[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 140 (Monday, July 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34277-34281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15475]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-895, A-583-861]


Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and 
Taiwan: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

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

DATES: July 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Crespo at (202) 482-3693 (the 
Republic of Korea) or Elizabeth Eastwood at (202) 482-3874 (Taiwan), 
AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On June 27, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of low melt 
polyester staple fiber (low melt PSF) from the Republic of Korea 
(Korea) and Taiwan, filed in proper form on behalf of Nan Ya Plastics 
Corporation, America (the petitioner).\1\ The petitioner is a domestic 
producer of low melt PSF.\2\ On June 30, 2017, the Department requested 
additional information and clarification of certain areas of the 
Petitions.\3\ The petitioner filed responses to these requests on July 
6, 2017, and revised scope language on July 7, 2017.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter to the from the petitioner, ``Low Melt Polyester 
Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan--Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties'' (June 27, 2017) (the Petitions).
    \2\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 2.
    \3\ See Letter from the Department, ``Petitions for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Low Melt Polyester 
Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Supplemental 
Questions,'' (General Issues Supplement) dated June 30, 2017; see 
also Letter from the Department, ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber 
from Taiwan: Supplemental Questions'' (Taiwan Supplement), dated 
June 30, 2017; see also Letter from the Department, ``Petition for 
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Low Melt 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental 
Questions'' (Korea Supplement), dated June 30, 2017.
    \4\ See Letter from the petitioner, ``Low Melt Polyester Staple 
Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan--Petitioner's Amendment 
to Volume II Relating to the Republic of Korea Antidumping Duties,'' 
dated July 6, 2017 (Korea Supplemental Response); Letter from the 
petitioner, ``Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of 
Korea and Taiwan--Petitioner's Amendment to Volume II Relating to 
Taiwan Antidumping Duties,'' dated July 6, 2017 (Taiwan Supplemental 
Response); and Letter from the petitioner, ``Low Melt Polyester 
Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan--Petitioner's 
Amendment to Volume I Relating to General Issues,'' dated July 7, 
2017 (General Issues Supplemental Response).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of low melt PSF 
from Korea and Taiwan 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 low 
melt 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 petitioner supporting its allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an 
interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The 
Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD 
investigations that the petitioner is requesting.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on June 27, 2017, the period of 
investigation (POI) for both investigations is April 1, 2016, through 
March 31, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is low melt PSF from 
Korea and Taiwan. 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 a 
questionnaire to, and received a response from, the petitioner 
pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in 
the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which 
the domestic industry is seeking relief.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See General Issues Supplement and General Issues 
Supplemental Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of this review, we determined that the scope language of 
these Petitions overlaps in certain respects with the scope language of 
the recently-initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of 
fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from Korea and 
Taiwan and the existing AD orders on polyester staple fiber (PSF) from 
Korea and Taiwan.\7\ Specifically, the scope of these Petitions covers 
all bi-component polyester fiber, where one component melts at a lower 
temperature than the other component; the scope, as currently written, 
does not limit the two fiber components to any specific configuration. 
Further, the scopes of both the fine denier PSF LTFV investigations and 
the existing PSF AD

[[Page 34278]]

orders include certain low melt PSF products and exclude others (i.e., 
they only exclude low melt PSF in ``sheath-and-core'' configurations). 
As a result, low melt PSF in other configurations (such as ``side-by-
side'') is currently covered by the scopes of these investigations, as 
well as the on-going LTFV investigations on fine denier PSF from Korea 
and Taiwan, and the existing AD orders on PSF from Korea and Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 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, 82 FR 29023, 29029 (June 27, 2017); and Notice of 
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and 
Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the 
Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the Department has faced the possibility of administering two 
proceedings covering identical merchandise, we have chosen to craft the 
scope of the subsequent proceedings to eliminate the potential 
overlap.\8\ Although we have provisionally accepted the scope as 
defined by the petitioner for purposes of initiation, we are currently 
evaluating how to address the overlap in product coverage, noted above. 
If this question is not resolved prior to the preliminary 
determinations of these proceedings, we intend to include provisionally 
the following language in the scope:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (January 13, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

    Excluded from the scope of the investigations on low melt PSF 
from Korea and Taiwan are any products covered by the existing 
antidumping duty investigations on fine denier PSF from Korea and 
Taiwan and the existing antidumping duty orders on certain polyester 
staple fiber from Korea and Taiwan. See {fine denier PSF preliminary 
determination citation{time} ; see also Notice of Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester 
Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taiwan, 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000).

We invite interested parties to comment on this issue within the 
deadlines set forth below.
    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 parties and, if necessary, will consult with 
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. In order 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, August 7, 2017, which is the next business day 
after 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, August 17, 2017, which is 10 calendar days 
from the deadline for initial comments.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; final Rule, 
62 FR 27296 (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 records of both of the concurrent AD 
investigations.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\12\ An electronically-
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the 
time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic 
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) 
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 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/HandbookV%20VonV%20VElectronic%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 low melt 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 used by manufacturers to describe low melt 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 31, 
2017. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 7, 
2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of both 
the Taiwan and Korea 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

[[Page 34279]]

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 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 low melt 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: Low Melt 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea (Korea AD 
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry 
Support for the Antidumping Duty Petitions Covering Low Melt 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 
(Attachment II); and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan (Taiwan AD 
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated 
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice and are 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 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 the Appendix to 
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its 
own production of the domestic like product in 2016.\16\ In addition, 
the petitioner provided a letter of support from Fiber Innovation 
Technology, stating that the company supports the Petitions and 
providing its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.\17\ 
The petitioner identifies itself and Fiber Innovation Technology as the 
companies constituting the U.S. low melt PSF industry and states that 
there are no other known producers of low melt 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 Exhibits I-1, I-2, and I-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General 
Issues Supplemental Response, and other information readily available 
to the Department indicates that the petitioner has 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 Korea AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \20\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Korea AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \21\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II and 
Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 16 and Exhibit I-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression 
or depression; lost sales and revenues; declines in 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\ Id., at 12, 16-30 and Exhibits I-5, I-7 through I-11.
    \26\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III and 
Taiwan 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 LTFV 
upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD 
investigations of imports of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan. 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.

[[Page 34280]]

Export Price

    For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioner based the U.S. price on export 
price (EP) using: (1) Average unit values of publicly available import 
data; \27\ and (2) price quotes for sales of low melt PSF produced in, 
and exported from, the subject country and offered for sale in the 
United States.\28\ Where applicable, the petitioner made deductions 
from U.S. price for movement expenses, consistent with the terms of 
sale.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioner provided home market price 
information for low melt PSF produced in, and offered for sale in, both 
of these countries that was obtained through market research.\30\ For 
both of these countries, the petitioner provided a declaration from a 
market researcher to support the price information.\31\ Where 
applicable, the petitioner made deductions for movement expenses and 
credit expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Letter from the petitioner, ``Low Melt Polyester Staple 
Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan,'' dated June 29, 2017 
(FMR Report).
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner also provided information that sales of low melt PSF 
in both Korea and Taiwan were made at prices below the cost of 
production (COP). Therefore, the petitioner calculated NV based on home 
market prices and constructed value (CV).\33\ For further discussion of 
COP and NV based on CV, see the section ``Normal Value Based on 
Constructed Value,'' below.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
    \34\ In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences 
Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for 
both 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 petitioner calculated the COM based on the input factors of 
production from a U.S. producer of low melt PSF, adjusted for known 
differences between the U.S. low melt PSF industry and those of Korea 
and Taiwan during the POI. The input factors of production were valued 
using publicly available data on costs specific to Korea and 
Taiwan.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist and Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner determined the usage of raw material inputs based on 
the average usage rates incurred by the U.S. producer. The prices for 
raw material inputs were based on Korean and Taiwan import and export 
data from publicly available data. Labor and energy rates were derived 
from publicly available sources multiplied by the product-specific 
usage rates. The petitioner calculated a factory overhead, SG&A, 
financial expenses, and packing rates based on the experience of Korean 
and Taiwan producers of comparable merchandise.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because certain home market prices fell below the COP for both 
countries, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the 
Act, as noted above, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV.\37\ 
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A, 
financial expenses, packing expenses, and profit. The petitioner 
calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial expenses, and 
packing expenses to calculate the COP.\38\ The petitioner relied on the 
financial statements of the same producer that it used for calculating 
manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses to calculate the 
profit rate.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan are being, 
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on 
comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the 
Act, the estimated dumping margins for low melt PSF from Korea and 
Taiwan range from 39.24 to 52.23 percent,\40\ and 28.47 to 73.21 
percent, respectively.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
    \41\ See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of LTFV 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 low 
melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan 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 countervailing duty (CVD) law were made.\42\ 
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.\43\ 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.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-
27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \43\ 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).
    \44\ Id., at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/housebill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    The petitioner named six companies in Korea,\45\ and two companies 
in Taiwan,\46\ as producers/exporters of low melt denier PSF. Following 
standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy 
countries, in the event the Department determines that the number of 
companies in Korea or Taiwan is large, the Department intends to review 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of low 
melt PSF during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States subheading listed within the scope in the 
Appendix, below, 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 those data. We also intend 
to release the 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

[[Page 34281]]

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 that investigation. Interested parties wishing to submit 
rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after 
the deadline for initial comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Volume I of the Petitions at Exhibit I-4.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments for the above-referenced investigations 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 by the dates noted above. We intend to make our decision 
regarding respondent selection in the Korea and Taiwan investigations 
within 20 days of publication of this notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the governments of Korea and Taiwan 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 low melt PSF from the Korea and/or Taiwan 
are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. 
industry. A negative ITC determination for either country will result 
in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country. 
Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence 
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). 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 
\47\ 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.\48\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \48\ 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.\49\ 
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.\50\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \50\ 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 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: July 17, 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 merchandise subject to these investigations is synthetic 
staple fibers, not carded or combed, specifically bi-component 
polyester fibers having a polyester fiber component that melts at a 
lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component (low melt 
PSF). The scope includes bi-component polyester staple fibers of any 
denier or cut length. The subject merchandise may be coated, usually 
with a finish or dye, or not coated.
    Low melt PSF is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 5503.20.0015. 
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the 
merchandise under the investigations is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2017-15475 Filed 7-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P