Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From India and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 29029-29033 [2017-13381]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 / Notices
ITC Notification
We will notify the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the Petitions were filed, whether there
is a reasonable indication that imports
of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India,
Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are
materially injuring or threatening
material injury to a U.S. industry.62 A
negative ITC determination for any
country will result in the investigation
being terminated with respect to that
country.63 Otherwise, these
investigations 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). 19 CFR 351.301(b)
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted 64 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.65 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. Interested
parties should review the regulations
prior to submitting factual information
in these investigations.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Extensions 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
62 A
negative ITC determination for any country
will result in the investigation being terminated
with respect to that country.
63 Id.
64 See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
65 See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jun 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301.
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. ET
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
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. Parties should 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/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.66
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.67 The
Department intends to reject factual
submissions if the submitting party does
not comply with 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
66 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
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
67 See
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29029
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
appearance as discussed atn 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i)
of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: June 20, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these
investigations is fine denier polyester staple
fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed,
measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in
diameter. The scope covers all fine denier
PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The
following products are excluded from the
scope:
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3. decitex
(more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bicomponent fiber with a polyester core and an
outer, polyester sheath that melts at a
significantly lower temperature than its inner
polyester core currently classified under
HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the
HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017–13380 Filed 6–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–533–876; C–570–061]
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber
From India and the People’s Republic
of China: Initiation of Countervailing
Duty Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective June 20, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Trisha Tran at (202) 482–4852 (India);
Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482–3813 and
Davina Friedmann at (202) 482–0698
(the People’s Republic of China), AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petitions
On May 31, 2017, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (the
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
29030
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Department) received countervailing
duty (CVD) Petitions concerning
imports of fine denier polyester staple
fiber (fine denier PSF) from India and
the People’s Republic of China (the
PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of
DAK Americas LLC, Nan Ya Plastics
Corporation, America, and Auriga
Polymers, Inc. (collectively, the
petitioners). The CVD Petitions were
accompanied by antidumping duty (AD)
Petitions concerning imports of fine
denier PSF from both of the countries
listed above, in addition to the Republic
of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam.1 The petitioners
are domestic producers of fine denier
PSF.2
On June 5, 2017, the Department
requested supplemental information
pertaining to certain areas of the
Petitions.3 The petitioners filed
responses to these requests on June 8,
2017.4 The petitioners filed revised
scope language on June 14, 2017.5
1 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from
the petitioner re: ‘‘Fine Denier Polyester Staple
Fiber from the People’s Republic of Chna, India, the
Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam—Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties’’ (May 31,
2017) (the Petitions).
2 Id., Volume I of the Petitions, at 2; see also,
Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the
petitioners, ‘‘Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber
from the People’s Republic of China, India, the
Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam—Petitioners’ Amendment to
Volume I Relating to General Issues,’’ (June 8, 2017)
(General Issues Supplement), at Exhibit I–S2.
3 See Letter to the petitioners from the
Department, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from India’’ (June 5, 2017)
(India CVD Supplemental Questionnaire); see also
Letter from the Department, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Fine Denier PSF from the
People’s Republic of China, India, the Republic of
Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Supplemental Questions’’ (June 5, 2017)
(General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see
also Letter to the petitioners from the Department
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple
Fiber from the People’s Republic of China:
Supplemental Questions,’’ (June 5, 2017) (PRC CVD
Supplemental Questionnaire).
4 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from
the petitioners, ‘‘Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber
from India—Petitioners’ Response to Supplemental
Questionnaire Concerning Countervailing Duty
Petition—Petitioners’ Amendment to Volume VIII
Relating to India—Countervailing Duties,’’ (June 8,
2017) (India CVD Supplement); see also General
Issues Supplement; see also Letter to the Secretary
of Commerce from the petitioners, ‘‘Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic
of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioners’
Amendment to Volume VII Relating to China—
Countervailing Duties,’’ (June 8, 2017) (PRC CVD
Supplement).
5 See Memorandum to the File ‘‘Phone
Conversation Regarding Scope,’’ dated June 13,
2017; see also Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber
from the People’s Republic of China, India, the
Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jun 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the petitioners allege that the
Governments of India and the PRC are
providing countervailable subsidies,
within the meaning of sections 701 and
771(5) of the Act, to imports of fine
denier PSF from India and the PRC,
respectively, and that such imports are
materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, the domestic industry
producing fine denier PSF in the United
States. Also, consistent with section
702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged
programs on which we are initiating a
CVD investigation, the Petitions are
accompanied by information reasonably
available to the petitioners supporting
their allegations.
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed these Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because
the petitioners are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act.
The Department also finds that the
petitioners demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
initiation of the CVD investigations that
the petitioners are requesting.6
Period of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on
May 31, 2017, the period of
investigation is January 1, 2016, through
December 31, 2016.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these
investigations is fine denier PSF from
India and the PRC. For a full description
of the scope of these investigations, see
the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the
Appendix to this notice.
Comments on Scope of the
Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the
Department issued questions to, and
received responses from, the petitioners
pertaining to the proposed scope to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petitions would be an accurate
reflection of the products for which the
domestic industry is seeking relief.7
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations, we are setting
aside a period for interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage
(scope).8 The Department will consider
all comments received from interested
Republic of Vietnam—Petitioners’ Second
Amendment to Volume I Relating to General Issues,
dated June 14, 2017 (Scope Supplement to the
Petitions).
6 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the
Petition’’ section, below.
7 See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire;
see also General Issues Supplement.
8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties;
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
parties and, if necessary, will consult
with the interested parties prior to the
issuance of the preliminary
determinations. If scope comments
include factual information,9 all such
factual information should be limited to
public information. To facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests all interested
parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on
Tuesday, July 10, 2017, 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
Thursday, July 20, 2017, which is 10
calendar days from the initial comments
deadline.
The Department requests that any
factual information the parties consider
relevant to the scope of the
investigations be submitted during this
time period. However, if a party
subsequently finds that additional
factual information pertaining to the
scope of the investigations may be
relevant, the party may contact the
Department and request permission to
submit the additional information. All
such comments must be filed on the
records of each of the concurrent AD
and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department
must be filed electronically using
Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping Duty 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 exempted
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, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230, and
stamped with the date and time of
receipt by the applicable deadlines.
Consultations
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i)
and (ii) of the Act, the Department
9 See
19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011), see also Enforcement and
Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System
Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) 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%20
Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
10 See
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 / Notices
notified representatives of the
Governments of India and the PRC of
the receipt of the Petitions, and
provided them the opportunity for
consultations with respect to the CVD
Petitions.11 Consultations with the PRC
were held via conference call on June
19, 2017.12 On June 16, 2017, India
requested the Department to reschedule
consulations for after June 27, 2017.13
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
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.’’
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
11 See Letter to the Embassy of India,
‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from India’’ (June 2, 2017);
see also letter to the Embassy of the People’s
Republic of China, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition
on Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the
People’s Republic of China’’ (June 2, 2017).
12 See Memorandum, ‘‘Ex-Parte Meeting with
Officials from the Government of People’s Republic
of China on the Countervailing Duty Petition on
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s
Republic of China’’ (June 19, 2017); see also
Memorandum, ‘‘Ex-Parte Meeting with Officials
from the Government of the India on the
Countervailing Duty Petition on Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from India’’ (June 19, 2017).
13 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from
the Embassy of India, ‘‘Request to reschedule
consultations on CVD petition against Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from India,’’ (June 16, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jun 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
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, the petitioners do not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigations. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that fine
denier PSF, as defined in the scope,
constitutes a single domestic like
product and we have analyzed industry
support in terms of that domestic like
product.16
In determining whether the
petitioners have 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, the petitioners
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, see Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple
Fiber 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 Fine
Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s
Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea,
Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,
(Attachment II); and Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from India (India 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 B8024 of the main
Department of Commerce building.
15 See
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29031
provided their own production of the
domestic like product in 2016.17 In
addition, the petitioners provided a
letter of support from Palmetto
Synthetics, LLC, stating that the
company supports the Petitions and
providing its own production of the
domestic like product in 2016.18 The
petitioners identify themselves and
Palmetto Synthetics, LLC as the
companies constituting the U.S. fine
denier PSF industry and state that there
are no other known producers of fine
denier PSF in the United States;
therefore, the Petitions are supported by
100 percent of the U.S. industry.19
Our review of the data provided in the
Petitions, General Issues Supplement,
and other information readily available
to the Department indicates that the
petitioners have established industry
support for the Petitions.20 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).21 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 Petitions
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.22 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 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.23 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 the
petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because they
are interested parties as defined in
section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they
17 See
Volume I of the Petitions, at 3 and Exhibit
I–2.
18 Id.
19 Id., at 2–3 and Exhibit I–1; see also General
Issues Supplement, at 3 and Exhibit I–S2.
20 See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist and India
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
21 See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
22 See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist and India
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
23 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
29032
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 / Notices
have demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the CVD
investigations that they are requesting
that the Department initiate.24
Injury Test
Because the PRC and India 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 India
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege 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, the petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.25 In
CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the
Act provides that imports of subject
merchandise from developing and least
developed countries must exceed the
negligibility threshold of four percent.
The petitioners also demonstrate that
subject imports from India, which has
been designated as a least developed
country under section 771(36)(B) of the
Act, exceed the negligibility threshold
of four percent.26
The petitioners contend that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share;
underselling and price suppression or
depression; lost sales and revenues;
decreased production, capacity
utilization, and U.S. shipments; and
declines in financial performance.27 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.28
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
24 Id.
25 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14–15 and
Exhibit I–7.
26 Id.
27 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14–31 and
Exhibits I–5, I–8, I–9, and I–10.
28 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 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from
the People’s Republic of China, India, the Republic
of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam (Attachment III); and India CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment III.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jun 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Initiation of CVD Investigations
Based on the examination of the CVD
Petitions, we find that the Petitions
meet the requirements of section 702 of
the Act. Therefore we are initiating CVD
investigations to determine whether
imports of fine denier PSF from India
and the PRC benefit from
countervailable subsidies conferred by
the governments of these countries. 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.
Under the Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015, numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD laws
were made.29 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.30 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 these
CVD investigations.31
India
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on 36 of the 38 alleged
programs in India. For a full discussion
of the basis for our decision to initiate
or not initiate on each program, see the
India CVD Initiation Checklist. A public
version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on
ACCESS.
The PRC
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on all 20 alleged programs.
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.
29 See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015,
Public Law 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
30 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.
31 See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794–95.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
The petitioners named 12 and 89
companies as producers/exporters of
fine denier PSF in India and the PRC,
respectively.32 Following standard
practice in CVD investigations, in the
event the Department determines that
the number of companies is large, the
Department intends to review U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
data for U.S. imports of fine denier PSF
during the POI under the appropriate
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States subheadings, and if it
determines that it cannot individually
examine each company based upon the
Department’s resources, then the
Department will select respondents
based on those data. We intend to
release CBP data under Administrative
Protective Order (APO) to all parties
with access to information protected by
APO within five business days of the
announcement of the initiation of these
investigations. 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 https://
enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
Interested parties may submit
comments regarding the CBP data and
respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET
seven calendar days after the placement
of the CBP data on the record of these
investigations. Interested parties
wishing to submit rebuttal comments
should submit those comments five
calendar days after the deadline for
initial comments.
Comments must be filed
electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically filed document must be
received successfully, in its entirety, by
ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m.ET on
the date noted above. If respondent
selection is necessary, within 20 days of
publication of this notice, we intend to
make our decisions regarding
respondent selection based upon
comments received from interested
parties and our analysis of the record
information.
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
32 See Petition, Volume I at Exhibit I–7; see also
PRC CVD Supplement, at 1.
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2017 / Notices
the GOI and GOC via ACCESS. To the
extent practicable, we will attempt to
provide a copy of the public version of
the Petitions to each exporter named in
the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR
351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We 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 Petitions were filed, whether there
is a reasonable indication that imports
of fine denier PSF from India and the
PRC are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, a U.S.
industry.33 A negative ITC
determination will result in the
investigations being terminated.34
Otherwise, these investigations 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). 19 CFR 351.301(b)
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted35 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.36 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. Interested
parties should review the regulations
prior to submitting factual information
in these investigations.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
time limit established under 19 CFR
33 See
section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
35 See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
36 See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
34 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:33 Jun 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
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. ET
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
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. Parties should 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/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.37
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.38 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;
37 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
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
38 See
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29033
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: June 20, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these
investigations is fine denier polyester staple
fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed,
measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in
diameter. The scope covers all fine denier
PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The
following products are excluded from the
scope:
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3. decitex
(more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bicomponent fiber with a polyester core and an
outer, polyester sheath that melts at a
significantly lower temperature than its inner
polyester core currently classified under
HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the
HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017–13381 Filed 6–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–979]
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells,
Whether or Not Assembled Into
Modules, From the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Final
Determination of No Shipments; 2014–
2015
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 22, 2016, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the third administrative
review of the antidumping duty (AD)
order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic
cells, whether or not assembled into
modules (solar cells) from the People’s
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM
27JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29029-29033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13381]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-533-876; C-570-061]
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From India and the People's
Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective June 20, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trisha Tran at (202) 482-4852 (India);
Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482-3813 and Davina Friedmann at (202) 482-0698
(the People's Republic of China), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On May 31, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the
[[Page 29030]]
Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning
imports of fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from
India and the People's Republic of China (the PRC), filed in proper
form on behalf of DAK Americas LLC, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation,
America, and Auriga Polymers, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners). The
CVD Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) Petitions
concerning imports of fine denier PSF from both of the countries listed
above, in addition to the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam.\1\ The petitioners are domestic producers of fine
denier PSF.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner
re: ``Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic
of Chna, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam--Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties'' (May 31, 2017) (the Petitions).
\2\ Id., Volume I of the Petitions, at 2; see also, Letter to
the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioners, ``Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India,
the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam--Petitioners' Amendment to Volume I Relating to General
Issues,'' (June 8, 2017) (General Issues Supplement), at Exhibit I-
S2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 5, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information
pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.\3\ The petitioners filed
responses to these requests on June 8, 2017.\4\ The petitioners filed
revised scope language on June 14, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Letter to the petitioners from the Department,
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India'' (June 5, 2017)
(India CVD Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter from the
Department, ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Fine Denier PSF from the
People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan,
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Supplemental Questions''
(June 5, 2017) (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see also
Letter to the petitioners from the Department ``Petition for the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China:
Supplemental Questions,'' (June 5, 2017) (PRC CVD Supplemental
Questionnaire).
\4\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the
petitioners, ``Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India--
Petitioners' Response to Supplemental Questionnaire Concerning
Countervailing Duty Petition--Petitioners' Amendment to Volume VIII
Relating to India--Countervailing Duties,'' (June 8, 2017) (India
CVD Supplement); see also General Issues Supplement; see also Letter
to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioners, ``Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India,
the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam--Petitioners' Amendment to Volume VII Relating to China--
Countervailing Duties,'' (June 8, 2017) (PRC CVD Supplement).
\5\ See Memorandum to the File ``Phone Conversation Regarding
Scope,'' dated June 13, 2017; see also Fine Denier Polyester Staple
Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of
Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--Petitioners'
Second Amendment to Volume I Relating to General Issues, dated June
14, 2017 (Scope Supplement to the Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Governments of India
and the PRC are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning
of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to imports of fine denier PSF
from India and the PRC, respectively, and that such imports are
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic
industry producing fine denier PSF in the United States. Also,
consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged
programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petitions
are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested
parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also
finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support
with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigations that the
petitioners are requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition''
section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on May 31, 2017, the period of
investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is fine denier PSF from
India and the PRC. For a full description of the scope of these
investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in the
Appendix to this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions
to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also
General Issues Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (scope).\8\ The Department will consider all
comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will
consult with the interested parties prior to the issuance of the
preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual
information,\9\ all such factual information should be limited to
public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires,
the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments
by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, July 10, 2017, 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 Thursday, July 20, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the
initial comments deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department requests that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department
and request permission to submit the additional information. All such
comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and
CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty 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 exempted 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, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by
the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011), see also Enforcement and
Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046
(November 20, 2014) 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 sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the
Department
[[Page 29031]]
notified representatives of the Governments of India and the PRC of the
receipt of the Petitions, and provided them the opportunity for
consultations with respect to the CVD Petitions.\11\ Consultations with
the PRC were held via conference call on June 19, 2017.\12\ On June 16,
2017, India requested the Department to reschedule consulations for
after June 27, 2017.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Letter to the Embassy of India, ``Countervailing Duty
Petition on Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India'' (June 2,
2017); see also letter to the Embassy of the People's Republic of
China, ``Countervailing Duty Petition on Fine Denier Polyester
Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China'' (June 2, 2017).
\12\ See Memorandum, ``Ex-Parte Meeting with Officials from the
Government of People's Republic of China on the Countervailing Duty
Petition on Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China'' (June 19, 2017); see also Memorandum, ``Ex-Parte
Meeting with Officials from the Government of the India on the
Countervailing Duty Petition on Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber
from India'' (June 19, 2017).
\13\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the Embassy of
India, ``Request to reschedule consultations on CVD petition against
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India,'' (June 16, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.''
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,\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, the petitioners do not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that fine denier PSF, as
defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like
product.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis, see
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier
Polyester Staple Fiber 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 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, (Attachment II); and Countervailing
Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester
Staple Fiber from India (India 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
B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether the petitioners have 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, the petitioners provided
their own production of the domestic like product in 2016.\17\ In
addition, the petitioners provided a letter of support from Palmetto
Synthetics, LLC, stating that the company supports the Petitions and
providing its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.\18\
The petitioners identify themselves and Palmetto Synthetics, LLC as the
companies constituting the U.S. fine denier PSF industry and state that
there are no other known producers of fine denier PSF in the United
States; therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the
U.S. industry.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3 and Exhibit I-2.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id., at 2-3 and Exhibit I-1; see also General Issues
Supplement, at 3 and Exhibit I-S2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues
Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for
the Petitions.\20\ 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).\21\ 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 Petitions account for at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product.\22\ 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 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.\23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist and India CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
\21\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\22\ See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist and India CVD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they
[[Page 29032]]
have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD
investigations that they are requesting that the Department
initiate.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because the PRC and India 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
India materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S.
industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege 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, the petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\25\ In CVD petitions, section
771(24)(B) of the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise from
developing and least developed countries must exceed the negligibility
threshold of four percent. The petitioners also demonstrate that
subject imports from India, which has been designated as a least
developed country under section 771(36)(B) of the Act, exceed the
negligibility threshold of four percent.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-15 and Exhibit I-7.
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression
or depression; lost sales and revenues; decreased production, capacity
utilization, and U.S. shipments; and declines in financial
performance.\27\ 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-31 and Exhibits I-5,
I-8, I-9, and I-10.
\28\ 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 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment III); and India CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of CVD Investigations
Based on the examination of the CVD Petitions, we find that the
Petitions meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore we
are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of fine
denier PSF from India and the PRC benefit from countervailable
subsidies conferred by the governments of these countries. 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.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.\29\ 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.\30\ 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 these CVD
investigations.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
\30\ 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.
\31\ See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
India
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 36 of the 38
alleged programs in India. For a full discussion of the basis for our
decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the India CVD
Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for
this investigation is available on ACCESS.
The PRC
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 20
alleged programs. 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.
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
The petitioners named 12 and 89 companies as producers/exporters of
fine denier PSF in India and the PRC, respectively.\32\ Following
standard practice in CVD investigations, in the event the Department
determines that the number of companies is large, the Department
intends to review U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for
U.S. imports of fine denier PSF during the POI under the appropriate
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings, and if it
determines that it cannot individually examine each company based upon
the Department's resources, then the Department will select respondents
based on those data. We intend to release CBP data under Administrative
Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information
protected by APO within five business days of the announcement of the
initiation of these investigations. 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 https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Petition, Volume I at Exhibit I-7; see also PRC CVD
Supplement, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and
respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET seven calendar days after the
placement of the CBP data on the record of these investigations.
Interested parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit
those comments five calendar days after the deadline for initial
comments.
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its
entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m.ET on the date noted above.
If respondent selection is necessary, within 20 days of publication of
this notice, we intend to make our decisions regarding respondent
selection based upon comments received from interested parties and our
analysis of the record information.
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
[[Page 29033]]
the GOI and GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt
to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each
exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR
351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We 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 Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of fine denier PSF from India and the PRC are
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S.
industry.\33\ A negative ITC determination will result in the
investigations being terminated.\34\ Otherwise, these investigations
will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
\34\ 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). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires
any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being
submitted\35\ 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.\36\ 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. Interested parties should review
the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\36\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions 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. ET 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 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. Parties should 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 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.\37\
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.\38\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\38\ 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: June 20, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these investigations is fine denier
polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed,
measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope
covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The
following products are excluded from the scope:
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3. decitex (more than 3
denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and
5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with a
polyester core and an outer, polyester sheath that melts at a
significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core
currently classified under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading
5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope of the investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017-13381 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P