73030 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 

3On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and 

Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and 

Compliance’s AD and CVD Centralized Electronic 

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

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

The Web site location was changed from http://

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

Final Rule changing the references to the 

Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 

(November 20, 2014). 

1See Petitioner’s submission entitled ‘‘Petitions 

For The Imposition Of Antidumping And 

Countervailing Duties Against Melamine From 

China And Trinidad And Tobago,’’ dated November 

12, 2014 (‘‘Petitions’’). 

2See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2. 

3See Letter from the Department to Petitioner 

entitled ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of Melamine from 

Trinidad and Tobago: Supplement Question,’’ dated 

November 14, 2014; Letter from the Department to 

Petitioner entitled ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports 

of Melamine from the People’s Republic of China 

and Trinidad and Tobago: Supplemental 

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

Issues Supplemental Questionnaire’’); Letter from 

the Department to Petitioner entitled ‘‘Petitions for 

the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties on Imports of Melamine from the People’s 

Republic of China and Trinidad and Tobago: 

Supplemental Questions,’’ dated November 19, 

2014 (‘‘Second General Issues Supplemental 

Questionnaire’’). 

proceeding. Because the Department 

received no response from the 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

review of this CVD order, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(l)(ii)(B)(2) and (C)(2). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is certain kitchen appliance shelving 

and racks from the People’s Republic of 

China. The product is currently 

classified under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

numbers 7321.90.5000, 7321.90.6040, 

7321.90.6090, 8418.99.8050, 

8418.99.8060, 8419.90.9520, 

8516.90.8000, and 8516.90.8010. 

Although the HTSUS numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written product 

description remains dispositive. 

For a full description of the scope, see 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty 

Order on Certain Kitchen Appliance 

Shelving and Racks from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ from Gary 

Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul 

Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, dated 

concurrently with this final notice 

(Issues and Decision Memorandum), 

and hereby adopted by this notice. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. The issues discussed in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum 

include the likelihood of continuation 

or recurrence of a countervailable 

subsidy and the net countervailable 

subsidy likely to prevail if the CVD 

Order were revoked. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this expedited sunset review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum which is on file 

electronically via the Enforcement and 

Compliance Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS).3

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at http://access.trade.gov and in the 

Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the 

main Department of Commerce 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Internet at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. 

The signed Issues and Decision 

Memorandum and the electronic 

versions of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) 

of the Act, we determine that revocation 

of the CVD Order on kitchen racks from 

the PRC would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of a net 

countervailable subsidy at the rates 

listed below: 

Producer/exporter Subsidy rate 

(percent) 

Guangdong Wire King Co., 

Ltd. (formerly known as 

Foshan Shunde Wireking 

Housewares & Hardware) 19.13 

Asber Enterprises Co., Ltd. 

(China) .............................. 175.03 

Changzhou Yixiong Metal 

Products Co., Ltd .............. 154.12 

Foshan Winleader Metal 

Products Co., Ltd .............. 154.12143 

Kingsun Enterprises Group 

Co, Ltd .............................. 154.12 

Yuyao Hanjun Metal Work 

Co./Yuyao Hanjun Metal 

Products Co., Ltd .............. 154.12 

Zhongshan Iwatani Co., Ltd. 154.12 

All Others .............................. 17.51 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of return/

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 1, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28831 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–021, C–274–807] 

Melamine From the People’s Republic 

of China and Trinidad and Tobago: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigations 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 9, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Medley at (202) 482–4987 or 

Eve Wang at (202) 482–6231 (People’s 

Republic of China); Brendan Quinn at 

(202) 482–5848 or Raquel Silva at (202) 

482–6475 (Republic of Trinidad and 

Tobago), Office III, AD/CVD Operations, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On November 12, 2014, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received countervailing 

duty (‘‘CVD’’) petitions concerning 

imports of melamine from the People’s 

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

and Tobago (‘‘Trinidad and Tobago’’) 

filed in proper form on behalf of 

Cornerstone Chemical Company 

(‘‘Petitioner’’). The CVD petitions were 

accompanied by two antidumping duty 

(‘‘AD’’) petitions.1 Petitioner is a 

domestic producer of melamine.2

On November 14, and November 19, 

2014, the Department requested 

information and clarification for certain 

areas of the Petitions.3 Petitioner filed 

responses to these requests on 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 73031 

