Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 7745 

1See the Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties: 

Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated January 13, 2016 

(‘‘the Petition’’). 

2See Petitioner’s January 20 and 27, 2016, 

responses. 

Further Information,’’ at least three 

business days prior to the meeting. 

A conference call line will be 

provided for those who cannot attend in 

person. Please use the following dial-in 

number to join the conference: 1–(888) 

466–9863, passcode 6069134#. 

The CSB is an independent federal 

agency charged with investigating 

accidents and hazards that result, or 

may result, in the catastrophic release of 

extremely hazardous substances. The 

agency’s Board Members are appointed 

by the President and confirmed by the 

Senate. CSB investigations look into all 

aspects of chemical accidents and 

hazards, including physical causes such 

as equipment failure as well as 

inadequacies in regulations, industry 

standards, and safety management 

systems. 

Public Comment 

The time provided for public 

statements will depend upon the 

number of people who wish to speak. 

Speakers should assume that their 

presentations will be limited to three 

minutes or less, but commenters may 

submit written statements for the 

record. 

Contact Person for Further Information 

Hillary Cohen, Communications 

Manager, at public@csb.gov or (202) 

446–8094. Further information about 

this public meeting can be found on the 

CSB Web site at: www.csb.gov. 

Dated: February 11, 2016. 

Kara Wenzel, 

Acting General Counsel, Chemical Safety and 

Hazard Investigation Board. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03257 Filed 2–11–16; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6350–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[B–6–2016] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 116—Port Arthur, 

Texas; Expansion of Subzone 116C; 

Premcor Refining Group Inc.; 

Jefferson County, Texas 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by 

the Foreign-Trade Zone of Southeast 

Texas, Inc., grantee of FTZ 116, 

requesting an expansion of Subzone 

116C on behalf of Premcor Refining 

Group Inc. The application was 

submitted pursuant to the provisions of 

the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the 

regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 

part 400). It was formally docketed on 

February 9, 2016. 

Subzone 116C was approved on 

October 7, 1996 (Board Order 848, 61 FR 

54153–54154, October 17, 1996). The 

subzone (4,016 acres) currently consists 

of four sites located in Jefferson County: 

Site 1 (3,581 acres)—main refinery 

complex located at 1801 S. Gulfway 

Drive, 3 miles southwest of Port Arthur; 

Site 2 (101 acres)—Lucas/Beaumont 

Terminal Storage facility located at 9405 

West Port Arthur Road, 15 miles 

northwest of the refinery; Site 3 (243 

acres)—Fannett LPG storage terminal 

located at 16151 Craigen Road, near 

Fannett, some 2 miles west of the 

refinery; and, Site 4 (91 acres)—Port 

Arthur Products storage facility located 

at 1825 H.O. Mills Road, 4 miles 

northwest of the refinery. 

The applicant is requesting authority 

to expand the subzone to include an 

additional site: Proposed Site 5 (108.2 

acres)—2500 Martin Luther King Jr. 

Drive (Highway 82), Port Arthur. The 

proposed site would include a 2.7 mile 

pipeline that links the dock to the main 

refinery complex (Site 1). No additional 

authorization for production activity has 

been requested at this time. 

In accordance with the FTZ Board’s 

regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ 

Staff is designated examiner to review 

the application and make 

recommendations to the FTZ Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions shall be 

addressed to the FTZ Board’s Executive 

Secretary at the address below. The 

closing period for their receipt is March 

28, 2016. Rebuttal comments in 

response to material submitted during 

the foregoing period may be submitted 

during the subsequent 15-day period to 

April 11, 2016. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 

21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the 

‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the FTZ 

Board’s Web site, which is accessible 

via www.trade.gov/ftz. 

For further information, contact 

Camille Evans at Camille.Evans@

trade.gov or (202) 482–2350. 

Dated: February 10, 2016. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03072 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–037] 

Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid 

Products From the People’s Republic 

of China: Initiation of Countervailing 

Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective date: February 16, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

202.482.2593. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On January 13, 2016, the Department 

of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) 

received a countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

petition concerning imports of certain 

biaxial integral geogrid products 

(‘‘geogrids’’) from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’), filed in proper form 

by Tensar Corporation (‘‘Petitioner’’), a 

domestic producer of geogrids. The CVD 

petition was accompanied by an 

antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition 

concerning imports of geogrids from the 

PRC.1 On January 15, and January 21, 

2016, the Department issued additional 

requests for information and 

clarification of certain areas of the 

Petition. Based on the Department’s 

requests, Petitioner timely filed 

additional information pertaining to the 

Petition on January 20, and 27, 2016.2

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the ‘‘Act’’), Petitioner alleges that 

producers/exporters of geogrids in the 

PRC received countervailable subsidies 

within the meaning of sections 701 and 

771(5) of the Act, and that imports from 

these producers/exporters materially 

injure, or threaten material injury to, an 

industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed this Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, and Petitioner has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7746 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 

3See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the 

Petition’’ below. 

4See Memorandum for the Record from Ron 

Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the 

Government Closure during Snowstorm ‘Jonas,’ ’’ 

(January 27, 2016). 

5See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; 

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

6See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21). 

7The 20th day falls on February 28, 2016. As this 

is a Sunday, we are applying our Next Business Day 

Rule. See Notice of Clarification: Application of 

‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative 

Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act 

of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR24533 (May 10, 2005). 

8See Letter to Liu Fang, First Secretary, Embassy 

of the People’s Republic of China, re: 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Biaxial 

Integral Geogrid Products from the People’s 

Republic of China: Invitation for Consultations to 

Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,’’ dated 

January 14, 2016. 

9See section 771(10) of the Act. 

10See 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)). 

11For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigation that it is requesting the 

Department to initiate.3

Furthermore, the Department has 

exercised its discretion to toll deadlines 

as a result of the closure of the Federal 

Government during Snowstorm 

‘‘Jonas.’’ 4 Therefore, the initiation date 

for this investigation has been tolled by 

4 business days. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

calendar year 2015, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The product covered by this 

investigation is geogrids from the PRC. 

For a full description of the scope of the 

investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation’’ at the Appendix of this 

notice. 

Comments on the Scope of the 

Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

solicited information from Petitioner to 

ensure that the proposed scope language 

is an accurate reflection of the products 

for which the domestic industry is 

seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in 

the preamble to the Department’s 

regulations,5 we are setting aside a 

period for interested parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage. If 

scope comments include factual 

information,6 all such factual 

information should be limited to public 

information. The Department 

encourages all interested parties to 

submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. 

Eastern Time (‘‘ET’’) on February 29, 

2016, which is 20 calendar days from 

the signature date of this notice.7 Any 

rebuttal comments, which may include 

factual information, must be filed by 

5:00 p.m. ET on March 10, 2016, which 

is 10 calendar days after the initial 

comments. 

The Department requests that any 

factual information the parties consider 

relevant to the scope of the investigation 

be submitted during this time period. 

However, if a party subsequently finds 

that additional factual information 

pertaining to the scope of the 

investigation may be relevant, the party 

may contact the Department and request 

permission to submit the additional 

information. All such comments must 

be filed on the record of the concurrent 

AD investigation. 

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 Department’s 

electronic records system, ACCESS, by 

the time and date set by the Department. 

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 

deadline established by the Department. 

Consultations 

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

the Act, the Department notified 

representatives of the Government of 

China (GOC) of the receipt of the 

Petition. Also, in accordance with 

section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 

Department provided representatives of 

the GOC the opportunity for 

consultations with respect to the CVD 

petition. The GOC did not accept our 

invitation to hold consultations before 

the initiation.8

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

‘‘industry.’’ 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product,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

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 

geogrids, as defined in the scope, 

constitute a single domestic like product 

and we have analyzed industry support 

in terms of that domestic like product.11

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 7747 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Biaxial 

Integral Geogrid Products 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 Biaxial Integral 

Geogrid Products from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘Attachment II’’). This checklist is dated 

concurrently with this notice and on file 

electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents 

filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central 

Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department 

of Commerce building. 

12See General Issues Supplement, at 13. 

13See Letter from Tenax Corporation, dated 

January 28, 2016. We note that, although this letter 

is dated January 28, 2016, it was filed after 5:00 

p.m. on January 29, 2016 (via ACCESS); therefore, 

we consider it received on the next business day 

(February 1, 2016). 

14See Letter from Tenax Corporation, dated 

January 28, 2016. 

15See Volume I of the Petition, at 2–15 and 

Exhibits I–1 through I–4, I–6 through I–34, I–44, 

and I–52 through I–58; see also Letter from Tenax 

Corporation, dated February 1, 2016, at 1. 

16See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at 

Attachment II. 

17See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

18See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at 

Attachment II. 

19 Id. 

20 Id. 

21See Volume I of the Petition, at 34 and Exhibit 

I–4; see also General Issues Supplement, at 19. 

22See Volume I of the Petition, at 24–28, 32–45 

and Exhibits I–4, I–35, I–39 through I–43, I–47, I– 

50, and I–51; see also General Issues Supplement, 

at 13–24 and Exhibits Supp. I–1 through I–5, I–10 

through I–12, and I–43. 

23See 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 Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products 

from the People’s Republic of China. 

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, we considered the industry 

support data contained in the Petition 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. To establish industry support, 

Petitioner provided its own production 

of the domestic like product in 2015.12

On February 1, 2016, we received a 

letter from the only other known U.S. 

producer of geogrids, Tenax Corporation 

(‘‘Tenax’’), stating that the company 

supports the Petition.13 Tenax also 

provided its own production of the 

domestic like product in 2015.14

Petitioner states that, based on 

reasonably available information 

regarding the U.S. geogrids industry, 

there are no other known producers of 

geogrids in the United States; therefore, 

the Petition is supported by 100 percent 

of the U.S. industry.15

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, General Issues Supplement, 

letters from Tenax, and other 

information readily available to the 

Department indicates that Petitioner has 

established industry support.16 First, 

the Petition established support from 

domestic producers (or workers) 

accounting for more than 50 percent of 

the total production of the domestic like 

product and, as such, the Department is 

not required to take further action in 

order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling).17 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

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

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.18 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

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

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition.19 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

702(b)(1) of the Act. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and it has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigation that it is requesting the 

Department initiate.20

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleges that imports of the 

subject merchandise are benefitting 

from countervailable subsidies and that 

such imports are causing, or threaten to 

cause, material injury to the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product. In addition, Petitioner alleges 

that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.21

Petitioner contends that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share; underselling and 

price suppression or depression; 

negative impact on the domestic 

industry’s performance, including 

capacity utilization, shipments, and 

operating income; and lost sales and 

revenues.22 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.23

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

the Department to initiate a CVD 

proceeding whenever an interested 

party files a CVD petition on behalf of 

an industry that: (1) Alleges the 

elements necessary for an imposition of 

a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; 

and (2) is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to the Petitioner 

supporting the allegations. 

The Department has examined the 

Petition on geogrids from the PRC and 

finds that it complies 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 a CVD investigation to 

determine whether producers/exporters 

of geogrids in the PRC receive 

countervailable subsidies. For a 

discussion of evidence supporting our 

initiation determination, see the CVD 

Initiation Checklist which accompanies 

this notice. 

Based on our review of the Petition, 

we find that there is sufficient 

information to initiate a CVD 

investigation of 32 of the alleged 

programs, and part of two additional 

alleged programs. For six of the 

programs alleged by Petitioner, we have 

determined that the requirements for 

initiation have not been met. For a full 

discussion of the basis for our decision 

to initiate or not initiate on each 

program, see the CVD Initiation 

Checklist. 

Respondent Selection 

The Department normally selects 

respondents in a CVD investigation 

using CBP entry data. However, for this 

investigation, the HTSUS numbers the 

subject merchandise would enter under, 

3926.90.9995, 3920.20.0050, and 

3925.90.0000, are basket categories 

containing many products unrelated to 

geogrids, and much of the reported 

entry data do not contain quantity 

information. Therefore, we cannot rely 

on CBP entry data in selecting 

respondents. Instead, we intend to issue 

quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7748 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 

24See Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I–37. 

25See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. 

26See section 703(a)(1) of the Act. 

27See section 782(b) of the Act. 

28See Certification of Factual Information To 

Import Administration During Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 

17, 2013) (‘‘Certifications Final Rule’’); see also the 

frequently asked questions regarding the 

Certifications Final Rule, available at the following: 

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

info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 

questionnaires to each potential 

respondent, for which the Petitioner has 

provided a complete address,24 and base 

respondent selection on the responses 

received. In addition, the Department 

will post the Q&V questionnaire along 

with the filing instructions on the 

Enforcement and Compliance Web site 

(http://trade.gov/enforcement/

news.asp). Exporters and producers that 

do not receive Q&V questionnaires via 

mail may still submit a Q&V response, 

and can obtain a copy from the 

Enforcement and Compliance Web site. 

The Q&V questionnaire must be 

submitted by all PRC exporters/

producers no later than February 22, 

2016. 

All Q&V responses must be filed 

electronically via 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 Federal 

Register notice. Interested parties must 

submit applications for disclosure under 

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.305(b). Instructions for filing such 

applications may be found on the 

Department’s Web site at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/apo. 

Distribution of Copies of the CVD 

Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), we have provided a copy of 

the public version of the Petition to the 

representatives of the GOC. Because of 

the particularly large number of 

producers/exporters identified in the 

Petition, the Department considers the 

service of the public version of the 

petition to the foreign producers/

exporters satisfied by the delivery of the 

public version to the GOC, consistent 

with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary 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 

geogrids from the PRC materially injure, 

or threaten material injury to, a U.S. 

industry.25 A negative ITC 

determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated.26

Otherwise, the investigation 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 this 

investigation. 

Extension of Time Limits 

Parties may request an extension of 

time limits before the expiration of a 

time limit established under 19 CFR 

351.301, or as otherwise specified by the 

Secretary. In general, an extension 

request will be considered untimely if it 

is filed after the expiration of the time 

limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 

expires. For submissions that are due 

from multiple parties simultaneously, 

an extension request will be considered 

untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on 

the due date. Under certain 

circumstances, we may elect to specify 

a different time limit by which 

extension requests will be considered 

untimely for submissions which are due 

from multiple parties simultaneously. In 

such a case, we will inform parties in 

the letter or memorandum setting forth 

the deadline (including a specified time) 

by which extension requests must be 

filed to be considered timely. An 

extension request must be made in a 

separate, stand-alone submission; under 

limited circumstances we will grant 

untimely-filed requests for the extension 

of time limits. Review Extension of 

Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 

(September 20, 2013), available at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013- 

09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to 

submitting factual information in this 

investigation. 

Certification Requirements 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD or CVD 

proceeding must certify to the accuracy 

and completeness of that information.27

Parties are hereby reminded that the 

Department issued a final rule with 

respect to certification requirements, 

effective August 16, 2013, and that the 

revised certification requirements are in 

effect for company/government officials 

as well as their representatives. All 

segments of any AD or CVD proceedings 

initiated on or after August 16, 2013, 

including this investigation, should use 

the formats for the revised certifications 

provided at the end of the Certifications 

Final Rule.28 The Department intends to 

reject factual submissions if the 

submitting party does not comply with 

the applicable revised certification 

requirements. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective order 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/index.html. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.203(c). 

Dated: February 8, 2016. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by the 

investigation is certain biaxial integral 

geogrid products. Biaxial integral geogrid 

products are a polymer grid or mesh material 

(whether or not finished, slit, cut-to-length, 

attached to woven or non-woven fabric or 

sheet material, or packaged) in which foursided openings in the form of squares, 

rectangles, rhomboids, diamonds, or other 

four-sided figures predominate. The products 

covered have integral strands that have been 

stretched to induce molecular orientation 

into the material (as evidenced by the strands 

being thinner toward the middle between the 

junctions than at the junctions themselves) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2016 / Notices 7749 

1See Meridian LLC v. United States, Court No. 

13–00018, Slip Op. 16–5 (CIT January 20, 2016) 

(Meridian V), which sustained the Final Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, 

Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 

13–00018, Slip. Op. 15–67 (Oct. 29, 2015) (Third 

Remand). 

2See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 

30650 (May 26, 2011) and Aluminum Extrusions 

from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing 

Duty Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011) (Orders). 

3See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

4See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

(Diamond Sawblades). 

5See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Final Scope 

Ruling on Certain Refrigerator/Freezer Trim Kits,’’ 

(December 17, 2012) (Final Scope Ruling on 

Refrigerator Trim Kits). 

6The finished goods kit exclusion states: ‘‘A 

finished goods kits is understood to mean a 

packaged combination of parts that contains, at the 

time of importation, all of the necessary parts to 

fully assemble a final finished good and requires no 

further finishing or fabrication, such as cutting or 

punching, and is assembled ‘as is’ into a finished 

product.’’ The scope further states that, ‘‘{a}n 

imported product will not be considered a ‘finished 

goods kit’’ and therefore excluded from the scope 

of the investigation merely by including fasteners 

such as screws, bolts, etc. in the packaging with an 

aluminum extrusion product.’’ 

7See Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim 

Kits at 11. 

8See Third Remand at 6–10. 

9See Meridian IV, Slip Op. 15–67 at 12–13. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. at 14 (emphasis omitted). 

12See Third Remand at 14. 

13See Meridian V, Slip Op. 16–5 at 4. 

14See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341. 

constituting the sides of the openings and 

integral junctions where the strands intersect. 

The scope includes products in which foursided figures predominate whether or not 

they also contain additional strands 

intersecting the four-sided figures and 

whether or not the inside corners of the foursided figures are rounded off or not sharp 

angles. As used herein, the term ‘‘integral’’ 

refers to strands and junctions that are 

homogenous with each other. The products 

covered have a tensile strength of greater 

than 5 kilonewtons per meter (‘‘kN/m’’) 

according to American Society for Testing 

and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) Standard Test 

Method D6637/D6637M in any direction and 

average overall flexural stiffness of more than 

100,000 milligram-centimeter according to 

the ASTM D7748/D7748M Standard Test 

Method for Flexural Rigidity of Geogrids, 

Geotextiles and Related Products, or other 

equivalent test method standards. 

Subject merchandise includes material 

matching the above description that has been 

finished, packaged, or otherwise further 

processed in a third country, including by 

trimming, slitting, coating, cutting, punching 

holes, stretching, attaching to woven or nonwoven fabric or sheet material, or any other 

finishing, packaging, or other further 

processing that would not otherwise remove 

the merchandise from the scope of the 

investigation if performed in the country of 

manufacture of the biaxial integral geogrid. 

The products subject to the scope are 

currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) 

under the following subheading: 

3926.90.9995. Subject merchandise may also 

enter under subheadings 3920.20.0050 and 

3925.90.0000. The HTSUS subheadings set 

forth above are provided for convenience and 

U.S. Customs purposes only. The written 

description of the scope is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03071 Filed 2–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–967; C–570–968] 

Aluminum Extrusions From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Court Decision Not in Harmony With 

Final Scope Ruling and Notice of 

Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant 

to Court Decision 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 20, 2016, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the 

Department of Commerce’s 

(Department) third and final results of 

redetermination,1 in which the 

Department determined, under protest, 

that certain refrigerator/freezer trim kits 

meet the description of excluded 

finished goods kits and are therefore not 

covered by the scope of the Orders,2

pursuant to the CIT’s remand order in 

Meridian LLC v. United States, Court 

No. 13–00018, Slip Op. 15–67 (CIT June 

23, 2015) (Meridian IV). 

Consistent with the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken,3 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,4 the 

Department is notifying the public that 

the Court’s final judgment in this case 

is not in harmony with the Department’s 

Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim 

Kits and is therefore amending its final 

scope ruling.5

DATES: Effective date: January 30, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202– 

482–3965. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 17, 2012, the Department 

issued its Final Scope Ruling on 

Refrigerator Trim Kits in which it 

determined that the refrigerator/freezer 

trim kits imported by Meridian LLC 

(Meridian) did not meet the scope 

exclusions for ‘‘finished merchandise’’ 

and ‘‘finished goods kits.’’ 6 In 

particular, the Department held that 

because the trim kits at issue consisted 

of pieces of aluminum extrusions plus 

fasteners and extraneous materials, they 

did not meet either scope exclusion. 

Therefore, the Department found the 

products at issue to be within the scope 

of the Orders.7

As discussed in further detail in the 

Third Remand, the Court remanded the 

Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator Trim 

Kits three times.8 Most recently, in 

Meridian IV, the Court held that the 

Department’s long-standing recognition 

of a ‘‘fasteners’’ exception to the 

‘‘finished goods kit’’ exclusion is 

unreasonable, finding that ‘‘the 

inclusion of ‘fasteners’ or ‘extraneous 

materials’ is not determinative when 

qualifying a kit consistent of multiple 

parts which otherwise meets the 

exclusionary requirements, as a 

‘finished goods kit.’ ’’ 9 Additionally, the 

Court explained that there is nothing in 

the scope language that indicates that 

the parts of a finished goods kit cannot 

consist entirely of aluminum 

extrusions.10 The Court explained that 

‘‘to qualify as a ‘finished goods kit’, a kit 

must contain every part required to 

assemble the final finished good, and it 

logically follows that if a kit is imported 

with all of the parts necessary to fully 

assemble the kit into its final finished 

form, then obviously (and necessarily) 

some of those ‘parts’ may be 

fasteners.’’ 11

In the Third Remand, the Department 

found, in accordance with the Court’s 

instructions in Meridian IV, under 

respectful protest, that Meridian’s trim 

kits are excluded from the scope of the 

Orders as finished goods kits because at 

the time of importation, the kits 

contained all the parts necessary to 

assemble a final finished good—a 

complete trim kit.12 In Meridian V, the 

Court sustained the Third Remand in its 

entirety.13

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken 14 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the 

CAFC has held that, pursuant to 

sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), the 

Department must publish a notice of a 

court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ 

with a Department determination and 

must suspend liquidation of entries 

pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. 

The CIT’s January 20, 2016, judgment in 

Meridian V sustaining the Department’s 

decision in the Third Remand to find 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES