1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 25383-25386 [2016-09882]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2016 / Notices interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the investigation Petitioner is requesting.3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–046] 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid From People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation Period of Investigation The period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.4 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce DATES: Effective Date: February 20, 2016. AGENCY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Davina Friedmann at (202) 482–0698, Robert James at (202) 482–0649, 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: mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES The Petition On March 31, 2016, the Department of Commerce (Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of 1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from the People’s Republic of China (the PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of Compass Chemical International, LLC (Petitioner). The CVD petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) petition, also concerning imports of HEDP from the PRC.1 Petitioner is a domestic producer of HEDP.2 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) is providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) with respect to imports of HEDP from the PRC, and that imports of HEDP from the PRC are materially injuring, and threaten material injury to, the domestic industry producing HEDP in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we have initiated a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations. The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an 1 See ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated March 31, 2016 (Petitions). 2 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2, and Exhibit I–1. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:09 Apr 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is HEDP from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ at Appendix I of this notice. Comments on Scope of the Investigation During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.5 As discussed in the preamble to the Department’s regulations,6 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties, and if necessary, will consult with interested 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. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaire, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, 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. ET on Friday, May 20, 2016, which is ten calendar days after the initial comments deadline. The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. 3 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petition’’ below. 4 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 5 See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, ‘‘Petitioner for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, Supplemental Submission, Petition Volume I: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated April 7, 2016 (Petition Supplemental Information). 6 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 25383 However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments also must be filed on the record of the concurrent AD investigation. 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).7 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 18022, 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 of the receipt of the Petition. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOC the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD petition.8 In lieu of consultation with the Department, the GOC submitted comments to the Department on the alleged subsidy programs.9 Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 7 See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); 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 a handbook can be found at https:// access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on% 20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf. 8 See Letter of invitation from the Department regarding, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on 1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-DIphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated April 7, 2016. 9 See Department Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of China: GOC Comments on Alleged Subsidy Programs,’’ dated April 19, 2016. E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM 28APN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 25384 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2016 / Notices 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.’’ Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,10 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.11 Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ‘‘a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is ‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petition). With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product 10 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)). 11 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:09 Apr 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that HEDP, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.12 In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its 2015 production of the domestic like product.13 Petitioner states that it is the only known producer of HEDP in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.14 Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.15 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).16 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.17 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition 12 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 1 Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of China (PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of China (Attachment II). This checklist is 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 B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. 13 See Volume I of the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit I–1. 14 Id. 15 See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 16 See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 17 See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.18 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate.19 Injury Test Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Country’’ within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.20 Petitioner contends that the industry’s injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; decline in shipments and production; decline in employment; decline in financial performance; and lost sales and revenues.21 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.22 18 Id. 19 Id. 20 See General Issues Supplement, at 2. Volume I of the Petition, at 10–13, 19–38 and Exhibit I–5; see also General Issues Supplement, at 2. 22 See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of China. 21 See E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM 28APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2016 / Notices Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 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 elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting the allegations. Petitioner alleges that producers/ exporters of HEDP in the PRC benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOC. The Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies 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 a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of HEDP from the PRC receive countervailable subsidies from the GOC and various authorities thereof. On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.23 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.24 The amendments to sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD investigation.25 Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on the four remaining alleged programs in the PRC.26 For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for 23 See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). 24 See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). The 2015 amendments may be found at https:// www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/ 1295/text/pl. 25 Id., at 46794–95. 26 Petitioner initially alleged nine subsidy programs, but subsequently withdrew allegations on five of those programs. See Volume III of the Petition, at 18–30; see also Petition Supplemental Information at 1–3. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:09 Apr 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 this investigation is available on ACCESS. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation. Respondent Selection 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 HEDP during the period of investigation. For this investigation, the Department will release U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of subject merchandise during the period of investigation under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers: 2931.90.9043. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2811.19.6090 and 2931.90.9041. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of the announcement 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 at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo/. Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET on the seventh calendar day after publication of this notice. Comments must be filed in accordance with the filing requirements stated above. If respondent selection is necessary, we intend to base our decision regarding respondent selection upon comments received from interested parties and our analysis of the record information within 20 days of publication of this notice. Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each known exporter (as named in the Petition), consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 25385 Preliminary Determinations by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of HEDP from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.27 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 28 otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. Submission of Factual Information Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (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 regulation 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. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation. Extension of Time Limits Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that 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. Under certain circumstances, we 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 27 See 28 See E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM section 703(a)(2) of the Act. section 703(a)(1) of the Act. 28APN1 25386 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2016 / Notices such a case, we 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. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201309-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation. Certification Requirements Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.29 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.30 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements. Notification to Interested Parties mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 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 https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 30 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:09 Apr 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes all grades of aqueous acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of 1hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP), also referred to as hydroxye thylidenendiphosphonic acid, hydro xyethanediphosphonic acid, acetodi phosphonic acid, and etidronic acid. The CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) registry number for HEDP is 2809–21–4. The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2931.90.9043. It may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2811.19.6090 and 2931.90.9041. While HTSUS subheadings and the CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes only, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2016–09882 Filed 4–27–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–896] Magnesium Metal From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 5, 2016, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the period April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015.1 This review covers two PRC companies, Tianjin Magnesium International, Co., Ltd. (‘‘TMI’’) and Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd. (‘‘TMM’’). The Department gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results, but we received no comments. Hence, these final results are unchanged from the Preliminary Results, and we continue to find that TMI and TMM did not have reviewable AGENCY: 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 this investigation 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. 29 See Dated: April 20, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. entries during the period of review (‘‘POR’’). DATES: Effective Date: April 28, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra or Brendan Quinn, AD/ CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3965 or (202) 482– 5848, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 5, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results.2 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results, but no comments were received. Also, as explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, the Department exercised its authority to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government.3 As a consequence, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final results is now May 10, 2016. The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). Scope of the Order The product covered by this antidumping duty order is magnesium metal from the PRC, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this order includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium. The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes; magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into rasping, 2 Id. 1 See Magnesium Metal From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014– 2015, 81 FR 220 (January 5, 2016) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3 See Memorandum to the File from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,’’ dated January 27, 2016. E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM 28APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25383-25386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09882]



[[Page 25383]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-046]


1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From People's Republic 
of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

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

DATES: Effective Date: February 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Davina Friedmann at (202) 482-0698, 
Robert James at (202) 482-0649, 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 Petition

    On March 31, 2016, the Department of Commerce (Department) received 
a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of 1-
Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from the People's 
Republic of China (the PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of Compass 
Chemical International, LLC (Petitioner). The CVD petition was 
accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) petition, also concerning 
imports of HEDP from the PRC.\1\ Petitioner is a domestic producer of 
HEDP.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid 
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated March 31, 2016 
(Petitions).
    \2\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2, and Exhibit I-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) is providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of 
sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) with respect to imports of HEDP 
from the PRC, and that imports of HEDP from the PRC are materially 
injuring, and threaten material injury to, the domestic industry 
producing HEDP in the United States. Also, consistent with section 
702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we have 
initiated a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by 
information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its 
allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that Petitioner has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the 
investigation Petitioner is requesting.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through December 
31, 2015.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is HEDP from the PRC. For 
a full description of the scope of this investigation, see ``Scope of 
Investigation'' at Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed 
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an 
accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is 
seeking relief.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, ``Petitioner 
for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, 
Supplemental Submission, Petition Volume I: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 
1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China,'' dated 
April 7, 2016 (Petition Supplemental Information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\6\ we 
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider 
all comments received from interested parties, and if necessary, will 
consult with interested 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. In order to facilitate 
preparation of its questionnaire, the Department requests all 
interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time 
(ET) on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, 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. ET on Friday, May 20, 
2016, which is ten calendar days after the initial comments deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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).\7\ 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 18022, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); 
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 a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department 
notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition. 
Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 
Department provided representatives of the GOC the opportunity for 
consultations with respect to the CVD petition.\8\ In lieu of 
consultation with the Department, the GOC submitted comments to the 
Department on the alleged subsidy programs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Letter of invitation from the Department regarding, 
``Countervailing Duty Petition on 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-
DIphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China,'' dated April 
7, 2016.
    \9\ See Department Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on 
1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's 
Republic of China: GOC Comments on Alleged Subsidy Programs,'' dated 
April 19, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic

[[Page 25384]]

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.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product,\10\ 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \11\ 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 
Petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer 
a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that HEDP, as defined in the scope, 
constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed 
industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: 1 Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), at 
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-
Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China (Attachment 
II). This checklist is 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 B8024 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 Petition with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this 
notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its 2015 
production of the domestic like product.\13\ Petitioner states that it 
is the only known producer of HEDP in the United States; therefore, the 
Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit I-1.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that 
Petitioner has established industry support.\15\ First, the Petition 
established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for 
more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further 
action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).\16\ 
Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory 
criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 
because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition 
account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic 
like product.\17\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met 
the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.\18\ 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \16\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC CVD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \17\ See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an interested parties as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is 
requesting the Department initiate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine 
whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are 
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are 
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry 
producing the domestic like product. In addition, Petitioner alleges 
that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for 
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See General Issues Supplement, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression 
or depression; decline in shipments and production; decline in 
employment; decline in financial performance; and lost sales and 
revenues.\21\ 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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 10-13, 19-38 and Exhibit 
I-5; see also General Issues Supplement, at 2.
    \22\ See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the 
People's Republic of China.

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

[[Page 25385]]

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

    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 elements necessary for an 
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner 
supporting the allegations.
    Petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of HEDP in the PRC 
benefit from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOC. The 
Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies 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 a CVD 
investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or 
exporters of HEDP from the PRC receive countervailable subsidies from 
the GOC and various authorities thereof.
    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into 
law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD law.\23\ The 2015 law does not specify 
dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the 
Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the 
applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for 
amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to 
determinations of material injury by the ITC.\24\ The amendments to 
sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations 
made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD 
investigation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-
27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \24\ See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension 
Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice). 
The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
    \25\ Id., at 46794-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on the four 
remaining alleged programs in the PRC.\26\ For a full discussion of the 
basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD 
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for 
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Petitioner initially alleged nine subsidy programs, but 
subsequently withdrew allegations on five of those programs. See 
Volume III of the Petition, at 18-30; see also Petition Supplemental 
Information at 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    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 HEDP during the 
period of investigation. For this investigation, the Department will 
release U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports 
of subject merchandise during the period of investigation under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers: 
2931.90.9043. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS 
subheadings 2811.19.6090 and 2931.90.9041. We intend to release the CBP 
data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with 
access to information protected by APO within five business days of the 
announcement 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 at 
https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo/.
    Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and 
respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET on the seventh calendar day after 
publication of this notice. Comments must be filed in accordance with 
the filing requirements stated above. If respondent selection is 
necessary, we intend to base our decision regarding respondent 
selection upon comments received from interested parties and our 
analysis of the record information within 20 days of publication of 
this notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

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

ITC Notification

    We will notify 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 Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of HEDP from the PRC are materially injuring, 
or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.\27\ A negative ITC 
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; \28\ 
otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
    \28\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (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 regulation 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. Time limits for the 
submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, 
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations 
prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

Extension of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as 
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request 
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the 
time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions 
that 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. Under certain circumstances, we 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

[[Page 25386]]

such a case, we 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. An extension request 
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited 
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension 
of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 
information in this investigation.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\29\ 
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.\30\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised 
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \30\ 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 
https://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 this investigation 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: April 20, 2016.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.

Appendix I--Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation includes all 
grades of aqueous acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of 1-
hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP), also referred to as 
hydroxyethylidenendiphosphonic acid, hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid, 
acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic acid. The CAS (Chemical 
Abstract Service) registry number for HEDP is 2809-21-4.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) at subheading 2931.90.9043. It may also enter under HTSUS 
subheadings 2811.19.6090 and 2931.90.9041. While HTSUS subheadings 
and the CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes only, the written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2016-09882 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.