Melamine From the People's Republic of China and Trinidad and Tobago: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 73030-73034 [2014-28832]

Download as PDF 73030 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices proceeding. Because the Department received no response from the respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited review of this CVD order, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(l)(ii)(B)(2) and (C)(2). Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the order is certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks from the People’s Republic of China. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers 7321.90.5000, 7321.90.6040, 7321.90.6090, 8418.99.8050, 8418.99.8060, 8419.90.9520, 8516.90.8000, and 8516.90.8010. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope, see ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People’s Republic of China,’’ from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this final notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum), and hereby adopted by this notice. rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the CVD Order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this expedited sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).3 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the 3 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). VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:48 Dec 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the CVD Order on kitchen racks from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a net countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below: Subsidy rate (percent) Producer/exporter Guangdong Wire King Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Foshan Shunde Wireking Housewares & Hardware) Asber Enterprises Co., Ltd. (China) .............................. Changzhou Yixiong Metal Products Co., Ltd .............. Foshan Winleader Metal Products Co., Ltd .............. Kingsun Enterprises Group Co, Ltd .............................. Yuyao Hanjun Metal Work Co./Yuyao Hanjun Metal Products Co., Ltd .............. Zhongshan Iwatani Co., Ltd. All Others .............................. 19.13 175.03 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–021, C–274–807] Melamine From the People’s Republic of China and Trinidad and Tobago: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Medley at (202) 482–4987 or Eve Wang at (202) 482–6231 (People’s Republic of China); Brendan Quinn at (202) 482–5848 or Raquel Silva at (202) 482–6475 (Republic of Trinidad and Tobago), Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: The Petitions On November 12, 2014, the Department of Commerce 154.12143 (‘‘Department’’) received countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) petitions concerning 154.12 imports of melamine from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) and Trinidad and Tobago (‘‘Trinidad and Tobago’’) 154.12 filed in proper form on behalf of 154.12 Cornerstone Chemical Company 17.51 (‘‘Petitioner’’). The CVD petitions were accompanied by two antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petitions.1 Petitioner is a Notification Regarding Administrative domestic producer of melamine.2 Protective Order On November 14, and November 19, This notice serves as the only 2014, the Department requested reminder to parties subject to information and clarification for certain administrative protective order (APO) of areas of the Petitions.3 Petitioner filed their responsibility concerning the responses to these requests on return or destruction of proprietary 1 See Petitioner’s submission entitled ‘‘Petitions information disclosed under APO in For The Imposition Of Antidumping And accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Countervailing Duties Against Melamine From Timely notification of return/ China And Trinidad And Tobago,’’ dated November destruction of APO materials or 12, 2014 (‘‘Petitions’’). 2 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2. conversion to judicial protective order is 3 See Letter from the Department to Petitioner hereby requested. Failure to comply of with the regulations and the terms of an entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition Melamine from Countervailing Duties on Imports of APO is a sanctionable violation. Trinidad and Tobago: Supplement Question,’’ dated November 14, 2014; Letter from the Department to We are issuing and publishing these Petitioner entitled ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of final results and notice in accordance Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports with sections 751(c), 752(b), and of Melamine from the People’s Republic of China and Trinidad and Tobago: Supplemental 777(i)(1) of the Act. 154.12 Dated: December 1, 2014. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2014–28831 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Questions,’’ dated November 14, 2014 (‘‘General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire’’); Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Melamine from the People’s Republic of China and Trinidad and Tobago: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated November 19, 2014 (‘‘Second General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire’’). E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices November 18, November 20, and November 24, 2014.4 In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), Petitioner alleges that the Government of the PRC (‘‘GOC’’) and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (‘‘GOTT’’) are providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to imports of melamine from the PRC and the Trinidad and Tobago, respectively, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations. The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigations that Petitioner is requesting.5 Period of Investigations The period of the investigation for both the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013.6 Scope of the Investigations The product covered by these investigations is melamine from the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations’’ in Appendix I of this notice. 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.7 As discussed in the preamble to the Department’s regulations,8 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). 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 Standard Time (‘‘EST’’) on December 22, 2014, 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. EST on January 2, 2015, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments deadline.9 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 the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago AD and CVD investigations. Filing Requirements rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Comments on Scope of the Investigations During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioner All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’).10 An electronically-filed 4 See Letter from Petitioner entitled ‘‘Melamine From Trinidad and Tobago/Petitioner’s Response To The Department’s Questions Regarding The Petition,’’ dated November 18, 2014; Letter from Petitioner entitled ‘‘Melamine from China and Trinidad and Tobago/Petitioner’s Response to the Department’s Questions Regarding the Petition,’’ dated November 18, 2014 (‘‘General Issues Supplement’’); Letter from Petitioner entitled ‘‘Melamine From China And Trinidad and Tobago/ Petitioner’s Response To The Department’s Second General Questionnaire,’’ dated November 20, 2014 (‘‘Second General Issues Supplement’’); Letter from Petitioner entitled ‘‘Supplement to Petitions For The Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Melamine from China and Trinidad and Tobago’’ dated November 24, 2014 (‘‘Third General Issues Supplement’’). 5 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions’’ section below. 6 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 7 See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire and Second General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement, Second General Issues Supplement, and Third General Issues Supplement. 8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 9 According to the Department practice, when a date falls on a weekend or a federal holiday, submissions become due the next business day; see Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 10 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:48 Dec 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 73031 document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date 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. Consultations Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOC and the GOTT of the receipt of the Petitions. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOC and the GOTT the opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.11 Consultations were held with the GOC on November 25, 2014.12 All memoranda are on file electronically via ACCESS.13 Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the ‘‘industry.’’ Final Rule changing the reference to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014). 11 See Letters of invitation from the Department to the GOC and the GOT, both dated November 17, 2014. 12 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Consultations with Officials from the Government of the People’s Republic of China Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition Concerning Melamine,’’ dated November 26, 2014. 13 See supra fn.10 for information pertaining to ACCESS. E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1 73032 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 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,14 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.15 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, Petitioner does 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 melamine constitutes a single domestic like product and we analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.16 14 See section 771(10) of the Act. 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)). 16 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Melamine from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC CVD Initiation Checklist’’), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Petitions Covering Melamine from the People’s Republic of China and Trinidad and Tobago (‘‘Attachment II’’); and Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Melamine from Trinidad and Tobago (‘‘Trinidad and Tobago CVD Initiation Checklist’’), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 702(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, Petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2013.17 Petitioner states that it is the only producer of melamine in the United States; therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.18 Based on the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department, we determine that Petitioner has established industry support.19 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).20 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.21 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.22 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:48 Dec 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 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. 17 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2 and Exhibit I–18. 18 Id., at 2. 19 See PRC CVD Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago CVD Checklist, at Attachment II. 20 See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC CVD Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago CVD Checklist, at Attachment II. 21 See PRC CVD Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago CVD Checklist, at Attachment II. 22 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate.23 Injury Test Because the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago are ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’ within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports, individually and cumulatively, are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. With regard to the PRC, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.24 In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(A)–(B) of the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise from developing countries must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent. Because Trinidad and Tobago has been designated as a developing country,25 imports from Trinidad and Tobago must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent. With regard to Trinidad and Tobago, the allegedly subsidized imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided under section 771(24)(B) of the Act.26 Petitioner contends that the industry’s injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depression or suppression, lost sales and revenues, and adversely impacted production, shipments, capacity utilization, financial performance, and capital expenditures.27 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we 23 Id. 24 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 11–12 and Exhibit I–11. 25 See section 771(36)(A) of the Act; see also Developing and Least-Developed Country Designations under the Countervailing Duty Law, 63 FR 29945–29948 (June 2, 1998). 26 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 11–12 and Exhibit I–11. 27 Id., at 12–16 and Exhibits I–13 through I–20; see also Third General Issues Supplement, at 2–5 and Exhibits 1–4. E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.28 In accordance with section 771(7)(G)(ii)(III) of the Act, which provides an exception to the mandatory cumulation provision for imports from any country designated as a beneficiary country under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (‘‘CBERA’’), we considered Petitioner‘s allegation of injury with respect to Trinidad and Tobago, a designated beneficiary under CBERA, independent of the allegation for the PRC and found that the information provided satisfies the requirements for initiation.29 Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations. In the Petitions, Petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of melamine in the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago benefited from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the governments of these countries, respectively. The Department examined the Petitions and finds that they comply with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of melamine from the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago receive countervailable subsidies from the governments of these countries, respectively. The PRC rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 21 of the alleged programs.30 For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not 28 See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Melamine from the People’s Republic of China and Trinidad and Tobago (‘‘Attachment III’’). 29 See id. 30 Additionally, Petitioner alleged various grants received individually by four producers/exporters of melamine. The Department intends to investigate these grants to the extent that these specific companies are selected as mandatory respondents in this proceeding. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:48 Dec 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist. Trinidad and Tobago Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 10 of the 10 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Trinidad and Tobago CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation is available on ACCESS and at http:// trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation. Respondent Selection Petitioner named 54 companies as producers/exporters of melamine from the PRC and one company as a producer/exporter of melamine from Trinidad and Tobago.31 Following standard practice in CVD investigations, the Department will, where appropriate, select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. imports of melamine during the period of investigation under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) number: 2933.61.0000. For the PRC, we intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (‘‘APO’’) to all parties with access to information protected by APO shortly after the announcement of these case initiations. For Trinidad and Tobago, Petitioner named only one company as a producer/exporter of melamine i.e., Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd., and provided information from an independent third party source as support.32 Furthermore, we currently know of no additional producers/ exporters of subject merchandise from Trinidad and Tobago. Accordingly, the Department intends to examine all known producers/exporters in this investigation (i.e., the company cited above). The Department invites comments regarding CBP data and respondent selection within five calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department’s 31 See 32 See PO 00000 Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–5. id. Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 73033 electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EST by the date noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department’s Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the GOC and GOTT via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each known exporter (as named in the Petitions), consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act. Preliminary 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 melamine from the PRC and/or Trinidad and Tobago are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.33 A negative ITC determination for either country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 34 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. Submission of Factual Information On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 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 33 See section 703(a) of the Act. 34 Id. E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1 73034 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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. Interested parties should 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.35 The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 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 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction information 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 35 See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:48 Dec 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 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 untimelyfiled 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. Interested parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/201322853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. Certification Requirements Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.36 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 the end of the Final Rule.37 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements. 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 3634 (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 36 See section 782(b) of the Act. 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. 37 See PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: December 2, 2014. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigations The merchandise subject to these investigations is melamine (Chemical Abstracts Service (‘‘CAS’’) registry number 108–78–01, molecular formula C3H6N6).1 Melamine is a crystalline powder or granule typically (but not exclusively) used to manufacture melamine formaldehyde resins. All melamine is covered by the scope of these investigations irrespective of purity, particle size, or physical form. Melamine that has been blended with other products is included within this scope when such blends include constituent parts that have been intermingled, but that have not been chemically reacted with each other to produce a different product. For such blends, only the melamine component of the mixture is covered by the scope of these investigations. Melamine that is otherwise subject to these investigations is not excluded when commingled with melamine from sources not subject to these investigations. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of these investigations. The subject merchandise is provided for in subheading 2933.61.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2014–28832 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–201–805] Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012–2013 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of AGENCY: 1 Melamine is also known as 2,4,6-triamino-striazine; l,3,5-Triazine-2,4,6-triamine; Cyanurotriamide; Cyanurotriamine; Cyanuramide; and by various brand names. E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73030-73034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28832]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-021, C-274-807]


Melamine From the People's Republic of China and Trinidad and 
Tobago: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations

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

DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Medley at (202) 482-4987 or Eve 
Wang at (202) 482-6231 (People's Republic of China); Brendan Quinn at 
(202) 482-5848 or Raquel Silva at (202) 482-6475 (Republic of Trinidad 
and Tobago), Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On November 12, 2014, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received countervailing duty (``CVD'') petitions concerning imports of 
melamine from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') and Trinidad and 
Tobago (``Trinidad and Tobago'') filed in proper form on behalf of 
Cornerstone Chemical Company (``Petitioner''). The CVD petitions were 
accompanied by two antidumping duty (``AD'') petitions.\1\ Petitioner 
is a domestic producer of melamine.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitioner's submission entitled ``Petitions For The 
Imposition Of Antidumping And Countervailing Duties Against Melamine 
From China And Trinidad And Tobago,'' dated November 12, 2014 
(``Petitions'').
    \2\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 14, and November 19, 2014, the Department requested 
information and clarification for certain areas of the Petitions.\3\ 
Petitioner filed responses to these requests on

[[Page 73031]]

November 18, November 20, and November 24, 2014.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled 
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 
Melamine from Trinidad and Tobago: Supplement Question,'' dated 
November 14, 2014; Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled 
``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Imports of Melamine from the People's Republic of China 
and Trinidad and Tobago: Supplemental Questions,'' dated November 
14, 2014 (``General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire''); Letter 
from the Department to Petitioner entitled ``Petitions for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of 
Melamine from the People's Republic of China and Trinidad and 
Tobago: Supplemental Questions,'' dated November 19, 2014 (``Second 
General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire'').
    \4\ See Letter from Petitioner entitled ``Melamine From Trinidad 
and Tobago/Petitioner's Response To The Department's Questions 
Regarding The Petition,'' dated November 18, 2014; Letter from 
Petitioner entitled ``Melamine from China and Trinidad and Tobago/
Petitioner's Response to the Department's Questions Regarding the 
Petition,'' dated November 18, 2014 (``General Issues Supplement''); 
Letter from Petitioner entitled ``Melamine From China And Trinidad 
and Tobago/Petitioner's Response To The Department's Second General 
Questionnaire,'' dated November 20, 2014 (``Second General Issues 
Supplement''); Letter from Petitioner entitled ``Supplement to 
Petitions For The Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties Melamine from China and Trinidad and Tobago'' dated November 
24, 2014 (``Third General Issues Supplement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), Petitioner alleges that the Government of the 
PRC (``GOC'') and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (``GOTT'') are 
providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 
and 771(5) of the Act) to imports of melamine from the PRC and the 
Trinidad and Tobago, respectively, and that such imports are materially 
injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United 
States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the 
Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to 
Petitioner supporting its allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that 
Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the 
initiation of the CVD investigations that Petitioner is requesting.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigations

    The period of the investigation for both the PRC and Trinidad and 
Tobago is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is melamine from the 
PRC and Trinidad and Tobago. For a full description of the scope of 
these investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations'' in 
Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, Petitioner 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire and Second 
General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also General Issues 
Supplement, Second General Issues Supplement, and Third General 
Issues Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\8\ we 
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage (scope). 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 Standard Time (``EST'') on December 22, 
2014, 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. EST on January 2, 2015, which is 10 calendar days 
after the initial comments deadline.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \9\ According to the Department practice, when a date falls on a 
weekend or a federal holiday, submissions become due the next 
business day; see Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next 
Business Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines 
Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the PRC and Trinidad and 
Tobago 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'').\10\ An 
electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the time and date 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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 reference to the Regulations can be 
found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department 
notified representatives of the GOC and the GOTT of the receipt of the 
Petitions. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the 
Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOC and the GOTT 
the opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.\11\ 
Consultations were held with the GOC on November 25, 2014.\12\ All 
memoranda are on file electronically via ACCESS.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Letters of invitation from the Department to the GOC 
and the GOT, both dated November 17, 2014.
    \12\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Consultations with Officials 
from the Government of the People's Republic of China Regarding the 
Countervailing Duty Petition Concerning Melamine,'' dated November 
26, 2014.
    \13\ See supra fn.10 for information pertaining to ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''

[[Page 73032]]

    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,\14\ 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \15\ 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, Petitioner does 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 melamine constitutes a single 
domestic like product and we analyzed industry support in terms of that 
domestic like product.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Melamine from the People's Republic of China (``PRC CVD 
Initiation Checklist''), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry 
Support for the Petitions Covering Melamine from the People's 
Republic of China and Trinidad and Tobago (``Attachment II''); and 
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Melamine 
from Trinidad and Tobago (``Trinidad and Tobago CVD 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 Petitioner has standing under section 
702(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, Petitioner provided its own 
production of the domestic like product in 2013.\17\ Petitioner states 
that it is the only producer of melamine in the United States; 
therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. 
industry.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2 and Exhibit I-18.
    \18\ Id., at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department, 
we determine that Petitioner has established industry support.\19\ 
First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or 
workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required 
to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling).\20\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) 
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the 
Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product.\21\ Finally, the domestic producers (or 
workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.\22\ 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See PRC CVD Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago CVD 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \20\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC CVD 
Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago CVD Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \21\ See PRC CVD Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago CVD 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that it is 
requesting the Department initiate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago are ``Subsidies Agreement 
Countries'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 
701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the 
ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the 
PRC and Trinidad and Tobago materially injure, or threaten material 
injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are 
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports, 
individually and cumulatively, are causing, or threaten to cause, 
material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like 
product.
    With regard to the PRC, Petitioner alleges that subject imports 
exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 
771(24)(A) of the Act.\24\ In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(A)-(B) of 
the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise from developing 
countries must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent. 
Because Trinidad and Tobago has been designated as a developing 
country,\25\ imports from Trinidad and Tobago must exceed the 
negligibility threshold of four percent. With regard to Trinidad and 
Tobago, the allegedly subsidized imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided under section 771(24)(B) of the Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 11-12 and Exhibit I-11.
    \25\ See section 771(36)(A) of the Act; see also Developing and 
Least-Developed Country Designations under the Countervailing Duty 
Law, 63 FR 29945-29948 (June 2, 1998).
    \26\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 11-12 and Exhibit I-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depression 
or suppression, lost sales and revenues, and adversely impacted 
production, shipments, capacity utilization, financial performance, and 
capital expenditures.\27\ We assessed the allegations and supporting 
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and 
causation, and we

[[Page 73033]]

determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate 
evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\28\ In 
accordance with section 771(7)(G)(ii)(III) of the Act, which provides 
an exception to the mandatory cumulation provision for imports from any 
country designated as a beneficiary country under the Caribbean Basin 
Economic Recovery Act (``CBERA''), we considered Petitioner`s 
allegation of injury with respect to Trinidad and Tobago, a designated 
beneficiary under CBERA, independent of the allegation for the PRC and 
found that the information provided satisfies the requirements for 
initiation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id., at 12-16 and Exhibits I-13 through I-20; see also 
Third General Issues Supplement, at 2-5 and Exhibits 1-4.
    \28\ See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago 
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations 
and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Melamine from the 
People's Republic of China and Trinidad and Tobago (``Attachment 
III'').
    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a 
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on 
behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an 
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner 
supporting the allegations.
    In the Petitions, Petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of 
melamine in the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago benefited from 
countervailable subsidies bestowed by the governments of these 
countries, respectively. The Department examined the Petitions and 
finds that they comply with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of 
the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we 
are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether manufacturers, 
producers, or exporters of melamine from the PRC and Trinidad and 
Tobago receive countervailable subsidies from the governments of these 
countries, respectively.

The PRC

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 21 of the 
alleged programs.\30\ For a full discussion of the basis for our 
decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD 
Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Additionally, Petitioner alleged various grants received 
individually by four producers/exporters of melamine. The Department 
intends to investigate these grants to the extent that these 
specific companies are selected as mandatory respondents in this 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trinidad and Tobago

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 10 of the 10 
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision 
to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Trinidad and 
Tobago CVD Initiation Checklist.
    A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation 
is available on ACCESS and at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    Petitioner named 54 companies as producers/exporters of melamine 
from the PRC and one company as a producer/exporter of melamine from 
Trinidad and Tobago.\31\ Following standard practice in CVD 
investigations, the Department will, where appropriate, select 
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data 
for U.S. imports of melamine during the period of investigation under 
the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') number: 2933.61.0000. For the PRC, we intend to release CBP 
data under Administrative Protective Order (``APO'') to all parties 
with access to information protected by APO shortly after the 
announcement of these case initiations. For Trinidad and Tobago, 
Petitioner named only one company as a producer/exporter of melamine 
i.e., Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd., and provided information from 
an independent third party source as support.\32\ Furthermore, we 
currently know of no additional producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise from Trinidad and Tobago. Accordingly, the Department 
intends to examine all known producers/exporters in this investigation 
(i.e., the company cited above). The Department invites comments 
regarding CBP data and respondent selection within five calendar days 
of publication of this Federal Register notice. 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. We 
intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 
days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Interested parties 
must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found 
on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-5.
    \32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the GOC and GOTT via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we 
will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions 
to each known exporter (as named in the Petitions), consistent with 19 
CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

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

Preliminary 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 melamine from the PRC and/or Trinidad and 
Tobago are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a 
U.S. industry.\33\ A negative ITC determination for either country will 
result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that 
country; \34\ otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See section 703(a) of the Act.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual 
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: 
Final Rule, 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

[[Page 73034]]

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. 
Interested parties should 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.\35\ The modification clarifies that parties may request an 
extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 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 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of 
remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction information 
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. 
Interested parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 
available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these 
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 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.\36\ 
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 the end of the Final 
Rule.\37\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised 
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \37\ 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 3634 (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 at 19 CFR 
351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: December 2, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I--Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise subject to these investigations is melamine 
(Chemical Abstracts Service (``CAS'') registry number 108-78-01, 
molecular formula C3H6N6).\1\ 
Melamine is a crystalline powder or granule typically (but not 
exclusively) used to manufacture melamine formaldehyde resins. All 
melamine is covered by the scope of these investigations 
irrespective of purity, particle size, or physical form. Melamine 
that has been blended with other products is included within this 
scope when such blends include constituent parts that have been 
intermingled, but that have not been chemically reacted with each 
other to produce a different product. For such blends, only the 
melamine component of the mixture is covered by the scope of these 
investigations. Melamine that is otherwise subject to these 
investigations is not excluded when commingled with melamine from 
sources not subject to these investigations. Only the subject 
component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of 
these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Melamine is also known as 2,4,6-triamino-s-triazine; l,3,5-
Triazine-2,4,6-triamine; Cyanurotriamide; Cyanurotriamine; 
Cyanuramide; and by various brand names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The subject merchandise is provided for in subheading 
2933.61.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2014-28832 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P