Pentafluoroethane (R-125) From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 36526-36529 [2021-14755]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36526
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Notices
Softwood lumber product imports are
generally entered under Chapter 44 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
Order is dispositive.5
Initiation
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)
and 19 CFR 351.216(d), Commerce will
conduct a CCR upon receipt of
information or a review request showing
changed circumstances sufficient to
warrant a review of an order. Among
other things, Commerce has conducted
CCRs to consider the applicability of
cash deposit rates after there have been
changes in the name or structure of a
company, such as a merger or spinoff
(successor-in-interest, or successorship,
determinations).
We find the information provided is
sufficient to warrant a CCR of the Order.
Specifically, the information CHAP
provided regarding L’Atelier’s name
change to CHAP demonstrates changed
circumstances sufficient to warrant a
CCR with respect to the Order.
Therefore, in accordance with section
751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.216(d), we are initiating a CCR to
determine whether CHAP is the
successor-in-interest to L’Atelier for
purposes of the Order.
In addition, Commerce’s regulations
(19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii)), permit it to
initiate a CCR and issue the preliminary
results of that CCR simultaneously if it
concludes that expedited action is
warranted. We have on the record the
information necessary to make a
preliminary finding and, therefore, we
find that expedited action is warranted.6
Consequently, we are combining the
initiation of the CCR described above
and our preliminary results, in
accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(ii).
Preliminary Results
In determining whether one company
is the successor to another for AD
purposes, Commerce examines a
number of factors including, but not
limited to, changes in: (1) Management;
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
5 For
a complete description of the scope of the
Order, see Memorandum, ‘‘Initiation and
Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances
Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby
adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision
Memorandum).
6 See, e.g., Notice of Initiation and Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada, 70 FR 50299 (August 26,
2005).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
(2) production facilities; (3) suppliers;
and (4) customer base.7 While no one,
or several, of these factors will
necessarily provide a dispositive
indication of succession, Commerce will
generally consider one company to be
the successor to another company if its
resulting operations are essentially the
same as those of its predecessor.8 Thus,
if the evidence demonstrates that, with
respect to the production and sale of the
subject merchandise, the company, in
its current form, operates as essentially
the same business entity as the prior
company, Commerce will assign the
new company the cash deposit rate of
its predecessor.9
CHAP provided evidence that: (1)
L’Atelier’s name changed to CHAP in
February 2021; and (2) there were no
significant changes to management,10
production facilities,11 suppliers, or
customer base.12 Based on the foregoing,
which is explained in greater detail in
the Preliminary Decision Memorandum,
we preliminarily determine that CHAP
is the successor-in-interest to L’Atelier
for purposes of the Order.
Should our final results of review
remain the same as these preliminary
results of review, effective the date of
publication of the final results of
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to apply
L’Atelier’s cash deposit rate to CHAP.
Public Comment
Interested parties may submit case
briefs not later than 14 days after the
date of publication of this notice.13
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited
to issues raised in case briefs, may be
filed not later than seven days after the
due date for case briefs.14 Parties who
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in
this CCR are requested to submit with
7 See Initiation and Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review:
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s
Republic of China, 79 FR 48117,48118 (August 15,
2014), unchanged in Multilayered Wood Flooring
from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results
of Changed Circumstances Review, 79 FR 58740
(September 30, 2014).
8 Id.
9 See, e.g., Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel
Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstance Review,
70 FR 17063, 17064 (April 4, 2005); and Fresh and
Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final Results
of Changed Circumstances Antidumping
Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1,
1999).
10 See CCR Request at Exhibit 4, Attachment A.
11 Id. at Exhibit 4, Attachment B.
12 Id. at Exhibit 4, Attachments C and D.
13 Commerce is exercising its discretion under 19
CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) to alter the time limit for the
filing of case briefs.
14 Commerce is exercising its discretion under 19
CFR 351.309(d)(1) to alter the time limit for the
filing of rebuttal briefs.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
each argument: (1) A statement of the
issues; and (2) a brief summary of the
arguments with electronic versions
included.
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 14 days of publication of
this notice.15 Hearing requests should
contain the following information: (1)
The party’s name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of the issues
to be discussed. Oral presentations at
the hearing will be limited to issues
raised in the briefs. If a request for a
hearing is made, Commerce intends to
hold the hearing at a time and date to
be determined. Parties should confirm
the date and the time of the hearing two
days before the scheduled date.
All submissions, with limited
exceptions, must be filed electronically
using Enforcement and Compliance’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(ACCESS).16 An electronically filed
document must be received successfully
in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time
(ET) on the due date.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e),
we intend to issue the final results of
this CCR no later than 270 days after the
date on which these reviews were
initiated or within 45 days if all parties
agree to the outcome of the review.
We are issuing and publishing this
initiation and preliminary results notice
in accordance with sections 751(b)(1)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
Dated: July 6, 2021.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Negotiations.
[FR Doc. 2021–14746 Filed 7–9–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–138]
Pentafluoroethane (R–125) From the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Affirmative Determination
of Critical Circumstances, in Part, in
the Countervailing Duty Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
15 Commerce is exercising its discretion under 19
CFR 351.310(c) to alter the time limit for requesting
a hearing.
16 ACCESS is available to registered users at
https://access.trade.gov; see also Temporary Rule
Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to
Covid–19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR
41363, (July 10, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM
12JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Notices
The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) preliminarily determines
that critical circumstances exist, in part,
with respect to imports of
pentafluoroethane (R–125) from certain
producers and exporters from the
People’s Republic of China (China).
DATES: Applicable July 12, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua Tucker or Adam Simons, AD/
CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement
and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–2044 or (202) 482–6172,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Background
On January 11, 2021, Commerce
received a countervailing duty (CVD)
petition concerning imports of R–125
from China filed in proper form on
behalf of the petitioner, Honeywell
International, Inc.1 On February 1, 2021,
we initiated this investigation,2 and on
June 25, 2021, we published an
affirmative Preliminary Determination.3
Commerce selected Zhejiang Quzhou
Juxin Fluorine Chemical Co., Ltd.
(Juxin) and Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical
Ind. Co., Ltd. (Sanmei) as the
individually-examined respondents in
this investigation.
On June 4, 2021, the petitioner alleged
that critical circumstances exist with
respect to imports of R–125 from China,
pursuant to section 703(e)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
and 19 CFR 351.206.4 On June 10, 2021,
Commerce requested monthly shipment
data from Juxin and Sanmei for subject
merchandise for the period August 2020
to May 2021, which Commerce received
on June 17, 2021.5
1 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties Pursuant to sections 701 and 731 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended, on Behalf of
Honeywell International, Inc.,’’ dated January 11,
2021 (Petition).
2 See Pentafluoroethane (R–125) from the People’s
Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation, 86 FR 8589 (February 8, 2021)
(Initiation Notice).
3 See Pentafluoroethane (R–125) from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment
of Final Determination with Final Antidumping
Determination, 86 FR 33648 (June 25, 2020)
(Preliminary Determination), and accompanying
Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM).
4 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Petitioner’s Critical
Circumstances Allegation,’’ dated June 4, 2021
(Critical Circumstances Allegation).
5 See Juxin’s Letter, ‘‘Juxin Critical Circumstances
Response,’’ dated June 17, 2021 (Juxin Critical
Circumstances Data); and Sanmei’s Letter,
‘‘Submission of Zhejiang Sanmei’s Critical
Circumstances Information,’’ dated June 17, 2021
(Sanmei Critical Circumstances Data).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
In accordance with section 703(e)(1)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1),
because the petitioner submitted its
critical circumstance allegation more
than 30 days before the scheduled date
of the final determination,6 Commerce
will make a preliminary finding as to
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe or suspect that critical
circumstances exist. Commerce will
issue its preliminary finding of critical
circumstances within 30 days after the
petitioner submits the allegation.7
Period of Investigation (POI)
The POI is January 1, 2020, through
December 31, 2020.
Critical Circumstances Allegation
The petitioner alleges that there was
a massive increase of imports of R–125
from China and provided monthly
import data for the period October 2020
through March 2021.8 The petitioner
states that a comparison of total imports,
by quantity, for the base period October
2020 through December 2020 to the
comparison period January 2021
through March 2021, shows that imports
of R–125 from China increased by 45.5
percent,9 which is ‘‘massive’’ under 19
CFR 351.206(h)(2). The petitioner also
alleges that there is a reasonable basis to
believe that there are subsidies in this
investigation which are inconsistent
with the Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures Agreement of the World Trade
Organization (SCM Agreement).10
Critical Circumstances Analysis
Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides
that Commerce will preliminarily
determine that critical circumstances
exist in a CVD investigation if there is
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect
that: (A) The alleged countervailable
subsidy is inconsistent with the SCM
Agreement; 11 and (B) there have been
6 The final determination for this CVD
investigation is currently due no later than October
21, 2021.
7 See 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii). In this case, 30
days after the petitioner submitted the allegation
would place the deadline on Sunday, July 4, 2021.
Commerce’s practice dictates that where a deadline
falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the
appropriate deadline is the next business day. 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).
8 See Critical Circumstances Allegation at 8 and
Exhibit 1.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 4–5.
11 Commerce limits its critical circumstances
findings to those subsidies contingent upon export
performance or use of domestic over imported
goods (i.e., those prohibited under Article 3 of the
SCM Agreement). See, e.g., Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination and Final
Negative Critical Circumstances Determination:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36527
massive imports of the subject
merchandise over a relatively short
period.
In determining whether there are
‘‘massive imports’’ over a ‘‘relatively
short period,’’ pursuant to section
703(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.206(h) and (i), Commerce normally
compares the import volumes of the
subject merchandise for at least three
months immediately preceding the
filing of the petition (i.e., the base
period) to a comparable period of at
least three months following the filing
of the petition (i.e., the comparison
period). However, the regulations also
provide that if Commerce finds that
importers, or exporters or producers,
had reason to believe, at some time prior
to the beginning of the proceeding, that
a proceeding was likely, Commerce may
consider a period of not less than three
months from the earlier time.12 Imports
must increase by at least 15 percent
during the comparison period to be
considered massive.13
Alleged Countervailable Subsidies Are
Inconsistent With the SCM Agreement
Juxin, Sanmei, and All Other
Companies
On May 3, 2021, the petitioner filed
a New Subsidies Allegation, alleging
that Chinese producers of subject
merchandise benefited from additional
subsidies provided by the Government
of China, including the Export Buyer’s
Credit Program and the Export Seller’s
Credit Program.14 To determine whether
there exists a reasonable basis to believe
or suspect that an alleged
countervailable subsidy is inconsistent
with the SCM Agreement, in accordance
with section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act,
Commerce considered the evidence on
the record pertaining to the petitioner’s
allegation that the Export Buyer’s Credit
Program and the Export Seller’s Credit
Program are inconsistent with the SCM
Agreement. Specifically, with regard to
these programs, the petitioner has
alleged the elements of a subsidy,15
supported with information reasonably
available to the petitioner,16 that appear
to be export contingent, which would
render them inconsistent with the SCM
Agreement. Therefore, Commerce
preliminarily determines that there is a
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire from Germany,
67 FR 55808, 55809–10 (August 30, 2002).
12 See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
13 See 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2).
14 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘New Subsidies
Allegation,’’ dated May 3, 2021 (New Subsidies
Allegation).
15 See New Subsidies Allegation at 2–5.
16 Id. see also Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘New Subsidies
Allegation Supplemental Response,’’ dated May 17,
2021.
E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM
12JYN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
36528
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Notices
reasonable basis to believe or suspect
that alleged subsidies in the New
Subsidies Allegation are inconsistent
with the SCM Agreement. As a result,
we preliminarily find that the criterion
under section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act has
been met for Juxin, Sanmei, and all
other exporters or producers not
individually examined.
potentially inconsistent with the SCM
Agreement.
Thus, because we preliminarily find
that the ‘‘Export Loans from Chinese
SOCBs’’ program is export-contingent,
we preliminarily find that the criterion
under section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act has
been met for Arkema, Daikin,
Hongkong, and Weitron.
Non-Responsive Companies
As explained in our Preliminary
Determination, we preliminarily applied
total adverse facts available (AFA) to
Arkema Daikin Advanced
Fluorochemicals (Changsu) Co., Ltd.
(Arkema); Daikin Fluorochemicals
(China) Co., Ltd. (Daikin); Hongkong
Richmax Ltd. (Hongkong); and Weitron
International Refrigeration Equipment
(Kunshan) Co., Ltd. (Weitron), pursuant
to section 776(b) of the Act. In applying
total AFA to these four companies, we
preliminarily determined that each
benefited from countervailable subsidies
under the ‘‘Export Loans from Chinese
State-Owned Commercial Banks
(SOCBs)’’ program.17 Although we did
not make a preliminary finding as to
whether the ‘‘Export Loans from
SOCBs’’ program was inconsistent with
the SCM Agreement in the Preliminary
Determination, we now preliminarily
find, pursuant to section 776(b) of the
Act, that there is a reasonable basis to
believe or suspect that the program, as
alleged in the Petition and supported by
information reasonably available to the
petitioner, is export-contingent within
the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the
Act and, thus, inconsistent with the
SCM Agreement.18 We are making the
inconsistency determination with regard
to this program, which is the only
program which we countervailed in the
Preliminary Determination alleged to be
inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.
In so doing, we intend to limit the
corresponding offset to the dumping
margin (if one is found) in the
companion antidumping duty
investigation, which best fulfills our
statutory mandate ‘‘to ensure that the
party does not obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than if it
had cooperated fully,’’ 19 and induce
future cooperation by companies in
investigations where the petitioners
allege the existence of programs
Massive Imports
Commerce compared the import
volumes of Juxin’s and Sanmei’s
reported shipments of subject
merchandise for the five months
immediately preceding and following
the filing of the petition. Because the
petition was filed on January 11, 2021,
and in order to determine whether there
was a massive surge in imports for the
mandatory respondents, Commerce
compared the total volume of shipments
during the period of August 2020
through December 2020 (the base
period) with the volume of shipments
during the period of January 2021
through May 2021 (the comparison
period).20 We preliminarily determine
that imports from both Juxin and
Sanmei increased by more than 15
percent between the base and
comparison periods.21
However, for purposes of our
‘‘massive imports’’ determination, we
received information on the record
about seasonality with respect to
Sanmei’s imports which we considered
as part of our analysis. Sanmei stated
that, while it did experience a massive
surge of imports of R–125 between the
base and comparison periods, this surge
was seasonal in nature. Sanmei also
provided its shipment data for
comparable periods in 2018–2019 and
2019–2020.22 Based on our analysis of
Sanmei’s shipment data reported for
2018 through 2021, we find that there is
a consistent pattern of seasonality
evidenced by a significant increase in
shipments during the months of January
through May (in 2019, 2020, and 2021),
when compared to August through
December (in 2018, 2019, and 2020) . As
a result, we preliminarily find that the
record reflects that any surge in
Sanmei’s imports between the base and
comparison periods in this investigation
can be explained by seasonal trends.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine
that, although the surge in imports of R–
17 See Preliminary Determination PDM at
‘‘Application of AFA: Non-Responsive Q&V
Questionnaire Recipients.’’
18 See Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Pentafluoroethane (R–125)
from the People’s Republic of China, dated
February 1, 2021.
19 See Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Doc. 103–316, Vol.1 (1994) at 870, reprinted
in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4199.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
20 See Juxin Critical Circumstances Data; see also
Sanmei Critical Circumstances Data.
21 See Memorandum, ‘‘Critical Circumstances
Analysis,’’ dated July 6, 2021.
22 See Sanmei Critical Circumstances Data. Juxin
did not argue that its surge in imports between the
base and comparison periods was due to seasonal
trends nor did it provide data to permit Commerce
to perform a seasonality analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
125 from Sanmei during the comparison
period was massive, the import surge
was massive as a result of seasonal
trends and, therefore, critical
circumstances do not exist for Sanmei,
in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(B)
of the Act.23
To determine whether imports were
massive for all other exporters or
producers, Commerce’s normal practice
is to subtract shipments reported by the
cooperating mandatory respondents
from shipment data for subject
merchandise from Global Trade Atlas.24
However, as discussed in the Initiation
Notice,25 the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States number
under which the subject merchandise
enters is a basket category under which
non-subject merchandise may enter.
Therefore, consistent with our practice,
we preliminarily relied on the data of
the mandatory respondents as ‘‘facts
available,’’ in accordance with section
776(a)(1) of the Act, to determine
whether imports from all other
exporters or producers were massive.26
Because we preliminary determine that
imports from both Juxin and Sanmei
increased by more than 15 percent
between the base and comparison
periods, we also preliminarily
determine that imports from all other
exporters or producers were massive.
Finally, for Arkema, Daikin,
Hongkong, and Weitron, we
preliminarily determine, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act, that there was
a massive surge in imports between the
base and comparison periods.
Accordingly, consistent with section
703(e)(1) of the Act, we preliminarily
determine that critical circumstances
exist with respect to Arkema, Daikin,
Hongkong, Juxin, Weitron, and all other
exporters and producers not
individually examined.
Final Determination
We will make a final determination
concerning critical circumstances in the
final determination of this investigation,
which is currently scheduled for
October 25, 2021.
23 Id.
24 See, e.g., Antidumping Duty Investigation on
Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs from Mexico:
Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 84 FR 18796, 18798 (May 2, 2019)
(Kegs from Mexico Preliminary Critical
Circumstances Determination).
25 See Checklist, ‘‘Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Pentafluoroethane
(R–125) from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated February 3, 2021 (Initiation Checklist); see
also Initiation Notice.
26 See, e.g., Kegs from Mexico Preliminary Critical
Circumstances Determination, 84 FR at 18798.
E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM
12JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Notices
Public Comment
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Case briefs or other written comments
may be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance. Interested parties will be
notified of the timeline for the
submission of case briefs and written
comments at a later date. Rebuttal briefs,
limited to issues raised in case briefs,
may be submitted no later than seven
days after the deadline date for case
briefs.27 Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in
this investigation are encouraged to
submit with each argument: (1) A
statement of the issue; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a
table of authorities.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section
703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, for Arkema,
Daikin, Hongkong, Juxin, Weitron, and
all other exporters and producers, we
intend to direct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to suspend
liquidation of any unliquidated entries
of subject merchandise from China
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse
for consumption, on or after March 27,
2021, which is 90 days prior to the date
of publication of the Preliminary
Determination in the Federal Register.
For such entries, CBP shall require a
cash deposit equal to the estimated
preliminary subsidy rates established in
the Preliminary Determination. This
suspension of liquidation will remain in
effect until further notice.
U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC) Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) of
the Act, we intend to notify the ITC of
this preliminary determination of
critical circumstances.
This determination is issued and
published pursuant to sections 703(f)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 6, 2021.
James Maeder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2021–14755 Filed 7–9–21; 8:45 am]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
27 See
19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
Review and Approval; Comment
Request; Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species Vessel and Gear Marking
The Department of Commerce will
submit the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and clearance in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, on or after the date of publication
of this notice. We invite the general
public and other Federal agencies to
comment on proposed, and continuing
information collections, which helps us
assess the impact of our information
collection requirements and minimize
the public’s reporting burden. Public
comments were previously requested
via the Federal Register on March 22,
2021, (86 FR 15198) during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for
an additional 30 days for public
comments.
Agency: National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
Title: Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species Vessel and Gear Marking.
OMB Control Number: 0648–0373.
Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: Regular submission
[extension of a current information
collection].
Number of Respondents: 4,767.
Average Hours per Response: 45
minutes to mark the vessel; 15 minutes
each to mark highflyers, buoys, and
floats.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,950.
Needs and Uses: This request is for an
extension of a current information
collection. These requirements apply to
vessel owners in the Atlantic highly
migratory species (HMS) Fishery.
Under current regulations at 50 CFR
635.6, fishing vessels permitted for
Atlantic HMS fisheries must display
their official vessel numbers on their
vessels. Flotation devices and highflyers attached to certain fishing gears
must also be marked with the vessel’s
official number to identify the vessel to
which the gear belongs. These
requirements are necessary for
identification, law enforcement, and
monitoring purposes.
Specifically, all vessel owners that
hold a valid Atlantic HMS permit under
50 CFR 635.4, other than an Atlantic
HMS Angling permit, are required to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36529
display their official vessel
identification number. Numbers must be
permanently affixed to, or painted on,
the port and starboard sides of the
deckhouse or hull and on an
appropriate weather deck, so as to be
clearly visible from an enforcement
vessel or aircraft. In block Arabic
numerals permanently affixed to or
painted on the vessel in contrasting
color to the background. At least 18
inches (45.7 cm) in height for vessels
over 65 ft (19.8 m) in length; at least 10
inches (25.4 cm) in height for all other
vessels over 25 ft (7.6 m) in length; and
at least 3 inches (7.6 cm) in height for
vessels 25 ft (7.6 m) in length or less.
Furthermore, the owner or operator of
a vessel for which a permit has been
issued under § 635.4 and that uses
handline, buoy gear, harpoon, longline,
or gillnet, must display the vessel’s
name, registration number or Atlantic
Tunas, Atlantic HMS Angling, or
Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit
number on each float attached to a
handline, buoy gear, or harpoon, and on
the terminal floats and high-flyers (if
applicable) on a longline or gillnet used
by the vessel. The vessel’s name or
number must be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm)
in height in block letters or arabic
numerals in a color that contrasts with
the background color of the float or
high-flyer.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations (vessel owners).
Frequency: Annually for each vessel
or piece of gear required to be marked.
The estimated number of gear items that
require marking per vessel owner range
from 2 buoys for bottom longline
vessels, up to 35 buoys for swordfish
buoy gear and Caribbean Small Boat
vessels.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
Legal Authority: Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975
(16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.)
This information collection request
may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov.
Follow the instructions to view the
Department of Commerce collections
currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be
submitted within 30 days of the
publication of this notice on the
following website www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain. Find this
particular information collection by
selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day
Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or
by using the search function and
E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM
12JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 130 (Monday, July 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36526-36529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14755]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-138]
Pentafluoroethane (R-125) From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in
Part, in the Countervailing Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
[[Page 36527]]
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines
that critical circumstances exist, in part, with respect to imports of
pentafluoroethane (R-125) from certain producers and exporters from the
People's Republic of China (China).
DATES: Applicable July 12, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Tucker or Adam Simons, AD/CVD
Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2044 or (202) 482-6172,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 11, 2021, Commerce received a countervailing duty (CVD)
petition concerning imports of R-125 from China filed in proper form on
behalf of the petitioner, Honeywell International, Inc.\1\ On February
1, 2021, we initiated this investigation,\2\ and on June 25, 2021, we
published an affirmative Preliminary Determination.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Pursuant to sections 701 and
731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended, on Behalf of Honeywell
International, Inc.,'' dated January 11, 2021 (Petition).
\2\ See Pentafluoroethane (R-125) from the People's Republic of
China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 86 FR 8589
(February 8, 2021) (Initiation Notice).
\3\ See Pentafluoroethane (R-125) from the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping
Determination, 86 FR 33648 (June 25, 2020) (Preliminary
Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum
(PDM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce selected Zhejiang Quzhou Juxin Fluorine Chemical Co., Ltd.
(Juxin) and Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co., Ltd. (Sanmei) as the
individually-examined respondents in this investigation.
On June 4, 2021, the petitioner alleged that critical circumstances
exist with respect to imports of R-125 from China, pursuant to section
703(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
351.206.\4\ On June 10, 2021, Commerce requested monthly shipment data
from Juxin and Sanmei for subject merchandise for the period August
2020 to May 2021, which Commerce received on June 17, 2021.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Petitioner's Critical
Circumstances Allegation,'' dated June 4, 2021 (Critical
Circumstances Allegation).
\5\ See Juxin's Letter, ``Juxin Critical Circumstances
Response,'' dated June 17, 2021 (Juxin Critical Circumstances Data);
and Sanmei's Letter, ``Submission of Zhejiang Sanmei's Critical
Circumstances Information,'' dated June 17, 2021 (Sanmei Critical
Circumstances Data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 703(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.206(c)(1), because the petitioner submitted its critical
circumstance allegation more than 30 days before the scheduled date of
the final determination,\6\ Commerce will make a preliminary finding as
to whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that
critical circumstances exist. Commerce will issue its preliminary
finding of critical circumstances within 30 days after the petitioner
submits the allegation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The final determination for this CVD investigation is
currently due no later than October 21, 2021.
\7\ See 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii). In this case, 30 days after
the petitioner submitted the allegation would place the deadline on
Sunday, July 4, 2021. Commerce's practice dictates that where a
deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the appropriate
deadline is the next business day. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation (POI)
The POI is January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020.
Critical Circumstances Allegation
The petitioner alleges that there was a massive increase of imports
of R-125 from China and provided monthly import data for the period
October 2020 through March 2021.\8\ The petitioner states that a
comparison of total imports, by quantity, for the base period October
2020 through December 2020 to the comparison period January 2021
through March 2021, shows that imports of R-125 from China increased by
45.5 percent,\9\ which is ``massive'' under 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2). The
petitioner also alleges that there is a reasonable basis to believe
that there are subsidies in this investigation which are inconsistent
with the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement of the World
Trade Organization (SCM Agreement).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Critical Circumstances Allegation at 8 and Exhibit 1.
\9\ Id.
\10\ Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Circumstances Analysis
Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that Commerce will
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in a CVD
investigation if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect
that: (A) The alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the
SCM Agreement; \11\ and (B) there have been massive imports of the
subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Commerce limits its critical circumstances findings to
those subsidies contingent upon export performance or use of
domestic over imported goods (i.e., those prohibited under Article 3
of the SCM Agreement). See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances
Determination: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire from Germany, 67
FR 55808, 55809-10 (August 30, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to section 703(e)(1)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h) and (i), Commerce normally compares the
import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months
immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the base
period) to a comparable period of at least three months following the
filing of the petition (i.e., the comparison period). However, the
regulations also provide that if Commerce finds that importers, or
exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to
the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, Commerce
may consider a period of not less than three months from the earlier
time.\12\ Imports must increase by at least 15 percent during the
comparison period to be considered massive.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
\13\ See 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alleged Countervailable Subsidies Are Inconsistent With the SCM
Agreement
Juxin, Sanmei, and All Other Companies
On May 3, 2021, the petitioner filed a New Subsidies Allegation,
alleging that Chinese producers of subject merchandise benefited from
additional subsidies provided by the Government of China, including the
Export Buyer's Credit Program and the Export Seller's Credit
Program.\14\ To determine whether there exists a reasonable basis to
believe or suspect that an alleged countervailable subsidy is
inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, in accordance with section
703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce considered the evidence on the record
pertaining to the petitioner's allegation that the Export Buyer's
Credit Program and the Export Seller's Credit Program are inconsistent
with the SCM Agreement. Specifically, with regard to these programs,
the petitioner has alleged the elements of a subsidy,\15\ supported
with information reasonably available to the petitioner,\16\ that
appear to be export contingent, which would render them inconsistent
with the SCM Agreement. Therefore, Commerce preliminarily determines
that there is a
[[Page 36528]]
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that alleged subsidies in the
New Subsidies Allegation are inconsistent with the SCM Agreement. As a
result, we preliminarily find that the criterion under section
703(e)(1)(A) of the Act has been met for Juxin, Sanmei, and all other
exporters or producers not individually examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``New Subsidies Allegation,''
dated May 3, 2021 (New Subsidies Allegation).
\15\ See New Subsidies Allegation at 2-5.
\16\ Id. see also Petitioner's Letter, ``New Subsidies
Allegation Supplemental Response,'' dated May 17, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Responsive Companies
As explained in our Preliminary Determination, we preliminarily
applied total adverse facts available (AFA) to Arkema Daikin Advanced
Fluorochemicals (Changsu) Co., Ltd. (Arkema); Daikin Fluorochemicals
(China) Co., Ltd. (Daikin); Hongkong Richmax Ltd. (Hongkong); and
Weitron International Refrigeration Equipment (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.
(Weitron), pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. In applying total AFA
to these four companies, we preliminarily determined that each
benefited from countervailable subsidies under the ``Export Loans from
Chinese State-Owned Commercial Banks (SOCBs)'' program.\17\ Although we
did not make a preliminary finding as to whether the ``Export Loans
from SOCBs'' program was inconsistent with the SCM Agreement in the
Preliminary Determination, we now preliminarily find, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act, that there is a reasonable basis to believe
or suspect that the program, as alleged in the Petition and supported
by information reasonably available to the petitioner, is export-
contingent within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act and,
thus, inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.\18\ We are making the
inconsistency determination with regard to this program, which is the
only program which we countervailed in the Preliminary Determination
alleged to be inconsistent with the SCM Agreement. In so doing, we
intend to limit the corresponding offset to the dumping margin (if one
is found) in the companion antidumping duty investigation, which best
fulfills our statutory mandate ``to ensure that the party does not
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully,'' \19\ and induce future cooperation by companies in
investigations where the petitioners allege the existence of programs
potentially inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Preliminary Determination PDM at ``Application of AFA:
Non-Responsive Q&V Questionnaire Recipients.''
\18\ See Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Pentafluoroethane (R-125) from the People's Republic of China, dated
February 1, 2021.
\19\ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol.1 (1994) at
870, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, because we preliminarily find that the ``Export Loans from
Chinese SOCBs'' program is export-contingent, we preliminarily find
that the criterion under section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act has been met
for Arkema, Daikin, Hongkong, and Weitron.
Massive Imports
Commerce compared the import volumes of Juxin's and Sanmei's
reported shipments of subject merchandise for the five months
immediately preceding and following the filing of the petition. Because
the petition was filed on January 11, 2021, and in order to determine
whether there was a massive surge in imports for the mandatory
respondents, Commerce compared the total volume of shipments during the
period of August 2020 through December 2020 (the base period) with the
volume of shipments during the period of January 2021 through May 2021
(the comparison period).\20\ We preliminarily determine that imports
from both Juxin and Sanmei increased by more than 15 percent between
the base and comparison periods.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Juxin Critical Circumstances Data; see also Sanmei
Critical Circumstances Data.
\21\ See Memorandum, ``Critical Circumstances Analysis,'' dated
July 6, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, for purposes of our ``massive imports'' determination, we
received information on the record about seasonality with respect to
Sanmei's imports which we considered as part of our analysis. Sanmei
stated that, while it did experience a massive surge of imports of R-
125 between the base and comparison periods, this surge was seasonal in
nature. Sanmei also provided its shipment data for comparable periods
in 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.\22\ Based on our analysis of Sanmei's
shipment data reported for 2018 through 2021, we find that there is a
consistent pattern of seasonality evidenced by a significant increase
in shipments during the months of January through May (in 2019, 2020,
and 2021), when compared to August through December (in 2018, 2019, and
2020) . As a result, we preliminarily find that the record reflects
that any surge in Sanmei's imports between the base and comparison
periods in this investigation can be explained by seasonal trends.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that, although the surge in
imports of R-125 from Sanmei during the comparison period was massive,
the import surge was massive as a result of seasonal trends and,
therefore, critical circumstances do not exist for Sanmei, in
accordance with section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Sanmei Critical Circumstances Data. Juxin did not argue
that its surge in imports between the base and comparison periods
was due to seasonal trends nor did it provide data to permit
Commerce to perform a seasonality analysis.
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether imports were massive for all other exporters
or producers, Commerce's normal practice is to subtract shipments
reported by the cooperating mandatory respondents from shipment data
for subject merchandise from Global Trade Atlas.\24\ However, as
discussed in the Initiation Notice,\25\ the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States number under which the subject merchandise enters
is a basket category under which non-subject merchandise may enter.
Therefore, consistent with our practice, we preliminarily relied on the
data of the mandatory respondents as ``facts available,'' in accordance
with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, to determine whether imports from
all other exporters or producers were massive.\26\ Because we
preliminary determine that imports from both Juxin and Sanmei increased
by more than 15 percent between the base and comparison periods, we
also preliminarily determine that imports from all other exporters or
producers were massive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See, e.g., Antidumping Duty Investigation on Refillable
Stainless Steel Kegs from Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 84 FR 18796, 18798 (May 2,
2019) (Kegs from Mexico Preliminary Critical Circumstances
Determination).
\25\ See Checklist, ``Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Pentafluoroethane (R-125) from the People's
Republic of China,'' dated February 3, 2021 (Initiation Checklist);
see also Initiation Notice.
\26\ See, e.g., Kegs from Mexico Preliminary Critical
Circumstances Determination, 84 FR at 18798.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for Arkema, Daikin, Hongkong, and Weitron, we
preliminarily determine, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that
there was a massive surge in imports between the base and comparison
periods.
Accordingly, consistent with section 703(e)(1) of the Act, we
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect
to Arkema, Daikin, Hongkong, Juxin, Weitron, and all other exporters
and producers not individually examined.
Final Determination
We will make a final determination concerning critical
circumstances in the final determination of this investigation, which
is currently scheduled for October 25, 2021.
[[Page 36529]]
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Interested parties
will be notified of the timeline for the submission of case briefs and
written comments at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues
raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after
the deadline date for case briefs.\27\ Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)
and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A
statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a
table of authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, for Arkema,
Daikin, Hongkong, Juxin, Weitron, and all other exporters and
producers, we intend to direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of subject
merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption, on or after March 27, 2021, which is 90 days prior to the
date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal
Register. For such entries, CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to
the estimated preliminary subsidy rates established in the Preliminary
Determination. This suspension of liquidation will remain in effect
until further notice.
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we intend to notify
the ITC of this preliminary determination of critical circumstances.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
703(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 6, 2021.
James Maeder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2021-14755 Filed 7-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
