[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 235 (Friday, December 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70447-70451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a 
handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_Filing_Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
    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 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
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. 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