Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices 49587 

1See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce re: 

‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the 

People’s Republic of China and India: Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Petitions,’’ dated 

September 28, 2017 (the Petitions). 

2See the Petitions at 2. 

3See Letter from the Department, ‘‘Petitions for 

the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties on Imports of Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

from India and the People’s Republic of China: 

Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 2, 2017 

(General Issues Questionnaire); see also Letter from 

the Department, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Imports of 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from the People’s 

Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated 

October 2, 2017 (PRC AD Supplemental 

Questionnaire); Letter from the Department, 

‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 

on Imports of Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from 

India: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated October 3, 

2017 (India AD Supplemental Questionnaire). 

4See Letter from the petitioner, 

‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the 

People’s Republic of China and India: Responses to 

Supplemental Questions Regarding the 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions’’ 

(October 4, 2017) (General Issues and AD 

Supplement); see also Letter from the petitioner, 

‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the 

People’s Republic of China and India: Additional 

Responses to Supplemental Questions Regarding 

the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Petitions’’ (October 5, 2017); Letter from the 

petitioner, ‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin 

from India: Exhibit III–12’’ (October 5, 2017). 

5See Letter from the petitioner, 

‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the 

People’s Republic of China and India: Amendment 

to the Suggested Scope of the Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Petitions’’ (October 13, 2017). 

See also Memorandum to the File, dated October 

11, 2017. 

6See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions’’ section, below. 

7See Letter from the petitioner, 

‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the 

People’s Republic of China and India: Amendment 

to the Suggested Scope of the Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Petitions’’ (October 13, 2017). 

See also Memorandum to the File, dated October 

11, 2017. 

8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 

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

9See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual 

information’’). 

10See 19 CFR 351.303(b). 

For further information, contact 

Elizabeth Whiteman at 

Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov or (202) 

482–0473. 

Dated: October 20, 2017. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23309 Filed 10–25–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–879, A–570–066] 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From 

India and the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Less-Than-FairValue Investigations 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Applicable October 18, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Kennedy at (202) 482–7883 

(India), and Catherine Cartsos (the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC)) at 

(202) 482–1757, AD/CVD Operations, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On September 28, 2017, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) received antidumping duty 

(AD) Petitions concerning imports of 

polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE 

resin) from India and the PRC, filed in 

proper form on behalf of The Chemours 

Company FC LLC (the petitioner).1 The 

AD Petitions were accompanied by a 

countervailing duty (CVD) Petition 

concerning imports of PTFE resin from 

India. The petitioner is a domestic 

producer of PTFE resin.2

On October 2, 2017, and October 3, 

2017, the Department requested 

supplemental information pertaining to 

certain areas of the Petitions.3 The 

petitioner filed responses to these 

requests on October 4, 2017, and 

October 5, 2017.4 In addition, the 

petitioner filed revised scope language 

on October 13, 2017.5

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), the petitioner alleges that imports 

of PTFE resin from India and the PRC 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, the domestic industry 

producing PTFE resin in the United 

States. Also, consistent with section 

732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are 

accompanied by information reasonably 

available to the petitioner supporting its 

allegations. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioner is an interested party as 

defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act 

and that the petitioner filed these 

Petitions on behalf of the domestic 

industry and demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

initiation of the AD investigations that 

the petitioner is requesting.6

Periods of Investigation 

Because the Petitions were filed on 

September 28, 2017, the period of 

investigation (POI) for India is July 1, 

2016, through June 30, 2017. Because 

the PRC is a non-market economy 

(NME) country, the POI for the PRC is 

January 1, 2017, through June 30, 2017. 

Scope of the Investigations 

The product covered by these 

investigations is PTFE resin from India 

and the PRC. For a full description of 

the scope of these investigations, see the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the 

Appendix to this notice. 

Comments on Scope of the 

Investigations 

During our review of the Petitions, the 

petitioner submitted a revised 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, we are setting 

aside a period for interested parties to 

raise issues regarding product coverage 

(scope).8 The Department will consider 

all comments received from interested 

parties and, if necessary, will consult 

with interested parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. If scope comments 

include factual information,9 all such 

factual information should be limited to 

public information. To facilitate 

preparation of its questionnaires, the 

Department requests all interested 

parties to submit such comments by 

5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on 

Tuesday, November 7, 2017, 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. ET on Friday, 

November 17, 2017, which is 10 

calendar days from the initial comments 

deadline.10

The Department requests that any 

factual information the parties consider 

relevant to the scope of the 

investigations be submitted during this 

time period. However, if a party 

subsequently finds that additional 

factual information pertaining to the 

scope of the investigations may be 

relevant, the party may contact the 

Department and request permission to 

submit the additional information. All 

such comments must be filed on the 

records of each of the concurrent AD 

and CVD investigations. 

Filing Requirements 

All submissions to the Department 

must be filed electronically using 

Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping Duty and Countervailing 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
49588 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices 

11See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 

Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 

39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and 

Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System 

Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details 

of the Department’s electronic filing requirements, 

which went into effect on August 5, 2011. 

Information on help using ACCESS can be found at 

https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook 

can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/ 

Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling

%20Procedures.pdf. 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: 

Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation 

Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry 

Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Petitions Covering Polytetrafluoroethylene 

(PTFE) Resin from the People’s Republic of China 

and India (Attachment II); and Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from India 

(India AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. 

These checklists are dated concurrently with, and 

hereby adopted by, this notice and on file 

electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents 

filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central 

Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department 

of Commerce building. 

15See the Petitions, at 2–4 and Exhibit I–2; see 

also General Issues and AD Supplement, at 3–4. 

16See the Petitions, at Exhibit I–2; see also 

General Issues and AD Supplement, at 3–4. 

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 exempted 

from the electronic submission 

requirements must be filed manually 

(i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement 

and Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, 

Room 18022, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 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 will provide 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the appropriate physical 

characteristics of PTFE resin to be 

reported in response to the 

Department’s AD questionnaires. This 

information will be used to identify the 

key physical characteristics of the 

merchandise under consideration in 

order to report the relevant 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 

PTFE resin, 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 

product characteristics comments must 

be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on November 

7, 2017. Any rebuttal comments must be 

filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on November 17, 

2017. All comments and submissions to 

the Department must be filed 

electronically using ACCESS, as 

explained above, on the records of both 

the India and the PRC less-than-fairvalue 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. 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 petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, the 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 have determined that PTFE 

resin, as defined in the scope, 

constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product.14

In determining whether the 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. The petitioner provided its own 

production of the domestic like product 

in 2016, as well as estimated 2016 

production data of the domestic like 

product by the entire U.S. industry.15 To 

establish industry support, the 

petitioner compared its production to 

the total 2016 production of the 

domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry.16 We relied on the 

data the petitioner provided for 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices 49589 

17 Id. For further discussion, see PRC AD 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and India AD 

Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

18See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 

II; and India AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 

II. 

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

PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II; and 

India AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II. 

20See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 

II; and India AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 

II. 

21 Id. 

22 Id. 

23See the Petitions, at 21 and Exhibit I–14. 

24 Id. at 24–34, Exhibit I–8, and Exhibits I–14, I– 

16, and I–17. 

25See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment 

III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin (PTFE Resin) from 

India and the People’s Republic of China (the PRC) 

(Attachment III); see also India AD Initiation 

Checklist, at Attachment III. 

26See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 

27See India AD Initiation Checklist. 

28See India AD Initiation Checklist and PRC AD 

Initiation Checklist. 

29See India AD Initiation Checklist. 

30 Id. 

31 Id. 

32 Id. 

33See the Petitions, at 38. 

