Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 73037 

1See Petitioner’s submission entitled ‘‘Petitions 

for the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties: Melamine from China and 

Trinidad and Tobago,’’ dated November 12, 2014 

(‘‘Petitions’’). 

2See Volume I of the Petitions, at 1–2. 

3See Letter from the Department to Petitioner 

entitled ‘‘Re: Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports 

of Melamine from the People’s Republic of China 

and Trinidad and Tobago: Supplemental 

Questions,’’ dated November 14, 2014 (‘‘General 

Issues Supplemental Questionnaire’’), Letter from 

the Department to Petitioner entitled ‘‘Re: Petitions 

for the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Melamine from 

the People’s Republic of China: Supplemental 

Questions,’’ dated November 14, 2014, and Letter 

from the Department to Petitioner entitled ‘‘Re: 

Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Melamine from 

Trinidad and Tobago: Supplemental Questions,’’ 

dated November 14, 2014. 

4See ‘‘Melamine from China and Trinidad and 

Tobago/Petitioner’s Response to the Department’s 

Questions Regarding the Petition’’ dated November 

18, 2014 (‘‘General Issues Supplement’’), 

‘‘Melamine from The People’s Republic of China/ 

Petitioner’s Response to the Department’s Questions 

Regarding the Petition’’ dated November 18, 2014 

(‘‘PRC AD Supplement’’), and ‘‘Melamine from 

Trinidad and Tobago/Petitioner’s Response to the 

Department’s Questions Regarding the Petition’’ 

dated November 18, 2014 (‘‘Trinidad and Tobago 

AD Supplement’’). 

5See Letter from the Department to Petitioner 

entitled ‘‘Re: Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports 

of Melamine from the People’s Republic of China 

and Trinidad and Tobago: Supplemental 

Questions,’’ dated November 14, 2014 (‘‘Second 

General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire’’). 

6See ‘‘Melamine from China and Trinidad and 

Tobago/Petitioner’s Response to the Department’s 

Second General Questions Regarding the Petition’’ 

dated November 20, 2014 (‘‘Second General Issues 

Supplement’’), see also Supplement to Petitions for 

the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties against Melamine from China and Trinidad 

and Tobago,’’ dated November 24, 2014 (‘‘Third 

General Issues Supplement’’). 

7See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions’’ section below. 

8See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire 

and Second General Issues Supplemental 

Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement, 

Second General Issues Supplement, and Third 

General Issues Supplement. 

9See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; 

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

10See 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). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–020, A–274–806] 

Melamine From the People’s Republic 

of China and Trinidad and Tobago: 

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigations 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Terpstra at (202) 482–3965 (the 

People’s Republic of China), or Laurel 

LaCivita at (202) 482–4243 (Trinidad 

and Tobago), Office III, AD/CVD 

Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On November 12, 2014, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received antidumping 

duty (‘‘AD’’) petitions concerning 

imports of melamine from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) and Trinidad 

and Tobago filed in proper form on 

behalf of Cornerstone Chemical 

Company (‘‘Petitioner’’). The AD 

petitions were accompanied by two 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) petitions.1

Petitioner is a domestic producer of 

melamine.2

On November 14, 2014, the 

Department requested additional 

information and clarification of certain 

portions of the Petitions.3 Petitioner 

filed responses to these requests on 

November 18, 2014.4 On November 18, 

2014, the Department requested 

additional information and clarification 

of certain portions of the Petitions.5

Petitioner filed responses to these 

requests on November 20, 2014 and 

November 24, 2014.6

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), Petitioner alleges that melamine 

from the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago 

is being, or is 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 Petitions are 

accompanied by information reasonably 

available to Petitioner supporting its 

allegations. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioner is 

an interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department 

also finds that Petitioner demonstrated 

sufficient industry support with respect 

to the initiation of the AD investigations 

that Petitioner is requesting.7

Period of Investigations 

Because the Petitions were filed on 

November 12, 2014, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1) the period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’) for the PRC is April 1, 2014 

through September 30, 2014, and for 

Trinidad and Tobago the POI is October 

1, 2013, through September 30, 2014. 

Scope of the Investigations 

The product covered by these 

investigations is melamine from the PRC 

and Trinidad and Tobago. For a full 

description of the scope of these 

investigations, see ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigations’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of the 

Investigations 

During our review of the Petitions, the 

Department issued questions to, and 

received responses from, Petitioner 

pertaining to the proposed scope to 

ensure that the scope language in the 

Petitions would be an accurate 

reflection of the products for which the 

domestic industry is seeking relief.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 

Standard Time (‘‘EST’’) on December 

22, 2014, which is 20 calendar days 

from the signature date of this notice. 

Any rebuttal comments, which may 

include factual information, must be 

filed no later than 10 calendar days after 

the initial comments deadline, which in 

this instance, is January 1, 2015. 

Because January 1, 2015, is a federal 

holiday, a non-business day, the revised 

deadline for these comments is now 

5:00 p.m. EST on January 2, 2015.10

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 and Trinidad and 

Tobago AD and CVD investigations. 

Filing Requirements 

All submissions to the Department 

must be filed electronically using 

Enforcement and Compliance’s 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
73038 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 

11See On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and 

Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and 

Compliance’s AD and CVD Centralized Electronic 

Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’) to AD and CVD 

Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’). 

The Web site location has changed from http://

iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The 

Final Rule changing the references to the 

Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 

(November 20, 2014). 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 Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Melamine from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC AD Initiation 

Checklist’’) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry 

Support for the Petitions Covering Melamine from 

the People’s Republic of China and Trinidad and 

Tobago (‘‘Attachment II’’); and Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Melamine from 

Trinidad and Tobago (‘‘Trinidad and Tobago AD 

Initiation Checklist’’), at Attachment II. These 

checklists are dated concurrently with this notice 

and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to 

documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the 

Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

15See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2 and Exhibit 

I–18. 

16 Id. at 2. 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System 

(ACCESS).11 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. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for AD Questionnaires 

The Department requests comments 

from interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

melamine 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 factors and costs of 

production accurately, as well as to 

develop appropriate productcomparison 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) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is 

not always appropriate to use all 

product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful 

commercial differences among products. 

In other words, although there may be 

some physical product characteristics 

utilized by manufacturers to describe 

melamine, 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. 

EST on December 22, 2014, which is 20 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. Any rebuttal comments 

must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EST on 

January 2, 2015. All comments and 

submissions to the Department must be 

filed electronically using ACCESS, as 

explained above, on the records of the 

PRC and Trinidad and Tobago less-thanfair-value investigations. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

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 

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, or 

those producers whose collective output 

of a domestic like product constitutes a 

major proportion of the total domestic 

production of the product. Thus, to 

determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product,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, Petitioner does not offer a 

definition of the domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we determined that melamine 

constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product.14

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, we considered the industry 

support data contained in the Petitions 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigations,’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. To establish industry support, 

Petitioner provided its own production 

of the domestic like product in 2013.15

Petitioner states that it is the only 

producer of melamine in the United 

States; therefore, the Petitions are 

supported by 100 percent of the U.S. 

industry.16

Based on the data provided in the 

Petitions, supplemental submissions, 

and other information readily available 

to the Department, we determine that 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 73039 

17See PRC AD Checklist and Trinidad and 

Tobago AD Checklist, at Attachment II. 

18See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

PRC AD Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago AD 

Checklist, at Attachment II. 

19See PRC AD Checklist and Trinidad and 

Tobago AD Checklist, at Attachment II. 

20 Id. 

21 Id. 

22See Volume I of the Petitions, at 11–12 and 

Exhibit I–11. 

23 Id., at 12–16 and Exhibits I–13 through I–20; 

see also Third General Issues Supplement, at 2–5 

and Exhibits 1–4. 

24See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Trinidad 

and Tobago AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 

III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Melamine 

from the People’s Republic of China and Trinidad 

and Tobago (‘‘Attachment III’’). 

25 Id. 

26See Volume II of the Petition, at 5 and Exhibits 

II–2—II–5; see also PRC AD Supplement, at 1 and 

Exhibit II–S1. 

27See Volume II of the Petition, at 2. 

28 Id., at 3. 

29 Id. 

30 Id., at 4. 

Petitioner has established industry 

support.17 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).18 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) 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 Petitions 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.19 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) 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 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.20 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the 

Petitions were filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

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

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the AD 

investigations that it is requesting the 

Department initiate.21

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 individual and cumulated 

imports of the subject merchandise sold 

at less than fair value. In addition, 

Petitioner alleges that subject imports 

exceed the negligibility threshold 

provided for under section 771(24)(A) of 

the Act.22

Petitioner contends that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, underselling and 

price depression or suppression, lost 

sales and revenues, and adversely 

impacted production, shipments, 

capacity utilization, financial 

performance, and capital 

expenditures.23 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.24 In 

accordance with section 771(7)(G)(ii)(III) 

of the Act, which provides an exception 

to the mandatory cumulation provision 

for imports from any country designated 

as a beneficiary country under the 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 

(‘‘CBERA’’), we considered Petitioner’s 

allegation of injury with respect to 

Trinidad and Tobago, a designated 

beneficiary under CBERA, 

independently of the allegation for the 

PRC and found that the information 

provided satisfies the requirements for 

initiation.25

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate investigations of 

imports of melamine from the PRC and 

Trinidad and Tobago. The sources of 

data for the deductions and adjustments 

relating to U.S. price and normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) are discussed in greater detail in 

the country-specific initiation 

checklists. 

People’s Republic of China 

Export Price 

For the PRC, Petitioner based export 

price (‘‘EP’’) on the POI average unit 

value (‘‘AUV’’) of melamine imports 

from the PRC under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 2933.61.0000 

(which is specific to subject 

merchandise), calculated using U.S. 

import statistics obtained from the ITC’s 

Dataweb. Petitioner also calculated EP 

based on a producer-specific price for 

Zhongyuan Dahua Group Company Ltd 

(‘‘ZDG’’) for one individual shipment of 

melamine during the POI. Petitioner 

obtained ship manifest data from the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s 

(‘‘CBP’’) Automated Manifest System, 

via Datamyne, and directly linked 

monthly U.S. port-specific import 

statistics (obtained via Datamyne) for 

imports of melamine entered under 

HTSUS subheading 2933.61.0000 to a 

shipment by ZDG identified in the ship 

manifest data. Because the AUV and 

producer-specific price were based on 

FOB China port terms, Petitioner 

adjusted EP to deduct foreign inland 

freight and brokerage and handling at 

the port of exportation.26

Normal Value 

Petitioner states that the Department 

has a long-standing policy of treating 

the PRC as a non-market economy 

(‘‘NME’’) country for AD purposes.27

The Department has not revoked the 

presumption of NME status for the PRC 

as of the date of these Petitions and 

therefore, in accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, remains in 

effect for purposes of the initiation of 

these investigations. Hence, an NME 

methodology is appropriate for valuing 

production performed in the PRC. 

Accordingly, the NV of the product is 

appropriately based on the factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’) used in the 

manufacture of melamine and valued in 

a surrogate market economy country 

selected as a surrogate, in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Act. 

Petitioner contends that Indonesia is 

the appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because: it is at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

PRC, and is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise.28

Furthermore, Petitioner states that 

integrated producers of melamine and 

comparable merchandise, i.e., 

nitrogenous fertilizers such as urea, 

utilize the same equipment and 

production processes. Moreover, 

Petitioner states that Indonesian data for 

valuing the FOPs for melamine are 

available and reliable.29 Petitioner states 

that the data includes a publicly 

available financial statement for PT 

Pupuk Kujang (‘‘Kujang’’), an integrated 

producer of nitrogenous fertilizers in 

Indonesia.30 Based on the information 

provided by Petitioner, we believe that 

it is appropriate to use Indonesia as a 

surrogate country for initiation 

purposes. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
73040 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 

31 Id., at 6. 

32 Id. 

33 Id., at 6–7; see also PRC AD Supplement, at 2 

and Exhibit II–S5. 

34See Volume II of the Petition at 6–7 and Exhibit 

II–5. 

35 Id., at 7 and Exhibit II–8. 

36 Id. at 7 and Exhibit II–11; see also PRC AD 

Supplement at 5, item 9, and Exhibit II–S8. 

37 Id. at 7–8 and Exhibit II–9 

38 Id. at 8 and Exhibit II–9; see also PRC AD 

Supplement at 4 and Exhibit II–S6. 

39 Id. at 3–4. 

40 Id. at 8–9 and Exhibit II–9; see also PRC AD 

Supplement at 5 and Exhibit II–S7. 

41 Id. at 7–8 and Exhibits II–8 and II–11. 

42 Id. at Exhibit II–10. 

43 Id. at 9 and Exhibit II–10. 

44See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit III– 

27. 

45 Id., at Exhibit III–31. See Trinidad and Tobago 

AD Checklist for further information on this U.S. 

price calculation. 

46 Id. at 3–4 and Exhibit III–1 at 51. 

47 Id., at 4–6 and Exhibits III–9 through III–17. 

48 Id. 

49See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 at 833 (1994). 

50 Id. 

After initiation of the investigation, 

interested parties will have the 

opportunity to submit comments 

regarding surrogate country selection 

and, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an 

opportunity to submit publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production no later than 30 days before 

the date of the preliminary 

determination. In addition, in the course 

of the investigation covering 

merchandise from the PRC, all parties, 

including the public, will have the 

opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issues of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

Valuation of FOP Inputs 

Because Petitioner does not have 

access to actual FOPs for any PRC 

manufacturers, Petitioner based 

consumption rates of FOPs, including 

direct materials, labor, energy, and 

packing, for the production of 

merchandise under consideration on its 

own experience.31 Petitioner states that 

its experience is likely to be 

representative of the experience of 

integrated PRC producers. Petitioner 

valued the FOPs using surrogate value 

information from Indonesia. Petitioner 

based factory overhead, selling, general 

and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, 

and profit on the financial results of a 

surrogate producer of nitrogen based 

fertilizers in Indonesia.32

Valuation of Raw Materials 

Petitioner valued the direct material 

FOPs to produce the merchandise under 

consideration using publicly available 

Indonesian import data obtained from 

Global Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’) in U.S. 

dollars for the period March 2014 

through August 2014.33 Petitioner 

excluded all import values from all 

countries previously determined by the 

Department to maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies, from countries previously 

determined by the Department to be 

NME countries, and unspecified 

countries.34

Valuation of Direct and Indirect Labor 

Petitioner calculated the labor 

expense rate using 2010 data for 

Indonesia from the International Labor 

Organization under schedule 5B, 

Section 242: Manufacture of Other 

Chemical Products.35 Petitioner 

adjusted this rate for inflation using the 

consumer price index for Indonesia 

published by the International Monetary 

Fund and converted the rate to U.S. 

dollars using the POI average exchange 

rate.36

Valuation of Electricity, Natural Gas, 

Compressed Air, and Water 

Petitioner valued electricity using 

2011 data published by the Indonesian 

Ministry of Energy and Mineral 

Resources in the 2012 Handbook of 

Energy & Economic Statistics of 

Indonesia.37 Petitioner valued natural 

gas (and steam produced from natural 

gas) using GTA weight-based import 

data for propane natural gas as a proxy 

for natural gas converted to a BTU 

equivalent value.38 Petitioner valued 

compressed air based on its own cost for 

compressed air adjusted for differences 

in Indonesian costs.39 Petitioner valued 

water using a 2006 study by the United 

Nations Development Program 

‘‘Disconnected: Poverty Water Supply 

and Development in Jakarta 

Indonesia.’’ 40 Petitioner adjusted these 

values for inflation using the wholesale 

price index for Indonesia published by 

the Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development 

(‘‘OECD’’) and converted these values to 

U.S. dollars using the POI average 

exchange rate.41

Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, 

General and Administrative Expenses, 

and Profit 

Petitioner calculated surrogate 

financial ratios (i.e., factory overhead 

expenses, selling, general, and 

administrative expenses, and profit) 

based on the 2013 financial statements 

of Kujang, an Indonesian producer of 

nitrogenous-based fertilizers.42

Petitioner contends that Kujang, like 

ZDG and Petitioner, is a vertically 

integrated producer that produces urea 

from ammonia and, therefore, is an 

appropriate surrogate.43

Trinidad and Tobago 

Export Price 

For Trinidad and Tobago, Petitioner 

based U.S. price on pricing data for 

Trinidadian melamine received from a 

U.S. customer.44 Petitioner made 

deductions for movement and other 

expenses consistent with the sales and 

delivery terms of the price quotes (e.g., 

U.S. and Trinidadian inland freight and 

brokerage and handling and ocean 

freight and insurance).45

Normal Value 

For Trinidad and Tobago, the 

Petitioner alleged that the home market 

was not viable.46 In addition, Petitioner 

alleged that sales of melamine in 

Trinidad’s largest third-country export 

market were made at prices 

substantially below the fully-loaded cost 

of production (‘‘COP’’). Accordingly, 

Petitioner based NV on the constructed 

value (‘‘CV’’) of the imported 

merchandise.47

Sales-Below-Cost Allegation 

For Trinidad and Tobago, Petitioner 

provided information demonstrating 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales of melamine in the Italian 

market were made at prices below the 

COP, within the meaning of section 

773(b) of the Act, and requested that the 

Department conduct a country-wide 

sales-below-cost investigation.48 The 

Statement of Administrative Action 

(‘‘SAA’’), submitted to the Congress in 

connection with the interpretation and 

application of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, states that an allegation 

of sales below COP need not be specific 

to individual exporters or producers.49

The SAA states that ‘‘Commerce will 

consider allegations of below-cost sales 

in the aggregate for a foreign country, 

just as Commerce currently considers 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

on a country-wide basis for purposes of 

initiating an antidumping 

investigation.’’ 50

Further, the SAA provides that 

section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act retains 

the requirement that the Department 

have ‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect’’ that below-cost sales have 

occurred before initiating such an 

investigation. Reasonable grounds exist 

when an interested party provides 

specific factual information on costs and 

prices, observed or constructed, 

indicating that sales in the foreign 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 73041 

51 Id. 

52See Trinidad and Tobago AD Checklist. 

53Because contemporaneous import data was not 

available for Trinidad and Tobago, Petitioner 

valued raw material inputs based on the average 

export values into Trinidad and Tobago for the year 

2013, obtained from the GTA. See Trinidad and 

Tobago AD Checklist at 10. 

54 Id.; see also Volume III of the Petition, at 7 and 

Exhibit III–21 through III–26. 

55 Id. 

56See Trinidad and Tobago AD Checklist and 

Volume III of the Petition, at 4. 

57 Id., at 4, at 5–6 and Exhibits III–11 through III– 

17; see also Trinidad and Tobago AD Supplement, 

at 1–2 and Exhibits III–S1 through III–S5. 

58See Trinidad and Tobago AD Supplement, at 3– 

4 and Exhibit III–S7 at 5 and Exhibit III–S9. 

59See Trinidad and Tobago AD Initiation 

Checklist. 

60 Id. 

61 Id. 

62See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 

63See Trinidad and Tobago AD Initiation 

Checklist. 

64See Volume III of the Petition at 1 and Exhibit 

III–1. 

65See Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I–5. 

66 Id. 

market in question are at below-cost 

prices.51

Cost of Production 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the 

Act, COP consists of the cost of 

manufacturing (‘‘COM’’); SG&A 

expenses; financial expenses; and 

packing expenses. Petitioner calculated 

COM based on the Petitioner’s 

experience adjusted for known 

differences between the U.S. and the 

industries of the respective country 

during the proposed POI.52 Using 

average export values into Trinidad and 

Tobago for the year 2013 (as obtained 

from the GTA),53 International Labor 

Organization wage data, and electricity, 

steam, and natural gas data (either 

obtained from or adjusted by price data 

reported by the Trinidadian and 

Tobagonian Government and Central 

Bank), Petitioner multiplied its own 

usage quantities by these publiclyavailable input values to account for 

price differences in the manufacture of 

melamine.54

Petitioner, at the request of the 

Department, relied on the 2013 financial 

statements of a producer of comparable 

merchandise (i.e., methanol) to 

determine the SG&A and profit ratios, 

which is consistent with the 

Department’s practice. Petitioner 

calculated the overhead ratio based on 

its own production experience.55

Petitioner contends that that a thirdcountry market (i.e., Italy) is a viable 

comparison market for determining 

normal value and provided a price 

quote for melamine produced in 

Trinidad and Tobago and sold in this 

third-country market.56 In order to 

calculate an ‘‘ex-factory’’ third-country 

net price, Petitioner made an adjustment 

for foreign inland freight costs, foreign 

brokerage and handling costs, and ocean 

freight costs.57

Based upon a comparison of the net 

price of the foreign like product in the 

third-country market to the COP of the 

product, we find reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that sales of the 

foreign like product in the comparison 

market were made below the COP, 

within the meaning of section 

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act.58

Accordingly, the Department is 

initiating a country-wide cost 

investigation relating to sales of 

melamine sold in Trinidad and Tobago’s 

third-country market, Italy. 

Normal Value Based on Constructed 

Value 

Because Trinidad and Tobago does 

not have a viable home market and 

certain third-country prices fell below 

COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 

773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioner 

based NV on CV.59 Petitioner calculated 

CV using the same average COM, SG&A, 

overhead, and financial expenses used 

to compute COP, as discussed above. 

That is, Petitioner constructed CV based 

on its own consumption rates during the 

proposed POI and generally valued 

inputs using recent trade data for all 

countries exporting to Trinidad and 

Tobago, along with other Trinidadian 

pricing information, as appropriate.60

Petitioner, at the request of the 

Department, relied on the 2013 financial 

statements of a producer of comparable 

merchandise (i.e., methanol) to 

determine the SG&A and profit ratios. 

Petitioner calculated the overhead ratio 

based on its own production 

experience.61

Fair Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioner, there is reason to believe that 

imports of melamine from the PRC and 

Trinidad and Tobago 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 section 773(a) of the 

Act, the estimated AD margins for PRC 

range from 255.44 to 336.31 percent.62

Based on comparisons of export price to 

CV, the estimated AD margin for 

Trinidad and Tobago range from 166.9 

to 189.1 percent.63

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigations 

Based upon the examination of the 

AD Petitions on melamine from PRC 

and Trinidad and Tobago, we find that 

the Petitions meet the requirements of 

section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 

initiating AD investigations to 

determine whether imports of melamine 

from the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago 

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 determinations no later 

than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Respondent Selection 

Although the Department normally 

relies on import data from CBP to select 

a limited number of producers/exporters 

for individual examination in AD 

investigations, if appropriate, these 

Petitions name only one company as a 

producer/exporter of melamine in 

Trinidad and Tobago: Methanol 

Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd., and Petitioner 

provided information from an 

independent third party source as 

support.64 Furthermore, we currently 

know of no additional producers/

exporters of subject merchandise from 

Trinidad and Tobago. Accordingly, the 

Department intends to examine all 

known producers/exporters in this 

investigation (i.e., the company cited 

above). We invite interested parties to 

comment on this issue. Parties wishing 

to comment must do so within five days 

of the publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. Comments must be 

filed electronically using ACCESS. An 

electronically-filed document must be 

received successfully in its entirety by 

the Department’s electronic records 

system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. EST by the 

date noted above. 

With respect to the PRC, Petitioner 

identified 54 potential respondents.65 In 

accordance with our standard practice 

for respondent selection in AD 

investigations involving NME countries, 

we intend to issue quantity and value 

questionnaires to each potential 

respondent named in the Petition,66 and 

will base respondent selection on the 

responses received. In addition, the 

Department will post the quantity and 

value questionnaire along with the filing 

instructions on the Enforcement and 

Compliance Web site (http://trade.gov/

enforcement/news.asp). Exporters and 

producers of melamine from the PRC 

that do not receive quantity and value 

questionnaires via mail may still submit 

a quantity and value response, and can 

obtain a copy from the Enforcement and 

Compliance Web site. The quantity and 

value questionnaire response must be 

submitted by all PRC exporters/


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
73042 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 

67See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (‘‘Separate Rates 

and Combination Rates Bulletin’’), available on the 

Department’s Web site at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/policy/. 

68See Separate Rates and Combination Rates 

Bulletin, at 6 (emphasis added). 

69See section 733(a) of the Act. 

70 Id. 

71See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 

57790 (September 20, 2013). 

producers no later than 5:00 p.m. EST 

on December 17, 2014. All quantity and 

value questionnaire responses must be 

filed electronically using ACCESS. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate rate status 

in an NME AD investigation, exporters 

and producers must submit a separate 

rate application.67 The specific 

requirements for submitting the separate 

rate application in the PRC investigation 

are outlined in detail in the application 

itself, which will be available on the 

Department’s Web site at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-seprate.html on the date of publication of 

this initiation notice in the Federal 

Register. The separate rate application 

will be due 60 days after the publication 

of this initiation notice no later than 

5:00 p.m. EST. For exporters and 

producers who submit a separate rate 

status application and have been 

selected as mandatory respondents, 

these exporters and producers will no 

longer be eligible for consideration for 

separate rate status unless they respond 

to all parts of the Department’s AD 

questionnaire as mandatory 

respondents. The Department requires 

that the PRC respondents submit a 

response to both the quantity-and-value 

questionnaire and the separate rate 

application by their respective 

deadlines referenced above in order to 

receive consideration for separate rate 

status. 

Use of Combination Rates 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in an NME investigation. 

The Separate Rates and Combination 

Rates Bulletin states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its NME investigations will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. 

Note, however, that one rate is calculated for 

the exporter and all of the producers which 

supplied subject merchandise to it during the 

period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination 

rates’’ because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation.68

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), copies of the public version 

of the Petitions have been provided to 

the governments of the PRC and 

Trinidad and Tobago via ACCESS. To 

the extent practicable, we will attempt 

to provide a copy of the public version 

of the Petitions to each exporter named 

in the Petitions, as provided under 19 

CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 45 days after the date on which 

the Petitions were filed, whether there 

is a reasonable indication that imports 

of melamine from the PRC and Trinidad 

and Tobago are materially injuring or 

threatening material injury to a U.S. 

industry.69 A negative ITC 

determination for any country will 

result in the investigation being 

terminated with respect to that 

country; 70 otherwise, these 

investigations will proceed according to 

statutory and regulatory time limits. 

Submission of Factual Information 

On April 10, 2013, the Department 

published Definition of Factual 

Information and Time Limits for 

Submission of Factual Information: 

Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 

2013), which modified two regulations 

related to AD and CVD proceedings: the 

definition of factual information (19 

CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits 

for the submission of factual 

information (19 CFR 351.301). The final 

rule identifies five categories of factual 

information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), 

which are summarized as follows: (i) 

Evidence submitted in response to 

questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted 

in support of allegations; (iii) publicly 

available information to value factors 

under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure 

the adequacy of remuneration under 19 

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

on the record by the Department; and (v) 

evidence other than factual information 

described in (i)–(iv). The final rule 

requires any party, when submitting 

factual information, to specify under 

which subsection of 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(21) the information is being 

submitted and, if the information is 

submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 

factual information already on the 

record, to provide an explanation 

identifying the information already on 

the record that the factual information 

seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The 

final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 

so that, rather than providing general 

time limits, there are specific time limits 

based on the type of factual information 

being submitted. These modifications 

are effective for all proceeding segments 

initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and 

thus are applicable to these 

investigations. Interested parties should 

review the final rule, available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/

1304frn/2013-08227.txt prior to 

submitting factual information in these 

investigations. 

Revised Extension of Time Limits 

Regulation 

On September 20, 2013, the 

Department modified its regulation 

concerning the extension of time limits 

for submissions in AD and CVD 

proceedings.71 The modification 

clarifies that parties may request an 

extension of time limits before a time 

limit established under 19 CFR 351 

expires, or as otherwise specified by the 

Secretary. In general, an extension 

request will be considered untimely if it 

is filed after the time limit established 

under Part 351 expires. For submissions 

which are due from multiple parties 

simultaneously, an extension request 

will be considered untimely if it is filed 

after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. 

Examples include but are not limited to: 

(1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual 

information to value factors under 19 

CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the 

adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 

351.511(a)(2) filed pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification 

and correction information filed 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) 

comments concerning the selection of a 

surrogate country and surrogate values 

and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning 

CBP data; and (5) quantity and value 

questionnaires. Under certain 

circumstances, the Department may 

elect to specify a different time limit by 

which extension requests will be 

considered untimely for submissions 

which are due from multiple parties 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 73043 

72See section 782(b) of the Act. 

73See 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. 

1Melamine is also known as 2,4,6-triamino-striazine; l,3,5-Triazine-2,4,6-triamine; 

Cyanurotriamide; Cyanurotriamine; Cyanuramide; 

and by various brand names. 

simultaneously. In such a case, the 

Department will inform parties in the 

letter or memorandum setting forth the 

deadline (including a specified time) by 

which extension requests must be filed 

to be considered timely. This 

modification also requires that an 

extension request must be made in a 

separate, stand-alone submission, and 

clarifies the circumstances under which 

the Department will grant untimelyfiled requests for the extension of time 

limits. These modifications are effective 

for all segments initiated on or after 

October 21, 2013, and thus are 

applicable to these investigations. 

Interested parties should review 

Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 

available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013– 

22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 

information in these investigations. 

Certification Requirements 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD or CVD 

proceeding must certify to the accuracy 

and completeness of that information.72

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.73 The 

Department intends to reject factual 

submissions if the submitting party does 

not comply with the applicable revised 

certification requirements. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 

January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 

22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate 

in these investigations 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 and 

19 CFR 351.203(c). 

Dated: December 2, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix I—Scope of the 

Investigations 

The merchandise subject to these 

investigations is melamine (Chemical 

Abstracts Service (‘‘CAS’’) registry number 

108–78–01, molecular formula C3H6N6).1

Melamine is a crystalline powder or granule 

typically (but not exclusively) used to 

manufacture melamine formaldehyde resins. 

All melamine is covered by the scope of 

these investigations irrespective of purity, 

particle size, or physical form. Melamine that 

has been blended with other products is 

included within this scope when such blends 

include constituent parts that have been 

intermingled, but that have not been 

chemically reacted with each other to 

produce a different product. For such blends, 

only the melamine component of the mixture 

is covered by the scope of these 

investigations. Melamine that is otherwise 

subject to these investigations is not 

excluded when commingled with melamine 

from sources not subject to these 

investigations. Only the subject component 

of such commingled products is covered by 

the scope of these investigations. 

The subject merchandise is provided for in 

subheading 2933.61.0000 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheading and CAS registry number are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28840 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Mariner Opinions 

of the Right Whale Mandatory Ship 

Reporting System 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before February 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 

14th and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at JJessup@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Kristy Wallmo, 301–427– 

8190 or Kristy.Wallmo@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

This request is for a new information 

collection. 

The North Atlantic right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis) is an endangered 

marine mammal found primarily in 

waters off the northeastern coast of the 

United States to Canada. Fatal collisions 

with large ships are the primary threat 

to the recovery of this species. In 1998 

the United States proposed to the 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) the establishment of two 

Mandatory Ship Reporting (MSR) 

systems in key right whale habitat areas. 

Under the proposed MSR all vessels 300 

gross tons or greater are required to send 

a message to a shore-based station when 

entering either of two prescribed habitat 

areas. The IMO endorsed the proposal 

and the MSR systems were established 

in July 1999. Each reporting ship is 

required to provide vessel name, call 

sign, course, speed, location, 

destination, and route (e.g., waypoints). 

An automatically-generated message is 

sent directly to the reporting vessel that 

includes information on right whale 

locations and procedural guidance to 

help prevent vessel/whale collisions; 

mariners are also informed about 

additional regulations established to 

protect whales from vessel strikes. The 

two-way exchange is mediated by 

satellite-linked communications 

systems. 

Although the program has been in 

effect for over 15 years, the U.S. 

Government has not assessed the role, if 

any, that the MSR has in reducing ship 

collisions with right whales. In 

addition, mariners have not been polled 

to assess possible difficulties involved 

in the reporting itself. The goal of this 

information collection is to determine if 

(a) the reporting procedures are 

adequately clear to the mariner; (b) the 

reporting itself is onerous or unwieldy 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES