[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73030-73034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28832]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-021, C-274-807]
Melamine From the People's Republic of China and Trinidad and
Tobago: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Medley at (202) 482-4987 or Eve
Wang at (202) 482-6231 (People's Republic of China); Brendan Quinn at
(202) 482-5848 or Raquel Silva at (202) 482-6475 (Republic of Trinidad
and Tobago), Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On November 12, 2014, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
received countervailing duty (``CVD'') petitions concerning imports of
melamine from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') and Trinidad and
Tobago (``Trinidad and Tobago'') filed in proper form on behalf of
Cornerstone Chemical Company (``Petitioner''). The CVD petitions were
accompanied by two antidumping duty (``AD'') petitions.\1\ Petitioner
is a domestic producer of melamine.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitioner's submission entitled ``Petitions For The
Imposition Of Antidumping And Countervailing Duties Against Melamine
From China And Trinidad And Tobago,'' dated November 12, 2014
(``Petitions'').
\2\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 14, and November 19, 2014, the Department requested
information and clarification for certain areas of the Petitions.\3\
Petitioner filed responses to these requests on
[[Page 73031]]
November 18, November 20, and November 24, 2014.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled
``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Melamine from Trinidad and Tobago: Supplement Question,'' dated
November 14, 2014; Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled
``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Melamine from the People's Republic of China
and Trinidad and Tobago: Supplemental Questions,'' dated November
14, 2014 (``General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire''); Letter
from the Department to Petitioner entitled ``Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of
Melamine from the People's Republic of China and Trinidad and
Tobago: Supplemental Questions,'' dated November 19, 2014 (``Second
General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire'').
\4\ See Letter from Petitioner entitled ``Melamine From Trinidad
and Tobago/Petitioner's Response To The Department's Questions
Regarding The Petition,'' dated November 18, 2014; Letter from
Petitioner entitled ``Melamine from China and Trinidad and Tobago/
Petitioner's Response to the Department's Questions Regarding the
Petition,'' dated November 18, 2014 (``General Issues Supplement'');
Letter from Petitioner entitled ``Melamine From China And Trinidad
and Tobago/Petitioner's Response To The Department's Second General
Questionnaire,'' dated November 20, 2014 (``Second General Issues
Supplement''); Letter from Petitioner entitled ``Supplement to
Petitions For The Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties Melamine from China and Trinidad and Tobago'' dated November
24, 2014 (``Third General Issues Supplement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), Petitioner alleges that the Government of the
PRC (``GOC'') and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (``GOTT'') are
providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701
and 771(5) of the Act) to imports of melamine from the PRC and the
Trinidad and Tobago, respectively, and that such imports are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United
States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the
Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to
Petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that
Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the
initiation of the CVD investigations that Petitioner is requesting.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigations
The period of the investigation for both the PRC and Trinidad and
Tobago is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is melamine from the
PRC and Trinidad and Tobago. For a full description of the scope of
these investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations'' in
Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions
to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an
accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is
seeking relief.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire and Second
General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also General Issues
Supplement, Second General Issues Supplement, and Third General
Issues Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\8\ we
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (scope). The period for scope comments is
intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider
all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the
preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual
information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information
should be limited to public information. All such comments must be
filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (``EST'') on December 22,
2014, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.
Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be
filed by 5:00 p.m. EST on January 2, 2015, which is 10 calendar days
after the initial comments deadline.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
\9\ According to the Department practice, when a date falls on a
weekend or a federal holiday, submissions become due the next
business day; see Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next
Business Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines
Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department requests that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department
and request permission to submit the additional information. All such
comments must be filed on the records of the PRC and Trinidad and
Tobago AD and CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (``ACCESS'').\10\ An
electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the
electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in
paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room
1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt
by the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed
the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS'') to AD and CVD Centralized
Electronic Service System (``ACCESS''). The Web site location was
changed from http://iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov.
The Final Rule changing the reference to the Regulations can be
found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department
notified representatives of the GOC and the GOTT of the receipt of the
Petitions. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the
Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOC and the GOTT
the opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.\11\
Consultations were held with the GOC on November 25, 2014.\12\ All
memoranda are on file electronically via ACCESS.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Letters of invitation from the Department to the GOC
and the GOT, both dated November 17, 2014.
\12\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Consultations with Officials
from the Government of the People's Republic of China Regarding the
Countervailing Duty Petition Concerning Melamine,'' dated November
26, 2014.
\13\ See supra fn.10 for information pertaining to ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
[[Page 73032]]
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers
whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major
proportion of the total domestic production of the product. Thus, to
determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the
statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who
produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission
(``ITC''), which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic
industry'' has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a
domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the
Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition
regarding the domestic like product,\14\ they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to law.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\15\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
Petitions).
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer
a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of
the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted
on the record, we determined that melamine constitutes a single
domestic like product and we analyzed industry support in terms of that
domestic like product.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Melamine from the People's Republic of China (``PRC CVD
Initiation Checklist''), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Petitions Covering Melamine from the People's
Republic of China and Trinidad and Tobago (``Attachment II''); and
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Melamine
from Trinidad and Tobago (``Trinidad and Tobago CVD Initiation
Checklist''), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated
concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS.
Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the
Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce
building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of
this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its own
production of the domestic like product in 2013.\17\ Petitioner states
that it is the only producer of melamine in the United States;
therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S.
industry.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2 and Exhibit I-18.
\18\ Id., at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department,
we determine that Petitioner has established industry support.\19\
First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or
workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required
to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).\20\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) met the
statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i)
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the
Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product.\21\ Finally, the domestic producers (or
workers) met the statutory criteria for industry support under section
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers)
who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.\22\
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1)
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See PRC CVD Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago CVD
Checklist, at Attachment II.
\20\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC CVD
Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago CVD Checklist, at Attachment II.
\21\ See PRC CVD Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago CVD
Checklist, at Attachment II.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that it is
requesting the Department initiate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago are ``Subsidies Agreement
Countries'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section
701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the
ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the
PRC and Trinidad and Tobago materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports,
individually and cumulatively, are causing, or threaten to cause,
material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like
product.
With regard to the PRC, Petitioner alleges that subject imports
exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section
771(24)(A) of the Act.\24\ In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(A)-(B) of
the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise from developing
countries must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent.
Because Trinidad and Tobago has been designated as a developing
country,\25\ imports from Trinidad and Tobago must exceed the
negligibility threshold of four percent. With regard to Trinidad and
Tobago, the allegedly subsidized imports exceed the negligibility
threshold provided under section 771(24)(B) of the Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 11-12 and Exhibit I-11.
\25\ See section 771(36)(A) of the Act; see also Developing and
Least-Developed Country Designations under the Countervailing Duty
Law, 63 FR 29945-29948 (June 2, 1998).
\26\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 11-12 and Exhibit I-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depression
or suppression, lost sales and revenues, and adversely impacted
production, shipments, capacity utilization, financial performance, and
capital expenditures.\27\ We assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and
causation, and we
[[Page 73033]]
determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate
evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\28\ In
accordance with section 771(7)(G)(ii)(III) of the Act, which provides
an exception to the mandatory cumulation provision for imports from any
country designated as a beneficiary country under the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act (``CBERA''), we considered Petitioner`s
allegation of injury with respect to Trinidad and Tobago, a designated
beneficiary under CBERA, independent of the allegation for the PRC and
found that the information provided satisfies the requirements for
initiation.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id., at 12-16 and Exhibits I-13 through I-20; see also
Third General Issues Supplement, at 2-5 and Exhibits 1-4.
\28\ See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations
and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Melamine from the
People's Republic of China and Trinidad and Tobago (``Attachment
III'').
\29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on
behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner
supporting the allegations.
In the Petitions, Petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of
melamine in the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago benefited from
countervailable subsidies bestowed by the governments of these
countries, respectively. The Department examined the Petitions and
finds that they comply with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of
the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we
are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether manufacturers,
producers, or exporters of melamine from the PRC and Trinidad and
Tobago receive countervailable subsidies from the governments of these
countries, respectively.
The PRC
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 21 of the
alleged programs.\30\ For a full discussion of the basis for our
decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD
Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Additionally, Petitioner alleged various grants received
individually by four producers/exporters of melamine. The Department
intends to investigate these grants to the extent that these
specific companies are selected as mandatory respondents in this
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trinidad and Tobago
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 10 of the 10
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the Trinidad and
Tobago CVD Initiation Checklist.
A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation
is available on ACCESS and at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Respondent Selection
Petitioner named 54 companies as producers/exporters of melamine
from the PRC and one company as a producer/exporter of melamine from
Trinidad and Tobago.\31\ Following standard practice in CVD
investigations, the Department will, where appropriate, select
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data
for U.S. imports of melamine during the period of investigation under
the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') number: 2933.61.0000. For the PRC, we intend to release CBP
data under Administrative Protective Order (``APO'') to all parties
with access to information protected by APO shortly after the
announcement of these case initiations. For Trinidad and Tobago,
Petitioner named only one company as a producer/exporter of melamine
i.e., Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd., and provided information from
an independent third party source as support.\32\ Furthermore, we
currently know of no additional producers/exporters of subject
merchandise from Trinidad and Tobago. Accordingly, the Department
intends to examine all known producers/exporters in this investigation
(i.e., the company cited above). The Department invites comments
regarding CBP data and respondent selection within five calendar days
of publication of this Federal Register notice. Comments must be filed
electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be
received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic
records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EST by the date noted above. We
intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20
days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Interested parties
must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19
CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found
on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-5.
\32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been
provided to the GOC and GOTT via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we
will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions
to each known exporter (as named in the Petitions), consistent with 19
CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of melamine from the PRC and/or Trinidad and
Tobago are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a
U.S. industry.\33\ A negative ITC determination for either country will
result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that
country; \34\ otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See section 703(a) of the Act.
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information:
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two
regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: the definition of
factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for
the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule
identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted
in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of
allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration
under 19
[[Page 73034]]
CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the
Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described
in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual
information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)
the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted
to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the
record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already
on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or
correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather
than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits
based on the type of factual information being submitted. These
modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or
after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations.
Interested parties should review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to
submitting factual information in these investigations.
Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation
On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation
concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD
proceedings.\35\ The modification clarifies that parties may request an
extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351
expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an
extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the
time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which
are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will
be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date.
Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs,
filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value
factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of
remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction information
filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the
selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4)
comments concerning CBP data; and (5) quantity and value
questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect
to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be
considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties
simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in
the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a
specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be
considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension
request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and
clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant
untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These
modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after
October 21, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations.
Interested parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule,
available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790
(September 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\36\
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final
Rule.\37\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\37\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (``Final Rule''); see also
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: December 2, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I--Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise subject to these investigations is melamine
(Chemical Abstracts Service (``CAS'') registry number 108-78-01,
molecular formula C3H6N6).\1\
Melamine is a crystalline powder or granule typically (but not
exclusively) used to manufacture melamine formaldehyde resins. All
melamine is covered by the scope of these investigations
irrespective of purity, particle size, or physical form. Melamine
that has been blended with other products is included within this
scope when such blends include constituent parts that have been
intermingled, but that have not been chemically reacted with each
other to produce a different product. For such blends, only the
melamine component of the mixture is covered by the scope of these
investigations. Melamine that is otherwise subject to these
investigations is not excluded when commingled with melamine from
sources not subject to these investigations. Only the subject
component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of
these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Melamine is also known as 2,4,6-triamino-s-triazine; l,3,5-
Triazine-2,4,6-triamine; Cyanurotriamide; Cyanurotriamine;
Cyanuramide; and by various brand names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject merchandise is provided for in subheading
2933.61.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the scope is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2014-28832 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P