Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 18369 

1See ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada, The 

People’s Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate 

of Oman and Countervailing Duties on Imports from 

The People’s Republic of China, India, and the 

Sultanate of Oman,’’ dated March 10, 2015 

(Petitions). 

2See Volume I of the Petitions, at I–2 and Exhibit 

I–2. 

3See Letter from the Department to Petitioners 

entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC): Supplemental Questions,’’ 

dated March 13, 2015 (PRC Deficiency 

Questionnaire); Letter from the Department to 

Petitioners entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India: 

Supplemental Questions,’’ dated March 13, 2015 

(India Deficiency Questionnaire); Letter from the 

Department to Petitioners entitled ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the 

Sultanate of Oman: Supplemental Questions,’’ 

dated March 13, 2015 (Oman Deficiency 

Questionnaire); Letter from the Department to 

Petitioners entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Canada, the 

People’s Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate 

of Oman: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated March 

13, 2015 (General Issues Supplement). 

4See Letter from Petitioners entitled ‘‘Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From The 

People’s Republic Of China—Petitioners’ Response 

To Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated March 17, 

2015 (PRC CVD Supplement); Letter from 

Petitioners entitled ‘‘Certain Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Resin From India—Petitioners’ 

Response To Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated 

March 17, 2015 (India CVD Supplement); Letter 

from Petitioners entitled ‘‘Certain Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Resin From the Sultanate of Oman— 

Petitioners’ Response To Supplemental 

Questionnaire,’’ dated March 17, 2015 (Oman CVD 

Supplement); and Letter from Petitioners entitled 

‘‘Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From 

The People’s Republic Of China, India, and the 

Sultanate of Oman—Petitioner’s Response to 

Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated March 19, 

2015 (General Issues Supplement). 

5See Scope Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

March 24, 2015 (Scope Supplement). 

6See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions’’ section below. 

7 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

NP to determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Glacier Bay NP may not 

resume their activities until notified by 

us via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that Glacier Bay NP 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the marine mammal 

observer determines that the cause of 

the injury or death is unknown and the 

death is relatively recent (i.e., in less 

than a moderate state of decomposition 

as we describe in the next paragraph), 

Glacier Bay NP will immediately report 

the incident to the Division Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 

301–427–8401 and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586– 

7248. The report must include the same 

information identified in the paragraph 

above this section. Activities may 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with Glacier Bay NP to 

determine whether modifications in the 

activities are appropriate. 

In the event that Glacier Bay NP 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead visual observer 

determines that the injury or death is 

not associated with or related to the 

authorized activities (e.g., previously 

wounded animal, carcass with moderate 

to advanced decomposition, or 

scavenger damage), Glacier Bay NP will 

report the incident to the Division Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 

301–427–8401 and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator at (907) 586– 

7248 within 24 hours of the discovery. 

Glacier Bay NP personnel will provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to us. Glacier 

Bay NP can continue their survey 

activities while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. 

Request for Public Comments 

NMFS invites comments on our 

analysis, the draft authorization, and 

any other aspect of the notice of 

proposed Authorization for Glacier Bay 

NP’s activities. Please include any 

supporting data or literature citations 

with your comments to help inform our 

final decision on Glacier Bay NP’s 

request for an Authorization. 

Dated: March 31, 2015. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07734 Filed 4–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–025, C–533–862, C–523–811] 

Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Resin From the People’s Republic of 

China, India, and the Sultanate of 

Oman: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigations 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective April 6, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yasmin Nair at (202) 482–3813 or Ilissa 

Shefferman at (202) 482–4684, 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 March 10, 2015, the Department of 

Commerce (Department) received 

countervailing duty (CVD) petitions 

concerning imports of certain 

polyethylene terephthalate resin (PET 

resin) from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC), India, and the Sultanate of 

Oman (Oman) filed in proper form on 

behalf of DAK Americas, LLC; M&G 

Chemicals; and Nan Ya Plastic 

Corporation, America (collectively, 

Petitioners). The CVD petitions were 

accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) 

petitions also concerning imports of 

PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, 

and Oman.1 Petitioners are domestic 

producers of PET resin.2

On March 13, 2015, the Department 

requested information and clarification 

for certain areas of the Petitions.3

Petitioners filed responses to these 

requests on March 17 and 19, 2015.4

Petitioners filed a revised scope on 

March 24, 2015.5

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), Petitioners allege that the 

Government of the PRC (GOC), the 

Government of India (GOI), and the 

Government of the Sultanate of Oman 

(GSO) are providing countervailable 

subsidies (within the meaning of 

sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to 

imports of certain PET resin from the 

PRC, India and Oman, 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 Petitioners supporting their 

allegations. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties as defined in 

sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. 

The Department also finds that 

Petitioners demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

initiation of the CVD investigations that 

Petitioners are requesting.6

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation for the 

PRC, India and Oman is January 1, 2014, 

through December 31, 2014.7

Scope of the Investigations 

The product covered by these 

investigations is PET resin from the 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18370 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 

8See General Issues Questionnaire; see also 

General Issues Supplement. 

9See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; 

Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 

10According 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). 

11See Letters of Invitation from the Department 

to the GOC, GOI, and GSO dated March 10, 2015. 

12See section 771(10) of the Act. 

13See 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)). 

14For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), 

at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for 

the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 

Covering Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin 

from Canada, the People’s Republic of China, India, 

and the Sultanate of Oman (Attachment II); 

Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin 

from India (India CVD Initiation Checklist), at 

Attachment II; and Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the 

Sultanate of Oman (Oman CVD Initiation 

Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are 

dated concurrently with this notice and are on file 

electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents 

filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central 

PRC, India, and Oman. 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, Petitioners 

pertaining to the proposed scope to 

ensure that the scope language in the 

Petitions would be an accurate 

reflection of the products for which the 

domestic industry is seeking relief.8

As discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations,9 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 determinations. 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 Time 

(ET) on April 20, 2015, which is the first 

business day following 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 April 30, 2015, 

which is 10 calendar days after the 

initial comments deadline.10

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, India, and Oman 

CVD investigations, as well as the 

concurrent Canada, PRC, India, and 

Oman AD 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). 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. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of 

the Act, the Department notified 

representatives of the GOC, GOI, and 

GSO 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, GOI, and GSO the opportunity 

for consultations with respect to the 

Petitions.11 Consultations were held 

with the GOC on March 24, 2015. 

Consultations were held with the GSO 

on March 27, 2015. All memoranda 

regarding these consultations are on file 

electronically via 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.’’ 

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,12 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.13

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, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of the domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that PET 

resin constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product.14


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 18371 

Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department 

of Commerce building. 

15See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit GEN– 

1. 

16 Id. 

17 Id. For further discussion, see PRC CVD 

Initiation Checklist, India CVD Initiation Checklist, 

and Oman CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 

II. 

18See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, India CVD 

Initiation Checklist, and Oman CVD Initiation 

Checklist, at Attachment II. 

19See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, India CVD Initiation 

Checklist, and Oman CVD Initiation Checklist, at 

Attachment II. 

20See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, India CVD 

Initiation Checklist, and Oman CVD Initiation 

Checklist, at Attachment II. 

21 Id. 

22 Id. 

23See Volume I of the Petitions, at 12–13 and 

Exhibit GEN–7; see also General Issues Supplement, 

Attachment 1, at 7. 

24 Id. 

25See Volume I of the Petitions, at 10, 12–21 and 

Exhibits GEN–4 and GEN–7 through GEN–11; see 

also General Issues Supplement, cover letter, at 2, 

Attachment 1, at 7, and Attachment 2, at Exhibit 

GEN–S9. 

26See India CVD Initiation Checklist, Oman CVD 

Initiation Checklist, and PRC CVD Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations 

and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for 

the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 

Covering Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin 

from Canada, the People’s Republic of China, India, 

and the Sultanate of Oman. 

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing under section 

702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petitions with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. Petitioners 

provided their own production of the 

domestic like product in 2014.15 In 

addition, Petitioners estimated the total 

2014 production of the domestic like 

product for the entire domestic 

industry.16 To establish industry 

support, Petitioners compared their own 

production to total production of the 

domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry.17

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petitions, supplemental submission, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support.18 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).19 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petitions 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.20 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petitions 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petitions.21 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the 

Petitions were filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and they have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigations that they are requesting 

the Department initiate.22

Injury Test 

Because India, Oman, and the PRC 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 India, Oman, and the 

PRC materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that imports of the 

subject merchandise are benefitting 

from countervailable subsidies and that 

such imports are causing, or threaten to 

cause, material injury to the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product. Petitioners allege that subject 

imports exceed the negligibility 

threshold of three percent provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.23 In 

CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the 

Act provides that imports of subject 

merchandise from least developed 

countries must exceed the negligibility 

threshold of four percent. Petitioners 

also demonstrate that subject imports 

from India, which has been designated 

as a least developed country under 

section 771(36)(B) of the Act, exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(B) of the Act.24

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share; underselling and 

price suppression or depression; lost 

sales and revenues; declining U.S. 

shipment and production trends and 

low capacity utilization rates; decline in 

production-related workers; and decline 

in financial performance.25 We assessed 

the allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 

determined that these allegations are 

properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation.26

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 Petitioners 

supporting the allegations. 

Petitioners allege that producers/

exporters of PET resin in the PRC, India, 

and Oman 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 PET resin from the PRC, India, and 

Oman 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 on 19 of the 21 alleged 

programs. For a full discussion of the 

basis for our decision to initiate or not 

initiate on each program, see the PRC 

CVD Initiation Checklist. 

India 

Based on our review of the petition, 

we find that there is sufficient 

information to initiate a CVD 

investigation on all of the 24 alleged 

programs. For a full discussion of the 

basis for our decision to initiate or not 

initiate on each program, see the India 

CVD Initiation Checklist. 

Sultanate of Oman 

Based on our review of the petition, 

we find that there is sufficient 

information to initiate a CVD 

investigation on all of the seven alleged 

programs. For a full discussion of the 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18372 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 

27See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit GEN– 

3. 

28 Id. 

29See section 703(a) of the Act. 

30 Id. 

31See section 782(b) of the Act. 

32See 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 

basis for our decision to initiate or not 

initiate on each program, see the Oman 

CVD Initiation Checklist. 

A public version of the initiation 

checklist for each investigation is 

available on ACCESS and athttp://

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 

Petitioners named 35 companies as 

producers/exporters of PET resin from 

the PRC, 13 companies as producers/

exporters of PET resin from India, and 

one company as a producer/exporter of 

PET resin from Oman.27 Regarding the 

PRC and India, 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 PET resin 

during the periods of investigation 

under the following Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

number: 3907.60.00.30. We intend to 

release CBP data under Administrative 

Protective Order (APO) to all parties 

with access to information protected by 

APO within five-business days of 

publication of this Federal Register 

notice. The Department invites 

comments regarding respondent 

selection within seven 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 

ACCESS, by 5 p.m. ET by the date noted 

above. We intend to make our decision 

regarding respondent selection within 

20 days of publication of this 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. 

Regarding Oman, although the 

Department normally relies on import 

data from CBP to select a limited 

number of producers/exporters for 

individual examination in CVD 

investigations, if appropriate, these 

Petitions name only one company as a 

producer/exporter of PET resin from 

Oman: Octal Petrochemical, LLC FZC.28

Furthermore, we know of no other 

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise from Oman. Accordingly, 

the Department intends to examine the 

one known producer/exporter of PET 

resin in this investigation with regard to 

Oman (i.e., the company identified 

above). We invite interested parties to 

comment on this issue. Parties wishing 

to comment must do so within seven 

days of the publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. 

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, GOI, and GSO 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 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 PET resin from the PRC, India, and/ 

or Oman are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to, a U.S. 

industry.29 A negative ITC 

determination for any country will 

result in the investigation being 

terminated with respect to that 

country; 30 otherwise, these 

investigations will proceed according to 

statutory and regulatory time limits. 

Submission of Factual Information 

Factual information is defined in 19 

CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence 

submitted in response to questionnaires; 

(ii) evidence submitted in support of 

allegations; (iii) publicly available 

information to value factors under 19 

CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 

adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 

351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on 

the record by the Department; and (v) 

evidence other than factual information 

described in (i)–(iv). The regulation 

requires any party, when submitting 

factual information, to specify under 

which subsection of 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(21) the information is being 

submitted and, if the information is 

submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 

factual information already on the 

record, to provide an explanation 

identifying the information already on 

the record that the factual information 

seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time 

limits for the submission of factual 

information are addressed in 19 CFR 

351.301, which provides specific time 

limits based on the type of factual 

information being submitted. Parties 

should review the regulations prior to 

submitting factual information in these 

investigations. 

Extension of Time Limits Regulation 

Parties may request an extension of 

time limits before the expiration of a 

time limit established under Part 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 Part 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. 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. 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 segment. 

Certification Requirements 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD or CVD 

proceeding must certify to the accuracy 

and completeness of that information.31

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.32 The 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Notices 18373 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_

info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 

1See Certain Lined Paper Products From India: 

Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 79 FR 40709 

(July 14, 2014) (Preliminary Results), and the 

accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

2See Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China; 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined 

Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the 

People’s Republic of China; and Notice of 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 

(September 28, 2006) (CLPP Order). 

3See Preliminary Results, 79 FR 40709. 

4 Id. 

5Petitioners are the Association of American 

School Paper Suppliers (AASPS) and its individual 

members, which consists of the following 

companies: ACCO Brands USA LLC, Norcom Inc., 

and Top Flight, Inc. See Petitioners’ letter dated 

June 5, 2014. 

6See Petitioners’ August 11, 2014 comments 

(Post-Preliminary Comments). 

7See Kokuyo’s August 29, 2014 rebuttal 

comments (Post-Preliminary Rebuttal). 

8See Petitioners’ September 5, 2014 Case Brief. 

9See Kokuyo’s September 18, 2014 Rebuttal Brief. 

10For a complete description of the scope of the 

CLPP Order, see the memorandum from Gary 

Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issue and Decision 

Memorandum for Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India’’ (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum), dated concurrently with these final 

results. 

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 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: March 30, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigations 

The merchandise covered by these 

investigations is polyethylene terephthalate 

(PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at 

least 0.70, but not more than 0.88, deciliters 

per gram. The scope includes blends of virgin 

PET resin and recycled PET resin containing 

predominantly virgin PET resin content, 

provided such blends meet the intrinsic 

viscosity requirements above. The scope 

includes all PET resin meeting the above 

specifications regardless of additives 

introduced in the manufacturing process. 

Although the merchandise covered by 

these investigations is not defined by its end 

use, it is typically used in the production of 

plastic bottles, in packaging for beverage, 

food, and manufactured products, in 

containers for household and automotive 

products, and in industrial strapping, among 

other applications. 

The merchandise subject to these 

investigations is properly classified under 

subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading 

is provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under investigation is 

dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07835 Filed 4–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–843] 

Certain Lined Paper Products From 

India: Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 14, 2014, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the Preliminary 

Results of a changed circumstances 

review (CCR) of the antidumping duty 

order on certain lined paper products 

from India.1 The Department 

preliminarily determined that Kokuyo 

Riddhi Paper Products Private Limited 

(Kokuyo) is the successor-in-interest to 

Riddhi Enterprises (Riddhi). We 

received comments from interested 

parties on the Preliminary Results. 

Based on our analysis of these 

comments, for the final results, the 

Department continues to find that 

Kokuyo is the successor-in-interest to 

Riddhi. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Robinson or Eric B. Greynolds, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office III, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3797 and (202) 482–6071, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 28, 2006, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the antidumping duty order on 

certain lined paper from India.2

On May 14, 2014, Kokuyo requested 

that the Department conduct a CCR to 

determine whether it is the successorin-interest to Riddhi, for purposes of 

determining antidumping duties due as 

a result of the CLPP Order. On July 14, 

2014, the Department published its 

Preliminary Results, in which it 

determined that Kokuyo is the 

successor-in-interest to Riddhi.3 The 

Department invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary Results.4

On August 11, 2014, Petitioners 5

submitted their post-preliminary 

comments.6 On August 29, 2014, 

Kokuyo submitted its rebuttal 

comments.7 On September 5, 2014, 

Petitioners submitted a case brief.8 On 

September 18, 2014, Kokuyo submitted 

a rebuttal brief.9

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the CLPP 

Order is certain lined paper products, 

typically school supplies (for purposes 

of this scope definition, the actual use 

of or labeling these products as school 

supplies or non-school supplies is not a 

defining characteristic) composed of or 

including paper that incorporates 

straight horizontal and/or vertical lines 

on ten or more paper sheets (there shall 

be no minimum page requirement for 

looseleaf filler paper). The products are 

currently classified under the following 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 

4811.90.9035, 4811.90.9080, 

4820.30.0040, 4810.22.5044, 

4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9090, 

4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 

4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 

4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, and 

4820.10.4000. Although the HTSUS 

numbers are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

product description remains 

dispositive.10

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the postpreliminary and rebuttal comments, or 

in case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 


tkelley on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES