1) of the Department's regulations states ``production 
levels may be established by reference to alternative data that the 
Secretary determines to be indicative of production levels.''
    \27\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Australia AD 
Initiation Checklist, Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD 
Initiation Checklist, Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, and 
Portugal AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on 
behalf

[[Page 8611]]

of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that 
they are requesting the Department initiate.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the 
petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-23, I-24 and Exhibit I-
12; see also General Issues Supplement, at 11 and Exhibit I-S11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression 
or depression; lost sales and revenues; adverse impact on the domestic 
industry, including mill closures, decline in production, and decline 
in shipments; reduced employment variables; and adverse impact on 
financial performance.\32\ We have assessed the allegations and 
supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material 
injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations 
are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory 
requirements for initiation.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at I-22 through I-43 and 
Exhibits I-3 and I-10 through I-26; see also General Issues 
Supplement, at 1, 8-11 and Exhibits I-S1 and I-S8 through I-S13.
    \33\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist, Brazil AD Initiation 
Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, Indonesia AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Portugal AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People's 
Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at LTFV

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV 
upon which the Department based its decision to initiate investigations 
of imports of uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the 
PRC, and Portugal. The sources of data for the deductions and 
adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater 
detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

Export Price

    For Australia, the petitioners based U.S. export price (EP) on the 
average unit value (AUV) of imports from Australia obtained from ITC 
Dataweb under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
subheading, 4802.56.1000, for the period of January through November 
2014 (the most recent data available for the POI). The petitioners 
state that all imports of uncoated paper from Australia entered under 
this HTSUS subheading during the POI,\34\ and that this HTSUS 
subheading appears to include data for imports of uncoated paper most 
comparable to the products used to calculate NV.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The petitioners stated and the Department confirmed that 
U.S. import data from were available through November 2014 at the 
time of the petition filing. Accordingly, the U.S. import data 
covers the period January 2014--November 2014. See Volume II of the 
Petition at II-19 and Exhibit II-42; see also Australia AD 
Supplement, at II-SQ-7.
    \35\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist for further 
information on this U.S. price calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Brazil, the petitioners based EP on a price quote for subject 
merchandise produced in Brazil by a producer of uncoated paper and AUVs 
of U.S. imports from Brazil obtained from ITC Dataweb under HTSUS 
subheadings 4802.56.1000 and 4802.56.7040 \36\ for the period of 
January through November 2014 (the most recent data available for the 
POI). The petitioners state that these HTSUS subheadings most closely 
correspond to the specific product that is the basis for NV.\37\ The 
price quote is supported by an affidavit from a person that directly 
received this information.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Indonesia, the petitioners based EP on the AUVs of U.S. imports 
from Indonesia obtained from ITC Dataweb under HTSUS subheadings 
4802.56.1000 and 4802.56.7040 for the period of January through 
November 2014 (the most recent data available for the POI). The 
petitioners state that these HTSUS subheadings cover uncoated paper 
most comparable to the products used to calculate NV. The petitioners 
also based EP on transaction-specific prices. To do so, the petitioners 
obtained ship manifest data from the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection's (CBP) Automated Manifest System (AMS), compiled by Stewart 
Trade Data Services, Inc., and directly linked monthly U.S. port-
specific import statistics by HTSUS subheading (obtained via Department 
of Commerce, Foreign Trade Division Merchandise Imports and Stewart 
Trade Data Services, Inc.) for imports of uncoated paper to shipments 
by the Indonesian producer(s) identified in the ship manifest data.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the PRC, the petitioners based EP on the AUV of U.S. imports 
from the PRC obtained from ITC Dataweb under HTSUS subheading 
4802.56.7040 for the period of July through November 2014 (the most 
recently available data for the POI). The petitioners assert that this 
HTSUS subheading most closely corresponds to the product used to 
calculate NV. The petitioners also based EP on producer-specific prices 
for a PRC producer of uncoated paper for shipments from the PRC under 
HTSUS subheading 4802.56.7040 during the period of July through 
November 2014. The petitioners obtained ship manifest data from CBP's 
AMS, via Datamyne, and linked monthly U.S. port-specific import 
statistics (obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau via Datamyne), for 
imports of uncoated paper entered under HTSUS subheading 4802.56.7040 
to shipments by the PRC producer identified in the ship manifest data. 
\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the PRC, the petitioners originally provided import 
statistics and ship manifest data for imports of uncoated paper from 
the PRC and Hong Kong to use as the basis for calculating EP, alleging 
that imports from the PRC are being transshipped through Hong Kong and 
that imports from Hong Kong are actually imports from the PRC. Because 
the allegation of transshipment is more appropriately dealt with in the 
course of the investigation, we have relied on the AUV of imports of 
uncoated paper from the PRC and the producer-specific prices for the 
PRC producer's shipments that are clearly designated as originating 
from the PRC in both the official import statistics and the ship 
manifest data for purposes of the initiation.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Portugal, the petitioners based EP on the AUVs of U.S. imports 
from Portugal obtained from ITC Dataweb under HTSUS subheadings 
4802.56.4000 and 4802.56.7040 \42\ for the period January through 
November 2014 (the most recent data available for the POI). The 
petitioners state that these HTSUS subheadings cover uncoated paper 
most comparable to the products used to calculate NV.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The petitioners also calculated an AUV using export data 
from Portugal. Because the AUVs calculated from U.S. import data are 
available and the petitioners did not claim the U.S. import data are 
unreliable, we have relied on the AUVs the petitioners calculated 
using U.S. import data, in accordance with our normal practice with 
respect to calculating AUVs. See Portugal AD Initiation Checklist. 
See Portugal AD Initiation Checklist.
    \43\ See Portugal AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each country's respective AUV, price quote, and/or transaction-
specific price, that forms the basis of EP, the

[[Page 8612]]

petitioners, based on the stated terms of delivery, deducted from these 
prices the adjustments, charges, and expenses associated with exporting 
and delivering the product to the U.S. customer, where appropriate.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ For further information on the U.S. price calculation, see 
Australia AD Initiation Checklist, Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, 
Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, and 
Portugal AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    For Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and Portugal, the petitioners 
based NV on price quotes or price information from producer(s) and/or 
distributors/resellers of uncoated paper.45 46 For each 
country, the petitioners provided an affidavit or declaration from a 
market researcher for the price quotes or price information that 
specified the price and quantity, terms of delivery, and terms of 
payment.\47\ Additionally, the petitioners made deductions for 
adjustments, charges, and movement expenses consistent with the terms 
of delivery, where applicable.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist; Brazil AD Initiation 
Checklist; Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist; and Portugal AD 
Initiation Checklist.
    \46\ The petitioners submitted several other methods as 
potential options to calculate NV but because we are using the 
aforementioned prices as the basis for NV, in accordance with our 
standard methodology, the Department is not using the other NV 
calculation methods provided by the petitioners for purposes of 
determining antidumping duty margins for purposes of initiation. See 
Australia AD Initiation Checklist; Brazil AD Initiation Checklist; 
Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist; and Portugal AD Initiation 
Checklist.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the PRC, the petitioners state that the Department 
has a long-standing policy of treating the PRC as a non-market economy 
(NME) country for antidumping purposes.\49\ In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in 
effect until revoked by the Department. The Department has not revoked 
the PRC's NME status as of the date of these Petitions. Moreover, no 
recent changes to the PRC's economy require reconsideration of its NME 
status. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on 
factors of production (FOPs), valued in a surrogate market-economy 
country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of 
the investigation covering merchandise from the PRC, all parties, 
including the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant 
information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the 
granting of separate rates to individual exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Volume VII of the Petitions, at VII-6, VII-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the PRC, the petitioners calculated NV using the NME 
methodology prescribed by the applicable statute and regulations. The 
petitioners provided the FOPs used in the manufacture of uncoated paper 
and valued FOPs based on a market economy country selected as a 
surrogate.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Volume VII of the Petition, at Exhibits 18-20, and 22--
23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners identified South Africa as a country that is 
economically comparable to the PRC, based on per-capita GNI data.\51\ 
The petitioners contend that South Africa is the appropriate surrogate 
country for the PRC because it is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME country, and is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise, i.e., uncoated paper. The petitioners further 
state that the South African data for valuing the FOPs for uncoated 
paper are available and reliable.\52\ Based on the information provided 
by the petitioners, we believe it is appropriate to use South Africa as 
a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will 
have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate-country 
selection and will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs no later than 30 days before the 
scheduled date of the preliminary determination.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Volume VII of the Petition, at 7, citing Memorandum to 
Minoo Hatton, ``Request for a list of Surrogate Countries for a New 
Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Small Diameter 
Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China'' (September 
30, 2014).
    \52\ See Volume VII of the Petition, at VII-7 through VII-9.
    \53\ See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factors of Production

    Because the petitioners do not have access to actual FOPs for any 
PRC manufacturers, the petitioners based consumption rates, including 
direct materials, labor, energy, and packing, for the production of 
merchandise under consideration on the experience of a U.S. 
producer.\54\ The petitioners valued the FOPs using surrogate value 
information from South Africa.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Volume VII of the Petition, at 13 and Exhibit VII-18; 
PRC AD Supplement, at Exhibit VII-S5.
    \55\ See Volume VII of the Petition, at 14-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Raw Materials

    The petitioners valued the direct material FOPs using publicly 
available South African import data obtained from Global Trade Atlas 
(GTA) in U.S. dollars for the period May 2014 through October 2014.\56\ 
The petitioners excluded all import values from all countries 
previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, 
non-industry-specific export subsidies, from countries previously 
determined by the Department to be NME countries, and from unspecified 
partner countries.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Volume VII of the Petition, at 14 and Exhibit VII-20.
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Labor

    The petitioners calculated the labor expense rate using 2012 data 
for South Africa from the International Labor Organization (ILO).\58\ 
The petitioners adjusted this rate for inflation using the consumer 
price index for South Africa published by the International Monetary 
Fund and converted the rate to U.S. dollars using the POI average 
exchange rate.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See PRC Supplement, at 2 and Exhibit VII-S4.
    \59\ Id., at 7 and Exhibit II-11; see also PRC AD Supplement, at 
5, item 9, and Exhibits II-S7 and II-S8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Energy and Water

    The petitioners valued electricity using rates published by Eskom, 
a South African electricity generator, effective April 2014 to March 
2015.\60\ The petitioners valued natural gas using the prices charged 
for piped natural gas by Sasol Gas Limited, reported by the Energy 
Regulator of South Africa, for the period April 2012 through March 
2013.\61\ The petitioners converted natural gas values from cost per 
kiloJoule to cost per million British thermal units, adjusted for 
inflation using the South African producer price index, and converted 
to U.S. dollars using POI average exchange rates.\62\ The petitioners 
valued hog fuel and fuel oil #2 from South African import 
statistics.\63\ The petitioners valued water using water rates reported 
by Rand Water, a water service provider in South Africa, for the period 
July 2010 through June 2011, adjusted for inflation and converted to 
U.S. dollars.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Volume VII of the Petitions, at 15 and Exhibit VII-23.
    \61\ Id.
    \62\ Id.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative 
Expenses, and Profit

    The petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (i.e., 
factory overhead expenses, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), and profit) based on the 2013 financial statements of 
Mondi Ltd (Mondi), a

[[Page 8613]]

South African producer of identical merchandise.

Valuation of Packing Inputs

    The petitioners valued packing materials using publicly available 
South African import data obtained from GTA. The petitioners valued 
labor associated with packing using information published by the 
ILO.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Volume VII at of the Petitions, at 14 and Exhibits VII-
19, VII-20 and VII-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sales-Below-Cost Allegation

    The petitioners also provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of uncoated paper in the 
Australian, Brazilian, and Indonesian markets were made at prices below 
the cost of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of 
the Act and requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales-
below-cost investigation of uncoated paper imports from Australia, 
Brazil, and Indonesia.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist; Brazil AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to sales-below-cost allegations in the context of 
investigations, the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act states that an allegation 
of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or 
producers.\67\ The SAA states further that ``Commerce will consider 
allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign country 
. . . on a country-wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping 
investigation.'' \68\ Consequently, the Department intends to consider 
the petitioners' allegations on a country-wide basis for each 
respective country for purposes of this initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 833 (1994).
    \68\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act 
retains the requirement that the Department have ``reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that below-cost sales have occurred before 
initiating such an investigation.'' \69\ `` `Reasonable grounds' will 
exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on 
costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the 
foreign market in question are at below-cost prices.'' \70\ As 
explained in the ``Cost of Production'' section below, we find 
reasonable grounds exist that indicate sales in Australia, Brazil, and 
Indonesia were made at below-cost prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Id.
    \70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of Production

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost 
of manufacturing (COM); selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses.
    For Australia, the petitioners calculated COM (except for 
depreciation) based on the experience of a U.S. producer adjusted for 
known differences between the United States and Australia, during the 
proposed POI. The petitioners multiplied the U.S. producer's usage 
quantities by publicly-available data to value the inputs used to 
manufacture uncoated paper in Australia. To determine the depreciation, 
SG&A, and financial expense rates, the petitioners relied on financial 
statements of a producer of uncoated paper in Australia.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Brazil, the petitioners calculated COM (except for 
depreciation) based on the experience of a U.S. producer adjusted for 
known differences between the United States and Brazil, during the 
proposed POI. The petitioners multiplied the U.S. producer's usage 
quantities by publicly-available data to value the inputs used to 
manufacture uncoated paper in Brazil. To determine the depreciation, 
SG&A, and financial expense rates, the petitioners relied on financial 
statements of a producer of uncoated paper in Brazil.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Indonesia, the petitioners calculated COM based on the 
experience of a U.S. producer adjusted for known differences between 
the United States and Indonesia during the proposed POI. The 
petitioners multiplied the U.S. producer's usage quantities by 
publicly-available data to value the inputs used to manufacture 
uncoated paper in Indonesia. To determine the depreciation, SG&A, and 
financial expense rates, the petitioners relied on financial statements 
of a producer of uncoated paper in Indonesia.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon a comparison of the ex-factory price of the foreign like 
product in the home market to the COP of the product for Australia, 
Brazil, and Indonesia, respectively, we find reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product in the home 
market were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act.\74\ Accordingly, the Department is 
initiating a country-wide cost investigation relating to sales of 
uncoated paper in Australia, Brazil, and Indonesia, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist; Brazil AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For Australia, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners also 
calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). The petitioners 
calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial expense, and 
packing figures used to compute the COP. The petitioners relied on the 
same financial statements used as the basis for the depreciation and 
SG&A expense rates to calculate the profit rate. However, because these 
financial statements did not report a profit, the petitioners 
conservatively did not include a profit rate.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Brazil, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners also 
calculated NV based on CV. The petitioners calculated CV using the same 
average COM, SG&A, financial expense, and packing figures used to 
compute the COP. The petitioners relied on the same financial 
statements used as the basis for the depreciation and SG&A expense 
rates to calculate the profit rate. However, because these financial 
statements did not report a profit, the petitioners conservatively did 
not include a profit rate.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Indonesia, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners also 
calculated NV based on CV. The petitioners calculated CV using the same 
average COM, SG&A, financial expense, and packing figures used to 
compute the COP. The petitioners relied on the same financial 
statements used as the basis for the depreciation and SG&A expense 
rates to calculate the profit rate.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, 
Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal are being, or are likely to be, sold 
in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of 
EP to NV (based on home market price and

[[Page 8614]]

constructed value) in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the 
estimated dumping margin(s) for uncoated paper from: 1) Australia range 
from 49.90 percent to 222.46 percent; \78\ 2) Brazil range from 86.90 
percent to 172.07 percent; \79\ 3) Indonesia range from 12.08 to 66.82 
percent; \80\ and 4) Portugal range from 2.23 to 22.59 percent.\81\ 
Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act, the estimated dumping margins for uncoated paper from the PRC 
range from 243.65 to 271.87 percent.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See Australia AD Initiation Checklist.
    \79\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
    \80\ See Indonesia AD Initiation Checklist.
    \81\ See Portugal AD Initiation Checklist.
    \82\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of LTFV Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on uncoated paper 
from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, and Portugal, we find that 
the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. 
Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether 
imports of uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, 
and Portugal are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States 
at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this 
initiation.

Respondent Selection

    The petitioners named six companies as producers/exporters of 
uncoated paper from Indonesia.\83\ Following standard practice in AD 
investigations involving market-economy countries, the Department will, 
where appropriate, select respondents based on CBP data for U.S. 
imports of uncoated paper under HTSUS numbers: 4802.56.1000, 
4802.56.2000, 4802.56.3000, 4802.56.4000, 4802.56.6000, 4802.56.7020, 
4802.56.7040, 4802.57.1000, 4802.57.2000, 4802.57.3000, and 
4802.57.4000. For Indonesia, we intend to release CBP data under 
Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to 
information protected by APO within five-business days of publication 
of this Federal Register notice.\84\ The Department invites comments 
regarding respondent selection within seven days of publication of this 
Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.
    \84\ See Certain Steel Nails From India, the Republic of Korea, 
Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, the Republic of Turkey, and 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-
Value Investigations, 79 FR 36019, 36024 (June 25, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Department normally relies on import data from CBP to 
select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual 
examination in AD investigations, the Petitions identified only one 
company as a producer/exporter of uncoated paper in Australia: Paper 
Australia Pty. Ltd.; two companies as producers/exporters of uncoated 
paper in Brazil: International Paper and Suzano Papel e Celulose S.A.; 
and one company as a producer/exporter of uncoated paper in Portugal: 
Portucel/Soporcel.\85\ In addition, the petitioners provided 
information from independent third party sources as support for 
identifying those producers/exporters from Australia, Brazil, and 
Portugal.\86\ Furthermore, we currently know of no additional 
producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration from these 
countries. Accordingly, the Department intends to examine all known 
producers/exporters in the investigations for Australia, Brazil, and 
Portugal (i.e., the companies cited above for each respective 
investigation). We invite interested parties to comment on this issue. 
Parties wishing to comment must do so within five days of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments must be 
filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document 
must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's 
electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EST by the date noted 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.
    \86\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at II-1-II-2 at footnote 1, 
and Exhibit II-3; Volume V of the Petitions, at V-1 through V-2 and 
Exhibit V-1; Volume VI of the Petitions, at Exhibits VI-1 and VI-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the PRC, the petitioners identified eight potential 
respondents.\87\ In accordance with our standard practice for 
respondent selection in cases involving NME countries, we intend to 
issue quantity-and-value questionnaires to each potential respondent 
and base respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, 
the Department will post the quantity-and-value questionnaire along 
with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at 
http://www.trade.gov/enforecement/news.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exporters/producers of uncoated paper from the PRC that do not 
receive quantity-and-value questionnaires by mail may still submit a 
quantity-and-value response and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement 
and Compliance Web site. The quantity-and-value questionnaire must be 
submitted by all the PRC exporters/producers no later than February 24, 
2015, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All 
quantity-and-value questionnaires must be filed electronically via 
ACCESS.

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.\88\ 
The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in 
the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, 
which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate 
application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation 
notice.\89\ For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate 
application and have been selected as mandatory respondents, these 
exporters and producers will only be eligible for consideration for 
separate-rate status when they respond to all parts of the 
questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that 
respondents from the PRC submit a response to both the quantity-and-
value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by their 
respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-
rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 
05.1).
    \89\ Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, 
consistent with section 351.301(a) of the Department's regulations, 
which states that ``the Secretary may request any person to submit 
factual information at any time during a proceeding,'' this deadline 
is now 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME 
investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 states:

    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise 
to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both 
to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated 
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms 
receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. 
This practice is referred to as the application of ``combination

[[Page 8615]]

rates'' because such rates apply to specific combinations of 
exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned 
to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the 
firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 
during the period of investigation.
* * * * *
    This practice is necessary to prevent the avoidance of payment 
of antidumping duties by firms shifting exports through exporters 
with the lowest assigned cash-deposit rates. The Department's 
previous practice of accounting for changes in producers during 
administrative reviews is not sufficient to prevent these 
activities, because in many industries, producer can appear and 
disappear frequently prior to the administrative review. Only by 
limiting the application of the separate rate to specific 
combinations of exporters and one or more producers can the 
Department prevent the ``funneling'' of subject merchandise through 
the exporters with the lowest rates.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6-7 (emphasis added).

    Therefore, for the Department to grant separate-rate status, the 
identity of all producers supplying a particular exporter eligible for 
a separate rate must be public information to ensure that CBP can apply 
the rate to the proper combination of exporter(s) and producer(s) 
eligible for a particular rate.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the governments of Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the PRC, 
and Portugal via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to 
provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter 
named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, 
Indonesia, the PRC, and/or Portugal are materially injuring or 
threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.\91\ A negative ITC 
determination for any country will result in the investigation being 
terminated with respect to that country; \92\ otherwise, these 
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \92\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual 
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information, 78 
FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to AD 
and CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual 
information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories 
of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized 
as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) 
evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any 
party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which 
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 
and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 
factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation 
identifying the information already on the record that the factual 
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also 
modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time 
limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all 
proceeding segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and thus are 
applicable to these investigations. Review the final rule, available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to 
submitting factual information in these investigations.

Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation 
concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD 
proceedings.\93\ The modification clarifies that parties may request an 
extension of time limits before a time limit established under 19 CFR 
351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an 
extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the 
time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which 
are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will 
be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. 
Examples include but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, 
filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value 
factors under section 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of 
remuneration under section 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2) filed pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the 
selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) 
comments concerning CBP data; and (5) quantity-and-value 
questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect 
to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be 
considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties 
simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in 
the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a 
specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be 
considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension 
request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and 
clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant 
untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits. These 
modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after 
October 21, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations. 
Review Extension of Time Limits, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 
information in these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\94\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their 
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions 
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD 
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the 
formats for the revised certifications provided at

[[Page 8616]]

the end of the Final Rule.\95\ The Department intends to reject factual 
submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable 
revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \95\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the 
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3627 (January 
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations 
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures 
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 
351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: February 10, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations includes 
uncoated paper in sheet form; weighing at least 40 grams per square 
meter but not more than 150 grams per square meter; that either is a 
white paper with a GE brightness level \1\ of 85 or higher or is a 
colored paper; whether or not surface-decorated, printed (except as 
described below), embossed, perforated, or punched; irrespective of 
the smoothness of the surface; and irrespective of dimensions 
(Certain Uncoated Paper).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ One 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 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. ``Colored paper'' as used in this scope definition means a 
paper with a hue other than white that reflects one of the primary 
colors of magenta, yellow, and cyan (red, yellow, and blue) or a 
combination of such primary colors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain Uncoated Paper includes (a) uncoated free sheet paper 
that meets this scope definition; (b) uncoated ground wood paper 
produced from bleached chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp (BCTMP) that 
meets this scope definition; and (c) any other uncoated paper that 
meets this scope definition regardless of the type of pulp used to 
produce the paper.
    Specifically excluded from the scope are (1) paper printed with 
final content of printed text or graphics and (2) lined paper 
products, typically school supplies, composed of paper that 
incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines that would 
make the paper unsuitable for copying or printing purposes.
    Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) categories 
4802.56.1000, 4802.56.2000, 4802.56.3000, 4802.56.4000, 
4802.56.6000, 4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040, 4802.57.1000, 
4802.57.2000, 4802.57.3000, and 4802.57.4000. Some imports of 
subject merchandise may also be classified under 4802.62.1000, 
4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, 4802.62.5000, 4802.62.6020, 
4802.62.6040, 4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, 4802.69.3000, 4811.90.8050 
and 4811.90.9080. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
scope of the investigations is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2015-03338 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P