34See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 

35See Petitions, at 39–42 and Exhibits I–1, II–2, 

II–3. 

purposes of measuring industry 

support.17

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petitions and other information readily 

available to the Department indicates 

that the petitioner has established 

industry support.18 First, the Petitions 

established support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product 

and, as such, the Department is not 

required to take further action in order 

to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling).19 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 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.20 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petitions 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petitions.21 Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the 

Petitions were filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

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

The Department finds that the 

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 that 

the Department initiate.22

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The petitioner alleges that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (NV). In addition, the petitioner 

alleges that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

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

The petitioner contends that the 

industry’s injured condition is 

illustrated by a significant volume of 

subject imports; an increase in the 

volume of subject imports relative to 

U.S. consumption and production; 

reduced market share; underselling and 

price suppression or depression; lost 

sales and revenues; a negative impact on 

the domestic industry’s capacity, 

capacity utilization, and employment; 

and a negative impact on revenues and 

operating profits.24 We have assessed 

the allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 

have determined that these allegations 

are properly supported by adequate 

evidence, and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation.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 AD investigations of 

imports of PTFE resin from India and 

the PRC. The sources of data for the 

deductions and adjustments relating to 

U.S. price and NV are discussed in 

greater detail in the country-specific 

initiation checklists. 

Export Price 

For the PRC, the petitioner based the 

U.S. price on export price (EP) using 

average unit values (AUVs) of publicly 

available import data and price quotes 

for sales of PTFE resin produced in, and 

exported from, the PRC and offered for 

sale in the United States.26 For India, 

the petitioner based U.S. price on EP 

using AUVs of publicly available import 

data.27 Where applicable, the petitioner 

made deductions from U.S. price for 

movement and other expenses, 

consistent with the terms of sale.28

Constructed Export Price 

For India, because the petitioner had 

reason to believe that the prices/offers 

for sale were made through a U.S. 

affiliate, the petitioner also based the 

U.S. price on constructed export price 

(CEP) using price quotes for sales and 

prices of actual sales of PTFE resin 

produced in, and exported from, India 

and offered for sale in the United 

States.29 Where applicable, the 

petitioner made deductions from U.S. 

price for movement and other expenses, 

consistent with the terms of sale.30

Normal Value 

For India, the petitioner provided 

home market price information for PTFE 

resin produced and offered for sale in 

India that was obtained through market 

research.31 For India, the petitioner 

provided a declaration from a market 

researcher to support the price 

information.32

With respect to the PRC, the 

petitioner stated that the Department 

has found it to be a NME country in 

prior administrative proceedings in 

which they were involved.33 In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, the presumption of NME status 

remains in effect until revoked by the 

Department. The presumption of NME 

status for the PRC has not been revoked 

by the Department and, therefore, 

remains in effect for purposes of the 

initiation of this investigation. 

Accordingly, NV in the PRC is 

appropriately based on factors of 

production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate 

market economy country, in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Act.34 In the 

course of this investigation, all parties, 

and the public, will have the 

opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

The petitioner claims that Mexico is 

an appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because it is a market economy 

country that is at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

PRC, it is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise, and public 

information from Mexico is available to 

value all material input factors.35 Based 

on the information provided by the 

petitioner, we determine that it is 

appropriate to use Mexico as a surrogate 

country for initiation purposes. 

Interested parties will have the 

opportunity to submit comments 

regarding surrogate country selection 

and, pursuant to 19 CFR 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
49590 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices 

36See the Petitions, at 43 and Exhibit II–5. 

37See the Petitions, at 43–46 and Exhibits II–6, 

II–7, II–8, II–9, II–10, II–11, II–12, II–13, and II–14. 

38See PRC AD Initiation Checklist. 

39See India AD Initiation Checklist. 

40See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 

PubLIC LAW 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015). 

41See Dates of Application of Amendments to the 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made 

by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 

FR 46793 (August 6, 2015). 

42 Id. at 46794–95. The 2015 amendments may be 

found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/1295/text/pl. 

43See the Petitions, at Exhibit I–13. 

44See the Petitions at Exhibit I–13. 

45See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf 

(Policy Bulletin 05.1). 

46Although in past investigations this deadline 

was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), 

which states that ‘‘the Secretary may request any 

person to submit factual information at any time 

during a proceeding,’’ this deadline is now 30 days. 

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

opportunity to submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 30 

days before the scheduled date of the 

preliminary determination. 

Factors of Production 

Because information regarding the 

volume of inputs consumed by the PRC 

producers/exporters is not available, the 

petitioner relied on its own production 

experience as an estimate of Chinese 

manufacturers’ FOPs.36 The petitioner 

valued the estimated FOPs using 

surrogate values from Mexico and used 

the average POI exchange rate to convert 

the data to U.S. dollars.37

Fair Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by the 

petitioner, there is reason to believe that 

imports of PTFE resin from India and 

the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. Based on comparisons of EP and 

CEP to NV for India and EP to NV for 

the PRC in accordance with sections 772 

and 773 of the Act, the estimated 

dumping margins for PTFE resin for 

each of the countries covered by this 

initiation are as follows: (1) PRC—23.4 

to 408.9 percent,38 and (2) India—15.8 

to 128.1 percent.39

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigations 

Based upon the examination of the 

AD Petitions, 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 PTFE resin from India and 

the PRC 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 

intend to make our preliminary 

determinations no later than 140 days 

after the date of this initiation. 

Under the Trade Preferences 

Extension Act of 2015, numerous 

amendments to the AD and CVD law 

were made.40 The 2015 law does not 

specify dates of application for those 

amendments. On August 6, 2015, the 

Department published an interpretative 

rule, in which it announced the 

applicability dates for each amendment 

to the Act, except for amendments 

contained in section 771(7) of the Act, 

which relate to determinations of 

material injury by the ITC.41 The 

amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 

776, and 782 of the Act are applicable 

to all determinations made on or after 

August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to 

these AD investigations.42

Respondent Selection 

The petitioner named seven 

companies in India as producers/ 

exporters of PTFE resin.43 For India, 

following standard practice in AD 

investigations involving market 

economy countries, in the event the 

Department determines that the number 

of producers/exporters involved in the 

investigation is large, the Department 

intends to review U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. 

imports of PTFE resin during the POI 

under the appropriate Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

subheadings, and if it determines that it 

cannot individually examine each 

company based upon the Department’s 

resources, then the Department will 

select respondents based on that data. 

We intend to release CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

to all parties with access to information 

protected by APO within five business 

days of the announcement of the 

initiation of this investigation. 

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. 

Interested parties may submit 

comments regarding the CBP data and 

respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET 

seven calendar days after the placement 

of the CBP data on the record of this 

investigation. Interested parties wishing 

to submit rebuttal comments should 

submit those comments five calendar 

days after the deadline for initial 

comments. 

Comments must be filed 

electronically using ACCESS. An 

electronically-filed document must be 

received successfully, in its entirety, by 

ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on 

the date noted above. If respondent 

selection is necessary, within 20 days of 

publication of this notice, we intend to 

make our decisions regarding 

respondent selection based upon 

comments received from interested 

parties and our analysis of the record 

information. 

With respect to the PRC, the 

petitioner named 49 companies in the 

PRC as producers/exporters of PTFE 

resin.44 In accordance with our standard 

practice for respondent selection in AD 

cases involving NME countries, we 

intend to issue quantity and value 

(Q&V) questionnaires to producers/ 

exporters of merchandise subject to this 

NME investigation and, in the event the 

Department determines that the number 

of producers/exporters involved in the 

investigation is large, base respondent 

selection on the responses received. For 

this NME investigation, the Department 

will request Q&V information from 

known exporters and producers 

identified, with complete contact 

information, in the Petitions. In 

addition, the Department will post the 

Q&V questionnaire along with filing 

instructions on Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Web site at http://

www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. 

Producers/exporters of PTFE resin 

from the PRC that do not receive Q&V 

questionnaires by mail may still submit 

a response to the Q&V questionnaire 

and can obtain a copy of the Q&V 

questionnaire from Enforcement & 

Compliance’s Web site. The Q&V 

response must be submitted by the 

relevant PRC exporters/producers no 

later than 5:00 p.m. ET on November 2, 

2017. All Q&V responses must be filed 

electronically via ACCESS. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in an NME investigation, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

application.45 The specific requirements 

for submitting a separate-rate 

application in the PRC investigation are 

outlined in detail in the application 

itself, which is available on the 

Department’s Web site at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-seprate.html. The separate-rate application 

will be due 30 days after publication of 

this initiation notice.46 Exporters and 

producers who submit a separate-rate 

application and have been selected as 

mandatory respondents will be eligible 

for consideration for separate-rate status 

only if they respond to all parts of the 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices 49591 

47See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added). 

48See section 733(a) of the Act. 

49 Id. 

50See 19 CFR 351.301(b). 

51See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). 

52See section 782(b) of the Act. 

53See 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. 

Department’s AD questionnaire as 

mandatory respondents. The 

Department requires that companies 

from the PRC submit a response to both 

the Q&V questionnaire and the separaterate application by the respective 

deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

Companies not filing a timely Q&V 

response will not receive separate-rate 

consideration. 

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 Investigation 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.47

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions 

In accordance with section 

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

351.202(f), copies of the public version 

of the Petitions have been provided to 

the governments of India and the PRC 

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 will notify 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 PTFE resin from India and/or the PRC 

are materially injuring or threatening 

material injury to a U.S. industry.48 A 

negative ITC determination for either 

country will result in the investigation 

being terminated with respect to that 

country.49 Otherwise, these 

investigations will proceed according to 

statutory and regulatory time limits. 

Submission of Information 

Factual information is defined in 19 

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

submitted in response to questionnaires; 

(ii) evidence submitted in support of 

allegations; (iii) publicly available 

information to value factors under 19 

CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 

adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 

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

the record by the Department; and (v) 

evidence other than factual information 

described in (i)–(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) 

requires any party, when submitting 

factual information, to specify under 

which subsection of 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(21) the information is being 

submitted 50 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.51 Time 

limits for the submission of factual 

information are addressed in 19 CFR 

351.301, which provides specific time 

limits based on the type of factual 

information being submitted. Interested 

parties should review the regulations 

prior to submitting factual information 

in these investigations. 

Extensions of Time Limits 

Parties may request an extension of 

time limits before the expiration of a 

time limit established under 19 CFR 

351.301, or as otherwise specified by the 

Secretary. In general, an extension 

request will be considered untimely if it 

is filed after the expiration of the time 

limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. 

For submissions that are due from 

multiple parties simultaneously, an 

extension request will be considered 

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

on the due date. Under certain 

circumstances, we may elect to specify 

a different time limit by which 

extension requests will be considered 

untimely for submissions which are due 

from multiple parties simultaneously. In 

such a case, we will inform parties in 

the letter or memorandum setting forth 

the deadline (including a specified time) 

by which extension requests must be 

filed to be considered timely. An 

extension request must be made in a 

separate, stand-alone submission; under 

limited circumstances we will grant 

untimely-filed requests for the extension 

of time limits. Parties should review 

Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 

FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), 

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

pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013- 

22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 

information in 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.52

Parties must use the certifications 

formats provided in 19 CFR 

351.303(g).53 The Department intends to 

reject factual submissions if the 

submitting party does not comply with 

applicable 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 sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) 

of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c). 

Dated: October 18, 2017. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix 

Scope of the Investigations 

The product covered by these 

investigations is polytetrafluoroethylene 

(PTFE) resin, including but not limited to 

granular, dispersion, or coagulated 

dispersion (also known as fine powder). 

PTFE is covered by the scope of these 

investigations whether filled or unfilled, 

whether or not modified, and whether or not 

containing co-polymer additives, pigments, 

or other materials. Also included is PTFE wet 

raw polymer. The chemical formula for PTFE 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
49592 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices 

1See Letter from the petitioner, ‘‘Re: 

Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the 

People’s Republic of China and India: Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Petitions’’ (September 28, 

2017) (the Petition). 

2 Id. at 2. 

3See Letter from the Department, ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India: 

Supplemental Questions’’ (October 3, 2017). 

4See Letter from the petitioner, 

‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from India: 

Responses to Supplemental Questions Regarding 

the Countervailing Duty Petition’’ (October 6, 2017). 

5See Letter from the petitioner, 

‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the 

People’s Republic of China and India: Amendment 

to the Suggested Scope of the Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Petitions’’ (October 13, 2017). 

6See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the 

Petition’’ section, below. 

7See Letter from the petitioner, 

‘‘Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from the 

People’s Republic of China and India: Amendment 

to the Suggested Scope of the Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Petitions’’ (October 13, 2017). 

See also Memorandum to the File (October 11, 

2017). 

8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; 

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

9See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual 

information’’). 

10See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 

Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 

39263 (July 6, 2011), see also Enforcement and 

Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System 

Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details 

of the Department’s electronic filing requirements, 

which went into effect on August 5, 2011. 

Information on help using ACCESS can be found at 

https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook 

can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/ 

Handbook%20on%20Electronic

%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf. 

is C2F4, and the Chemical Abstracts Service 

Registry number is 9002–84–0. 

PTFE further processed into micropowder, 

having particle size typically ranging from 1 

to 25 microns, and a melt-flow rate no less 

than 0.1 gram/10 minutes, is excluded from 

the scope of these investigations. 

PTFE is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under 

subheadings 3904.61.0010 and 3904.61.0090. 

Subject merchandise may also be classified 

under HTSUS subheading 3904.69.5000. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS 

Number are provided for convenience and 

Customs purposes, the written description of 

the scope is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23307 Filed 10–25–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–880] 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From 

India: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Applicable October 18, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Toby Vandall at (202) 482–1664 or 

Aimee Phelan at (202) 482–0697, 

AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On September 28, 2017, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) received a countervailing 

duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports 

of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin 

from India, filed in proper form on 

behalf of the Chemours Company FC 

LLC (the petitioner).1 The CVD Petition 

was accompanied by antidumping duty 

(AD) Petitions concerning imports of 

PTFE resin from India and the People’s 

Republic of China. The petitioner is a 

domestic producer of PTFE resin.2

On October 3, 2017, the Department 

requested supplemental information 

pertaining to certain areas of the 

Petition.3 The petitioner filed a response 

to this request on October 6, 2017.4 In 

addition, the petitioner filed revised 

scope language on October 13, 2017.5

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), the petitioner alleges that the 

Government of India is providing 

countervailable subsidies, within the 

meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of 

the Act, to imports of PTFE resin from 

India and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, the domestic industry 

producing PTFE resin in the United 

States. Also, consistent with section 

702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged 

programs on which we are initiating a 

CVD investigation, the Petition is 

accompanied by information reasonably 

available to the petitioner supporting its 

allegations. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioner is an interested party as 

defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act 

and that the petitioner filed this Petition 

on behalf of the domestic industry and 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the initiation of 

the CVD investigation that the petitioner 

is requesting.6

Period of Investigation 

Because the Petition was filed on 

September 28, 2017, the period of 

investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, 

through December 31, 2016. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The product covered by this 

investigation is PTFE resin from India. 

For a full description of the scope of this 

investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation,’’ in the Appendix to this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of the Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, the 

Department issued questions to, and 

received a response from, the petitioner 

pertaining to the proposed scope to 

ensure that the scope language in the 

Petition would be an accurate reflection 

of the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief.7

As discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations, we are setting 

aside a period for interested parties to 

raise issues regarding product coverage 

(scope).8 The Department will consider 

all comments received from interested 

parties and, if necessary, will consult 

with the interested parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. If scope comments 

include factual information,9 all such 

factual information should be limited to 

public information. To facilitate 

preparation of its questionnaires, the 

Department requests all interested 

parties to submit such comments by 

5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on 

Tuesday, November 7, 2017, 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. ET on Friday, 

November 17, 2017, which is 10 

calendar days from the initial comments 

deadline. 

The Department requests that any 

factual information the parties consider 

relevant to the scope of the investigation 

be submitted during this time period. 

However, if a party subsequently finds 

that additional factual information 

pertaining to the scope of the 

investigation may be relevant, the party 

may contact the Department and request 

permission to submit the additional 

information. All such comments must 

be filed on the records of each of the 

concurrent AD and CVD investigations. 

Filing Requirements 

All submissions to the Department 

must be filed electronically using 

Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping Duty 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 exempted 

from the electronic submission 

requirements must be filed manually 

(i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES