Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 24 / Monday, February 8, 2021 / Notices using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.
Section 7714A of the Act defines the industry as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The 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 Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,13 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerces determination is subject to limitations of time and information.
Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.14
Section 77110 of the Act defines the domestic like product as a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title. Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is the article subject to an investigation i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition.
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.15 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that R125, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.16
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702c4A
section 77110 of the Act.
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, affd 865 F.2d 240 Fed. Cir. 1989.
15 See Volume I of the Petition at 1114 and Exhibit I3.
16 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as applied to this case and information regarding industry support, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Pentafluoroethane R125 from the Peoples Republic of China China CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Pentafluoroethane R125 from the Peoples Republic of China Attachment II. This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS.

of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the Scope of the Investigation, in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2020.17 The petitioner states that there are no other known U.S. producers of R125; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S.
industry.18 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support.19
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the Petitioners First Supplemental Questionnaire Response, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition. First, the Petition established support from domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support e.g., polling.20 Second, the domestic producers or workers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702c4Ai of the Act because the domestic producers or workers who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.21 Finally, the domestic producers or workers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702c4Aii of the Act because the domestic producers or workers who support the Petition 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 Petition.22 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702b1 of the Act.23

13 See
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

14 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:48 Feb 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

17 See Petitioners First Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 23 and Exhibit Supp I10b.
18 See Volume I of the Petition at 24 and Exhibit I1; see also Petitioners First Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Exhibit SuppI1.
19 See Volume I of the Petition at 24 and Exhibit I1; see also Petitioners First Supplemental Questionnaire Response at 23 and Exhibits Supp I1 and SuppI10b. For further discussion, see Attachment II of the China CVD Initiation Checklist.
20 See Attachment II of the China CVD Initiation Checklist; see also section 702c4D of the Act.
21 See Attachment II of the China CVD Initiation Checklist.
22 Id.
23 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

8591

Injury Test Because China is a Subsidies Agreement Country within the meaning of section 701b of the Act, section 701a2 of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC
must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from China materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 77124A of the Act.24
The petitioner contends that the industrys injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports;
reduced market share; underselling and price depression and suppression; lost sales and revenues; decline in employment variables; declining profitability; and adverse impact on capital expenditures and capacity utilization.25 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.26
Initiation of CVD Investigation Based upon our examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act.
Therefore, we are initiating a CVD
investigation to determine whether imports of R125 from China benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC. Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all five alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see China CVD Initiation 24 See Volume I of the Petition at 1415 and Exhibit I8.
25 See Volume I of the Petition at 910, 1426 and Exhibits I2 and I7 through I10.
26 See China CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Pentafluoroethane R125 from the Peoples Republic of China Attachment III.

E:FRFM08FEN1.SGM

08FEN1