Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 55438-55444 [2016-19769]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55438-55444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-849, A-580-890, A-201-848, A-455-805]


Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Brazil, the Republic of 
Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 
Investigations

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

DATES: Effective August 10, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Drew Jackson at (202) 482-4406 
(Brazil); Frances Veith at (202) 482-4295 (Republic of Korea); Julia 
Hancock or Javier Barrientos at (202) 482-1394 or (202) 482-2243, 
respectively (Mexico); and Stephen Bailey or William Horn at (202) 482-
0193 or (202) 482-2615, respectively (Poland), AD/CVD Operations, 
Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street 
and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions

    On July 21, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of emulsion 
styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from Brazil, the Republic of 
Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Poland, filed in proper form on behalf of 
Lion Elastomers LLC and East West Copolymer, LLC (Petitioners).\1\ 
Petitioners are domestic producers of ESB rubber.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the 
Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland, dated July 21, 2016 (the 
Petitions).
    \2\ See Petitions, at 2, and Exhibits I-1 and I-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 25, 26, and August 2, 2016, the Department requested 
additional information and clarification of certain areas of the 
Petitions.\3\ Petitioners filed

[[Page 55439]]

responses to these requests on August 1 and 3, 2016, respectively.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled 
``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of 
Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Supplemental Questions,'' dated July 25, 
2016 (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter 
from the Department to Petitioners entitled ``Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-
Butadiene Rubber from Brazil: Supplemental Questions,'' dated July 
26, 2016 (Brazil Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter from 
the Department to Petitioners entitled ``Petition for the Imposition 
of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene 
Rubber from Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions,'' dated July 
26, 2016 (Korea Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter from 
the Department to Petitioners entitled ``Petition for the Imposition 
of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene 
Rubber from Mexico: Supplemental Questions,'' dated July 26, 2016 
(Mexico Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter from the 
Department to Petitioners entitled ``Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber 
from Mexico: Supplemental Questions,'' dated July 26, 2016 (Poland 
Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Memorandum to the File from 
Drew Jackson, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 
IV, Re: ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the 
Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland, Subject: Telephone 
Conversation with Petitioners' Counsel,'' dated August 2, 2016 
(Memorandum on Telephone Conversation with Petitioners' Counsel re: 
Scope); see also Memorandum to the File from Vicki Flynn, Senior 
Policy Analyst, Office of Policy, Re: ``Petitions for the Imposition 
of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene 
Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland, 
Subject: Telephone Conversation with Petitioners' Counsel,'' dated 
August 2, 2016 (Memorandum on Telephone Conversation with 
Petitioners' Counsel re: Scope and Other Issues).
    \4\ See Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled ``Re: 
Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, Republic of Korea, 
Mexico, and Poland: Supplemental Questionnaire Response Regarding 
the Antidumping Petition--General Questions,'' dated August 1, 2016 
(General Issues Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the 
Department entitled ``Re: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from 
Brazil: Supplemental Questionnaire Response Regarding the 
Antidumping Petition--General Questions,'' dated August 1, 2016 
(Brazil Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the 
Department entitled ``Re: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from 
Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questionnaire Response Regarding the 
Antidumping Petition--General Questions,'' dated August 1, 2016 
(Korea Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the 
Department entitled ``Re Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from 
Mexico: Supplemental Questionnaire Response Regarding the 
Antidumping Petition--General Questions,'' dated August 1, 2016 
(Mexico Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the 
Department entitled ``Re: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from 
Poland: Supplemental Questionnaire Response,'' dated August 1, 2016 
(Poland Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the 
Department entitled ``Re: Amended Petitions for the Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber 
from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland,'' dated 
August 1, 2016 (Amended Petitions); see also Letter from Petitioners 
to the Department entitled ``Re: Revised Amended Petitions for the 
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-
Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and 
Poland,'' dated August 3, 2016 (Revised Amended Petitions); see also 
Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled ``Amendment to 
Correct Erroneous Deletion of Exhibit from Re: Amended Petitions for 
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene 
-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and 
Poland,'' dated August 3, 2016; Letter from Petitioners to the 
Department entitled ``Amendment to Petition For The Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties on Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, 
the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland--Revised Scope,'' dated 
August 3, 2016 (Scope Amendment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that imports of ESB rubber from 
Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland 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, an industry in the United States. 
Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, Petitioners state 
that the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available 
to Petitioners supporting their allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested 
parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also 
finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with 
respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioners are 
requesting.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on July 21, 2016, the period of 
investigation (POI) for each investigation is, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1), July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is ESB rubber from 
Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland. For a full description of the scope 
of these investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' at 
Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed 
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an 
accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is 
seeking relief.\6\ The Department also conducted two telephone calls 
with Petitioners to clarify Petitioners' intent with respect to the 
scope.\7\ In response, Petitioners provided a revised scope on August 
3, 2016.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire and August 2, 
2016, Memorandum on Telephone Conversation with Petitioners' 
Counsel; see also General Issues Supplement; and Scope Amendment.
    \7\ See Memorandum on Telephone Conversation with Petitioners' 
Counsel re: Scope; see also Memorandum on Telephone Conversation 
with Petitioners' Counsel re: Scope and Other Issues.
    \8\ See Scope Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). 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 (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), 
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 Daylight Time (EDT) on August 30, 2016, which is 20 
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal 
comments, which may include factual information (also should be limited 
to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on September 9, 
2016, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments. All such 
comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD 
investigations.
    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. As stated 
above, all such comments must be filed on the records of each 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).\9\ 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, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 
the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the 
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect 
on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at 
https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at 
https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department will be giving interested parties an opportunity to 
provide comments on the appropriate physical characteristics of ESB 
rubber to

[[Page 55440]]

be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant 
costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate 
product-comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, although there 
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers 
to describe ESB rubber, 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. EDT on August 30, 
2016, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 
Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on September 9, 
2016. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of each 
of the concurrent AD investigations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product,\10\ 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \11\ 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 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer 
a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of 
the investigations as described in Appendix I of this notice. Based on 
our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have 
determined that ESB rubber, as defined in the ``Scope of the 
Investigations'' in Appendix I of this notice, constitutes a single 
domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of 
that domestic like product.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil (Brazil AD Checklist), 
at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping 
Duty Petitions Covering Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from 
Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland (Attachment II); 
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Emulsion 
Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of Korea (Korea AD 
Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico 
(Mexico AD Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene 
Rubber from Poland (Poland AD Checklist), at Attachment II. These 
checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file 
electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is 
also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main 
Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of 
this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their 
2015 production of the domestic like product and estimated the 2015 
production of Goodyear Chemical, the only other known ESB rubber 
producer in the United States.\13\ Petitioners also provided a letter 
from the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, CLC (USW), stating that the USW represents the workers at 
Petitioner Lion Elastomers LLC's Port Neches, TX ESB rubber plant and 
it supports the Petitions.\14\ In addition, Petitioners provided a 
letter of support for the Petitions from the International Union of 
Operating Engineers (IUOE) stating that the IUOE represents the workers 
at Petitioner East West Copolymer, LLC's ESB rubber plant in Baton 
Rouge, LA and the workers at Goodyear Chemical's Houston, TX ESB rubber 
plant.\15\ Petitioners state that Lion Elastomers LLC, East West 
Copolymer, LLC, and Goodyear Chemical are the only known producers of 
ESB rubber in the United States; therefore, Petitioners assert that

[[Page 55441]]

the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Petitions, at 3-4 and Exhibits I-3, I-5, and I-7; see 
also General Issues Supplement, at 2-3; and Revised Amended 
Petitions, at 3-4 and revised Exhibit I-7.
    \14\ See Petitions, at Exhibit I-6.
    \15\ See Letter from Petitioners entitled ``Supplement 1 to 
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Emulsion 
Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, 
and Poland,'' July 21, 2016 (IUOE Letter), at Attachment.
    \16\ See Petitions, at 3-4; see also Revised Amended Petitions, 
at 3-4. We note that management at Goodyear Chemical did not express 
a view with respect to the Petitions; therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.203(e)(3), because the workers of Goodyear Chemical support the 
Petitions through their union, we are treating the production of 
Goodyear Chemical as in support of the Petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, IUOE Letter, 
General Issues Supplement, Amended Petitions, and other information 
readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have 
established industry support.\17\ 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, the Department is not required to take further action in order to 
evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).\18\ 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.\19\ 
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.\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For a further discussion of the industry support analysis, 
see Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Korea AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Mexico AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II, and Poland AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
    \18\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Brazil AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II, Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II, and Poland AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \19\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Korea 
AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Mexico AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II, and Poland AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are 
requesting the Department initiate.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Korea 
AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Mexico AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II, and Poland AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of 
the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV).
    In addition, with regard to Brazil, Korea, and Mexico, Petitioners 
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided 
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See General Issues Supplement, at 8-9; see also Revised 
Amended Petitions, at 14-15 and revised Exhibit I-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to Poland, while the allegedly dumped imports from 
Poland do not exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility, 
Petitioners allege and provide supporting evidence that there is the 
potential that imports from Poland will imminently exceed the 
negligibility threshold and, therefore, are not negligible for purposes 
of a threat determination, pursuant to section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the 
Act.\23\ Petitioners also contend that, although publicly available 
import data is limited, there is a reasonable indication that data 
obtained in the ITC's investigation will establish that imports exceed 
the negligibility threshold.\24\ Petitioners' arguments regarding the 
limitations of publicly available import data and the collection of 
import data in the ITC's investigation are consistent with the SAA, 
which states that the ITC may make reasonable estimates on the basis of 
available data to address limitations in data collected by the ITC or 
official import statistics.\25\ Furthermore, Petitioners' arguments 
regarding the potential for imports from Poland to imminently exceed 
the negligibility threshold are consistent with the statutory criteria 
for ``negligibility in threat analysis'' under section 771(24)(A)(iv) 
of the Act, which provides that imports shall not be treated as 
negligible if there is a potential that subject imports from a country 
will imminently exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act; see also General 
Issues Supplement, at 8-9.
    \24\ See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, Vol. 1, (1994) (SAA), at 857; see also General Issues 
Supplement, at 8-9; and Revised Amended Petitions, at 14-15.
    \25\ See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 833 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners contend 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, negative impact on employment 
variables, and declines in financial performance, capital expenditures, 
and research and development expenditures.\26\ We have assessed the 
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat 
of material injury, negligibility, causation, and cumulation, and we 
have determined that Petitioners' allegations are properly supported by 
adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Petitions, at 12-16, 24-53 and Exhibits I-1, I-2, I-5, 
I-7, I-8, I-12, I-13 and I-16 through I-34; see also General Issues 
Supplement, at 7; and Revised Amended Petitions, at 12-16, 24-53 and 
revised Exhibits I-12, I-16, and I-17.
    \27\ See Brazil AD Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of 
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 
Antidumping Duty Petitions Covering Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene 
Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland 
(Attachment III); see also Korea AD Checklist, at Attachment III; 
Mexico AD Checklist, at Attachment III; and Poland AD Checklist, at 
Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-
than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate investigations of imports of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, 
Mexico, and Poland. The sources of data for the deductions and 
adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater 
detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

Export Price

    For Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, Petitioners based export 
price (EP) on average unit values (AUVs) calculated using publicly 
available import statistics from the ITC's Dataweb for all imports from 
each subject country under the relevant Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (HTSUS) subheading for imports of ESB rubber into all 
U.S. ports during the POI.\28\ For Brazil, Korea, and Poland, 
Petitioners also based EP on transaction-specific AUVs for shipments of 
ESB rubber identified from each of these countries entered under the 
relevant HTSUS subheading for one month

[[Page 55442]]

during the POI into a specific port.\29\ Under this methodology,\30\ 
Petitioners obtained ship manifest data from Datamyne, Inc. U.S., and 
Petitioners then linked monthly U.S. port-specific import statistics 
(obtained from the ITC's Dataweb), for imports of ESB rubber entered 
under the relevant HTSUS subheading to shipments by producers in the 
subject countries identified in the ship manifest data.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist, Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, and Poland AD Initiation 
Checklist.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under both methodologies, to calculate ex-factory prices and to be 
conservative, Petitioners made no adjustments to U.S. price for 
movement expenses, consistent with the manner in which the data is 
reported in Dataweb.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, Petitioners were unable to 
obtain information regarding home market prices, such as price quotes 
for ESB rubber, or third-country prices, and therefore calculated NV 
based on constructed value (CV).\33\ Pursuant to section 773(e) of the 
Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), SG&A expenses, 
financial expenses, packing expenses, and profit. Petitioners 
calculated COM based on Petitioners' experience, adjusted for known 
differences between producing in the United States and producing in the 
respective country (i.e., Brazil, Korea, Mexico, or Poland), during the 
proposed POI.\34\ Using publicly-available data to account for price 
differences, Petitioners multiplied the surrogate usage quantities by 
the submitted value of the inputs used to manufacture ESB rubber in 
each country.\35\ For Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, labor rates 
were derived from publicly available sources multiplied by the product-
specific usage rates.\36\ For Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, to 
determine factory overhead and packing, Petitioners relied on 
Petitioners' experience.\37\ For Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, to 
determine SG&A and financial expense rates, Petitioners relied on 
financial statements of companies that were producers of identical or 
comparable merchandise operating in the respective subject country.\38\ 
Petitioners also relied on the financial statements of the same 
producers that they used for calculating SG&A expenses and financial 
expenses to calculate the profit rate.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist, Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, and Poland AD Initiation 
Checklist. In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade 
Preferences Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the 
Act, for all of the investigations, the Department will request 
information necessary to calculate the cost of production (COP) and 
CV 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 will no longer require a COP allegation to conduct this 
analysis.
    \34\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation 
Checklist, Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, and Poland AD Initiation 
Checklist.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and 
Poland, are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance 
with sections 773(a) and (e) of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margin(s) for ESB rubber are as follows: (1) Brazil, 57.14 percent and 
67.99 percent; \40\ (2) Korea, 22.48 percent and 44.30 percent; \41\ 
(3) Mexico, 22.39 percent; \42\ and (4) Poland, 40.57 percent and 44.54 
percent.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
    \41\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
    \42\ See Mexico AD Initiation Checklist.
    \43\ See Poland AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on ESB rubber from 
Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, 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 ESB rubber for Brazil, 
Korea, Mexico, and Poland 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.
    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into 
law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous 
amendments to the AD and countervailing duty (CVD) law.\44\ 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.\45\ 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.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \45\ 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) (Applicability Notice).
    \46\ Id., at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    Based on shippers' manifest information from the Datamyne, Inc. 
U.S., Petitioners identified 11 companies in Korea as producers of ESB 
rubber.\47\ Following standard practice in AD investigations involving 
market economy countries, in the event the Department determines that 
the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine 
each company based upon the Department's resources, where appropriate, 
the Department intends to select respondents for the Korea 
investigation based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data 
for U.S. imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States numbers listed with the ``Scope of the 
Investigations,'' in Appendix I, below. We also intend to release the 
CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties 
with access to information protected by APO on the record within five 
business days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Comments 
regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted 
seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record 
of the Korea investigation. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments 
should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for 
the initial comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Petitions, at 11-12 and Exhibit I-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Brazil, Mexico, and Poland, based on shippers' 
manifest information from the Datamyne, Inc. U.S., Petitioners 
identified: (1) One company as a producer/exporter of ESB in Brazil, 
Lanxess Elastomeros do Brasil S.A.; (2) one company as a producer/
exporter of ESB in Mexico, Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V.--Planta 
Altamira; and (3) one company as a producer/exporter of ESB in Poland, 
Synthos Dwory 7 Spolka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia Spolka Jawna 
(Sp. Z O.O.S.J.).\48\ With respect to Brazil, Mexico, and Poland, 
Petitioners

[[Page 55443]]

provided additional information from independent third party sources as 
support.\49\ Furthermore, we currently know of no additional producers/
exporters of merchandise under consideration from these countries. 
Therefore, consistent with section 777A(c) of the Act and the 
Department's practice in such circumstances,\50\ for Brazil, Mexico, 
and Poland the Department intends to examine the sole producer/exporter 
identified in the respective Petitions. Comments regarding respondent 
selection for each of these AD investigations (i.e., Brazil, Mexico, 
and Poland) should be submitted five calendar days after the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register on the record of 
each respective investigation. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal 
comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the 
deadline for the initial comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Petitions, at Exhibits I-5 and I-11; see also General 
Issues Supplement, at 3-4 and Attachment 1.
    \49\ See Petitions, at Exhibit I-11; see also General Issues 
Supplement, at 3-4 and Attachment 1. Id.
    \50\ See, e.g., Melamine From the People's Republic of China and 
Trinidad and Tobago: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 
Investigations, 79 FR 73037, 73041 (December 9, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments for the above-referenced investigations must be filed 
electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be 
received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic 
records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. EDT by the dates noted above. We 
intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent selection 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 Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland 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 ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and/
or Poland are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a 
U.S. industry.\51\ A negative ITC determination for any country will 
result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that 
country;\52\ otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence 
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i) through (iv). Any party, when 
submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 
19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 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. 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. Please review the regulations prior to 
submitting factual information in these investigations.

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, 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 Part 351 expires. 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. 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. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 
information in this segment.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\53\ 
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.\54\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \54\ 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 
https://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 section 777(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: August 10, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is 
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

[[Page 55444]]

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 Abstract 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. 2016-19769 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P