[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29023-29029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13380]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-060, A-533-875, A-580-893, A-583-860, A-552-822]


Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of 
China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective June 20, 2017.

[[Page 29024]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman at (202) 482-3931 (the 
People's Republic of China (the PRC)), Patrick O'Connor at (202) 482-
0989 (India), Karine Gziryan at (202) 482-4081 (the Republic of Korea 
(Korea)), Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482-6412 (Taiwan), and Mike 
Heaney at (202) 482-4475 (the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)), 
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 May 31, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of fine 
denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from the PRC, India, 
Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, filed in proper form on behalf of DAK 
Americas LLC, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America, and Auriga Polymers 
Inc. (collectively, the petitioners).\1\ The AD Petitions were 
accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) Petitions concerning imports 
of fine denier PSF from India and the PRC. The petitioners are domestic 
producers of fine denier PSF.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce re: ``Fine Denier 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, 
the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam--Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties'' (May 31, 2017) (the Petitions).
    \2\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 5, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information 
pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.\3\ The petitioners filed 
responses to these requests on June 8, 2017.\4\ The petitioners filed a 
correction to a margin calculation for the PRC at the request of the 
Department on June 12, 2017.\5\ The petitioners filed revised scope 
language on June 14, 2017.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from the Department, ``Petitions for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of 
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of 
China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Supplemental Questions,'' dated June 5, 2017 
(General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Petition for 
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine Denier 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: 
Supplemental Questions; and Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber 
from India: Supplemental Questions; and Petition for the Imposition 
of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple 
Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions; and 
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Fine 
Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Supplemental Questions; 
and Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Supplemental Questions. All of these documents are dated 
June 5, 2017. See also country-specific memoranda to the file 
``Telephone Call to Foreign Market Researcher Regarding Antidumping 
Petition'' dated June 20, 2017.
    \4\ See Letter from the petitioners, ``Fine Denier Polyester 
Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the 
Republic of Korea, Taiwan and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Petitioners' Amendment to Volume I Relating to General Issues;'' 
(June 8, 2017) (General Issues Supplement), at Exhibit I-S2, see 
also ``Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic 
of China: Petitioners' Response to Questions Concerning the 
Antidumping Duty Petition;'' and ``Fine Denier Polyester Staple 
Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Petitioners' Response to Questions 
Concerning the Antidumping Duty Petition;'' and ``Fine Denier 
Polyester Staple Fiber from India: Petitioners' Response to 
Questions Concerning the Antidumping Duty Petition;'' and ``Fine 
Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Petitioners' Response to 
Questions Concerning the Antidumping Duty Petition;'' and ``Fine 
Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Petitioners' Response to Questions Concerning the 
Antidumping Duty Petition.'' Each of these documents is dated June 
8, 2017.
    \5\ See Letter from the petitioners, ``Fine Denier Polyester 
Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China,'' dated June 12, 
2017.
    \6\ See Memorandum to the File ``Phone Conversation Regarding 
Scope,'' dated June 13, 2017; see also Fine Denier Polyester Staple 
Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of 
Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--Petitioners' 
Second Amendment to Volume I Relating to General Issues, dated June 
14, 2017 (Scope Supplement to the Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of fine denier 
PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam 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 fine denier PSF in the United States. Also, 
consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are 
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners 
supporting their allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested 
parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also 
finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support 
with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the 
petitioners are requesting.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periods of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on May 31, 2017, the period of 
investigation (POI) for all investigations except the PRC and Vietnam, 
is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017. Because the PRC and Vietnam 
are non-market economy (NME) countries, the POI for these 
investigations is October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is fine denier PSF from 
the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. 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 Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the 
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would 
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic 
industry is seeking relief.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See General Issues Supplement, at 1-3 and Exhibit I-S1; and 
Scope Supplement to the Petitions, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).\9\ 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,\10\ 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 Monday, July 10, 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 Thursday, July 20, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the 
initial comments deadline.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual 
information'').
    \11\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29025]]

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).\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of fine denier PSF 
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 
product-comparison 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) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, although there 
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers 
to describe fine denier PSF, 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 July 10, 
2017. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 20, 
2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the 
the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam less-than-fair-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. 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,\13\ 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \14\ See 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, the petitioners do not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that fine denier PSF, as 
defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we 
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like 
product.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis, see 
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier 
Polyester Staple Fiber 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 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple 
Fiber from India (India AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; 
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea (Korea AD 
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine Denier Polyester Staple 
Fiber from Taiwan (Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment 
II; and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Fine 
Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
(Vietnam 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the

[[Page 29026]]

domestic like product as defined in the ``Scope of the 
Investigations,'' in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry 
support, the petitioners provided their own production of the domestic 
like product in 2016.\16\ In addition, the petitioners provided a 
letter of support from Palmetto Synthetics, LLC, stating that the 
company supports the Petitions and providing its own production of the 
domestic like product in 2016.\17\ The petitioners identify themselves 
and Palmetto Synthetics, LLC as the companies constituting the U.S. 
fine denier PSF industry and state that there are no other known 
producers of fine denier PSF in the United States; therefore, the 
Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3 and Exhibit I-2.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id., at 2-3 and Exhibit I-1; see also General Issues 
Supplement, at 3 and Exhibit I-S2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General 
Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the 
Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry 
support for the Petitions.\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) 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.\21\ 
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.\22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation 
Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \20\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC AD 
Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation Checklist; Korea AD 
Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist; and Vietnam AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \21\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation 
Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that 
they are requesting that the Department initiate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege 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 
petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-15 and Exhibit I-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression 
or depression; lost sales and revenues; decreased production, capacity 
utilization, and U.S. shipments; and declines in financial 
performance.\25\ 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.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-31 and Exhibits I-5, 
I-8, I-9, and I-10.
    \26\ See 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 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Attachment III); India AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment III; Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment III; Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III; 
and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 fine denier PSF from the PRC, 
India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. 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, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the petitioners 
based the U.S. price on export price (EP) using average unit values 
(AUVs) of publicly available import data.\27\ For the PRC and Taiwan, 
the petitioners also based the U.S. price on EP using price quotes for 
sales of fine denier PSF produced in, and exported from, the subject 
county and offered for sale in the United States.\28\ Where applicable, 
the petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement and other 
expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation 
Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
    \28\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist.
    \29\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; India AD Initiation 
Checklist; Korea AD Initiation Checklist; Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist; and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    For India, Korea, and Taiwan, the petitioners provided home market 
price information for fine denier PSF produced in, and offered for sale 
in, each of these countries that was obtained through market 
research.\30\ For all three of these countries, the petitioners 
provided a declaration from a market researcher to support the price 
information.\31\ Where applicable, the petitioners made deductions for 
movement expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See India AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist, and Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist. For India, the 
petitioners also provided constructed value data and calculated 
margins based on a comparison between EP and constructed value. See 
India AD Initiation Checklist. Because the petitioners provided 
appropriate home market prices, we have relied on these prices as 
the basis for normal value, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the 
Act, for purposes of initiation.
    \31\ See Id.
    \32\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioners also provided information 
that sales of fine denier PSF in the respective home markets were made 
at prices below the cost of production (COP). With respect to Korea, 
the petitioners calculated NV based on home market prices and 
constructed value (CV).\33\ With respect to Taiwan, the petitioners 
calculated NV based on CV.\34\ For further discussion of COP and NV 
based on CV, see the

[[Page 29027]]

section ``Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' below.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
    \34\ See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
    \35\ In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences 
Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for 
all of the investigations, the Department will request information 
necessary to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign 
like product have been made at prices that represent less than the 
COP of the product. The Department no longer requires a COP 
allegation to conduct this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the PRC and Vietnam, the petitioners stated that 
the Department has found these countries to be NME countries in prior 
administrative proceedings in which they were involved.\36\ 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 and Vietnam has not been revoked 
by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the 
initiation of these investigations. Accordingly, NV in both the PRC and 
Vietnam is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued 
in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 
773(c) of the Act.\37\ In the course of these investigations, all 
parties, and the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant 
information related to the granting of separate rates to individual 
exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 4-5; see also Volume VI 
of the Petition, at 4-5.
    \37\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Vietnam AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners claim 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.\38\ Based 
on the information provided by the petitioners, we determine that it is 
appropriate to use Mexico as a surrogate country for initiation 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Volume II of the Petition at 5-6 and Exhibit AD-CN-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners claim that India is an appropriate surrogate 
country for Vietnam, because it is a market economy country that is at 
a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam, it is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information 
from India is available to value all material input factors.\39\ Based 
on the information provided by the petitioners, we determine that it is 
appropriate to use India as a surrogate country for initiation 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Volume VI of the Petition, at 5-6, Exhibit AD-VN-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 and Vietnamese producers/exporters is not available, the 
petitioners relied on the production experience of a domestic producer 
of fine denier PSF in the United States as an estimate of Chinese and 
Vietnamese manufacturers' FOPs.\40\ The petitioners valued the 
estimated FOPs using surrogate values from Mexico for the PRC and 
surrogate values from India for Vietnam and used the average POI 
exchange rate to convert the data to U.S. dollars.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibit AD-CN-3, and 
PRC AD Supplement at 1 and Exhibit AD-CN-S3; see also Volume VI of 
the Petition at 5 and Exhibit AD-VN-3, and Vietnam AD Supplement, at 
1 and Exhibit A-VN-S3.
    \41\ See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibits AD-CN-3 and 
AD-CN-4; see also Volume VI of the Petition at Exhibit AD-VN-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost 
of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses. For Korea and 
Taiwan, the petitioners calculated the COM based on the input factors 
of production and usage rates from a U.S. producer of fine denier PSF. 
The input factors of production were valued using publicly available 
data on costs specific to Korea and Taiwan.\42\ Specifically, the 
prices for raw material and packing inputs were based on Korean and 
Taiwanese publicly available import and, for one Taiwanese input, 
export data. Labor and energy costs were valued using publicly 
available sources for Korea and Taiwan. The petitioners calculated 
factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses based on the experience 
of Korean and Taiwanese producers of comparable merchandise.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist.
    \43\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Korea and Taiwan, because certain home market prices fell below 
the COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, 
as noted above, the petitioners calculated NVs based on CV.\44\ 
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A 
expenses, financial expenses, packing expenses, and profit. The 
petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A expenses, 
financial expenses, and packing expenses that were used to calculate 
the COP.\45\ The petitioners relied on the financial statements of the 
same producers that they used for calculating factory overhead, SG&A 
expenses, and financial expenses to calculate the profit rates.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, 
Taiwan, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United 
States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in 
accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margins for fine denier PSF for each of the countries covered by this 
initiation are as follows: (1) PRC--88.07 to 103.06 percent; \47\ (2) 
India--21.43; \48\ (3) Korea--37.28 to 45.23 percent; \49\ (4) Taiwan--
31.07 to 56.72 percent; \50\ and (5) Vietnam is 64.73 percent.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
    \48\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
    \49\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
    \50\ See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
    \51\ See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam 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.
    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD law were made.\52\ 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

[[Page 29028]]

to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the 
Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.\53\ 
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.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \53\ See 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).
    \54\ Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    The petitioners named 12 companies in India,\55\ 31 companies in 
Korea,\56\ and eight companies in Taiwan,\57\ as producers/exporters of 
fine denier PSF. Following standard practice in AD investigations 
involving market economy countries, in the event the Department 
determines that the number of companies for any one market economy 
country identified above is large, the Department intends to review 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of fine 
denier PSF during the respective POIs 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 these investigations. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-4.
    \56\ Id.
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 these investigations. 
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 and Vietnam, the petitioners named, 
respectively, seven and four producers/exporters as accounting for the 
majority of exports of fine denier PSF to the United States from the 
PRC and Vietanm.\58\ 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 these NME investigations and, if necessary, base 
respondent selection on the responses received. For these NME 
investigations, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Though the petitioners listed 88 ``known producers of fine 
denier PSF from China'' in Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I-4, 
they clarified in the PRC-specific Volume II of the Petition that 
``to the best of Petitioners' knowledge, fine denier PSF is produced 
in China and exported to the United States'' by seven companies that 
account for most or all U.S. imports during the POI. See Volume II 
of the Petition at 2. See also Volume I of the Petitions at exhibit 
I-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Producers/exporters of fine denier PSF from the PRC and Vietnam 
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 July 5, 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.\59\ 
The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in 
the PRC and Vietnam investigations are outlined in detail in the 
application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate 
application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation 
notice.\60\ 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 Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory 
respondents. The Department requires that companies from the PRC and 
Vietnam submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the 
separate-rate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See 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).
    \60\ Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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{time} 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.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and 
Vietnam 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).

[[Page 29029]]

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 fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, 
Taiwan, and Vietnam are materially injuring or threatening material 
injury to a U.S. industry.\62\ A negative ITC determination for any 
country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect 
to that country.\63\ Otherwise, these investigations will proceed 
according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ A negative ITC determination for any country will result in 
the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.
    \63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence 
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). 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 
\64\ 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.\65\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \65\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\66\ 
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.\67\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \67\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 atn 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: June 20, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations is fine denier 
polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, 
measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope 
covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The 
following products are excluded from the scope:
    (1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3. decitex (more than 3 
denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 
5503.20.0065.
    (2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with a 
polyester core and an outer, polyester sheath that melts at a 
significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core 
currently classified under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
    Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 
5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
scope of the investigations is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2017-13380 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P