Notice2021-26832
Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From the Czech Republic, Italy, and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 10, 2021
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 235 (Friday, December 10, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 235 (Friday, December 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70447-70451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26832]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-851-805, A-475-844, A-821-835]
Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From the Czech Republic, Italy,
and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable December 6, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leo Ayala at (202) 482-3945 (Czech
Republic); Zachary Le Vene at (202) 482-0056 (Italy); and Caitlin Monks
at (202) 482-2670 (the Russian Federation (Russia)); 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 November 15, 2021, the Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of emulsion
styrene-butadiene rubber (ESBR) from the Czech Republic, Italy, and
Russia filed in proper form on behalf of Lion Elastomers LLC (the
petitioner), a domestic producer of ESBR.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Petition (vol. I-IV) for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-
Butadiene Rubber from Czech Republic, Italy, and Russia,'' dated
November 12, 2021 (the Petitions). The Petitions were filed with
Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) on
November 12, 2021, after 12:00 noon, and pursuant to 19 CFR
207.10(a), are deemed to have been filed with the ITC on the next
business day, November 15, 2021. Because section 732(b)(2) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires simultaneous
filing of the Petitions with Commerce and the ITC, Commerce deemed
the Petitions to have been filed with Commerce on November 15, 2021.
See Memorandum, ``Decision Memorandum Concerning the Filing Date of
the Petitions,'' dated November 15, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 17 and 24, and December 1, 2021, Commerce requested
additional information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions
in separate supplemental questionnaires.\2\ The petitioner filed
responses to the supplemental questionnaires on November 19 and 24, and
December 1, 2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Commerce's Letters, ``Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber
from Czech Republic, Italy, and the Russian Federation: Supplemental
Questions,'' dated November 17, 2021; Country-Specific Supplemental
Questionnaires: Czech Republic Supplemental, Italy Supplemental, and
Russia Supplemental, dated November 17, 2021; Country-Specific
Memoranda pertaining to a phone call with Counsel to the Petitioner,
dated November 24, 2021; and Memorandum, ``Phone Call with Counsel
to the Petitioner,'' dated December 1, 2021.
\3\ See Petitioner's Letters, ``Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene
Rubber from Czech Republic, Italy, and Russian Federation: Response
to General Issues Supplemental Questions,'' dated November 19, 2021
(General Issues Supplement); Country-Specific Supplemental
Responses, dated November 19, 2021; and Country-Specific Second
Supplemental Responses, dated November 24, 2021; and Country-
Specific Third Supplemental Responses, dated December 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioner
alleges that imports of ESBR from the Czech Republic, Italy, and Russia
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than
fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and
that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, the ESBR industry in the United States. Consistent
with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by
information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its
allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of
the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party, as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the
petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation
of the requested LTFV investigations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See infra, section titled ``Determination of Industry
Support for the Petitions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on November 15, 2021, the period
of investigation (POI) for these LTFV investigations is October 1,
2020, through September 30, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is ESBR from the Czech
Republic, Italy, and Russia. For a full description of the scope of
these investigations, see the appendix to this notice.
Comments on the Scope of the Investigations
As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage (i.e., scope).\6\ Commerce 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,\7\ all
such factual information should be limited to public information. To
facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that
all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
(ET) on December 27, 2021, which is the next business day after 20
calendar days from the
[[Page 70448]]
signature date of this notice.\8\ Any rebuttal comments, which may
include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on January
6, 2022, which is ten calendar days from the initial comment deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble).
\7\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual
information'').
\8\ The deadline for comments falls on December 26, 2021, which
is a Sunday. Therefore, in accordance with the Next Business Day
Rule, the appropriate deadline is the next business day (in this
instance, December 27, 2021). See Notice of Clarification:
Application of ``Next Business Day'' Rule for Administrative
Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As
Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005) (Next Business Day Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties
consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted
during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of these
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and
request permission to submit the additional information. All such
submissions must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD
investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception
applies.\9\ An electronically filed document must be received
successfully in its entirety by the time and date on which it is due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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 Commerce's electronic filing
requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on help using
ACCESS can be found at <a href="https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx">https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx</a> and a
handbook can be found at <a href="https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_Filing_Procedures.pdf">https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_Filing_Procedures.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Product Characteristics
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment
on the appropriate physical characteristics of ESBR to be reported in
response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used
to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise
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 ESBR, 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, Commerce 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 December 27,
2021, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the
signature date of this notice.\10\ Any rebuttal comments must be filed
by 5:00 p.m. ET on January 6, 2022, which is 10 calendar days from the
initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must
be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record
of each of the LTFV investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The deadline for comments falls on December 26, 2021, which
is a Sunday. Therefore, in accordance with the Next Business Day
Rule, the appropriate deadline is the next business day (in this
instance, December 27, 2021). See Next Business Day Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Commerce 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 Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The 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 Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory
definition regarding the domestic like product,\11\ they do so for
different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority.
In addition, Commerce'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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\12\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct.
Int'l Trade January 24, 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp. v. United
States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int'l Trade June 8, 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
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the investigations.\13\ Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have determined that ESBR, as defined in
the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Petitions at Volume I at 15-22.
\14\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as
applied to these cases and information regarding industry support,
see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklists: Emulsion
Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Czech Republic, Italy, and the Russian
Federation (Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists) at Attachment
II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping Duty Petitions
Covering Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from the Czech Republic,
Italy, and the Russian Federation (Attachment II). These checklists
are dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically
via ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70449]]
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 2020 and estimated the
2020 production of Goodyear Chemical, the only other known U.S.
producer of ESBR.\15\ The petitioner also provided a letter of support
from the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, CLC (USW)--USW Local 13-228-03, stating that the USW represents
the workers at the petitioner's Port Neches, TX ESBR plant and that it
supports the Petitions.\16\ The petitioner also provided a letter of
support from the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)--
IUOE Local 564, stating that the IUOE represents workers at Goodyear
Chemical's Houston, TX ESBR plant and that it supports the
Petitions.\17\ The petitioner stated that unions representing workers
responsible for 100 percent of the total production of the domestic
like product support the Petitions.\18\ Because the petitioner and
Goodyear Chemical are the only known U.S. producers of ESBR, the
petitioner stated that the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of
the U.S. industry.\19\ We relied on data provided by the petitioner for
purposes of measuring industry support.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Petitions at Volume I at 4 and Exhibits I-1, I-3, I-15,
and I-16; see also General Issues Supplement at 1-2 and Exhibit SI-
16.
\16\ See Petitions at Volume I at 4 and Exhibit I-5.
\17\ See Petitions at Volume I at 4 and Exhibit I-6.
\18\ Id. at 4 and Exhibits I-5 and I-6.
\19\ See Petitions at Volume I at 2-4 and Exhibits I-1, I-3, and
I-4.
\20\ Id. at 2-4 and Exhibits I-1, I-3, I-4, I-15, and I-16; see
also General Issues Supplement at 1-2 and Exhibit SI-16. For further
discussion, see Attachment II of the Country-Specific AD Initiation
Checklists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General
Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce
indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the
Petitions. First, the Petitions established support from domestic
producers and workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product, and, as such, Commerce is not
required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support
(e.g., polling).\21\ Second, the domestic producers and workers have
met the statutory criteria for industry support under section
732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers and workers
who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product.\22\ Finally, the domestic
producers and workers have met the statutory criteria for industry
support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic
producers and 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.\23\ Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions
were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of
section 732(b)(1) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Attachment II of the Country-Specific AD Initiation
Checklists; see also section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
\22\ See Attachment II of the AD Initiation Checklist.
\23\ Id.
\24\ 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 LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that
subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under
section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Petitions at Volume I at 14, 24 and Exhibit I-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports;
reduced market share; underselling and price depression and
suppression; lost sales and revenues; declines in production,
shipments, capacity utilization, and employment; decline in financial
performance; inability to implement long-term expansion and growth
projects; and the magnitude of the estimated dumping margins.\26\ We
assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material
injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility,
and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by
adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Volume I of the Petitions at 13-14, 23-33 and Exhibits
I-11, I-12, I-14 through I-16; see also General Issues Supplement at
2 and Exhibit SI-11.
\27\ See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists at Attachment
III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping Duty Petitions Covering Emulsion
Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from the Czech Republic, Italy, and the
Russian Federation (Attachment III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of Sales at LTFV
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV
upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate these LTFV
investigations of imports of ESBR from the Czech Republic, Italy, and
Russia. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating
to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in
the country-specific AD Initiation Checklists.
U.S. Price
For the Czech Republic, Italy, and Russia, the petitioner
established export prices (EPs) using the average unit value (AUVs) of
publicly available import data. For the Czech Republic and Italy, the
petitioner made adjustments to the AUVs for foreign inland freight
incurred in subject foreign countries for purposes of calculating ex-
factory, or net, EPs. For Russia, the petitioner deducted expenses
associated with inland freight and brokerage and handling costs
incurred in Russia to calculate an ex-factory, or net, EP.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value <SUP>29</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ In accordance with section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for these
investigations, Commerce will request information necessary to
calculate the constructed value (CV) and cost of production (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Czech Republic, Italy, and Russia, the petitioner stated it
was unable to obtain home-market or third-country prices for ESBR to
use as a basis for NV. Therefore, for the Czech Republic, Italy, and
Russia, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated CV
as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, selling, general, and
administrative expenses, financial expenses, and profit.\31\ For the
Czech Republic, Italy, and Russia, in calculating the cost of
manufacturing, the petitioner relied on the production experience and
input consumption rates of the petitioner, a U.S. ESBR producer, valued
using publicly available information applicable to each
[[Page 70450]]
respective subject country.\32\ For the Czech Republic, Italy, and
Russia, in calculating selling, general, and administrative expenses,
financial expenses, and profit ratios (where applicable), the
petitioner relied on the 2020 financial statements of an ESBR
producer(s) or producer(s) of comparable merchandise domiciled in each
respective subject country.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of ESBR from the Czech Republic, Italy, and Russia
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV.
Based on comparisons of EP to CV in accordance with section 773 of the
Act, the estimated dumping margins for ESBR concerning each of the
countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) Czech
Republic--11.00 percent; (2) Italy--28.97 percent; and (3) Russia--
263.33 percent.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of LTFV Investigations
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental
responses, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section
732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating these LTFV investigations
to determine whether imports of ESBR from the Czech Republic, Italy,
and Russia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this
initiation.
Respondent Selection
In the Petitions, the petitioner identified four companies in
Russia as producers and/or exporters of ESBR.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Petitions at Volume I at 12-13 and Exhibit I-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following standard practice in LTFV investigations involving market
economy countries, in the event that Commerce determines that the
number of exporters or producers in any individual case is large such
that Commerce cannot individually examine each company based upon its
resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory
respondents in that case based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States subheadings listed in the ``Scope of the
Investigations,'' in the appendix.
On December 3, 2021, Commerce released CBP data on imports of ESBR
from Russia under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties
with access to information protected by APO and indicated that
interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP data must do so within
three business days after the publication date of the notice of
initiation of these investigations.\36\ Commerce will not accept
rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Memorandum, ``Antidumping Duty Petition on Imports of
Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from the Russian Federation:
Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Entry Data,'' dated
December 3, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Commerce's website at <a href="https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo">https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo</a>.
Comments on CBP data and respondent selection for Russia must be
filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document
must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m.
ET on the specified deadline.
In the Petitions, the petitioner identified one company in the
Czech Republic as a producer/exporter of ESBR (i.e., Synthos Kralupy
A.S. (Synthos)) and one company in Italy as a producer/exporter of ESBR
(i.e., Eni Versalis S.p.A. (Versalis)) and provided independent third-
party information as support.\37\ We currently know of no additional
producers/exporters of ESBR from the Czech Republic or Italy.
Accordingly, Commerce intends to individually examine all known
producers/exporters in the investigations from these countries (i.e.,
the companies cited above). We invite interested parties to comment on
this issue. Such comments may include factual information within the
meaning of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21). Parties wishing to comment must do so
within three business days of the publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS.
An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Because
we intend to examine all known producers/exporters in the Czech
Republic and Italy, if no comments are received or if comments received
further support the existence of these sole producers/exporters in the
Czech Republic and Italy, respectively, we do not intend to conduct
respondent selection and will proceed to issuing the initial
antidumping questionnaires to the companies identified. However, if
comments are received which create a need for a respondent selection
process, we intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent
selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Petitions at Volume I at 12-13 and Exhibit I-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been
provided to the governments of the Czech Republic, Italy, and Russia
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 ESBR from the Czech Republic, Italy, and/or
Russia are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a
U.S. industry.\38\ A negative ITC determination for any country will
result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that
country.\39\ Otherwise, these LTFV investigations will proceed
according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
\39\ 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 Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual
information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's
regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to
specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information
is being submitted \40\ and, if the information is submitted to rebut,
clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to
provide an explanation identifying the information
[[Page 70451]]
already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut,
clarify, or correct.\41\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\41\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particular Market Situation Allegation
Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular
market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that ``if a
particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and
fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect
the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the
administering authority may use another calculation methodology under
this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.'' When an
interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of
the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19
CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section
773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations
appropriately.
Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), set
a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual
information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act,
Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual
information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should
an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new
factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do
so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial
section D questionnaire response.
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 Commerce. 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 a letter or memorandum of 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 Commerce's regulations concerning factual information
prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See 19 CFR 351.301; see also Extension of Time Limits;
Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm">http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD proceeding must
certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\43\
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).\44\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\44\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at
<a href="http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf">http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate
in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements
of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (e.g., by the filing a letter of appearance as
discussed). Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its
requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary
information, until further notice.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements
Due to COVID-19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July
10, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: December 6, 2021.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix--Scope of the Investigations
The products covered by these investigations are cold-
polymerized emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber). The
scope of the investigations includes, but is not limited to, ESB
rubber in primary forms, bales, granules, crumbs, pellets, powders,
plates, sheets, strip, etc. ESB rubber consists of non-pigmented
rubbers and oil-extended non-pigmented rubbers, both of which
contain at least one percent of organic acids from the emulsion
polymerization process.
ESB rubber is produced and sold in accordance with a generally
accepted set of product specifications issued by the International
Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (IISRP). The scope of the
investigations covers grades of ESB rubber included in the IISRP
1500 and 1700 series of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are light
in color and are often described as ``Clear'' or ``White Rubber.''
The 1700 grades are oil-extended and thus darker in color, and are
often called ``Brown Rubber.''
Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations are
products which are manufactured by blending ESB rubber with other
polymers, high styrene resin master batch, carbon black master batch
(i.e., IISRP 1600 series and 1800 series) and latex (an intermediate
product).
The products subject to these investigations are currently
classifiable under subheadings 4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). ESB rubber
is described by Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS) Registry No. 9003-
55-8. This CAS number also refers to other types of styrene
butadiene rubber. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry
number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of these investigations is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2021-26832 Filed 12-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 10, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.