4See Letter from Petitioner entitled ‘‘Melamine 

From Trinidad and Tobago/Petitioner’s Response 

To The Department’s Questions Regarding The 

Petition,’’ dated November 18, 2014; Letter from 

Petitioner entitled ‘‘Melamine from China and 

Trinidad and Tobago/Petitioner’s Response to the 

Department’s Questions Regarding the Petition,’’ 

dated November 18, 2014 (‘‘General Issues 

Supplement’’); Letter from Petitioner entitled 

‘‘Melamine From China And Trinidad and Tobago/ 

Petitioner’s Response To The Department’s Second 

General Questionnaire,’’ dated November 20, 2014 

(‘‘Second General Issues Supplement’’); Letter from 

Petitioner entitled ‘‘Supplement to Petitions For 

The Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties Melamine from China and Trinidad and 

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

Issues Supplement’’). 

5See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions’’ section below. 

6 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

7See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire 

and Second General Issues Supplemental 

Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement, 

Second General Issues Supplement, and Third 

General Issues Supplement. 

8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; 

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

9According to the Department practice, when a 

date falls on a weekend or a federal holiday, 

submissions become due the next business day; see 

Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next 

Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative 

Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act 

of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 

10On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and 

Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and 

Compliance’s AD and CVD Centralized Electronic 

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

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

The Web site location was changed from http://

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

Final Rule changing the reference to the Regulations 

can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014). 

11See Letters of invitation from the Department 

to the GOC and the GOT, both dated November 17, 

2014. 

12See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Consultations 

with Officials from the Government of the People’s 

Republic of China Regarding the Countervailing 

Duty Petition Concerning Melamine,’’ dated 

November 26, 2014. 

13See supra fn.10 for information pertaining to 

ACCESS. 

November 18, November 20, and 

November 24, 2014.4

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

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

Government of the PRC (‘‘GOC’’) and 

the Government of Trinidad and Tobago 

(‘‘GOTT’’) are providing countervailable 

subsidies (within the meaning of 

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

imports of melamine from the PRC and 

the Trinidad and Tobago, respectively, 

and that such imports are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to, an industry in the United States. 

Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Act, the Petitions are 

accompanied by information reasonably 

available to Petitioner supporting its 

allegations. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioner is 

an interested party as defined in section 

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

also finds that Petitioner demonstrated 

sufficient industry support with respect 

to the initiation of the CVD 

investigations that Petitioner is 

requesting.5

Period of Investigations 

The period of the investigation for 

both the PRC and Trinidad and Tobago 

is January 1, 2013, through December 

31, 2013.6

Scope of the Investigations 

The product covered by these 

investigations is melamine from the PRC 

and Trinidad and Tobago. For a full 

description of the scope of these 

investigations, see the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigations’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of the 

Investigations 

During our review of the Petitions, the 

Department issued questions to, and 

received responses from, Petitioner 

pertaining to the proposed scope to 

ensure that the scope language in the 

Petitions would be an accurate 

reflection of the products for which the 

domestic industry is seeking relief.7

As discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations,8 we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage (scope). The period for scope 

comments is intended to provide the 

Department with ample opportunity to 

consider all comments and to consult 

with parties prior to the issuance of the 

preliminary determination. If scope 

comments include factual information 

(see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such 

factual information should be limited to 

public information. All such comments 

must be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time (‘‘EST’’) on December 

22, 2014, which is 20 calendar days 

from the signature date of this notice. 

Any rebuttal comments, which may 

include factual information, must be 

filed by 5:00 p.m. EST on January 2, 

2015, which is 10 calendar days after 

the initial comments deadline.9

The Department requests that any 

factual information the parties consider 

relevant to the scope of the 

investigations be submitted during this 

time period. However, if a party 

subsequently finds that additional 

factual information pertaining to the 

scope of the investigations may be 

relevant, the party may contact the 

Department and request permission to 

submit the additional information. All 

such comments must be filed on the 

records of the PRC and Trinidad and 

Tobago AD and CVD investigations. 

Filing Requirements 

All submissions to the Department 

must be filed electronically using 

Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System 

(‘‘ACCESS’’).10 An electronically-filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the time and date it is 

due. Documents excepted from the 

electronic submission requirements 

must be filed manually (i.e., in paper 

form) with Enforcement and 

Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room 

1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230, and 

stamped with the date and time of 

receipt by the applicable deadlines. 

Consultations 

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

the Act, the Department notified 

representatives of the GOC and the 

GOTT of the receipt of the Petitions. 

Also, in accordance with section 

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

Department provided representatives of 

the GOC and the GOTT the opportunity 

for consultations with respect to the 

Petitions.11 Consultations were held 

with the GOC on November 25, 2014.12

All memoranda are on file electronically 

via ACCESS.13

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

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

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

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

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

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

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

‘‘industry.’’ 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
73032 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 

14See section 771(10) of the Act. 

15See 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)). 

16For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Melamine from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC CVD 

Initiation Checklist’’), at Attachment II, Analysis of 

Industry Support for the Petitions Covering 

Melamine from the People’s Republic of China and 

Trinidad and Tobago (‘‘Attachment II’’); and 

Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Melamine from Trinidad and Tobago 

(‘‘Trinidad and Tobago CVD Initiation Checklist’’), 

at Attachment II. These checklists are dated 

concurrently with this notice and on file 

electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents 

filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central 

Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department 

of Commerce building. 

17See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2 and Exhibit 

I–18. 

18 Id., at 2. 

19See PRC CVD Checklist and Trinidad and 

Tobago CVD Checklist, at Attachment II. 

20See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

PRC CVD Checklist and Trinidad and Tobago CVD 

Checklist, at Attachment II. 

21See PRC CVD Checklist and Trinidad and 

Tobago CVD Checklist, at Attachment II. 

22 Id. 

23 Id. 

24See Volume I of the Petitions, at 11–12 and 

Exhibit I–11. 

25See section 771(36)(A) of the Act; see also 

Developing and Least-Developed Country 

Designations under the Countervailing Duty Law, 63 

FR 29945–29948 (June 2, 1998). 

26See Volume I of the Petitions, at 11–12 and 

Exhibit I–11. 

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

see also Third General Issues Supplement, at 2–5 

and Exhibits 1–4. 

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

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product, or 

those producers whose collective output 

of a domestic like product constitutes a 

major proportion of the total domestic 

production of the product. Thus, to 

determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product,14 they do so 

for different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law.15

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the Petitions). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioner does not offer a 

definition of the domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we determined that melamine 

constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product.16

In determining whether Petitioner has 

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

the Act, we considered the industry 

support data contained in the Petitions 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigations,’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. To establish industry support, 

Petitioner provided its own production 

of the domestic like product in 2013.17

Petitioner states that it is the only 

producer of melamine in the United 

States; therefore, the Petitions are 

supported by 100 percent of the U.S. 

industry.18

Based on the data provided in the 

Petitions, supplemental submissions, 

and other information readily available 

to the Department, we determine that 

Petitioner has established industry 

support.19 First, the Petitions 

established support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product 

and, as such, the Department is not 

required to take further action in order 

to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling).20 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) met the statutory 

criteria for industry support under 

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

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petitions 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.21 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) met the statutory 

criteria for industry support under 

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

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petitions 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petitions.22 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the 

Petitions were filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

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

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

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

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigations that it is requesting the 

Department initiate.23

Injury Test 

Because the PRC and Trinidad and 

Tobago are ‘‘Subsidies Agreement 

Countries’’ within the meaning of 

section 701(b) of the Act, section 

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

investigations. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC and 

Trinidad and Tobago materially injure, 

or threaten material injury to, a U.S. 

industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleges that imports of the 

subject merchandise are benefitting 

from countervailable subsidies and that 

such imports, individually and 

cumulatively, are causing, or threaten to 

cause, material injury to the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product. 

With regard to the PRC, Petitioner 

alleges that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

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

CVD petitions, section 771(24)(A)–(B) of 

the Act provides that imports of subject 

merchandise from developing countries 

must exceed the negligibility threshold 

of four percent. Because Trinidad and 

Tobago has been designated as a 

developing country,25 imports from 

Trinidad and Tobago must exceed the 

negligibility threshold of four percent. 

With regard to Trinidad and Tobago, the 

allegedly subsidized imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided under 

section 771(24)(B) of the Act.26

Petitioner contends that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, underselling and 

price depression or suppression, lost 

sales and revenues, and adversely 

impacted production, shipments, 

capacity utilization, financial 

performance, and capital 

expenditures.27 We assessed the 

allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 73033 

28See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist and Trinidad 

and Tobago CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 

III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Melamine 

from the People’s Republic of China and Trinidad 

and Tobago (‘‘Attachment III’’). 

29See id. 

30Additionally, Petitioner alleged various grants 

received individually by four producers/exporters 

of melamine. The Department intends to investigate 

these grants to the extent that these specific 

companies are selected as mandatory respondents 

in this proceeding. 

31See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I–5. 

32See id. 

33See section 703(a) of the Act. 

34 Id. 

determined that these allegations are 

properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation.28 In 

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

of the Act, which provides an exception 

to the mandatory cumulation provision 

for imports from any country designated 

as a beneficiary country under the 

Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 

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

allegation of injury with respect to 

Trinidad and Tobago, a designated 

beneficiary under CBERA, independent 

of the allegation for the PRC and found 

that the information provided satisfies 

the requirements for initiation.29

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigations 

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

the Department to initiate a CVD 

investigation whenever an interested 

party files a CVD petition on behalf of 

an industry that: (1) Alleges the 

elements necessary for an imposition of 

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

and (2) is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to the petitioner 

supporting the allegations. 

In the Petitions, Petitioner alleges that 

producers/exporters of melamine in the 

PRC and Trinidad and Tobago benefited 

from countervailable subsidies 

bestowed by the governments of these 

countries, respectively. The Department 

examined the Petitions and finds that 

they comply with the requirements of 

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

in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of 

the Act, we are initiating CVD 

investigations to determine whether 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of melamine from the PRC and Trinidad 

and Tobago receive countervailable 

subsidies from the governments of these 

countries, respectively. 

The PRC 

Based on our review of the petition, 

we find that there is sufficient 

information to initiate a CVD 

investigation of 21 of the alleged 

programs.30 For a full discussion of the 

basis for our decision to initiate or not 

initiate on each program, see the PRC 

CVD Initiation Checklist. 

Trinidad and Tobago 

Based on our review of the petition, 

we find that there is sufficient 

information to initiate a CVD 

investigation of 10 of the 10 alleged 

programs. For a full discussion of the 

basis for our decision to initiate or not 

initiate on each program, see the 

Trinidad and Tobago CVD Initiation 

Checklist. 

A public version of the initiation 

checklist for each investigation is 

available on ACCESS and at http://

trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. 

In accordance with section 703(b)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), 

unless postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determinations no later 

than 65 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Respondent Selection 

Petitioner named 54 companies as 

producers/exporters of melamine from 

the PRC and one company as a 

producer/exporter of melamine from 

Trinidad and Tobago.31 Following 

standard practice in CVD investigations, 

the Department will, where appropriate, 

select respondents based on U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

data for U.S. imports of melamine 

during the period of investigation under 

the following Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) number: 2933.61.0000. For 

the PRC, we intend to release CBP data 

under Administrative Protective Order 

(‘‘APO’’) to all parties with access to 

information protected by APO shortly 

after the announcement of these case 

initiations. For Trinidad and Tobago, 

Petitioner named only one company as 

a producer/exporter of melamine i.e., 

Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd., and 

provided information from an 

independent third party source as 

support.32 Furthermore, we currently 

know of no additional producers/

exporters of subject merchandise from 

Trinidad and Tobago. Accordingly, the 

Department intends to examine all 

known producers/exporters in this 

investigation (i.e., the company cited 

above). The Department invites 

comments regarding CBP data and 

respondent selection within five 

calendar days of publication of this 

Federal Register notice. Comments 

must be filed electronically using 

ACCESS. An electronically-filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the Department’s 

electronic records system, ACCESS, by 

5 p.m. EST by the date noted above. We 

intend to make our decision regarding 

respondent selection within 20 days of 

publication of this Federal Register 

notice. Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s Web 

site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions 

In accordance with section 

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

351.202(f), copies of the public version 

of the Petitions have been provided to 

the GOC and GOTT via ACCESS. To the 

extent practicable, we will attempt to 

provide a copy of the public version of 

the Petitions to each known exporter (as 

named in the Petitions), consistent with 

19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 45 days after the date on which 

the Petitions were filed, whether there 

is a reasonable indication that imports 

of melamine from the PRC and/or 

Trinidad and Tobago are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to, a U.S. industry.33 A negative ITC 

determination for either country will 

result in the investigation being 

terminated with respect to that 

country; 34 otherwise, these 

investigations will proceed according to 

statutory and regulatory time limits. 

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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
73034 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices 

35See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 

57790 (September 20, 2013). 

36See section 782(b) of the Act. 

37See 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. 

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

on the record by the Department; and (v) 

evidence other than factual information 

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

requires any party, when submitting 

factual information, to specify under 

which subsection of 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(21) the information is being 

submitted and, if the information is 

submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 

factual information already on the 

record, to provide an explanation 

identifying the information already on 

the record that the factual information 

seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The 

final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 

so that, rather than providing general 

time limits, there are specific time limits 

based on the type of factual information 

being submitted. These modifications 

are effective for all proceeding segments 

initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and 

thus are applicable to these 

investigations. Interested parties should 

review the final rule, available at 

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

1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to 

submitting factual information in these 

investigations. 

Revised Extension of Time Limits 

Regulation 

On September 20, 2013, the 

Department modified its regulation 

concerning the extension of time limits 

for submissions in AD and CVD 

proceedings.35 The modification 

clarifies that parties may request an 

extension of time limits before a time 

limit established under Part 351 expires, 

or as otherwise specified by the 

Secretary. In general, an extension 

request will be considered untimely if it 

is filed after the time limit established 

under Part 351 expires. For submissions 

which are due from multiple parties 

simultaneously, an extension request 

will be considered untimely if it is filed 

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

Examples include, but are not limited 

to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual 

information to value factors under 19 

CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the 

adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 

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

351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification 

and correction information filed 

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

comments concerning the selection of a 

surrogate country and surrogate values 

and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning 

CBP data; and (5) quantity and value 

questionnaires. Under certain 

circumstances, the Department may 

elect to specify a different time limit by 

which extension requests will be 

considered untimely for submissions 

which are due from multiple parties 

simultaneously. In such a case, the 

Department will inform parties in the 

letter or memorandum setting forth the 

deadline (including a specified time) by 

which extension requests must be filed 

to be considered timely. This 

modification also requires that an 

extension request must be made in a 

separate, stand-alone submission, and 

clarifies the circumstances under which 

the Department will grant 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.36

Parties are hereby reminded that revised 

certification requirements are in effect 

for company/government officials, as 

well as their representatives. 

Investigations initiated on the basis of 

petitions filed on or after August 16, 

2013, and other segments of any AD or 

CVD proceedings initiated on or after 

August 16, 2013, should use the formats 

for the revised certifications provided at 

the end of the Final Rule.37 The 

Department intends to reject factual 

submissions if the submitting party does 

not comply with the applicable revised 

certification requirements. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 

January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 

22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate 

in these investigations should ensure 

that they meet the requirements of these 

procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 

appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: December 2, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix I—Scope of the 

Investigations 

The merchandise subject to these 

investigations is melamine (Chemical 

Abstracts Service (‘‘CAS’’) registry number 

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

Melamine is a crystalline powder or granule 

typically (but not exclusively) used to 

manufacture melamine formaldehyde resins. 

All melamine is covered by the scope of 

these investigations irrespective of purity, 

particle size, or physical form. Melamine that 

has been blended with other products is 

included within this scope when such blends 

include constituent parts that have been 

intermingled, but that have not been 

chemically reacted with each other to 

produce a different product. For such blends, 

only the melamine component of the mixture 

is covered by the scope of these 

investigations. Melamine that is otherwise 

subject to these investigations is not 

excluded when commingled with melamine 

from sources not subject to these 

investigations. Only the subject component 

of such commingled products is covered by 

the scope of these investigations. 

The subject merchandise is provided for in 

subheading 2933.61.0000 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheading and CAS registry number are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28832 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–805] 

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 

Steel Pipe From Mexico; Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2012–2013 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES