Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From India: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 49592-49595 [2017-23308]

Download as PDF 49592 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices is C2F4, and the Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number is 9002–84–0. PTFE further processed into micropowder, having particle size typically ranging from 1 to 25 microns, and a melt-flow rate no less than 0.1 gram/10 minutes, is excluded from the scope of these investigations. PTFE is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 3904.61.0010 and 3904.61.0090. Subject merchandise may also be classified under HTSUS subheading 3904.69.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS Number are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2017–23307 Filed 10–25–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–880] Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From India: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Applicable October 18, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toby Vandall at (202) 482–1664 or Aimee Phelan at (202) 482–0697, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES The Petition On September 28, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India, filed in proper form on behalf of the Chemours Company FC LLC (the petitioner).1 The CVD Petition was accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of PTFE resin from India and the People’s Republic of China. The petitioner is a domestic producer of PTFE resin.2 On October 3, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petition.3 The petitioner filed a response 1 See Letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Re: Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the People’s Republic of China and India: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions’’ (September 28, 2017) (the Petition). 2 Id. at 2. 3 See Letter from the Department, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India: Supplemental Questions’’ (October 3, 2017). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Oct 25, 2017 Jkt 244001 to this request on October 6, 2017.4 In addition, the petitioner filed revised scope language on October 13, 2017.5 In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of India is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to imports of PTFE resin from India and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing PTFE resin 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 Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations. The Department finds that the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and that the petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry and demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.6 Period of Investigation Because the Petition was filed on September 28, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is PTFE resin from India. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation,’’ in the Appendix to this notice. Comments on Scope of the Investigation During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received a response from, the 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.7 4 See Letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from India: Responses to Supplemental Questions Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition’’ (October 6, 2017). 5 See Letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the People’s Republic of China and India: Amendment to the Suggested Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions’’ (October 13, 2017). 6 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petition’’ section, below. 7 See Letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the People’s Republic of China and India: Amendment to the Suggested Scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions’’ (October 13, 2017). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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, November 7, 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 Friday, November 17, 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 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 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 See also Memorandum to the File (October 11, 2017). 8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual information’’). 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. E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM 26OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices 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 notified representatives of the Government of India of the receipt of the Petition, and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.11 Consultations with the GOI were held at the Department of Commerce on October 18, 2017.12 Determination of Industry Support for the Petition ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD 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 injured, must also determine what 11 See Letter to the Embassy of India, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India’’ (September 28, 2017). 12 See Memorandum, ‘‘Consultations with Officials from the Government of India Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition on Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from India’’ (October 18, 2017). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Oct 25, 2017 Jkt 244001 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,13 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.14 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, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of this investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that PTFE resin, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.15 In determining whether the 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 the Appendix to this notice. The petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2016, as well as estimated 2016 production data of the domestic like product by the entire U.S. industry.16 To establish industry support, the 13 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)). 15 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from India (India CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the People’s Republic of China and India (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. 16 See Petition at 2–4 and Exhibit I–2; see also General Issues and AD Supplement at 3–4. 14 See PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 49593 petitioner compared its production to the total 2016 production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.17 We relied on the data the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support.18 Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support.19 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).20 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.21 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.22 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 the 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 it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate.23 Injury Test Because India is a ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Country’’ within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 17 See Petition at Exhibit I–2; see also General Issues and AD Supplement at 3–4. 18 Id. For further discussion, see India CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 19 See India CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 20 See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also India CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 21 See India CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 22 Id. 23 Id. E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM 26OCN1 49594 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise, which are benefitting from countervailable subsidies. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.24 In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(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 petitioner also demonstrates 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.25 The petitioner contends that the industry’s injured condition is illustrated by a significant volume of subject imports; an increase in the volume of subject imports relative to U.S. consumption and production; reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; a negative impact on the domestic industry’s capacity, capacity utilization, and employment; and a negative impact on revenues and operating profits.26 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.27 ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Initiation of CVD Investigation Based on the examination of the CVD Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of PTFE resin from India benefit 24 See Volume I of the Petitions at 21 and Exhibit I–14. 25 Id. 26 Id. at 24–34, Exhibit I–8, and Exhibits I–14, I– 16, and I–17. 27 See India CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin (PTFE Resin) from India and the People’s Republic of China (the PRC) (Attachment III). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Oct 25, 2017 Jkt 244001 from countervailable subsidies conferred by the government of this country. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we intend to 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.28 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.29 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.30 Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 18 of the 22 alleged programs in India. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision on whether to initiate on each program, see the India 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 petitioner named seven companies in India as producers/ exporters of PTFE resin.31 For India, following standard practice in CVD investigations, in the event the Department determines that the number of producers/exporters is large, the Department intends to review U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of PTFE resin during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings, and if it determines it cannot individually examine each company based upon the 28 See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). 29 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. 30 See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794–95. 31 See Petition at Exhibit I–13. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Department’s resources, then the Department will select respondents based on that data. On October 12, 2017, the Department released CBP data under the Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of this CVD investigation.32 Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department’s Web site at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/apo. The Department will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection. 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 decision regarding respondent selection based upon comments received from interested parties and our analysis of the record information. 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 Government of India via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, 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 Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of PTFE resin from India is materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.33 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.34 32 See Memorandum, ‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from India Countervailing Duty Petition: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data’’ (October 12, 2017). 33 See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. 34 See section 703(a)(1) of the Act. E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM 26OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices Otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 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 this investigation. 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 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 untimelyfiled requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Extension 35 See 36 See 19 CFR 351.301(b). 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Oct 25, 2017 Jkt 244001 of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://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.37 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).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; 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: October 18, 2017. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin, including but not limited to granular, dispersion, or coagulated dispersion (also known as fine powder). PTFE is covered by the scope of this investigation whether filled or unfilled, whether or not modified, and whether or not containing co-polymer additives, pigments, or other materials. Also included is PTFE wet raw polymer. The chemical formula for PTFE is C2F4, and the Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number is 9002–84–0. PTFE further processed into micropowder, having particle size typically ranging from 1 37 See section 782(b) of the Act. also Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’). Answers to frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/ notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 38 See PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 49595 to 25 microns, and a melt-flow rate no less than 0.1 gram/10 minutes, is excluded from the scope of this investigation. PTFE is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 3904.61.0010 and 3904.61.0090. Subject merchandise may also be classified under HTSUS subheading 3904.69.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS Number are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2017–23308 Filed 10–25–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of closed meeting. AGENCY: The Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Judges Panel) will meet in closed session Sunday, November 5, 2017 through Thursday, November 9, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time each day. The purpose of this meeting is to review recommendations from site visits, and recommend 2017 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award recipients. The meeting is closed to the public in order to protect the proprietary data to be examined and discussed at the meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held Sunday, November 5, 2017 through Thursday, November 9, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time each day. The entire meeting will be closed to the public. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899– 1020, telephone number (301) 975– 2360, email robert.fangmeyer@nist.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150(b), this Federal Register notice for this meeting is being published fewer than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting as E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM 26OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49592-49595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23308]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-880]


Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From India: Initiation of 
Countervailing Duty Investigation

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


DATES: Applicable October 18, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toby Vandall at (202) 482-1664 or 
Aimee Phelan at (202) 482-0697, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and 
Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition

    On September 28, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the 
Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning 
imports of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India, filed in 
proper form on behalf of the Chemours Company FC LLC (the 
petitioner).\1\ The CVD Petition was accompanied by antidumping duty 
(AD) Petitions concerning imports of PTFE resin from India and the 
People's Republic of China. The petitioner is a domestic producer of 
PTFE resin.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter from the petitioner, ``Re: 
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the People's Republic of 
China and India: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions'' 
(September 28, 2017) (the Petition).
    \2\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 3, 2017, the Department requested supplemental 
information pertaining to certain areas of the Petition.\3\ The 
petitioner filed a response to this request on October 6, 2017.\4\ In 
addition, the petitioner filed revised scope language on October 13, 
2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from the Department, ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India: Supplemental Questions'' 
(October 3, 2017).
    \4\ See Letter from the petitioner, ``Polytetrafluoroethylene 
(PTFE) Resin from India: Responses to Supplemental Questions 
Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition'' (October 6, 2017).
    \5\ See Letter from the petitioner, ``Polytetrafluoroethylene 
(PTFE) Resin from the People's Republic of China and India: 
Amendment to the Suggested Scope of the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petitions'' (October 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of India 
is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 
701 and 771(5) of the Act, to imports of PTFE resin from India and that 
such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury 
to, the domestic industry producing PTFE resin 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 Petition 
is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner 
supporting its allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioner is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and that the petitioner filed 
this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry and demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD 
investigation that the petitioner is requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' 
section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on September 28, 2017, the period of 
investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is PTFE resin from India. 
For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the 
``Scope of the Investigation,'' in the Appendix to this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions 
to, and received a response from, the 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Letter from the petitioner, ``Polytetrafluoroethylene 
(PTFE) Resin from the People's Republic of China and India: 
Amendment to the Suggested Scope of the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petitions'' (October 13, 2017). See also 
Memorandum to the File (October 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, November 7, 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 Friday, November 17, 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) (defining ``factual 
information'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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

[[Page 49593]]

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 notified representatives of the Government of India of the 
receipt of the Petition, and provided them the opportunity for 
consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.\11\ Consultations with 
the GOI were held at the Department of Commerce on October 18, 
2017.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Letter to the Embassy of India, ``Countervailing Duty 
Petition on Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India'' (September 
28, 2017).
    \12\ See Memorandum, ``Consultations with Officials from the 
Government of India Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition on 
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from India'' (October 18, 
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
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,\13\ 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \14\ 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, the petitioner does not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of this investigation. Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that PTFE resin, as defined 
in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have 
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from India (India CVD 
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry 
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the People's 
Republic of China and India (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 the 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 the Appendix to 
this notice. The petitioner provided its own production of the domestic 
like product in 2016, as well as estimated 2016 production data of the 
domestic like product by the entire U.S. industry.\16\ To establish 
industry support, the petitioner compared its production to the total 
2016 production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic 
industry.\17\ We relied on the data the petitioner provided for 
purposes of measuring industry support.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Petition at 2-4 and Exhibit I-2; see also General 
Issues and AD Supplement at 3-4.
    \17\ See Petition at Exhibit I-2; see also General Issues and AD 
Supplement at 3-4.
    \18\ Id. For further discussion, see India CVD Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that the 
petitioner has established industry support.\19\ 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).\20\ 
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.\21\ 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.\22\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See India CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
    \20\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also India CVD 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
    \21\ See India CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the 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 it has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that 
it is requesting the Department initiate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Injury Test

    Because India is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 
applies to

[[Page 49594]]

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports 
of the subject merchandise from India materially injure, or threaten 
material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise, which are benefitting from countervailable subsidies. In 
addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the 
negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the 
Act.\24\ In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(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 
petitioner also demonstrates 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.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 21 and Exhibit I-14.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by a significant volume of subject imports; an increase in 
the volume of subject imports relative to U.S. consumption and 
production; reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or 
depression; lost sales and revenues; a negative impact on the domestic 
industry's capacity, capacity utilization, and employment; and a 
negative impact on revenues and operating profits.\26\ 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.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id. at 24-34, Exhibit I-8, and Exhibits I-14, I-16, and I-
17.
    \27\ See India CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin (PTFE Resin) from India and 
the People's Republic of China (the PRC) (Attachment III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of CVD Investigation

    Based on the examination of the CVD Petition, we find that the 
Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, 
we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of 
PTFE resin from India benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred 
by the government of this country. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we intend to 
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.\28\ 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.\29\ 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.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \29\ 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.
    \30\ See Applicability Notice, 80 FR at 46794-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is 
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 18 of the 22 
alleged programs in India. For a full discussion of the basis for our 
decision on whether to initiate on each program, see the India 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 petitioner named seven companies in India as producers/
exporters of PTFE resin.\31\ For India, following standard practice in 
CVD investigations, in the event the Department determines that the 
number of producers/exporters is large, the Department intends to 
review U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports 
of PTFE resin during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States subheadings, and if it determines it 
cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's 
resources, then the Department will select respondents based on that 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Petition at Exhibit I-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 12, 2017, the Department released CBP data under the 
Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to 
information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties 
wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must 
do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice 
of initiation of this CVD investigation.\32\ Interested parties must 
submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.505(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on 
the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. The 
Department will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or 
respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Memorandum, ``Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from 
India Countervailing Duty Petition: Release of U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection Data'' (October 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 decision regarding respondent 
selection based upon comments received from interested parties and our 
analysis of the record information.

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 Government of India via ACCESS. To the extent 
practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of 
the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, 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 Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petition were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of PTFE resin from India is materially 
injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.\33\ A 
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being 
terminated.\34\

[[Page 49595]]

Otherwise, this investigation 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 this 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 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 http://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.\37\ 
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 
351.303(g).\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 also Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (``Final Rule''). Answers 
to frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available 
at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the 
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in 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: October 18, 2017.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is 
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin, including but not limited to 
granular, dispersion, or coagulated dispersion (also known as fine 
powder). PTFE is covered by the scope of this investigation whether 
filled or unfilled, whether or not modified, and whether or not 
containing co-polymer additives, pigments, or other materials. Also 
included is PTFE wet raw polymer. The chemical formula for PTFE is 
C2F4, and the Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number is 9002-84-
0.
    PTFE further processed into micropowder, having particle size 
typically ranging from 1 to 25 microns, and a melt-flow rate no less 
than 0.1 gram/10 minutes, is excluded from the scope of this 
investigation.
    PTFE is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 3904.61.0010 and 
3904.61.0090. Subject merchandise may also be classified under HTSUS 
subheading 3904.69.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS 
Number are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2017-23308 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P