81 FR 49628 - Dioctyl Terephthalate From the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 145 (July 28, 2016)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 145 (July 28, 2016)
| Page Range | 49628-49632 | |
| FR Document | 2016-17806 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 49628-49632] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-17806] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-889] Dioctyl Terephthalate From the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: July 20, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shanah Lee or Eve Wang, at (202) 482- 6386 or (202) 482-6231, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On June 30, 2016, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') received an antidumping duty (``AD'') petition concerning imports of dioctyl terephthalate (``DOTP'') from the Republic of Korea (``Korea''), filed in proper form on behalf of Eastman Chemical Company (``Petitioner'').\1\ Petitioner is a domestic producer of DOTP.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See the ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Dioctyl Terephthalate from the Republic of Korea,'' dated June 30, 2016 (``Petition''). \2\ See Petition, at 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On July 5, 2016, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the [[Page 49629]] Petition.\3\ Petitioner filed its response on July 7, 2016.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Dioctyl Terephthalate from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions'' dated July 5, 2016. \4\ See Letter from Petitioner entitled ``Petitioner's Response to the Department's January [sic] 5, 2016 Supplemental Questions Regarding the Petition,'' dated July 7, 2016 (``Petition Supplement''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), Petitioner alleges that imports of DOTP from Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting its allegations. The Department finds that Petitioner filed this Petition 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 AD investigation that Petitioner is requesting.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' section below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Period of Investigation Because the Petition was filed on June 30, 2016, the period of investigation (``POI'') is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is DOTP from Korea. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this notice. Comments on Scope of the Investigation During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See Petition Supplement, at 1-2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\7\ we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will 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. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (``EDT'') on Tuesday, August 9, 2016, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 19, 2016, which is ten calendar days after the initial comments deadline. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. 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'').\8\ An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); see also 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of DOTP to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria. Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product- comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe DOTP, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on August 9, 2016, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on August 19, 2016. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of this less-than-fair-value investigation. Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(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 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for [[Page 49630]] 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,\9\ 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.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ See section 771(10) of the Act. \10\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petition). With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that DOTP, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see ``AD Investigation Initiation Checklist: Dioctyl Terephthalate from the Republic of Korea (``AD Initiation Checklist''), at Attachment II, Determination of Industry Support for the Petition. This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its 2015 production of the domestic like product.\12\ Petitioner states that it is the only known producer of DOTP in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ See Petition, at 3 and Exhibit INJ-4. \13\ Id., at 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established U.S. industry support.\14\ First, the Petition established support from U.S. 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).\15\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(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.\16\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(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.\17\ Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. \15\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. \16\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. \17\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate.\18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation 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 sold at less than normal value (``NV''). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\19\ Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the impact on the domestic industry's market share, underselling and price suppression or depression, lost sales and revenues, decline in wages and employment, and decline in profitability.\20\ 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.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ See Petition, at 13-14; see also Petition Supplement, at 2 and Exhibit Supp-1. \20\ See Petition, at 2, 11-35 and Exhibits GEN-3 through GEN-6, GEN-10 and INJ-1 through INJ-7; see also Petition Supplement, at 2-3 and Exhibit Supp-1. \21\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Dioctyl Terephthalate from the Republic of Korea. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allegation of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less- than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate the investigation of imports of DOTP from Korea. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the AD initiation checklist. Export Price Petitioner based export prices on a Korean producer's price offerings to its customers in the United States for DOTP produced in, and exported from, Korea during the POI.\22\ Because the quoted prices included delivery to the customer, Petitioner made a deduction from U.S. price for producer-to-customer freight.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ See AD Initiation Checklist; see also Petition, at 38-39 and Exhibits AD-1, AD-5, and AD-6; see also Petition Supplement, at Exhibit Supp-3. \23\ See AD Initiation Checklist. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 49631]] Normal Value Petitioner provided home market price information from an industry report for DOTP produced in and offered for sale in Korea. The home market price information in the industry report included inland freight to the customer in Korea; therefore, Petitioner deducted inland freight expenses to calculate ex-factory prices.\24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ Id.; see also Petition, at Exhibit GEN-10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of DOTP from Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of export price to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for DOTP for Korea range from 23.70 to 47.86 percent.\25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ See Petition Supplement, at Exhibit Supp-3. See also AD Initiation Checklist. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation Based upon the examination of the AD Petition on DOTP from Korea, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a less-than-fair-value investigation to determine whether imports of DOTP from Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law.\26\ 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.\27\ The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this AD investigation.\28\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). \27\ 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). \28\ Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent Selection Petitioner named three companies as producers/exporters of DOTP from Korea.\29\ Following the standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, in the event the Department determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's resources, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data for U.S. imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') numbers listed in the ``Scope of Investigation'' in Appendix I. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (``APO'') to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this investigation. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for the initial comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ See Petition, at 3-4 and Exhibits GEN-7 and GEN-10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. EDT, by the dates noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) 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 Korea via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to the exporters 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 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of DOTP from Korea are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.\30\ A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; \31\ otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ See section 733(a) of the Act. \31\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted \32\ 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.\33\ 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. Please review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b). \33\ 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, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351 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. EDT 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 [[Page 49632]] 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. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/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 countervailing duty (``CVD'') proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\34\ 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.\35\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ See section 782(b) of the Act. \35\ 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 this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)). This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: July 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is dioctyl terephthalate (``DOTP''), regardless of form. DOTP that has been blended with other products is included within this scope when such blends include constituent parts that have not been chemically reacted with each other to produce a different product. For such blends, only the DOTP component of the mixture is covered by the scope of this investigation. DOTP that is otherwise subject to this investigation is not excluded when commingled with DOTP from sources not subject to this investigation. Commingled refers to the mixing of subject and non- subject DOTP. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of the investigation. DOTP has the general chemical formulation C6 H4 (C8 H17 COO)2 and a chemical name of ``bis (2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate'' and has a Chemical Abstract Service (``CAS'') registry number of 6422-86-2. Regardless of the label, all DOTP is covered by this investigation. Subject merchandise is currently classified under subheading 2917.39.2000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Subject merchandise may also enter under subheadings 2917.39.7000 or 3812.20.1000 of the HTSUS. While the CAS registry number and HTSUS classification are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2016-17806 Filed 7-27-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
![49628 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Notices
Extension of Time Limits Regulation January 22, 2008, the Department (iv) 1.55 percent of columbium;
published Antidumping and (v) 3.10 percent of copper;
Parties may request an extension of (vi) 0.38 percent of lead;
time limits before the expiration of a Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
(vii) 3.04 percent of manganese;
time limit established under 19 CFR Documents Submission Procedures;
(viii) 2.05 percent of molybdenum;
351.301, or as otherwise specified by the APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January (ix) 20.15 percent of nickel;
Secretary. In general, an extension 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate (x) 1.55 percent of niobium;
request will be considered untimely if it in this investigation should ensure that (xi) 0.20 percent of nitrogen;
is filed after the expiration of the time they meet the requirements of these (xii) 0.21 percent of phosphorus;
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of (xiii) 3.10 percent of silicon;
expires. For submissions that are due appearance as discussed at 19 CFR (xiv) 0.21 percent of sulfur;
351.103(d)). (xv) 1.05 percent of titanium;
from multiple parties simultaneously,
This notice is issued and published (xvi) 4.06 percent of tungsten;
an extension request will be considered (xvii) 0.53 percent of vanadium; or
untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of
(xviii) 0.015 percent of zirconium.
the due date. Under certain the Act.
Finished carbon steel flanges are currently
circumstances, we may elect to specify Dated: July 20, 2016. classified under subheadings 7307.91.5010
a different time limit by which Paul Piquado, and 7307.91.5050 of the Harmonized Tariff
extension requests will be considered Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They
untimely for submissions which are due Compliance. may also be entered under HTSUS
from multiple parties simultaneously. In subheadings 7307.91.5030 and 7307.91.5070.
such a case, we will inform parties in Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes; the
the letter or memorandum setting forth The scope of this investigation covers
written description of the scope is
the deadline (including a specified time) finished carbon steel flanges. Finished
carbon steel flanges differ from unfinished dispositive.
by which extension requests must be
filed to be considered timely. An carbon steel flanges (also known as carbon [FR Doc. 2016–17929 Filed 7–27–16; 8:45 am]
steel flange forgings) in that they have BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
extension request must be made in a undergone further processing after forging,
separate, stand-alone submission; under including, but not limited to, beveling, bore
limited circumstances we will grant threading, center or step boring, face
untimely-filed requests for the extension DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
machining, taper boring, machining ends or
of time limits. Review Extension of surfaces, drilling bolt holes, and/or de- International Trade Administration
Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 burring or shot blasting. Any one of these
(September 20, 2013), available at post-forging processes suffices to render the [A–580–889]
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013- forging into a finished carbon steel flange for
purposes of this investigation. However, Dioctyl Terephthalate From the
09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to
mere heat treatment of a carbon steel flange Republic of Korea: Initiation of Less-
submitting factual information in this forging (without any other further processing
investigation. after forging) does not render the forging into
Than-Fair-Value Investigation
Certification Requirements a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
this investigation. International Trade Administration,
Any party submitting factual While these finished carbon steel flanges
information in an AD or CVD are generally manufactured to specification Department of Commerce.
proceeding must certify to the accuracy ASME 816.5 or ASME 816.47 series A or DATES: Effective Date: July 20, 2016.
and completeness of that information.31 series 8, the scope is not limited to flanges FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Parties are hereby reminded that revised produced under those specifications. All Shanah Lee or Eve Wang, at (202) 482–
certification requirements are in effect types of finished carbon steel flanges are
included in the scope regardless of pipe size
6386 or (202) 482–6231, AD/CVD
for company/government officials, as (which may or may not be expressed in Operations, Enforcement and
well as their representatives. inches of nominal pipe size), pressure class Compliance, U.S. Department of
Investigations initiated on the basis of (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
petitions filed on or after August 16, pounds of pressure, e.g., 150, 300, 400, 600, Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
2013, and other segments of any AD or 900, 1500, 2500, etc.), type of face (e.g., flat SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
CVD proceedings initiated on or after face, full face, raised face, etc.), configuration
August 16, 2013, should use the formats (e.g., weld neck, slip on, socket weld, lap The Petition
for the revised certifications provided at joint, threaded, etc.), wall thickness (usually,
but not necessarily, expressed in inches), On June 30, 2016, the Department of
the end of the Final Rule.32 The normalization, or whether or not heat treated. Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received
Department intends to reject factual These carbon steel flanges either meet or an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition
submissions if the submitting party does exceed the requirements of the ASTM A105, concerning imports of dioctyl
not comply with the applicable revised ASTM A694, ASTM A181, ASTM A350 and terephthalate (‘‘DOTP’’) from the
certification requirements. ASTM A707 standards (or comparable Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’), filed in
foreign specifications). The scope includes proper form on behalf of Eastman
Notification to Interested Parties any flanges produced to the above-referenced
Chemical Company (‘‘Petitioner’’).1
Interested parties must submit ASTM standards as currently stated or as
may be amended. The term ‘‘carbon steel’’ Petitioner is a domestic producer of
applications for disclosure under APO DOTP.2
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On under this scope is steel in which:
(a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each On July 5, 2016, the Department
of the other contained elements: requested additional information and
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
31 See section 782(b) of the Act.
32 See
(b) The carbon content is 2 percent or less, clarification of certain areas of the
Certification of Factual Information To by weight; and
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
(c) none of the elements listed below 1 See the ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
17, 2013) (‘‘Final Rule’’); see also frequently asked exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated: Antidumping Duties on Imports of Dioctyl
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at (i) 0.87 percent of aluminum; Terephthalate from the Republic of Korea,’’ dated
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ (ii) 0.0105 percent of boron; June 30, 2016 (‘‘Petition’’).
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. (iii) 10.10 percent of chromium; 2 See Petition, at 3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:44 Jul 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_49773/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Notices 49629
Petition.3 Petitioner filed its response on parties and, if necessary, will consult Department’s AD questionnaires. This
July 7, 2016.4 with parties prior to the issuance of the information will be used to identify the
In accordance with section 732(b) of preliminary determination. If scope key physical characteristics of the
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the comments include factual information subject merchandise in order to report
Act’’), Petitioner alleges that imports of (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such the relevant costs of production
DOTP from Korea are being, or are likely factual information should be limited to accurately as well as to develop
to be, sold in the United States at less- public information. In order to facilitate appropriate product-comparison
than-fair value within the meaning of preparation of its questionnaires, the criteria.
section 731 of the Act, and that such Department requests all interested Interested parties may provide any
imports are materially injuring, or parties to submit such comments by information or comments that they feel
threatening material injury to, an 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time are relevant to the development of an
industry in the United States. Also, (‘‘EDT’’) on Tuesday, August 9, 2016, accurate list of physical characteristics.
consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the which is 20 calendar days from the Specifically, they may provide
Act, the Petition is accompanied by signature date of this notice. Any comments as to which characteristics
information reasonably available to rebuttal comments, which may include are appropriate to use as: (1) General
Petitioner supporting its allegations. factual information, must be filed by product characteristics and (2) product-
The Department finds that Petitioner 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 19, comparison criteria. We note that it is
filed this Petition on behalf of the 2016, which is ten calendar days after not always appropriate to use all
domestic industry because Petitioner is the initial comments deadline. product characteristics as product-
an interested party as defined in section The Department requests that any comparison criteria. We base product-
771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department factual information the parties consider comparison criteria on meaningful
also finds that Petitioner demonstrated relevant to the scope of the investigation commercial differences among products.
sufficient industry support with respect be submitted during this time period. In other words, although there may be
to the initiation of the AD investigation However, if a party subsequently finds some physical product characteristics
that Petitioner is requesting.5 that additional factual information utilized by manufacturers to describe
pertaining to the scope of the DOTP, it may be that only a select few
Period of Investigation investigation may be relevant, the party product characteristics take into account
Because the Petition was filed on June may contact the Department and request commercially meaningful physical
30, 2016, the period of investigation permission to submit the additional characteristics. In addition, interested
(‘‘POI’’) is, pursuant to 19 CFR information. parties may comment on the order in
351.204(b)(1), April 1, 2015, through which the physical characteristics
Filing Requirements
March 31, 2016. should be used in matching products.
All submissions to the Department Generally, the Department attempts to
Scope of the Investigation must be filed electronically using list the most important physical
The merchandise covered by this Enforcement and Compliance’s characteristics first and the least
investigation is DOTP from Korea. For a Antidumping and Countervailing Duty important characteristics last.
full description of the scope of this Centralized Electronic Service System In order to consider the suggestions of
investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the (‘‘ACCESS’’).8 An electronically filed interested parties in developing and
Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this document must be received successfully issuing the AD questionnaires, all
notice. in its entirety by the time and date when comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m.
it is due. Documents excepted from the EDT on August 9, 2016, which is 20
Comments on Scope of the Investigation electronic submission requirements calendar days from the signature date of
During our review of the Petition, the must be filed manually (i.e., in paper this notice. Any rebuttal comments
Department issued questions to, and form) with Enforcement and must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on
received responses from, Petitioner Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room August 19, 2016. All comments and
pertaining to the proposed scope to 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, submissions to the Department must be
ensure that the scope language in the 14th Street and Constitution Avenue filed electronically using ACCESS, as
Petition would be an accurate reflection NW., Washington, DC 20230, and explained above, on the record of this
of the products for which the domestic stamped with the date and time of less-than-fair-value investigation.
industry is seeking relief.6 receipt by the applicable deadlines.
Determination of Industry Support for
As discussed in the preamble to the Comments on Product Characteristics the Petition
Department’s regulations,7 we are for AD Questionnaires
setting aside a period for interested Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires
parties to raise issues regarding product The Department requests comments that a petition be filed on behalf of the
coverage (scope). The Department will from interested parties regarding the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)
consider all comments received from appropriate physical characteristics of of the Act provides that a petition meets
DOTP to be reported in response to the this requirement if the domestic
3 See Letter from the Department to Petitioner producers or workers who support the
8 See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing
entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of petition account for: (i) At least 25
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Dioctyl requirements); see also Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing percent of the total production of the
Terephthalate from the Republic of Korea:
Supplemental Questions’’ dated July 5, 2016. Procedures; Administrative Protective Order domestic like product; and (ii) more
4 See Letter from Petitioner entitled ‘‘Petitioner’s Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also than 50 percent of the production of the
Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Response to the Department’s January [sic] 5, 2016 domestic like product produced by that
Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20,
Supplemental Questions Regarding the Petition,’’
2014) for details of the Department’s electronic portion of the industry expressing
dated July 7, 2016 (‘‘Petition Supplement’’). filing requirements, which went into effect on support for, or opposition to, the
5 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D)
the Petition’’ section below. can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx
6 See Petition Supplement, at 1–2.
and a handbook can be found at https://
of the Act provides that, if the petition
7 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20 does not establish support of domestic
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf. producers or workers accounting for
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:44 Jul 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_49773/page/2.svg)
![49632 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2016 / Notices
from multiple parties simultaneously. In Dated: July 20, 2016. of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) in
such a case, we will inform parties in Paul Piquado, the antidumping duty investigation of
the letter or memorandum setting forth Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and hydrofluorocarbon blends and
the deadline (including a specified time) Compliance. components thereof from the People’s
by which extension requests must be Appendix I Republic of China.1 In the Final
filed to be considered timely. An Determination, the Department
extension request must be made in a Scope of the Investigation inadvertently assigned a weighted-
separate, stand-alone submission; under The merchandise covered by this average dumping margin of 101.82
limited circumstances we will grant investigation is dioctyl terephthalate percent to the following exporter/
(‘‘DOTP’’), regardless of form. DOTP that has
untimely-filed requests for the extension been blended with other products is included producer combinations: (1) Zhejiang
of time limits. Review Extension of within this scope when such blends include Sanmei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.
Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 constituent parts that have not been (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industry
(September 20, 2013), available at chemically reacted with each other to Co., Ltd.) and Zhejiang Sanmei
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013- produce a different product. For such blends, Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang
09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to only the DOTP component of the mixture is Sanmei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.);
covered by the scope of this investigation.
submitting factual information in this DOTP that is otherwise subject to this and (2) Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical
investigation. investigation is not excluded when Industry Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Sanmei
commingled with DOTP from sources not Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.) and Jiangsu
Certification Requirements subject to this investigation. Commingled Sanmei Chemicals Co., Ltd.2 However,
refers to the mixing of subject and non- the weighted-average dumping margin
Any party submitting factual subject DOTP. Only the subject component of
information in an AD or countervailing should have been assigned, instead, to
such commingled products is covered by the
duty (‘‘CVD’’) proceeding must certify to scope of the investigation. the following exporter/producer
the accuracy and completeness of that DOTP has the general chemical combinations, among others: (1)
information.34 Parties are hereby formulation C6H4(C8H17COO)2 and a Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. Ltd.
reminded that revised certification chemical name of ‘‘bis (2-ethylhexyl) (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industry
terephthalate’’ and has a Chemical Abstract Co., Ltd.) and Zhejiang Sanmei
requirements are in effect for company/ Service (‘‘CAS’’) registry number of 6422–86–
government officials, as well as their Chemical Ind. Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang
2. Regardless of the label, all DOTP is
representatives. Investigations initiated covered by this investigation. Sanmei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.);
on the basis of petitions filed on or after Subject merchandise is currently classified and (2) Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind.
August 16, 2013, and other segments of under subheading 2917.39.2000 of the Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical
any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United Industry Co., Ltd.) and Jiangsu Sanmei
States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Subject merchandise may Chemicals Co., Ltd.3 As a result, we
or after August 16, 2013, should use the also enter under subheadings 2917.39.7000
formats for the revised certifications now correct the final determination of
or 3812.20.1000 of the HTSUS. While the
provided at the end of the Final Rule.35 CAS registry number and HTSUS sales at LTFV as noted above.
The Department intends to reject factual classification are provided for convenience This correction to the final
submissions if the submitting party does and customs purposes, the written determination of sales at LTFV is issued
not comply with applicable revised description of the scope of this investigation and published in accordance with
certification requirements. is dispositive.
sections 735(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
[FR Doc. 2016–17806 Filed 7–27–16; 8:45 am] Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Notification to Interested Parties BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Dated: July 20, 2016.
Interested parties must submit Paul Piquado,
applications for disclosure under APO DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On Compliance.
January 22, 2008, the Department International Trade Administration [FR Doc. 2016–17816 Filed 7–27–16; 8:45 am]
published Antidumping and
[A–570–028] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Documents Submission Procedures; Hydrofluorocarbon Blends and
APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January Components Thereof From the
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate People’s Republic of China: Notice of
in this investigation should ensure that Correction to the Final Determination
they meet the requirements of these of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance,
appearance as discussed in 19 CFR
International Trade Administration,
351.103(d)).
Department of Commerce.
This notice is issued and published FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dennis McClure, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of 1 See Hydrofluorocarbon Blends and Components
34 See section 782(b) of the Act. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
35 See Certification of Factual Information to Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
Import Administration during Antidumping and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical
telephone: (202) 482–5973. Circumstances, 81 FR 42314 (June 29, 2016) (Final
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June Determination), and accompanying Issues and
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 29, 2016, the Department of Commerce Decision Memorandum.
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ (the Department) published in the 2 Id., 81 FR at 42316.
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. Federal Register the final determination 3 Id., at Comment 12.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:44 Jul 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM 28JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_49773/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2016-07-28 01:47:32
Document Modified: 2016-07-28 01:47:32
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Contact | Shanah Lee or Eve Wang, at (202) 482- 6386 or (202) 482-6231, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 49628 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR