Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Second Review) and 731-TA-1043-1045 (Third Review)

=== Commerce: Vietnam: C-522-805 === 59366 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices 9 For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 10 See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 91906, 91908 (December 19, 2016). 1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 69 FR 48203 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Orders: Polyethylene companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 9 We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not subject to this review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company- specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or a previous segment, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.95 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 10 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 20, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of theAssistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Use of Adverse Facts Available V. Margin Calculations VI. Discussion of Issues Ajmal-Specific Issue Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Based on Failure to Cooperate Universal-Specific Issues Comment 2: Whether To Cap Universal’s Cutting Revenue Comment 3: Whether To Revise Universal’s Reported Theoretical Weight Comment 4: Whether To Use Universal’s Most Recently Submitted Data Sets Other Issue Comment 5: Rate for the Non-Selected Company VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2021–23372 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–560–822, A–557–813, A–570–886, A–583– 843, A–549–821, A–552–806, C–552–805] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China (China), Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and the countervailing duty (CVD) order on PRCBs from Vietnam would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Claudia Cott or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4270 or (202) 482–1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On August 9, 2004, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD orders on PRCBs from Malaysia, China, and Thailand, and on May 4, 2010, the AD orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the CVD order on PRCBs from Vietnam. 1 On VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 59367Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 75 FR 23667 (May 4, 2010); and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 23670 (May 4, 2010) (collectively, Orders). 2 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 86 FR 16701 (March 31, 2021). 3 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 86 FR 17200 (April 1, 2021). 4 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 86 FR 35478 (July 6, 2021), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM); see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Second Five-Year Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 86 FR 43626 (August 10, 2021), and accompanying IDM. 5 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA– 1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731–TA–1043– 1045 (Third Review)), 86 FR 58301 (October 21, 2021), see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA–1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731– TA1043–1045 (Third Review), USITC Pub. 5233 (October 2021). 6 See Orders. March 31, 2021, Commerce initiated,2 and on April 1, 2021, the ITC instituted, 3 sunset reviews of the Orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its reviews, Commerce determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies. Commerce, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping and net subsidies rates likely to prevail should these Orders be revoked. 4 On October 21, 2021, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act. 5 Scope of the Orders The merchandise covered by the Orders is PRCBs, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non- sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the orders excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the Orders is dispositive. 6 Continuation of the Orders As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the Orders. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of these Orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year (sunset) reviews of these Orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. Administrative Protective Order (APO) This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return, destruction, or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions. Notification to Interested Parties These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: October 21, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2021–23375 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–016] Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Remand Proceeding and Reopening of 2017– 2018 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Record AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting a remand of the 2017–2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from the People’s Republic of China (China), which includes a limited reopening of the record. Commerce received a notification from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that it found discrepancies and inaccuracies between the sales information certain parties reported during the 2017–2018 administrative review and that reported to CBP at the time of entry. Accordingly, Commerce intends to reopen the record of the 2017–2018 AD administrative review and reconsider the final results of the 2017–2018 review. Commerce is providing notice of the remand and the reopening of the record, and further, inviting participation from interested parties. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Commerce: China: A-570-886 === 59366 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices 9 For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 10 See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 91906, 91908 (December 19, 2016). 1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 69 FR 48203 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Orders: Polyethylene companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 9 We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not subject to this review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company- specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or a previous segment, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.95 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 10 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 20, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of theAssistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Use of Adverse Facts Available V. Margin Calculations VI. Discussion of Issues Ajmal-Specific Issue Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Based on Failure to Cooperate Universal-Specific Issues Comment 2: Whether To Cap Universal’s Cutting Revenue Comment 3: Whether To Revise Universal’s Reported Theoretical Weight Comment 4: Whether To Use Universal’s Most Recently Submitted Data Sets Other Issue Comment 5: Rate for the Non-Selected Company VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2021–23372 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–560–822, A–557–813, A–570–886, A–583– 843, A–549–821, A–552–806, C–552–805] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China (China), Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and the countervailing duty (CVD) order on PRCBs from Vietnam would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Claudia Cott or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4270 or (202) 482–1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On August 9, 2004, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD orders on PRCBs from Malaysia, China, and Thailand, and on May 4, 2010, the AD orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the CVD order on PRCBs from Vietnam. 1 On VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 59367Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 75 FR 23667 (May 4, 2010); and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 23670 (May 4, 2010) (collectively, Orders). 2 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 86 FR 16701 (March 31, 2021). 3 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 86 FR 17200 (April 1, 2021). 4 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 86 FR 35478 (July 6, 2021), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM); see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Second Five-Year Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 86 FR 43626 (August 10, 2021), and accompanying IDM. 5 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA– 1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731–TA–1043– 1045 (Third Review)), 86 FR 58301 (October 21, 2021), see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA–1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731– TA1043–1045 (Third Review), USITC Pub. 5233 (October 2021). 6 See Orders. March 31, 2021, Commerce initiated,2 and on April 1, 2021, the ITC instituted, 3 sunset reviews of the Orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its reviews, Commerce determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies. Commerce, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping and net subsidies rates likely to prevail should these Orders be revoked. 4 On October 21, 2021, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act. 5 Scope of the Orders The merchandise covered by the Orders is PRCBs, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non- sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the orders excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the Orders is dispositive. 6 Continuation of the Orders As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the Orders. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of these Orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year (sunset) reviews of these Orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. Administrative Protective Order (APO) This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return, destruction, or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions. Notification to Interested Parties These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: October 21, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2021–23375 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–016] Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Remand Proceeding and Reopening of 2017– 2018 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Record AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting a remand of the 2017–2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from the People’s Republic of China (China), which includes a limited reopening of the record. Commerce received a notification from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that it found discrepancies and inaccuracies between the sales information certain parties reported during the 2017–2018 administrative review and that reported to CBP at the time of entry. Accordingly, Commerce intends to reopen the record of the 2017–2018 AD administrative review and reconsider the final results of the 2017–2018 review. Commerce is providing notice of the remand and the reopening of the record, and further, inviting participation from interested parties. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Commerce: Indonesia: A-560-822 === 59366 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices 9 For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 10 See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 91906, 91908 (December 19, 2016). 1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 69 FR 48203 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Orders: Polyethylene companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 9 We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not subject to this review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company- specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or a previous segment, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.95 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 10 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 20, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of theAssistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Use of Adverse Facts Available V. Margin Calculations VI. Discussion of Issues Ajmal-Specific Issue Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Based on Failure to Cooperate Universal-Specific Issues Comment 2: Whether To Cap Universal’s Cutting Revenue Comment 3: Whether To Revise Universal’s Reported Theoretical Weight Comment 4: Whether To Use Universal’s Most Recently Submitted Data Sets Other Issue Comment 5: Rate for the Non-Selected Company VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2021–23372 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–560–822, A–557–813, A–570–886, A–583– 843, A–549–821, A–552–806, C–552–805] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China (China), Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and the countervailing duty (CVD) order on PRCBs from Vietnam would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Claudia Cott or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4270 or (202) 482–1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On August 9, 2004, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD orders on PRCBs from Malaysia, China, and Thailand, and on May 4, 2010, the AD orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the CVD order on PRCBs from Vietnam. 1 On VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 59367Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 75 FR 23667 (May 4, 2010); and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 23670 (May 4, 2010) (collectively, Orders). 2 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 86 FR 16701 (March 31, 2021). 3 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 86 FR 17200 (April 1, 2021). 4 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 86 FR 35478 (July 6, 2021), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM); see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Second Five-Year Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 86 FR 43626 (August 10, 2021), and accompanying IDM. 5 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA– 1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731–TA–1043– 1045 (Third Review)), 86 FR 58301 (October 21, 2021), see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA–1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731– TA1043–1045 (Third Review), USITC Pub. 5233 (October 2021). 6 See Orders. March 31, 2021, Commerce initiated,2 and on April 1, 2021, the ITC instituted, 3 sunset reviews of the Orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its reviews, Commerce determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies. Commerce, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping and net subsidies rates likely to prevail should these Orders be revoked. 4 On October 21, 2021, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act. 5 Scope of the Orders The merchandise covered by the Orders is PRCBs, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non- sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the orders excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the Orders is dispositive. 6 Continuation of the Orders As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the Orders. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of these Orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year (sunset) reviews of these Orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. Administrative Protective Order (APO) This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return, destruction, or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions. Notification to Interested Parties These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: October 21, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2021–23375 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–016] Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Remand Proceeding and Reopening of 2017– 2018 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Record AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting a remand of the 2017–2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from the People’s Republic of China (China), which includes a limited reopening of the record. Commerce received a notification from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that it found discrepancies and inaccuracies between the sales information certain parties reported during the 2017–2018 administrative review and that reported to CBP at the time of entry. Accordingly, Commerce intends to reopen the record of the 2017–2018 AD administrative review and reconsider the final results of the 2017–2018 review. Commerce is providing notice of the remand and the reopening of the record, and further, inviting participation from interested parties. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Institution === 17200 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 61 / Thursday, April 1, 2021 / Notices importers of the Subject Merchandise from any Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2020 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association. (a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) imports; (b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country; and (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country. (11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in any Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2020 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association. (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production; (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country (that is, the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and (c) the quantity and value of your firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. (12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country since the Order Date, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in each Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries. (13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions. Authority: This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: March 23, 2021. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2021–06358 Filed 3–31–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731– TA–1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731– TA–1043–1045 (Third Review)] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Institution of Five-Year Reviews AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Vietnam and the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission. DATES : Instituted April 1, 2021. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is May 3, 2021. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by June 14, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this proceeding may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background.—On August 9, 2004, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) issued antidumping duty orders on imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand (69 FR 48201, 48203, and 48204). On May 4, 2010, Commerce issued a countervailing duty order on imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from Vietnam (75 FR 23670) and antidumping duty orders on imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam (75 FR 23667). Following first five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective July 7, 2010, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty orders on imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand (75 FR 38978). Following first five-year reviews of the orders concerning Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and second five-year reviews of the orders concerning China, Malaysia, and Thailand by Commerce and the Commission, effective May 5, 2016, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:02 Mar 31, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM 01APN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 17201Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 61 / Thursday, April 1, 2021 / Notices Commerce issued a continuation of the countervailing duty order on imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from Vietnam and antidumping duty orders on imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam (81 FR 27087). The Commission is now conducting second five-year reviews of the orders concerning Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and third five- year reviews of the orders concerning China, Malaysia, and Thailand pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to determine whether revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Provisions concerning the conduct of this proceeding may be found in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR part 201, subparts A and B, and 19 CFR part 207, subparts A and F. The Commission will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct full or expedited reviews. The Commission’s determinations in any expedited reviews will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice. Definitions.—The following definitions apply to these reviews: (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year reviews, as defined by Commerce. (2) The Subject Countries in these reviews are China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. (3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determinations and its full first five-year review determinations concerning Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and in its original determinations and its full first and second five-year review determinations concerning China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found one Domestic Like Product consisting of the range of polyethylene retail carrier bags corresponding to Commerce’s scope. (4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determinations and its full first five-year review determinations concerning Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and in its original determinations and its full first and second five-year review determinations concerning China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found a single Domestic Industry consisting of all U.S. producers of polyethylene retail carrier bags. (5) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent. Participation in the proceeding and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the proceeding as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in § 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission’s rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the proceeding. Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission’s designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202– 205–3408. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list.—Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this proceeding available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the proceeding, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the proceeding. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Certification.—Pursuant to § 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this proceeding must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will acknowledge that information submitted in response to this request for information and throughout this proceeding or other proceeding may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. Written submissions.—Pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission’s rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is May 3, 2021. Pursuant to § 207.62(b) of the Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct expedited or full reviews. The deadline for filing such comments is June 14, 2021. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission’s website at https://www.usitc.gov/documents/ handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission’s procedures with respect to filings. Also, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:02 Mar 31, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM 01APN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 17202 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 61 / Thursday, April 1, 2021 / Notices in accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the proceeding must be served on all other parties to the proceeding (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the proceeding you do not need to serve your response). Please note the Secretary’s Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https:// edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paper- based filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice. No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 21–5–485, expiration date June 30, 2023. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Inability to provide requested information.—Pursuant to § 207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to § 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)) in making its determinations in the reviews. Information to be Provided in Response to This Notice of Institution: If you are a domestic producer, union/ worker group, or trade/business association; import/export Subject Merchandise from more than one Subject Country; or produce Subject Merchandise in more than one Subject Country, you may file a single response. If you do so, please ensure that your response to each question includes the information requested for each pertinent Subject Country. As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. (1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. (2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association (a majority of whose members are interested parties under the statute), or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association. (3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission. (4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the Domestic Industry in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry. (5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)). (6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries after 2014. (7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the Domestic Like Product and the Subject Merchandise (including street address, World Wide Web address, and the name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of a responsible official at each firm). (8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the Domestic Like Product or the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or other markets. (9) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm’s operations on that product during calendar year 2020, except as noted (report quantity data in number of bags and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association. (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production; (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the Domestic Like Product (that is, the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); (c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); (d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and (e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include both U.S. and export commercial sales, internal consumption, and company transfers) for your most recently completed fiscal year (identify the date on which your fiscal year ends). (10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from any Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2020 (report quantity data in number of bags and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association. (a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) imports; (b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:02 Mar 31, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM 01APN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 17203Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 61 / Thursday, April 1, 2021 / Notices countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country; and (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country. (11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in any Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2020 (report quantity data in number of bags and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association. (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production; (b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country (that is, the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and (c) the quantity and value of your firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. (12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country after 2014, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in each Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries. (13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions. Authority: This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: March 23, 2021. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2021–06357 Filed 3–31–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–282 (Fifth Review)] Petroleum Wax Candles From China; Institution of a Five-Year Review AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission. DATES : Instituted April 1, 2021. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is May 3, 2021. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by June 11, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this proceeding may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background.—On August 28, 1986, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) issued an antidumping duty order on imports of petroleum wax candles from China (51 FR 30686). Following first, second, third, and fourth five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, Commerce issued continuations of the antidumping duty order on imports of petroleum wax candles from China, effective September 23, 1999 (64 FR 51514), August 10, 2005 (70 FR 56890), January 6, 2011 (76 FR 773), and May 26, 2016 (81 FR 33466), respectively. The Commission is now conducting a fifth review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Provisions concerning the conduct of this proceeding may be found in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR part 201, subparts A and B, and 19 CFR part 207, subparts A and F. The Commission will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission’s determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice. Definitions.—The following definitions apply to this review: (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by Commerce. (2) The Subject Country in this review is China. (3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determination and its expedited first five-year review determination, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:02 Mar 31, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM 01APN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Determination === 58301Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 201 / Thursday, October 21, 2021 / Notices 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). meeting. During this 90-day comment period, if determined to be needed, the BLM will hold additional meetings in other areas of the State. For a period until October 23, 2023, subject to valid existing rights, the National Forest System lands described in this notice will be temporarily segregated from operation of the United States mineral and geothermal leasing laws, unless the application is denied or canceled, or the withdrawal is approved prior to that date. All other activities currently consistent with the Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan are not restricted by this segregation, including public recreation, mineral materials sales, and other activities compatible with preservation of the character of the area, subject to USFS discretionary approval. The application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR part 2300. Mitchell Leverette, BLM Eastern States State Director. [FR Doc. 2021–22958 Filed 10–20–21; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4310–GJ–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNVS00000.L51010000.FX0000.21X; N– 89655; MO# 4500153967] Notice of Segregation of Public Land for the Copper Rays Solar Project, Nye County, Nevada AGENCY : Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior. ACTION : Notice of segregation. SUMMARY : Through this notice the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is segregating public lands included in the right-of-way application for the Copper Rays Solar Project, from appropriation under the public land laws, including the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing or Material Sales Acts, for a period of 2 years from the date of publication of this notice, subject to valid existing rights. This segregation is to allow for the orderly administration of the public lands to facilitate consideration of development of renewable energy resources. The public lands segregated by this notice total 5,518.18 acres. DATES : This segregation for the lands identified in this notice is effective on October 21, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : For further information and/or to have your name added to the mailing list, send requests to: Beth Ransel, Southern Nevada District Energy & Infrastructure Team, at telephone (702) 515–5284; address 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130–2301; or email BLM_NV_SND_EnergyProjects@blm.gov. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800– 877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Regulations found at 43 CFR 2091.3– 1(e) and 2804.25(f) allow the BLM to temporarily segregate public lands within a right-of-way application area for solar energy development from the operation of the public land laws, including the Mining Law, by publication of a Federal Register notice. The BLM uses this temporary segregation authority to preserve its ability to approve, approve with modifications, or deny proposed rights- of-way, and to facilitate the orderly administration of the public lands. This temporary segregation is subject to valid existing rights, including existing mining claims located before this segregation notice. Licenses, permits, cooperative agreements, or discretionary land use authorizations of a temporary nature which would not impact lands identified in this notice may be allowed with the approval of an authorized officer of the BLM during the segregation period. The lands segregated under this notice are legally described as follows: Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada T. 20 S., R. 54 E., Sec. 35, S1 ⁄2 SW1 ⁄4 SW1 ⁄4 . T. 21 S., R. 54 E., Sec. 1, SW1 ⁄4 NW1 ⁄4 and W1 ⁄2 SW1 ⁄4 ; Sec. 2, lot 8; Sec. 12, W1 ⁄2 NW1 ⁄4 and W1 ⁄2 SW1 ⁄4 ; Sec. 13, W1 ⁄2 NW1 ⁄4 , S1 ⁄2 SW1 ⁄4 , S1 ⁄2 NW1 ⁄4 SW1 ⁄4 , S1 ⁄2 NE1 ⁄4 SW1 ⁄4 , S1 ⁄2 SE1 ⁄4 , NW1 ⁄4 NW1 ⁄4 SW1 ⁄4 , S1 ⁄2 NW1 ⁄4 SE1 ⁄4 , and S1 ⁄2 NE1 ⁄4 SE1 ⁄4 ; Sec. 14, S 1 ⁄2 NE1 ⁄4 SE1 ⁄4 , SE1 ⁄4 SE1 ⁄4 , E1 ⁄2 SW1 ⁄4 SE1 ⁄4 , and SE1 ⁄4 NW1 ⁄4 SE1 ⁄4 ; Sec. 23, E 1 ⁄2 ; Sec. 24; Sec. 25; Sec. 26, E1 ⁄2 NW1 ⁄4 NE1 ⁄4 , E1 ⁄2 NE1 ⁄4 , SW1 ⁄4 NE1 ⁄4 , and S1 ⁄2 ; Sec. 35; Sec. 36. T. 22 S., R. 54 E., Sec. 1; Sec. 2. T. 21 S., R. 55 E., Sec. 18, lot 3. The area described contains 5,518.18 acres, according to the official plats of the surveys of the lands on file with the BLM. As provided in the regulations, the segregation of lands in this notice will not exceed 2 years from the date of publication unless extended for an additional 2 years through publication of a new notice in the Federal Register. The segregation period will terminate and the land will automatically reopen to appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, at the earliest of the following dates: Upon issuance of a decision by the authorized officer granting, granting with modifications, or denying the application for a right-of-way; without further administrative action at the end of the segregation provided for in the Federal Register notice initiating the segregation; or upon publication of a Federal Register notice terminating the segregation. Upon termination of the segregation of these lands, all lands subject to this segregation would automatically reopen to appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws. (Authority: 43 CFR 2091.3–1(e) and 43 CFR 2804.25(f)) Nicholas Pay, Field Manager—Pahrump Field Office. [FR Doc. 2021–22886 Filed 10–20–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731– TA–1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731– TA–1043–1045 (Third Review)] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam and the countervailing duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Oct 20, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 58302 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 201 / Thursday, October 21, 2021 / Notices States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Background The Commission instituted the reviews on April 1, 2021 (86 FR 17200) and determined on July 7, 2021 that it would conduct expedited reviews (86 FR 51377, September 15, 2021). The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in the reviews on October 18, 2021. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5233 (October 2021), entitled Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam: Investigation Nos. 701–TA– 462 and 731–TA–1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731–TA–1043–1045 (Third Review). By order of the Commission. Issued: October 18, 2021. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2021–23004 Filed 10–20–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [OMB Number 1140–0036] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection of eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) Out of Business Records Request—ATF Form 5300.3A AGENCY : Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice. ACTION : 30-Day notice. SUMMARY : The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES : Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until November 22, 2021. ADDRESSES : Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether, and if so, how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection. (2) The Title of the Form/Collection: FFL Out of Business Records Request. (3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Form number: ATF Form 5300.3A. Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: None. Abstract: The FFL Out of Business Records Request—ATF Form 5300.3A is used to notify Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) who go out of business to submit their firearms records to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) if the business discontinuance is absolute. FFLs can also use the form to notify ATF of a successor business that will maintain control of the firearms records. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: A combined 4,297 respondents will use the form and then package and ship/deliver business records to ATF following business discontinuance. It will take a combined total of 5 minutes for respondents to prepare the form and an additional 11 hours to package and then ship/deliver business records to ATF. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The combined estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 47,523 hours, which is equal to 3,066 (# of respondents who completed the form) * 0.0833333 (5 minutes or the total time to complete each form) + 4,297 (# of respondents who ship/deliver records) * 11 hours (time taken to package ship/deliver records to ATF). (7) An Explanation of the Change in Estimates: Since the last renewal in 2018, the total responses and mailing costs decreased from 4,607 to 4,297 and from $2,243,013 to $2,098,869 respectively, due to fewer FFLs going out of business. However, the total burden increased to 47,523 hours because it took each FFL more time to prepare an average 7 boxes of business records in 2020, compared to an estimated 4 boxes of records in 2018. If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Mail Stop 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: October 15, 2021. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. 2021–22920 Filed 10–20–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271, et seq.) (‘‘Act’’), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents notice of investigations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of the Act (‘‘TAA’’) for workers by (TA– W) started during the period of September 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Oct 20, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Scheduling === 51377Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Notices The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Mark J. Gehlhar, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Division of Regulatory Support. [FR Doc. 2021–19830 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–05–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement [S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 211S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 21XS501520; OMB Control Number 1029–0087] Abandoned Mine Land Problem Area Description Form AGENCY : Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION : Notice of Information Collection; request for comment. SUMMARY : In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection. DATES : Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 15, 2021. ADDRESSES : Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Mark Gehlhar, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1849 C Street NW, Room 4556–MIB, Washington, DC 20240, or by email to mgehlhar@osmre.gov. Please reference OMB Control Number 1029– 0087 in the subject line of your comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email at mgehlhar@osmre.gov, or by telephone at 202–208–2716. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public’s reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the agency; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the agency minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Abstract: The problem area description (PAD) form is used to update the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s electronic inventory of abandoned mine lands (e-AMLIS). From this inventory, the most serious problem areas are selected for reclamation through the apportionment of funds to States and Indian tribes. Title of Collection: Abandoned Mine Land Problem Area Description Form. OMB Control Number: 1029–0087. Form Number: OSM–76. Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Respondents/Affected Public: State and Tribal governments. Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 27. Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,616. Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies 1.5 hours to 8 hours, depending activity. Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,413. Respondent’s Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit. Frequency of Collection: One time. Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $0. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Mark J. Gehlhar, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Division of Regulatory Support. [FR Doc. 2021–19828 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–05–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731– TA–1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731– TA–1043–1045 (Third Review)] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam and the countervailing duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. DATES : July 7, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Charles Cummings (202–708–1666), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background.—On July 7, 2021, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (86 FR 17200, April 1, 2021) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate and that VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Sep 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM 15SEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 51378 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Notices 1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s website. 2 The Commission has found a joint response to its notice of institution filed by the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags Committee on behalf of six domestic producers of polyethylene retail carrier bags (Hilex Poly Company, LLC; Superbag LLC; Unistar Plastics, LLC; Command Packaging; Command Packaging Texas; and Roplast Industries, Inc.) to be adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews. 1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)). For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). Please note the Secretary’s Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https:// edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paper- based filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice. Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews has been placed in the nonpublic record, and will be made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews on September 13, 2021. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before September 20, 2021 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five- year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by September 20, 2021. However, should the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce’s final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce’s results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission’s website at https:// www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_ on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission’s procedures with respect to filings. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Determination.—The Commission has determined these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: September 10, 2021. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2021–19898 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–663–664 and 731–TA–1555–1556 (Final)] Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin From India and Russia; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–663–664 and 731–TA–1555– 1556 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of granular polytetrafluoroethylene (‘‘PTFE’’) resin from India and Russia, provided for in subheadings 3904.61.00 and 3904.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be subsidized and sold at less-than-fair- value. DATES : September 2, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Kristina Lara ((202) 205–3386), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope.—For purposes of these investigations, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as granular PTFE resin, ‘‘whether filled or unfilled, whether or not modified, and whether or not containing co-polymer, additives, pigments, or other materials. Also included is PTFE wet raw polymer. The chemical formula for granular PTFE resin is C2F4, and the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number is 9002–84–0. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by filling, modifying, compounding, packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the granular PTFE resin. The product covered by these investigations does not include dispersion or coagulated dispersion (also known as fine powder) PTFE. PTFE further processed into micropowder, having particle size VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Sep 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM 15SEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Initiation === This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency statements of organization and functions are examples of documents appearing in this section. Notices Federal Register 16701 Vol. 86, No. 60 Wednesday, March 31, 2021 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (Sunset Reviews) of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) order(s) and suspended investigation(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (the ITC) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-Year Reviews which covers the same order(s) and suspended investigation(s). DATES : Applicable April 1, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Commerce official identified in the Initiation of Review section below at AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. For information from the ITC, contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at (202) 205–3193. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background Commerce’s procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five- Year (Sunset) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to Commerce’s conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012). Initiation of Review In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s) and suspended investigation(s): DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Commerce contact A–122–855 .... 731–TA–1270 Canada .. Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin (1st Review) .......... Thomas Martin, (202) 482–3936. A–570–024 .... 731–TA–1271 China ..... Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin (1st Review) .......... Thomas Martin, (202) 482–3936. A–570–886 .... 731–TA–1043 China ..... Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags (3rd Review) ........... Mary Kolberg, (202) 482–1785. A–570–504 .... 731–TA–282 China ..... Petroleum Wax Candles (5th Review) ......................... Thomas Martin, (202) 482–3936. A–533–861 .... 731–TA–1272 India ....... Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin (1st Review) .......... Thomas Martin, (202) 482–3936. A–560–822 .... 731–TA–1156 Indonesia Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags (2nd Review) .......... Mary Kolberg, (202) 482–1785. A–557–813 .... 731–TA–1044 Malaysia Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags (3rd Review) ........... Mary Kolberg, (202) 482–1785. A–523–810 .... 731–TA–1273 Oman ..... Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin (1st Review) .......... Thomas Martin, (202) 482–3936. A–583–843 .... 731–TA–1157 Taiwan ... Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags (2nd Review) .......... Mary Kolberg, (202) 482–1785. A–549–821 .... 731–TA–1045 Thailand Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags (3rd Review) ........... Mary Kolberg, (202) 482–1785. A–552–806 .... 731–TA–1158 Vietnam .. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags (2nd Review) .......... Mary Kolberg, (202) 482–1785. C–570–025 .... 701–TA–531 China ..... Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin (1st Review) .......... Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482–5255. C–533–862 .... 701–TA–532 India ....... Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin (1st Review) .......... Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482–5255. C–552–805 .... 701–TA–462 Vietnam .. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags (2nd Review) .......... Jacqueline Arrowsmith, (202) 482–5255. Filing Information As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Commerce’s regulations, Commerce’s schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on Commerce’s website at the following address: https:// enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/. All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with Commerce’s regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. In accordance with section 782(b) of the Act, any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements. Letters of Appearance and Administrative Protective Orders Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), Commerce will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Mar 30, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31MRN1.SGM 31MRN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 16702 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 31, 2021 / Notices 1 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020). 2 See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. Commerce’s regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304–306. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 1 Information Required from Interested Parties Domestic interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with Commerce’s regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, Commerce will automatically revoke the order without further review. 2 If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, Commerce’s regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that Commerce’s information requirements are distinct from the ITC’s information requirements. Consult Commerce’s regulations for information regarding Commerce’s conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult Commerce’s regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at Commerce. This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). Dated: March 18, 2021. James Maeder, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2021–06645 Filed 3–30–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration Recruitment of First Responder Network Authority Board Members AGENCY : National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION : Notice; extension of application window. SUMMARY : On March 4, 2021, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published a notice seeking expressions of interest in an appointment to the Board of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet Authority). The notice established a deadline of April 5, 2021, for the transmittal of expressions of interest. This notice extends the period for submission of expressions of interest until April 15, 2021. DATES : Expressions of interest must be postmarked or electronically transmitted on or before April 15, 2021. ADDRESSES : Applicants should submit expressions of interest to: Michael Dame, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Public Safety Communications, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, by email to FirstNetBoardApplicant@ntia.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Michael Dame, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Public Safety Communications, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4078, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1181; email: mdame@ntia.gov. Please direct media inquiries to NTIA’s Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482–7002. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On March 4, 2021, NTIA published a notice seeking expressions of interest in an appointment to the FirstNet Authority Board. See Notice, Recruitment of First Responder Network Authority Board Members, 86 FR 12659 (Mar. 4, 2021). The notice established a deadline of April 5, 2021, for the transmittal of expressions of interest. To ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to submit expressions of interest, NTIA extends the deadline for submission of expressions of interest to April 15, 2021. All other information in the March 4, 2021 notice remains unchanged. Dated: March 25, 2021. Kathy Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. [FR Doc. 2021–06552 Filed 3–30–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–WL–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Application The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 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. The USPTO invites comment on this information collection renewal, which helps the USPTO assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public’s reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on January 15, 2021 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. Agency: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce. Title: National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Application. OMB Control Number: 0651–0060. Form Number: • PTO–NMTI–1 (National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Form) Type of Review: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. Estimated Number of Respondents: 50 respondents per year. Average Hour per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 40 hours to complete a response, gather the necessary information, prepare the nomination form with the recommendations, and submit the request for nomination to the USPTO. Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 2,000 hours. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Mar 30, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31MRN1.SGM 31MRN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Final Results - AD - Indonesia - Malaysia - China - Taiwan - Thailand - Vietnam === 35478 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 6, 2021 / Notices Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19, 85 FR 17006, 17007 (March 26, 2020). 12 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020). 1 See Antidumping Duty Orders: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 75 FR 23667 (May 4, 2010); see also Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 69 FR 48203 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from The People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004) (collectively, AD Orders). 2 See Initiation Notice of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 86 FR 16701 (March 31, 2021) (Initiation Notice). 3 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee’s Letters, ‘‘Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia: Domestic Industry Notice of Intent to Participate in Sunset Review,’’ dated April 9, 2021; ‘‘Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Domestic Industry Notice of Intent to Participate in Sunset Review,’’ dated April 9, 2021; ‘‘Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review Of Antidumping Duty Order On Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China: Domestic Industry Notice Of Intent to Participate in Sunset Review,’’ dated April 9, 2021; ‘‘Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review Of Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan: Domestic Industry Notice of Intent to Participate In Sunset Review,’’ dated April 9, 2021; ‘‘Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Domestic Industry Notice of Intent to Participate in Sunset Review,’’ dated April 9, 2021; ‘‘Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review Of Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Domestic Industry Notice of that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 12 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. 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 by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If Commerce’s final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final injury determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c). Dated: June 28, 2021. Christian Marsh, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin. Granular PTFE resin is covered by the scope of this investigation whether filled or unfilled, whether or not modified, and whether or not containing co-polymer, additives, pigments, or other materials. Also included is PTFE wet raw polymer. The chemical formula for granular PTFE resin is C2F4, and the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number is 9002–84–0. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by filling, modifying, compounding, packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the granular PTFE resin. The product covered by this investigation does not include dispersion or coagulated dispersion (also known as fine powder) PTFE. PTFE further processed into micropowder, having particle size typically ranging from 1 to 25 microns, and a melt-flow rate no less than 0.1 gram/10 minutes, is excluded from the scope of this investigation. Granular PTFE resin is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 3904.61.0010. Subject merchandise may also be classified under HTSUS subheading 3904.69.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS Number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Injury Test IV. Subsidies Valuation V. Benchmarks and Interest Rates VI. Analysis of Programs VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2021–14328 Filed 7–2–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–560–822, A–557–813, A–570–886, A–583– 843, A–549–821, A–552–806] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : As a result of these expedited sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping as indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Sunset Review’’ section of this notice. DATES : Applicable July 6, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Allison Hollander or Minoo Hatten, AD/ CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2805 or (202) 482–1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On March 31, 2021, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the AD orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China (China), Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) 1 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i) and (ii), Commerce received notices of intent to participate in these sunset reviews from the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee (the domestic interested party) within 15 days after the date of publication of the Initiation Notice.3 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Jul 02, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 35479Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 6, 2021 / Notices Intent to Participate In Sunset Review,’’ dated April 9, 2021. The Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee is comprised of Hilex Poly Co., LLC and Superbag Corporation. 4 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee’s Letters, ‘‘Five-Year (‘Sunset’) Review Of Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia: Domestic Industry’s Substantive Response,’’ dated May 1, 2015; ‘‘Second Five-Year (‘Sunset’) Review Of Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Domestic Industry’s Substantive Response,’’ dated May 1, 2015; ‘‘Second Five-Year (‘Sunset’) Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China: Domestic Industry’s Substantive Response,’’ dated May 1, 2015; ‘‘Five-Year (‘Sunset’) Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan: Domestic Industry’s Substantive Response,’’ dated May 1, 2015; ‘‘Second Five-Year (‘Sunset’) Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Domestic Industry’s Substantive Response,’’ dated May 1, 2015; and ‘‘Five-Year (‘Sunset’) Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Domestic Industry’s Substantive Response,’’ dated May 1, 2015. 5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 1 See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 86 FR 10931 (February 23, 2021) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India and the Russian Federation: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Countervailing Duty Investigations, 86 FR 14871 (March 19, 2021). The domestic interested party claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and (E) of the Act. Commerce received adequate substantive responses to the Initiation Notice from the domestic interested party within the 30-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).4 Commerce received no substantive responses from any respondent interested parties. In accordance with section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted expedited, i.e., 120-day, sunset reviews of the AD Orders. Scope of the Orders The merchandise subject to the AD Orders is PRCBs which are currently classified under subheading 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS number is provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full description of the scope of the AD Orders is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5 The written description is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of dumping margins likely to prevail if the order was revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/ index.html. Final Results of Sunset Review Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(c) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the AD Orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail would be weighted- average margins up to the following percentages: Country Weighted- average margin (percent) Indonesia .................................... 85.17 Malaysia ...................................... 101.74 China .......................................... 77.57 Taiwan ........................................ 95.81 Thailand ...................................... 122.88 Vietnam ....................................... 76.11 Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. Notification to Interested Parties Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii). Dated: June 25, 2021. James Maeder, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Orders IV. History of the Orders V. Legal Framework VI. Discussion of the Issues VII. Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews VIII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2021–14253 Filed 7–2–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–900] Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From India: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India. The period of investigation is April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. DATES : Applicable July 6, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Janae´ Martin or Joshua Simonidis, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0238 or (202) 482–0608, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on February 23, 2021. 1 On March 19, 2021, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now June 28, 2021. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Jul 02, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC PUB 5233 === Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam Inv estigation Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Second Review) and 731-TA-1043-1045 (Third Review) Publication 5233 October 2021 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission COMMISSIONERS Jason E. Kearns, Chair Randolph J. Stayin, Vice Chair David S. Johanson Rhonda K. Schmidtlein Amy A. Karpel Catherine Defilippo Director of Operations Staff assigned Charles Cummings, Investigator Christopher S. Robinson, Industry Analyst Pamela Davis, Economist Kelsey Christensen, Attorney Calvin Chang, Supervisory Investigator Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 www.usitc.gov Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam Inv estigation Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Second Review) and 731-TA-1043-1045 (Third Review) Publication 5233 October 2021 i CONTENTS Page Determinations ....................................................................................................................................1 Views ...................................................................................................................................................2 Information obtained in these reviews ................................................................................................I-1 Background .................................................................................................................................................... I-1 Responses to the Commission’s notice of institution.................................................................................... I-2 Individual response ................................................................................................................................ I-2 Party comments on adequacy ............................................................................................................... I-2 The original investigations and subsequent reviews ..................................................................................... I-3 The original China, Malaysia, and Thailand investigations .................................................................... I-3 The original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam investigations ................................................................ I-3 The first five-year reviews of the China, Malaysia, and Thailand orders............................................... I-4 The second five-year reviews of the China, Malaysia, and Thailand orders and the first five-year reviews of the Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam orders ................................... I-5 Previous and related investigations ............................................................................................................... I-6 Commerce’s five-year reviews ....................................................................................................................... I-6 The product .................................................................................................................................................... I-7 Commerce’s scope ................................................................................................................................. I-7 U.S. tariff treatment............................................................................................................................... I-8 Description and uses .............................................................................................................................. I-8 Manufacturing process .......................................................................................................................... I-9 The industry in the United States ................................................................................................................ I-11 U.S. producers...................................................................................................................................... I-11 Recent developments .......................................................................................................................... I-12 U.S. producers’ trade and financial data ............................................................................................. I-12 Definitions of the domestic like product and domestic industry ................................................................ I-14 U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption ............................................................................................. I-15 U.S. importers ...................................................................................................................................... I-15 U.S. imports ......................................................................................................................................... I-16 Cumulation considerations .......................................................................................................................... I-18 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares .......................................................................................... I-19 ii The industry in China ................................................................................................................................... I-22 The industry in Indonesia............................................................................................................................. I-22 The industry in Malaysia .............................................................................................................................. I-23 The industry in Taiwan ................................................................................................................................. I-24 The industry in Thailand............................................................................................................................... I-26 The industry in Vietnam ............................................................................................................................... I-28 Third-country trade actions ......................................................................................................................... I-29 The global market ........................................................................................................................................ I-30 Appendixes A. Federal Register notices.................................................................................................. A-1 B. Company-specific data.................................................................................................... B-1 C. Summary data compiled in prior proceedings ............................................................... C-1 D. Purchaser questionnaire responses ............................................................................... D-1 Note: Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published. Such information is identified by brackets or by headings in confidential reports and is deleted and replaced with asterisks in public reports . 1 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Investigation Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Second Review) and 731-TA-1043-1045 (Third Review) Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam DETERMINATIONS On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam and the countervailing duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. BACKGROUND The Commission instituted the reviews on April 1, 2021 (86 FR 17200) and determined on July 7, 2021 that it would conduct expedited reviews (86 FR 51377, September 15, 2021). The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in the reviews on October 18, 2021. 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 3 Views of the Commission Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), that revocation of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (“PRCBs”) from Vietnam and the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Background Original investigations of imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand: On June 20, 2003, the PRCB Committee,1 comprising five domestic producers at that time, filed antidumping duty petitions concerning imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand. In August 2004, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of cumulated imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand that were being sold at less than fair value (“LTFV”).2 The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued antidumping duty orders with respect to certain imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand on August 9, 2004.3 Original investigations of imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam: On March 31, 2009, Hilex Poly Company LLC (“Hilex”), and Superbag LLC (“Superbag”), two U.S. producers of PRCBs, filed antidumping duty petitions concerning imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and a countervailing duty petition concerning PRCBs from Vietnam. On April 15, 2010, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was threatened with 1 The PCRB Committee consisted of the following five domestic producers: Interplast Group, Ltd., PCL Packaging, Inc., Sonoco Products Company, Superbag Corp., and Vanguard Plastics, Inc. 2 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1043- 1045 (Final), USITC Pub. 3710 (Aug. 2004) (“Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations”) at 3. 3 Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China, 69 Fed. Reg. 48201 (Aug. 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 69 Fed. Reg. 48203 (Aug. 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 Fed. Reg. 48204 (Aug. 9, 2004). Commerce excluded from the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand issued on August 9, 2004, imports from certain firms for which it had computed de minimis antidumping duty margins: Hang Lung Plastic Manufactory, Ltd. (“Hang Lung”) (China); Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (“Nantong Huasheng”) (China); and Bee Lian Plastic Industries, Sdn. Bhd. (“Bee Lian”) (Malaysia). Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China, 69 Fed. Reg. 48201; Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 69 Fed. Reg. 48203. 4 material injury by reason of cumulated subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam that were being sold at LTFV and subject imports that were being subsidized by the government of Vietnam.4 On May 4, 2010, Commerce issued antidumping duty orders with respect to imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and a countervailing duty order with respect to certain imports of PRCBs from Vietnam.5 First reviews of the orders on imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand: Effective July 1, 2009, the Commission instituted the first five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.6 After conducting full reviews of the orders, the Commission determined that revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.7 On July 7, 2010, Commerce published a notice continuing the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.8 Second reviews of the orders on imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and first reviews of the orders on imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam (“combined 2016 reviews”): Effective April 1, 2015, the Commission instituted the second reviews of the antidumping duty orders on subject PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and the first reviews of the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the countervailing duty order on subject PRCBs from Vietnam.9 After conducting full reviews of the orders, the Commission determined that revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably 4 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Final), USITC Pub. 4144 (Apr. 2010) (“Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations”) at 3. 5 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 75 Fed. Reg. 23667 (May 4, 2010); Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 Fed. Reg. 23670 (May 4, 2010). Commerce excluded PRCBs from Chin Sheng Co. Ltd. (“Chin Sheng”) from the countervailing duty order on the basis of a de minimis subsidy rate. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 Fed. Reg. 23670. 6 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 74 Fed. Reg. 31750 (Jul. 2, 2009). 7 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1043- 1045 (Review), USITC Pub. 4160 (June 2010) (“First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand”) at 3. 8 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China, Malaysia, and Thailand: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 Fed. Reg. 38978 (Jul. 7, 2010). 9 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 80 Fed. Reg. 17490 (Apr. 1, 2015). 5 foreseeable time.10 On May 5, 2016, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty orders on subject PRCBs from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam and of the countervailing duty order on subject PRCBs from Vietnam.11 Current reviews: The Commission instituted the current five-year reviews on April 1, 2021.12 The current reviews consist of the third reviews of the antidumping duty orders on subject PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, and the second reviews of the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the countervailing duty order on PRCBs from Vietnam. The PRCB Committee, which now comprises six U.S. producers (Hilex, Superbag, Unistar Plastics, LLC (“Unistar”), Command Packaging, Command Packaging Texas, and Roplast Industries, Inc. (“Roplast”) (collectively, “Domestic Producers”)), submitted a response to the Commission’s notice of institution. The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party. On July 7, 2021, the Commission found the PRCB Committee’s response to the notice individually adequate, the domestic interested party group response adequate, and the respondent interested party group response inadequate. In absence of any circumstances warranting full reviews, the Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews of the orders.13 On September 20, 2021, the PRCB Committee filed final comments with the Commission pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(d). Data/Response Coverage: U.S. industry data are based on information the PRCB Committee submitted in its response to the notice of institution. The six U.S. producers of PRCBs that comprise the PRCB Committee estimated that they accounted for *** percent of domestic production of PRCBs in 2020.14 U.S. import data and related information are based on Commerce official import statistics and information that the PRCB Committee provided in its response to the notice of institution.15 Foreign industry data and related information are based on information that the PRCB Committee provided in its response to the notice of institution, 10 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (First Review) and 731-TA-1043-1045 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 4605 (Apr. 2016) (“Combined 2016 Review Determinations”) at 3. 11 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order, 81 Fed. Reg. 27087 (May 5, 2016). 12 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 86 Fed. Reg. 17200 (Apr. 1, 2021). 13 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam: Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews, 86 Fed. Reg. 51377 (Sept. 15, 2021). 14 Confidential Report, Memorandum INV-TT-078 (“CR”) and Public Report, USITC Pub. 5233 (Oct. 2021) (“PR) at I-2 and I-11. 15 See CR/PR at Tables I-4 and I-5 Source. 6 on information gathered during the original investigations and previous reviews, and on public information compiled by Commission staff.16 Domestic Like Product and Industry A. Domestic Like Product In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, the Commission defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”17 The Tariff Act defines “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 subtitle.”18 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to examine the domestic like product definition from the original investigation and consider whether the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.19 Commerce has defined the imported merchandise within the scope of the orders under review as follows: {PRCBs}, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). 16 See CR/PR at Tables I-6 to I-12 Source. 17 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 18 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S. Rep. No. 249, 96 th Cong., 1 st Sess. 90-91 (1979). 19 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA- 752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731- TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003). 7 PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the order excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.20 The scope definition is unchanged from Commerce’s scope definition in the original investigations and prior reviews. Commerce has issued numerous scope and anti- circumvention rulings since the original antidumping and countervailing duty orders were published.21 PRCBs are bags with handles that retailers historically provided free of charge to their customers to package and carry their purchased goods home from the point of sale.22 PRCBs are manufactured from polyethylene film in several varieties.23 T-shirt bags may be made of soft, glossy, and puncture-resistant low-density polyethylene resins.24 Higher-end PRCBs range from medium-scale die-cut bags to higher-scale die-cut, drawstring, and soft-loop handle bags, which may possess flat bottoms and detailed higher-quality multicolored printing and graphics.25 In the original investigations and first reviews of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand and in the original investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the Commission defined the domestic like product to consist of the range of shapes and sizes of 20 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 86 Fed. Reg. 35478 (July 6, 2021); Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Expedited Second Sunset Review Countervailing Duty Order, 86 Fed. Reg. 43626 (Aug. 10, 2021). 21 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 86 Fed. Reg. 35478 (July 6, 2021), Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 10-13. 22 CR/PR at I-9. 23 CR/PR at I-9. 24 CR/PR at I-9. 25 CR/PR at I-9. 8 PRCBs manufactured with various features that corresponded to the scope of the proceedings.26 In its second reviews of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand and the first reviews of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the Commission defined a single domestic like product consisting of the range of PRCBs, coextensive with the scope of the reviews.27 In the current reviews, Domestic Producers agree with the Commission’s definition of the domestic like product from the original investigations and prior reviews.28 There is no new information obtained during these reviews indicating that the characteristics of PCRBs have changed since the prior proceedings so as to warrant revisiting the Commission’s domestic like product definition. Therefore, we define a single domestic like product consisting of the range of PRCBs corresponding to the scope of the reviews. B. Domestic Industry Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic “producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”29 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll- produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to section 771(4)(B) of the Tariff Act. This provision allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise 26 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 9; Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 5-7; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 6. In the original investigations of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand and in the original investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the Commission rejected respondents’ request to define certain high-end PRCBs as a separate domestic like product because the argument did not account for the “vast array” of PRCBs that fall in between high- and low-end PRCBs. Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 9; Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 7. 27 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 10. 28 PRCB Committee’s Confidential Response to Notice of Institution, EDIS Doc. 741400 (May 3, 2021) (“Response”) at 49. 29 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677. 9 or which are themselves importers.30 Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each investigation.31 In the original investigations and prior reviews, the Commission defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers of PRCBs.32 In those proceedings, the Commission found that certain domestic producers qualified for exclusion under the related parties provision but that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude any of them from the domestic industry.33 In the current expedited reviews, *** and *** qualify for possible exclusion under the related parties provision because *** imported PRCBs from China and Taiwan and *** 30 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331-32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987). 31 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude a related party include the following: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer; (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation (whether the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue production and compete in the U.S. market); (3) whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry; (4) the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for the imported product; and (5) whether the primary interest of the importing producer lies in domestic production or importation. Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. USITC, 100 F. Supp.3d 1314, 1326-31 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2015); see also Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1168. 32 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 12; Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 7; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 7; Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 8-9. 33 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 11-12; Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 7; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 7; Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 9-10. 10 imported PRCBs from Vietnam.34 Domestic Producers argue that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude any domestic producer from the domestic industry.35 *** estimates that it accounted for *** percent of total U.S. production of PRCBs in 2020, and its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** percent that year.36 *** estimates that it accounted for *** percent of total U.S. production of PRCBs in 2020, and its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** percent that year.37 Given the *** ratio of subject imports to domestic production for each producer in 2020, the primary interest for both producers appears to have been in domestic production rather than in importation and there is no information in the record that would indicate otherwise. Accordingly, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude either producer from the domestic industry. In sum, consistent with our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of PRCBs. Cumulation A. Legal Standard With respect to five-year reviews, section 752(a) of the Tariff Act provides as follows: the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or (c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the subject merchandise in a case in which it determines 34 CR/PR at I-14. Domestic Producers also identified five of seven other known domestic producers that may have imported subject merchandise, including ***; ***; ***; ***; and ***. See Response at Exhibits 34 and 35. Because these domestic producers did not respond to the notice of institution, however, the record of these reviews contains no information on either the volume of their imports of subject PRCBs or their trade and financial data during the period of review. Consequently, their inclusion or exclusion from the domestic industry pursuant to the related parties provision would have no effect on the record information concerning the domestic industry during the period of review. 35 Response at 47 and n.239. The PRCB Committee observes that in the combined 2016 review determinations, the Commission found that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude any firm from the domestic industry as a related party, and the PRCB Committee contends that it is not aware of any new information that would change this finding. Id. at n.239. 36 CR/PR at I-14. 37 CR/PR at I-14. 11 that such imports are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.38 Cumulation therefore is discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike original investigations, which are governed by section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Tariff Act.39 The Commission may exercise its discretion to cumulate, however, only if the reviews are initiated on the same day, the Commission determines that the subject imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market, and imports from each such subject country are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation. Our focus in five-year reviews is not only on present conditions of competition, but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable future. In the original investigations of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission cumulated subject imports from all three subject countries for purposes of its affirmative material injury determinations.40 In the first review of those orders, the Commission exercised its discretion to cumulate subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.41 In the original investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the Commission exercised its discretion to cumulate subject imports from all three subject countries for purposes of its analysis of threat of material injury.42 In the combined 2016 reviews of the orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the Commission exercised its discretion to cumulate subject imports from all six subject countries.43 In these reviews, the statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied because all reviews were initiated on the same day, April 1, 2021.44 In addition, we consider the following issues in deciding whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports: (1) whether 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). 39 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, 601 F.3d 1291, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Commission may reasonably consider likely differing conditions of competition in deciding whether to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the types of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008). 40 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 13-16. 41 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 8-18. 42 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 13-15. 43 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 11-28. 44 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 86 Fed. Reg. 17200 (Apr. 1, 2021). 12 imports from any of the subject countries are precluded from cumulation because they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry; (2) whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports from the subject countries and the domestic like product; and (3) whether subject imports are likely to compete in the U.S. market under different conditions of competition. The PRCB Committee requests the Commission to exercise its discretion to cumulate subject imports for all current reviews.45 B. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.46 Neither the statute nor the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely to have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.47 With respect to this provision, the Commission generally considers the likely volume of subject imports and the likely impact of those imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked. Our analysis for each of the subject countries takes into account, among other things, the nature of the product and the behavior of subject imports in the original investigations. We consider the data pertinent to each subject country below. China. During the original investigations, U.S. shipments of subject imports from China increased from *** bags in 2001, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to *** bags in 2002, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and *** bags in 2003, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.48 During the first reviews concerning PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found that subject imports from China maintained a significant, if reduced, presence in the U.S. market notwithstanding imposition of the antidumping duty order, which the Commission concluded indicated that subject producers in China remained interested in the U.S. market and capable of serving U.S. customers.49 The Commission also 45 Response at 9. 46 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). 47 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I at 887 (1994). 48 Confidential Staff Report for Original Investigations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, INV-BB- 083, EDIS Doc. 209504 (June 29, 2004) at Tables IV-2 and IV-3. 49 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 11. Subject imports from China accounted for *** bags in 2004 (*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption), then (Continued…) 13 found it noteworthy that nonsubject producers in China maintained a significant presence in the U.S. market, finding it likely that if the order on subject PRCBs from China were revoked, subject producers in China would exhibit a similar degree of interest and ability in serving the U.S. market.50 The limited questionnaire data concerning the PRCB industry in China in the first reviews indicated that responding producers from China had significant capacity and were export oriented during that period.51 Thus, the Commission found that subject producers in China possessed significant PRCB capacity and would have the incentive to increase exports to the U.S. market upon revocation of the order, particularly given the government of China’s imposition of restrictions on PRCB usage in China.52 The Commission concluded that subject imports from China were not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order were revoked.53 In the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission received limited questionnaire data on subject PRCBs in China.54 The responding subject producers of PRCBs in China reported fluctuating production capacity and production, an overall decline in capacity utilization, a high level of export orientation, and an overall increase in exports of subject PRCBs to the United States during the period of review.55 Based on the large and increasing volume of subject imports from China during the original investigations, the continued presence of both subject and nonsubject PRCBs from China in the U.S. market after imposition of the order, the large size of the industry in China, and its export orientation, the Commission found that subject imports from China were not likely to have no discernible adverse impact if the order were revoked.56 The current reviews contain limited new information concerning the imports of PRCBs from subject sources in China.57 The volume of PRCBs imports from China was 10.0 billion bags in 2015, 6.3 billion bags in 2016, 5.5 billion bags in 2017, 4.9 billion bags in 2018, 2.3 billion bags increased to *** bags in 2005 (*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption) and *** bags in 2006 (*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption). In 2007, subject imports from China declined to *** bags (*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption), increased to *** bags in 2008 (*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption), and declined to *** bags in 2009 (*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption). Id.; Confidential First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, EDIS Doc. 428082 (June 24, 2010) at 9. 50 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at n.56. 51 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 11. 52 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 12. 53 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 12. 54 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 14. 55 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 14-15. 56 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 15. 57 See CR/PR at I-21. 14 in 2019, and 1.3 billion bags in 2020 (accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2020), although these data likely overstate the volume of subject imports from China, as they include both subject and nonsubject PRCB imports.58 China was the world’s largest exporter of sacks and bags (including cones) of polymers of ethylene during the period of review, by value, and the United States was the largest destination market for such exports from China.59 Domestic Producers provided a list of 51 possible producers of PRCBs in China, indicating that the Chinese industry remains large.60 Subject imports from China became subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.61 As of May 10, 2019, this duty had increased to 25 percent ad valorem.62 Based on the large and increasing volume of subject imports from China during the original investigations, the continued presence of both subject and nonsubject PRCBs from China in the U.S. market after imposition of the order, the large size of the industry in China, and its large volume of exports of sacks and bags (including cones) of polymers of ethylene, a product category encompassing subject merchandise, we find that if the antidumping duty order on subject imports from China were revoked such imports are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. Indonesia. During the original investigations, subject imports from Indonesia increased from 1.6 billion bags in 2006 (or 1.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption) to 3.4 billion bags in 2007 (or 3.2 percent of apparent U.S. consumption) and decreased to 2.8 billion bags in 2008 (or 2.8 percent of apparent U.S. consumption).63 In the combined 2016 reviews, the record contained limited new information regarding the PRCBs industry in Indonesia.64 Noting the large size and export orientation of the Indonesian industry in the original investigations, the 58 CR/PR at Tables I-4 and I-5. Publicly sourced data concerning imports of PRCBs from China do not distinguish between PRCBs from subject and nonsubject producers. During the first and second reviews, *** percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from China by quantity were from nonsubject sources. Id. at Tables I-4 Note and I-5 Note. 59 CR/PR at Tables I-6, I-13. Sacks and bags (including cones), HTS subheading 3923.21, is a category which contains both in-scope and out-of-scope merchandise. Id. at Table I-6 Source. 60 CR/PR at I-21. 61 Notice of Modification of Section 301 Action: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 83 Fed. Reg. 47974 (Sept. 21, 2018). See CR/PR at I-8. 62 Notice of Modification of Section 301 Action: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 84 Fed. Reg. 20459 (May 9, 2019). See CR/PR at I-8. 63 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at Table C-1. 64 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 15-16. 15 Commission observed that available information did not indicate any contraction in the condition of the subject industry in Indonesia. The Commission also noted that subject imports from Indonesia remained intermittently present in the U.S. market after imposition of the order. For these reasons, as well as the large and increasing volume of subject imports from Indonesia during the original investigations, the Commission concluded that subject imports from Indonesia were not likely to have no discernible adverse impact if the orders were revoked.65 The current reviews contain limited new information concerning subject imports from Indonesia.66 The volume of subject imports from Indonesia was 151,000 bags in 2015, 32,000 bags in 2016, 685,000 bags in 2017, 75,000 bags in 2018, 262,000 bags in 2019, and 190,000 bags in 2020 (accounting for a small share of apparent U.S. consumption in 2020).67 The record shows that sacks and bags (including cones) of polymers of ethylene were exported from Indonesia to the U.S. market each year of the period of review despite imposition of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs.68 Domestic Producers provided a list of 16 possible producers of PRCBs in Indonesia.69 Based on the large and increasing volume of subject imports from Indonesia during the original investigations, the large size of the industry in Indonesia and its export orientation during the original investigations, the importance of the U.S. market relative to other markets at that time, and the presence of PRCBs from Indonesia in the U.S. market even after imposition of the order, we find that if the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Indonesia were revoked such imports are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. Malaysia. During the original investigations involving subject imports from Malaysia, U.S. shipments of subject imports from Malaysia increased from *** bags in 2001 (or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption) to *** bags in 2002 (or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption) and *** bags in 2003 (or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption).70 65 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 15-16. 66 See CR/PR at I-22. 67 CR/PR at Tables I-4 and I-5. 68 CR/PR at Table I-7. As previously noted, sacks and bags (including cones), HTS subheading 3923.21, is a category which contains both in-scope and out-of-scope merchandise. Id. at Table I-7 Source. 69 CR/PR at I-22. 70 Confidential Staff Report for Original Investigations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, INV-BB- 083, EDIS Doc. 209504 (June 29, 2004) at Table C-1. 16 During the first reviews involving subject imports from Malaysia, subject producers in Malaysia maintained and increased their presence in the U.S. market notwithstanding imposition of the antidumping duty order.71 The Commission found that these data indicated that subject producers in Malaysia remained interested in and capable of serving the U.S. market.72 Further, the Commission found it noteworthy that nonsubject producers in Malaysia maintained a significant and increasing presence in the U.S. market during the period of review, finding it likely that if the order on subject PRCBs from Malaysia were revoked, subject producers in Malaysia would exhibit a similar degree of interest and ability in serving the U.S. market as their nonsubject counterparts demonstrated over the period of review.73 Subject producers in Malaysia also possessed significant excess capacity with which to increase exports to the U.S. market after revocation.74 Responding producers in Malaysia were highly dependent on exports throughout the period of review, reportedly exporting 91.3 percent of their total shipments.75 The Commission concluded that subject imports from Malaysia likely would not have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia were revoked.76 In the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission received usable questionnaire responses from several producers of PRCBs in Malaysia.77 The responding PRCBs producers in Malaysia reported increased production capacity and production, available production capacity, and a high level of export orientation during the period of review.78 Subject imports from Malaysia remained in the U.S. market during the period of review despite the order, although their volume and market share declined overall during the period.79 The nonsubject producer of PRCBs in Malaysia also maintained a sizeable presence in the U.S. market, further indicating the attractiveness of the U.S. market during the period of review.80 For these reasons, as well as the increasing volume of subject imports from Malaysia during the original investigations, the Commission concluded that subject imports from Malaysia were not likely to have no 71 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 12. 72 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 12. 73 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 12. 74 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 13. 75 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 13. 76 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 14. 77 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 17. 78 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 17-18. 79 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 18. 80 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 18. 17 discernible adverse impact if the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia were revoked.81 The current reviews contain limited new information concerning subject imports from Malaysia.82 The volume of imports of PRCBs from Malaysia was 8.5 billion bags in 2015, 9.0 billion bags in 2016, 8.5 billion bags in 2017, 8.2 billion bags in 2018, 10.7 billion bags in 2019, and 11.0 billion bags in 2020 (accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2020), although these data likely overstate the volume of subject imports as they include both subject and nonsubject imports of PRCBs.83 The record shows that Malaysia ranked among the world’s largest exporters of sacks and bags (including cones) of polymers of ethylene, and that such bags were exported from Malaysia to the U.S. market each year of the period of review despite imposition of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs.84 Domestic Producers provided a list of 25 possible producers of PRCBs in Malaysia.85 Based on the increasing volume of subject imports from Malaysia during the original investigations, the presence of both subject and nonsubject PRCBs from Malaysia in the U.S. market after imposition of the order, and the Malaysian industry’s large volume of exports of sacks and bags (including cones) of polymers of ethylene, a product category encompassing subject merchandise, we find that if the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Malaysia were revoked such imports are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. Taiwan. During the original investigations with respect to subject imports from Taiwan, subject imports from Taiwan increased from 2.2 billion bags in 2006 (or 2.0 percent of apparent U.S. consumption) to 4.0 billion bags in 2007 (or 3.8 percent of apparent U.S. consumption) and 4.6 billion bags in 2008 (or 4.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption).86 The combined 2016 reviews contained limited new information concerning the PRCBs industry in Taiwan.87 Noting the large size and export orientation of the Taiwan industry in the 81 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 19. 82 See CR/PR at I-24. 83 CR/PR at Tables I-4, I-5, and I-13. Publicly sourced data concerning imports of PRCBs from Malaysia do not distinguish between PRCBs from subject and nonsubject producers. During the first and second reviews, *** percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Malaysia by quantity were from nonsubject sources. Id. at Tables I-4 Note and I-5 Note. 84 CR/PR at Tables I-8 and I-13. Sacks and bags (including cones), HTS subheading 3923.21, is a category which contains both in-scope and out-of-scope merchandise. Id. at Table I-8 Source. 85 CR/PR at I-24. 86 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at Table C-1. 87 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 19. 18 original investigations, the Commission found that available information did not indicate any contraction in the condition of the subject industry in Taiwan.88 The Commission also observed that subject imports from Taiwan maintained an intermittent presence in the U.S. market during the period of review despite imposition of the antidumping duty order.89 For these reasons, as well as the large and increasing volume of subject imports from Taiwan during the original investigations, the Commission concluded that subject imports from Taiwan were not likely to have no discernible adverse impact if the order were revoked.90 The current reviews contain limited new information concerning subject imports from Taiwan.91 The volume of subject imports from Taiwan was 414.3 million bags in 2015, 107.6 million bags in 2016, 66.9 million bags in 2017, 29.3 million bags in 2018, 38.4 million bags in 2019, and 52.6 million bags in 2020 (accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2020).92 The United States was the largest export destination of sacks and bags (including cones) of polymers of ethylene from Taiwan from 2015 to 2020 despite imposition of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs.93 Domestic Producers provided a list of 26 possible producers of PRCBs in Taiwan.94 Based on the large and increasing volume of subject imports from Taiwan during the original investigations, the large size of the industry in Taiwan and its export orientation during the original investigations, the importance of the U.S. market relative to other markets at that time, and the presence of PRCBs from Taiwan in the U.S. market even after imposition of the order, we find that if the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Taiwan were revoked such imports are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. Thailand. During the original investigations involving PRCBs from Thailand, U.S. shipments of subject imports from Thailand increased from *** bags in 2001 (or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption) to *** bags in 2002 (or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption and *** bags in 2003 (or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption).95 During the first reviews involving the order on PRCBs from Thailand, subject producers in Thailand maintained a 88 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 20. 89 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 20. 90 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 20. 91 See CR/PR at I-25. 92 CR/PR at Tables I-4 and I-5. 93 CR/PR at Table I-9. Sacks and bags (including cones), HTS subheading 3923.21, is a category which contains both in-scope and out-of-scope merchandise. Id. at Table I-9 Source. 94 CR/PR at I-25. 95 Confidential Staff Report for Original Investigations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, INV-BB- 083, EDIS Doc. 209504 (June 29, 2004) at Table IV-2. 19 significant presence in the U.S. market notwithstanding imposition of the antidumping duty order, which indicated to the Commission that producers in Thailand remained interested in the U.S. market and capable of serving U.S. customers.96 The Commission found that limited questionnaire data indicated that the PRCB industry in Thailand possessed significant excess capacity with which to increase exports to the U.S. market upon revocation of the order.97 Responding producers in Thailand also reported a high degree of export orientation.98 The Commission concluded that subject imports from Thailand were not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Thailand were revoked.99 In the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission received usable questionnaire data from two producers of subject PRCBs in Thailand.100 These two firms reported increases in their production capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject PRCBs.101 The responding producers also reported a high level of export orientation during the period of review, and an overall increase in their exports of PRCBs to the United States.102 During the period of review, the volume and market share of subject imports from Thailand fluctuated.103 Nonsubject imports of PRCBs from Thailand also maintained a presence in the U.S. market during the period.104 For these reasons, as well as the volume of subject imports from Thailand during the original investigations, the Commission concluded that subject imports from Thailand were not likely to have no discernible adverse impact if the order were revoked.105 The current reviews contain limited new information concerning subject imports from Thailand.106 The volume of imports of PRCBs from Thailand was 6.3 billion bags in 2015, 5.9 billion bags in 2016, 4.8 billion bags in 2017, 5.6 billion bags in 2018, 6.0 billion bags in 2019, and 5.6 billion bags in 2020 (accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2020), 96 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 14. The Commission’s first review of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Thailand occurred prior to Commerce’s revocation of the order with respect to certain producers/exporters in Thailand pursuant to a determination under section 129 of the URAA. Combined 2016 Reviews, USITC Pub. 4605 at 20. 97 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 14. 98 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 15. 99 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 15. 100 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 21. 101 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 21. 102 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 21. 103 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 22. 104 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 22. 105 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 22. 106 See CR/PR at I-26. 20 although these data likely overstate subject imports from Thailand as they include both subject and nonsubject imports of PRCBs.107 Thailand was among the world’s largest exporters of sacks and bags (including cones) of polymers of ethylene during the period of review, and the United States was the largest export market for such bags in each year of the period despite imposition of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs.108 Domestic Producers provided a list of 38 possible producers of PRCBs in Thailand.109 Based on the volume of subject imports from Thailand during the original investigations, the continued presence of both subject and nonsubject PRCBs from Thailand in the U.S. market after imposition of the order, and the Thai industry’s large volume of exports of sacks and bags (including cones) of polymers of ethylene, a product category encompassing subject merchandise, we find that if the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Thailand were revoked such imports are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. Vietnam. During the original investigations involving PRCBs from Vietnam, subject imports from Vietnam increased from 3.1 billion bags in 2006 (or 2.8 percent of apparent U.S. consumption) to 7.3 billion bags in 2007 (or 6.9 percent of apparent U.S. consumption) and was 7.2 billion bags in 2008 (or 7.1 percent of apparent U.S. consumption).110 In the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission received a single usable questionnaire response from a subject producer reporting overall increases in capacity and production and a high degree of export orientation, though ***.111 The Commission also considered the data reported during the original investigations, indicating overall growth in production capacity and production of PRCBs in Vietnam, substantial unused capacity, and a high degree of export orientation.112 Subject imports from Vietnam decreased but maintained a presence in the U.S. market after imposition of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders.113 The Commission concluded 107 CR/PR at Tables I-4 and I-5. Publicly sourced data concerning imports of PRCBs from Thailand do not distinguish between PRCBs from subject and nonsubject producers. In 2014, *** percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Thailand by quantity were from nonsubject sources. Id. at Tables I-4 Note and I-5 Note. 108 CR/PR at Tables I-10, I-13. Sacks and bags (including cones), HTS subheading 3923.21, is a category which contains both in-scope and out-of-scope merchandise. Id. at Table I-10 Source. 109 CR/PR at I-26. 110 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at Table C-1. 111 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 22. 112 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 23. 113 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 23. 21 that subject imports from Vietnam were not likely to have no discernible adverse impact if the orders were revoked.114 The current reviews contain limited new information concerning subject imports from Vietnam.115 The volume of subject imports from Vietnam was 18.0 million bags in 2015, 54.0 million bags in 2016, 5.2 million bags in 2017, 16.4 million bags in 2018, 135.4 million bags in 2019, and 239.0 million bags in 2020 (accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2020).116 The record shows that Vietnam ranked among the world’s largest exporters of sacks and bags (including cones) of polymers of ethylene from Vietnam during the period of review, and such bags were exported from Vietnam to the U.S. market in each year of the period despite imposition of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on PRCBs.117 Domestic Producers provided a list of 62 possible producers of PRCBs in Vietnam.118 Based on the large and increasing volume of subject imports from Vietnam during the original investigations, the importance of the U.S. market relative to other markets at that time, the continued presence of PRCBs from Vietnam in the U.S. market even after imposition of the order, and the Vietnamese industry’s large volume of exports of sacks and bags (including cones) of polymers of ethylene, a product category encompassing subject merchandise, we find that if the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on subject imports from Vietnam were revoked such imports are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. C. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition The Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for determining whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like 114 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 23. 115 See CR/PR at I-28-29. 116 CR/PR at Tables I-4 and I-5. 117 CR/PR at Tables I-12-13. Sacks and bags (including cones), HTS subheading 3923.21, is a category which contains both in-scope and out-of-scope merchandise. Id. at Table I-12 Source. 118 CR/PR at I-28. 22 product.119 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.120 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether there likely would be competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent from the U.S. market.121 Fungibility. In the original investigations and first reviews with respect to imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found there to be a high degree of substitutability among subject imports from each of those countries and between subject imports and the domestic product.122 The Commission observed that the majority of purchasers reported that subject imports from China, Thailand, and Malaysia were always or frequently interchangeable with each other and the domestic like product.123 In the original investigations with respect to imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the Commission found a high degree of substitutability among subject imports from each country and between subject imports and the domestic like product.124 The Commission observed that the majority of responding producers, importers, and purchasers reported that subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the domestic like product were always or frequently 119 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product are as follows: (1) the degree of fungibility between subject imports from different countries and between subject imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer requirements and other quality-related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether subject imports are simultaneously present in the market with one another and the domestic like product. See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). 120 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Wieland Werke, 718 F. Supp. at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 685 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We note, however, that there have been investigations where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate subject imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-386 and 731-TA-812-13 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d sub nom, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v. United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-761-62 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998). 121 See generally, Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002). 122 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 14; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 16. 123 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 14; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 16. 124 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 11. 23 interchangeable.125 In the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission found that there would likely be a high degree of fungibility among subject imports from all six subject countries and between subject imports and the domestic like product.126 The majority of U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers reported that PRCBs from the subject countries were always interchangeable with one another and with the domestic like product.127 In most comparisons of 15 factors that may affect purchasing decisions, majorities or pluralities of purchasers reported that the domestic like product and imports from each subject country were comparable.128 In the current reviews, the PRCB Committee asserts that PRCBs from domestic and subject sources are always or frequently interchangeable.129 There is no new information in these reviews to indicate that the fungibility between and among PRCBs from each of the six subject countries and the domestic like product has changed from the high degree of fungibility found in the original investigations and prior reviews. Channels of Distribution. In the original investigations and first reviews with respect to subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found that there was sufficient overlap among the distribution channels of the domestic like product and imports from each subject country for purposes of cumulation.130 In the original investigations with respect to subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the Commission found that subject imports and the domestic like product shared the same general channels of distribution.131 In the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission found that importers of subject PRCBs from five of the six subject countries and the domestic industry reported selling PRCBs through distributors, although importers from Thailand sold a greater share of their products to end users than to distributors.132 In the current reviews, the PRCB Committee asserts that the relevant facts have not changed since the prior reviews, and that subject imports would likely compete under the same 125 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 11. 126 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 25. 127 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 25. 128 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 25. 129 See Response at 14-15. 130 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 16; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 16. 131 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 11. 132 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 26. ***. Id.; Confidential Combined 2016 Review Determinations, EDIS Doc. 743929 (June 3, 2021) at 34-35. 24 conditions of competition as in the prior reviews.133 There is no new information in these reviews to indicate that the channels of distribution used by imports from each subject country and the domestic like product have changed since the original investigations and prior reviews, when the Commission found that domestic and subject PRCBs generally utilized the same channels of distribution. Geographic Overlap. In the original investigations and first reviews with respect to subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found that subject imports and the domestic like product were generally sold throughout the United States during the relevant periods.134 In the original investigations with respect to subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the Commission found that subject imports and the domestic like product generally served the same geographic markets during the period of investigation.135 In the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission found that imports of PRCBs from each subject country entered the United States in Los Angeles, California, and that imports of PRCBs from each subject country except Vietnam also entered the United States in New York, New York.136 The domestic industry reported selling PRCBs in all regions of the contiguous United States, as did importers of subject merchandise from all subject countries other than Malaysia.137 In the current reviews, the PRCB Committee asserts that the relevant facts have not changed since the prior reviews, and that subject imports would likely compete under the same conditions of competition as in the prior reviews.138 The record in the current reviews indicates that imports of PRCBs from each of the subject countries generally entered the United States through the northern, southern, eastern, and western borders of entry during the period of review, with some exceptions.139 133 See Response at 10, 12. 134 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 15; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 16. 135 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 11. 136 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 26. 137 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 26. The record in the combined 2016 reviews contained limited information concerning the geographic markets for subject imports from Malaysia. ***. Id. at 26; Confidential Combined 2016 Review Determinations, EDIS Doc. 743929 (June 3, 2021) at 35, n.131. 138 See Response at 10-12. 139 CR/PR at I-18. Imports from Vietnam entered through northern, southern, eastern, and western borders of entry in all years from 2015 through 2020, except in 2017 when no imports from Vietnam entered through the southern border. Imports from Malaysia entered through northern, (Continued…) 25 Simultaneous Presence in Market. In the original investigations and first reviews with respect to subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found that subject imports and the domestic like product were present in the domestic market during the relevant periods.140 In the original investigations with respect to subject imports from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the Commission found that subject imports and the domestic like product were present in the market during the period of investigation.141 In the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission found that subject imports from each of the six subject countries and the domestic like product were sold in the U.S. market in each year of the period of review.142 In the current reviews, the PRCB Committee asserts that the relevant facts have not changed since the prior reviews, and that subject imports would likely compete under the same conditions of competition as in the prior reviews.143 The record in the current reviews indicates that imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand were reported in all 72 months between 2015 and 2020; imports of PRCBs from Vietnam were reported in 52 of the 72 months; and imports of PRCBs from Indonesia were reported in 13 of the 72 months.144 Conclusion. The record in these expedited reviews contains limited information concerning subject imports in the U.S. market during the period of review. Further, the record contains no new information suggesting that there has been any change in the considerations that led the Commission to conclude in the last reviews that there would be a likely reasonable overlap of competition between and among imports from the subject countries and the domestic like product in the event of revocation of the orders. In light of this, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we find that there would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition between and among subject imports from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, and the domestic like product, if the orders were revoked. southern, eastern, western borders of entry in all years from 2015 through 2020, except in 2015 when no imports from Malaysia entered through the southern or northern borders, in 2016 when no imports from Malaysia entered through the southern border, and in 2017 and 2018 when no imports from Malaysia entered through the northern border. Lastly, imports from Indonesia entered through the northern, southern, and western borders in 2015, the northern border in 2016, the eastern border in 2017, the southern and western borders in 2018, the southern border in 2019, and the western border in 2020. Id. 140 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 15; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 17. 141 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 12. 142 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 26. 143 See Response at 11-12. 144 CR/PR at I-18. 26 D. Likely Conditions of Competition In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports, we assess whether subject imports from the subject countries would compete under similar or different conditions in the U.S. market if the orders under review were revoked. The record in these reviews does not indicate that there would likely be any significant difference in the conditions of competition between subject imports from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam after revocation. Imports from each of the subject countries increased prior to the imposition of the orders.145 Producers in each of the subject countries have maintained an interest in the U.S. market throughout the duration of the orders.146 Each of the subject countries also export substantial quantities of sacks and bags (including cones) of polymers of ethylene, a product category that includes PRCBs, to multiple countries throughout the world.147 E. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we find that subject imports from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, considered individually, would not be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the corresponding orders under review were revoked. We also find a likely reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports from different sources and between the subject imports from each subject country and the domestic like product. Finally, we find that imports from each subject country are likely to compete in the U.S. market under similar conditions of competition should the orders be revoked. We therefore exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. 145 Confidential Staff Report for Original Investigations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, INV-BB- 083, EDIS Doc. 209504 (June 29, 2004) at Table IV-1; Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 13. 146 See CR/PR at I-18. 147 CR/PR at Tables I-6-12. 27 Revocation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders Would Likely Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time A. Legal Standards In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, Commerce will revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order unless: (1) it makes a determination that dumping or subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”148 The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Actions (“SAA”) states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”149 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.150 The U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.151 148 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). 149 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I at 883-84 (1994) at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883. 150 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed shipment levels and current and likely continued {sic} prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” SAA at 884. 151 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion;” “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, 26 CIT 1059, 1070 (2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”). 28 The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”152 According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”153 Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”154 It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if an order is revoked or a suspension agreement is terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).155 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination.156 In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if an order under review is revoked and/or a suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be significant either in absolute terms 152 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). 153 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts), and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term, such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id. 154 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). 155 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce made one duty-absorption finding concerning PRCBs from China with respect to Dongguan Nozawa Plastics Ltd. and United Power Packaging Ltd. on all U.S. sales make through its affiliated importers in the 2005-2006 review. Commerce also made duty- absorption findings concerning PRCBs from Thailand with respect to Advance Polybag Inc., Alpine Plastics Inc., API Enterprises Inc., and Universal Polybag Co., Ltd. (collectively UPC/API) on all U.S. sales in the 2005-2006 review and with respect to Master Packaging Co., Ltd. on all U.S. sales in the 2007-2008 review. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 86 Fed. Reg. 35478 (July 6, 2021), Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 11, 13. 156 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886. 29 or relative to production or consumption in the United States.157 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.158 In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if an order under review is revoked and/or a suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product.159 In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if an order under review is revoked and/or a suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to the following: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.160 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry. As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to 157 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). 158 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D). 159 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA at 886. 160 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 30 which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the orders under review and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury upon revocation.161 No respondent interested party participated in these expedited reviews. The record, therefore, contains limited new information with respect to the PRCB industries in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. There also is limited information on the PRCBs market in the United States during the period of review. Accordingly, for our determinations, we rely as appropriate on the facts available from the original investigations and prior reviews, and the limited new information on the record in these combined second and third five-year reviews. B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry if an order is revoked, the statute directs the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”162 The following conditions of competition inform our determinations. 1. Demand Conditions During the original investigations of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found that apparent U.S. consumption had increased steadily from 77.1 billion bags in 2001 to 87.5 billion bags in 2003 and that 90 percent of the U.S. market consisted of t- shirt and die-cut handle PRCBs.163 The Commission found that large retailers directly imported PRCBs and purchased PRCBs from importers, domestic producers, and distributors.164 During the first reviews with respect to subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found that apparent U.S. consumption increased overall between 2004 (*** bags) and 2009 (*** bags), although apparent U.S. consumption peaked in 2006.165 The Commission 161 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked, the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at 885. 162 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 163 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 16-17. 164 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 19-20. 165 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 24; Confidential First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand at 21, EDIS Doc. 743822 (June 24, 2010). 31 found that an increasing share of sales involved internet reverse auctions, which purchasers reported tended to focus competition on price.166 During the original investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, apparent U.S. consumption declined from 108.7 billion bags in 2006 to 105.3 billion bags in 2007 and 101.4 billion bags in 2008.167 Questionnaire respondents reported that PRCBs demand declined due to increased use of alternative bag types or taxes on PRCBs related to environmental concerns.168 In the combined 2016 reviews, most firms reported either a decrease or no change in U.S. demand for PRCBs since January 2009.169 The record indicated that apparent U.S. consumption increased overall between 2009 (95.3 billion bags) and 2014 (103.5 billion bags), although apparent U.S. consumption peaked in 2012 (103.8 billion bags).170 Questionnaire responses were mixed regarding whether the passage of laws regulating the use and disposal of PRCBs had affected demand since 2009.171 Of those responding affirmatively, nearly all reported that these laws decreased the demand for PRCBs.172 The Commission found that the record was mixed concerning the effect of environmental restrictions on demand for PRCBs, noting that the longer-term impact of such restrictions would vary according to the size of the jurisdiction in which they are imposed and the sorts of restrictions imposed.173 Purchasers continued to purchase PRCBs through internet sales, including reverse auctions.174 Apparent U.S. consumption was *** bags in 2020 compared to 103.5 billion bags in 2014, *** bags in 2009, 101.4 billion bags in 2008, and 87.5 billion bags in 2003.175 The lower apparent U.S. consumption quantity in 2020 than in prior reviews and the original investigations is consistent with the long-term trend towards decreasing demand for PRCBs in the U.S. market driven by efforts to restrict the use of PRCBs due to environmental concerns.176 The record shows that new restrictions on the use of PRCBs were enacted in California in 2016, 166 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 24 n.150. 167 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 20. 168 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 20; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 22-23. 169 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 32. 170 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 32. 171 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 32-33. 172 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 33. 173 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 33. 174 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 32. 175 CR/PR at Table I-5. 176 Response at 16. 32 and in New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Oregon, and Vermont in 2019.177 The PRCB Committee notes that the COVID-19 pandemic temporarily restrained efforts to further restrict the use of PRCBs, but anticipates that such efforts will resume when the pandemic ends.178 2. Supply Conditions During the original investigations of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 22 domestic producers submitted questionnaire data.179 The record indicated that subject imports were diffused among many importers, and that nonsubject imports held a small but increasing share of the U.S market.180 By the time of the first reviews of those orders and the original investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, four firms (API, Hilex, Interplast, and Superbag) were *** domestic producers of PRCBs, collectively accounting for approximately *** percent of domestic production of PRCBs in 2008 and 2009.181 Imports of PRCBs from subject and nonsubject sources collectively accounted for about one-third of apparent U.S. consumption.182 Two major producers in Taiwan and most responding producers in Vietnam first engaged in production of PRCBs during that period.183 Nonsubject imports included imports of PRCBs from producers in subject countries that were not subject to any antidumping or countervailing duty orders and imports of PRCBs from nonsubject countries.184 During the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission found that the domestic industry accounted for more than *** of apparent U.S. consumption of PRCBs since 2009.185 Following the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam in May 2010, the volume of cumulated subject imports from all six countries decreased, and their market share declined from *** percent in 2009 to *** percent 177 CR/PR at Table I-2. 178 Response at 17. 179 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 17. 180 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 17. 181 Confidential Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, EDIS Doc. 743911 (Apr. 28, 2010) at 28; Confidential First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, EDIS Doc. 743822 (June 24, 2010) at 22. 182 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 21; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 22. 183 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 21. 184 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 21; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 23-24. 185 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 34; Confidential Combined 2016 Review Determinations, EDIS Doc. 743929 (June 3, 2021) at 47. 33 in 2014.186 Nonsubject imports’ share of the U.S. market increased irregularly from *** percent in 2009 to *** percent in 2014.187 As in prior proceedings, nonsubject imports included imports of PRCBs from subject countries produced by firms that were not subject to any antidumping or countervailing duty orders and imports of PRCBs from nonsubject countries (primarily Canada and India).188 In the current reviews, the domestic industry accounted for the majority (***) of apparent U.S. consumption in 2020 (or *** bags).189 Available information in the current reviews indicates that the domestic industry’s capacity and production were lower in 2020 than in the prior reviews and original investigations, partly reflecting production shutdowns due to hurricanes Laura and Delta that year.190 Despite its lower capacity, the domestic industry continued to report unused capacity in 2020, as it did in prior reviews.191 The PRCB Committee reports that, in order to maintain profitability, producers of PRCBs need to operate their factories continuously at high capacity utilization rates in order to spread fixed costs over as many production units as possible.192 The information available in these reviews indicates that subject sources were the second largest source of supply in 2020, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption (or *** bags) in 2020,193 while nonsubject imports were the smallest source of supply in 2020, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption (or *** bags) in 186 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 34; Confidential Combined 2016 Review Determinations, EDIS Doc. 743929 (June 3, 2021) at 47. 187 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 34; Confidential Combined 2016 Review Determinations, EDIS Doc. 743929 (June 3, 2021) at 48. 188 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 34. 189 CR/PR at Table I-5. The domestic industry accounted for 71.1 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2014 (or 73.6 billion bags), 68.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2009 (or *** bags), 64.2 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2008 (or 65.1 billion bags), and *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003 (or *** bags). Id. 190 CR/PR at I-12, Table I-3. 191 CR/PR at Table I-3. 192 Response at 15. 193 CR/PR at Table I-5. Subject sources accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2014 (or *** bags), 9.2 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2009 (or *** bags), 14.4 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2008 (or 14.6 billion bags), and 17.6 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003 (or 15.4 billion bags). Id. In 2014, subject countries were China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. In 2009, subject countries were China, Malaysia, and Thailand and nonsubject countries included Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam. In 2008, subject countries were Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and nonsubject countries included China, Malaysia, and Thailand. In 2003, subject countries were China, Malaysia, and Thailand and nonsubject countries included Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Id. at Table I-5 Source. 34 2020.194 Although these data appear to show higher subject import market share and lower nonsubject import market share compared to the prior reviews, the 2020 data overstate the quantity of subject imports while understating the quantity of nonsubject imports due to the inclusion of nonsubject producers (i.e., producers that were excluded by Commerce from the relevant orders) in the data concerning subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand in the 2020 data, but not in the data concerning subject imports from the prior reviews.195 3. Substitutability and Other Conditions Substitutability. During the original investigations and first reviews of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand; the original investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam; and the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission found a high degree of substitutability among subject imports and the domestic like product, and found that price was an important factor in purchasing decisions.196 The PRCB Committee reported that the domestic industry was forced to lower prices due to low-priced subject imports in order to defend its baseline business and operate production facilities continuously in order to reduce costs to an economical level.197 In these reviews, the PRCB Committee maintains that there continues to be a high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product and that price continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions.198 The limited information available in these reviews does not indicate that the substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product has changed since the original investigations and prior reviews. 194 CR/PR at Table I-5. Nonsubject sources accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2014 (or *** bags), 22.3 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2009 (or *** bags), 21.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2008 (or 21.8 billion bags), and 5.3 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003 (or 4.7 billion bags). Id. In 2014, subject countries were China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. In 2009, subject countries were China, Malaysia, and Thailand and nonsubject countries included Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam. In 2008, subject countries were Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and nonsubject countries included China, Malaysia, and Thailand. In 2003, subject countries were China, Malaysia, and Thailand and nonsubject countries included Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Id. at Table I-5 Source. 195 CR/PR at I-19. 196 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 18-19; Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 21-22; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 24; Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 34. 197 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 22; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 23. 198 Response at 15-16. 35 Accordingly, we again find that there is a high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product, and that price continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions. On September 24, 2018, subject imports from China became subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.199 As of May 10, 2019, this duty had increased to 25 percent ad valorem.200 Other Conditions. With respect to raw materials, during the original investigations and first reviews of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand; the original investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam; and the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission found that polyethylene resin was the primary raw material input for PRCB production, and that prices of this raw material were sometimes volatile.201 In the original investigations and first reviews with respect to subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the PRCB Committee reported that a portion of the domestic industry’s sales volume was subject to formal or informal agreements to adjust PRCBs prices in tandem with resin price trends.202 In the combined 2016 reviews, the PRCB Committee reported that most contracts contained price-escalation/de-escalation clauses based on resin prices, made possible by the orders under review.203 In the current reviews, the PRCB Committee asserts that the conditions of competition affecting pricing have not changed since the last five-year reviews.204 ***.205 199 Notice of Modification of Section 301 Action: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 83 Fed. Reg. 47974 (Sept. 21, 2018). See CR at I-8. 200 Notice of Modification of Section 301 Action: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 84 Fed. Reg. 20459 (May 9, 2019). See CR at I-8. 201 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 19; Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 22; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 25; Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 34. 202 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 19; Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 22; First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 25. 203 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 34. 204 See Response at 39. 205 CR/PR at D-4-5. 36 C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports In the original investigations of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found that cumulated subject imports increased significantly, from 8.7 billion bags in 2001 to 17.0 billion bags in 2003, and that they increased their market share from 10.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2001 to 18.6 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003. The Commission found that subject imports increased their market share at the expense of the domestic industry, which lost 11.0 percentage points of market share during this period.206 In the first reviews with respect to subject imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission concluded that cumulated subject imports were likely to be significant in the event of revocation for several reasons: (1) cumulated subject imports rose rapidly during the original investigations both absolutely and relative to consumption and maintained a significant presence in the U.S. market after the orders were imposed; (2) nonsubject producers in China and Malaysia maintained a significant and increasing presence in the U.S. market during that period; (3) the subject PRCBs industries had significant and increasing production capacity; (4) the subject PRCBs industries had significant unused production capacity; (5) responding subject foreign producers reported that they were highly export oriented; (6) competition in major third-country markets was likely to intensify given the likelihood of stagnant or declining demand in China and the EU market and the U.S. imposition of orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam; and (7) the U.S. imposition of orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam would provide an additional incentive for producers in China, Malaysia, and Thailand to increase exports to the U.S. market in the event of revocation.207 In the original investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the Commission found that the cumulated volume of subject imports and the increase in cumulated subject imports was significant both absolutely and relative to apparent U.S. consumption and domestic production.208 With respect to its threat analysis, the Commission based its conclusion that cumulated subject imports were likely to increase significantly in the imminent 206 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 20-21. 207 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 25-28. 208 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 21-23. Cumulated subject imports increased from 7.3 billion bags in 2006 to 14.6 billion bags in 2008, and their market share rose from 6.7 percent to 14.4 percent during this period. Id. 37 future on information available indicating that the subject producers had the ability and incentive to increase their exports to the United States.209 In the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission found that the volume of cumulated subject imports from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam was likely to be significant in the event of revocation.210 In this regard, the Commission explained that subject producers had the ability to increase their exports to the United States after revocation in light of their significant and increasing capacity and production, and their significant unused capacity.211 It also explained that subject producers had the incentive to increase their exports to the United States after revocation in light of their continued presence in the U.S. market, their need to operate at a high rate of capacity utilization, their high degree of export orientation, and the attractiveness of the U.S. market.212 In these reviews, the record indicates that, despite the discipline of the orders, subject imports have continued to maintain a significant presence in the U.S. market. According to official Commerce statistics, which do not differentiate imports from subject and nonsubject sources in China, Malaysia, and Thailand, total cumulated imports from subject countries declined irregularly from 25.2 billion bags in 2015 to 18.2 billion bags in 2020, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption that year.213 The record in the current reviews does not contain current data specific to PRCB production or capacity in the subject countries because no producer or exporter of subject merchandise participated in these expedited reviews.214 Nonetheless, the information available in these reviews indicates that the PRCB industries in subject countries have maintained substantial capacity as in prior reviews.215 According to information provided by the PRCB 209 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 22-26. 210 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 35-36. 211 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 36. 212 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 36-37. 213 CR/PR at Tables I-4-5. Although subject import market share was higher in 2020 than in 2014 (*** percent), 2009 (9.2 percent), 2008 (14.4 percent), and 2003 (17.6 percent), we recognize that subject import market share for 2020 includes imports from nonsubject producers in China, Malaysia, and Thailand, whereas subject import market shares for previous years exclude imports from such sources. Id. at I-19, Table I-5. 214 CR/PR at I-21-28. The record also does not contain current information about inventories of the subject merchandise. See CR/PR at App. C. The record does indicate that there are no outstanding antidumping or countervailing duty orders in other markets on PRCBs from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, or Vietnam. Id. at I-29. 215 See CR/PR at I-21-28; Response at Exhibit 36 (listing known producers of subject merchandise in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam). 38 Committee, the subject industries in China, Malaysia, and Vietnam have increased their capacity to produce bags, including PRCBs, since the last reviews.216 This information also indicates that plans for five new PRBC production facilities in China, with an estimated combined potential capacity of 1.7 billion bags annually, were approved between January and April 2021.217 Public information from 2019 shows that the production of plastic bags in Taiwan significantly exceeded home country consumption, with almost 65,000 metric tons of production capacity available for export.218 Thus, we find that the subject industries have the ability to export significant volumes of PRCBs to the United States. The Commission also finds that subject industries would possess an incentive to increase their exports of PCRBs to the United States in the event of revocation. Cumulated subject imports maintained a significant presence in the U.S. market during the period of review, reflecting the continued attractiveness of the U.S. market to producers in the subject countries. The information available also shows that industries in the subject countries remain export oriented as in the prior reviews.219 Specifically, the record shows that China was the world’s leading global exporter of sacks and bags (including cones), of polymers of ethylene during the period of review, and that Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam ranked among the world’s largest exporters of such bags during the period.220 Based on the increase in the volume and market share of subject imports during the original investigations, the substantial production capacity and export orientation of the subject producers, and the significant presence of subject imports in the U.S. market during the period of review, we find that subject producers have the ability and incentive to increase their exports to the United States if the orders were revoked. Therefore, we find that the volume of cumulated subject imports, both in absolute terms and relative to production and consumption in the United States, would likely be significant within the reasonably foreseeable future if the orders were revoked. 216 Response at 23-27, 29-30, Exhibits 2, 7-11, 15-23, 25-28. 217 Response at 23-25, Exhibits 7-11. 218 Response at 32, Exhibit 30. 219 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 36-37. 220 CR/PR at Table I-13. Sacks and bags (including cones), of polymers of ethylene, HTS subheading 3923.21, is a category that includes in-scope PRCBs and out-of-scope products. Id. at Table I-13 Source. 39 D. Likely Price Effects In the original investigations of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found that cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 72 of 84 (or 85.7 percent of) possible quarterly comparisons, and it rejected respondents’ argument that any underselling was related to a price premium for domestic products as unsupported by purchasers’ questionnaire responses.221 For the pricing product with the largest subject import volume and a very substantial volume of domestic shipments, cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product in all 12 quarterly comparisons with margins ranging from 8.7 percent to 24.8 percent.222 Based on its findings of high substitutability among subject imports and the domestic like product, the importance of price in purchasing decisions, and the amplified price competition for sales involving internet auctions,223 the Commission found that the large volume of low-priced cumulated subject imports depressed prices of the domestic like product to a significant degree.224 The Commission found that cumulated subject imports also suppressed prices of the domestic like product because domestic producers were unable to raise prices sufficiently to offset increased costs.225 In the first reviews of those orders, the Commission referenced its findings from the original investigations and found that cumulated subject imports continued to undersell the domestic like product to a significant degree even after imposition of the orders.226 Based on these considerations, the Commission found that, if the orders were revoked, underselling by cumulated subject imports would likely intensify, resulting in significant depression or suppression of domestic prices, as the domestic industry would defend its baseload business by meeting lower prices to maintain high capacity utilization, particularly given likely flat to declining demand.227 In the original investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the Commission found cumulated subject imports were highly substitutable with the domestic like product and that price was an important factor in purchasing decisions, particularly for internet auctions.228 In reaching affirmative threat determinations, the Commission found that 221 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 22-23. 222 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 22. 223 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 23. 224 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 22. 225 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 22-23. 226 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 29. 227 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 29-30. 228 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 27. 40 cumulated subject imports were priced lower than the domestic like product based on evidence that cumulated subject imports increased their market share and direct import pricing data showing that cumulated subject imports’ delivered prices were lower than prices of the domestic like product in 49 of 60 (or 81.6 percent of) quarterly comparisons.229 Although the Commission acknowledged that its traditional pricing data showed mixed overselling and underselling, it observed that many purchasers denied lost sales and lost revenue allegations not because the allegations were untrue, but because purchasers lacked the necessary documentation to confirm them.230 The Commission found no evidence that cumulated subject imports depressed prices of the domestic like product, although it found that the domestic industry was unable to increase its prices commensurately with increases in raw materials costs due in part to competition with low-priced cumulated subject imports.231 It found—in reaching its affirmative threat determination—that, as the subject industries sought to utilize their excess capacity by increasing their exports to the United States, they would price their products at levels that would undersell the domestic like product and have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices.232 The Commission found that the domestic industry would be compelled to defend its baseload business by meeting low-priced subject imports, particularly in light of projected flat to declining demand and the volatility of resin prices.233 In the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission found that subject imports and the domestic like product were highly substitutable and that price continued to be an important factor in purchasing decisions, particularly given the use of internet reverse auctions that intensified price-based competition in the PRCB industry.234 The importance of price was also evident from the use of meet-or-release clauses in some PRCB contracts and bids, the existence of several large purchasers, and the fact that retailers provided these bags for free or for a nominal fee to the customer.235 Notwithstanding the disciplining effect of the orders, pricing data showed that PRCBs from subject sources in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam undersold the domestic like product in 70 of 288 (or 24.3 percent of) quarterly comparisons.236 The volume of cumulated subject imports that undersold the domestic like product was much 229 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 28-30. 230 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 27-30. 231 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 30-31. 232 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 31. 233 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 31. 234 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 39. 235 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 39. 236 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 40. 41 greater than the volume that oversold the domestic like product.237 Noting the likely significant volume of subject import volume after revocation, the high degree of substitutability between subject and domestic PRCBs, and the importance of price, among other factors, the Commission found that underselling by subject imports was likely to intensify if the orders were revoked, and would likely have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on prices of the domestic like product.238 There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record in these reviews. As explained above, the record in these reviews indicates that subject imports and the domestic like product remain highly substitutable and that price continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions. Given these conditions of competition, and our finding that subject import volume is likely to increase after revocation, subject producers would likely use underselling to gain market share, as in the original investigations. Faced with subject import underselling, domestic producers would likely have to lower their own prices or forego needed price increases to defend their sales and maintain their capacity utilization at an economic level. Consequently, we find that if the orders were revoked, significant underselling by subject imports would likely have a significant depressive and/or suppressive effect on prices for the domestic like product. E. Likely Impact In the original investigations of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found that the significant increasing volume of low-priced cumulated subject imports captured market share from the domestic industry during a period of increasing apparent U.S. consumption, and the domestic industry’s shipments, market share, production, capacity utilization, and employment indicators declined overall, particularly between 2002 and 2003, at the time of the greatest market penetration by cumulated subject imports.239 The domestic industry’s prices fell and it experienced a cost-price squeeze as subject imports prevented it from raising prices in order to meet sharply higher resin and energy costs.240 The domestic industry’s financial performance also declined significantly.241 On this basis, the 237 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 40. 238 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 41. 239 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 24-26. 240 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 25-26. 241 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 26. 42 Commission concluded that cumulated subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.242 In the original investigations of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the Commission found that the domestic industry’s performance declined with respect to most performance indicia between 2006 and 2008, particularly in 2008 when cumulated subject imports’ market share peaked, and improved somewhat at the end of the period when the volume of cumulated subject imports was lower.243 It found that cumulated subject imports contributed to the domestic industry’s cost-price squeeze, but it did not find that cumulated subject imports materially injured the domestic industry given the role of other factors, such as raw material cost fluctuations, declining apparent U.S. consumption, and nonsubject imports (which held a larger but declining share of apparent U.S. consumption than cumulated subject imports).244 The Commission based its affirmative threat determinations in part on its findings that the domestic industry was vulnerable due to stagnant or declining demand, the volatility of raw material costs, and its recent declines in numerous performance indicia.245 It also determined that producers in the subject countries were likely to utilize their excess capacity by underselling the domestic like product at significant margins in order to increase significantly their U.S. exports; it found that the domestic industry would likely be compelled to defend its baseload business by meeting low prices, thereby making it likely that the domestic industry would experience a cost-price squeeze.246 During the first reviews of the orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Taiwan, the Commission found that the domestic industry was vulnerable because most of the domestic industry’s performance indicators declined overall between 2004 and 2009, PRCB demand was likely to stagnate or decline, and even a small increase in the domestic industry’s cost of raw 242 Final China, Malaysia, and Thailand Determinations, USITC Pub. 3710 at 26. The Commission explained that the domestic industry imported and purchased imported PRCBs in order to retain market share, and that nonsubject imports, which were smaller and grew to a lesser degree than cumulated subject imports, did not explain the domestic industry’s adverse performance. Id. at 26-27. 243 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 32-34. 244 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 34-36. 245 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 36. 246 Final Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam Determinations, USITC Pub. 4144 at 36. The Commission explained that the likelihood of flat to declining demand, though increasing the domestic industry’s vulnerability, would not break the causal link between subject imports and the threat of material injury.246 Likewise, it found that the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand would have some restraining effect on nonsubject imports, and it reiterated that nonsubject imports declined overall and generally were priced higher than cumulated subject imports during that period. Id. 43 materials relative to its net sales value would adversely affect the domestic industry’s financial performance.247 The Commission found that the likely significant volume and price effects of cumulated subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry’s production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues.248 These reductions would have a direct adverse impact on the domestic industry’s profitability and employment, as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital improvements.249 In the combined 2016 reviews, the Commission found that certain performance and financial indicators of the domestic industry had improved since the prior proceedings, although it described the domestic industry’s operating margins as modest.250 The Commission observed that improvements in the domestic industry’s output, market share, and employment indicators reduced its vulnerability, while its modest operating performance tended to increase it.251 Relying on its findings in prior proceedings, and its findings that revocation of the orders would likely result in a significant volume of low-priced subject imports that would depress or suppress domestic prices to a significant degree, the Commission found that revocation of the orders would likely adversely impact the production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry and, by extension, the industry’s profitability, employment, and ability to raise capital and maintain necessary capital investments. The Commission concluded that if the orders were revoked, cumulated subject imports would likely have a significant impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.252 In the current reviews, the information available concerning the domestic industry’s condition consists of the data provided by the PRCB Committee in its response to the notice of institution. Due to the expedited nature of these reviews, we have only limited information 247 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 31-32. 248 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 32-33. 249 First Review Determinations: China, Malaysia, and Thailand, USITC Pub. 4160 at 33. The Commission explained that nonsubject imports were unlikely to prevent subject imports from increasing their share of the U.S. market in the event of revocation because a predominant share of those imports (from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam) had become subject to orders. Indeed, it found that the likely significant decline in those nonsubject imports as a result of the orders would make the U.S. market relatively more attractive to subject producers if the orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand were revoked. The Commission acknowledged that demand for PRCBs was likely to be stagnant or declining due to increased efforts to curb PRCBs usage, but it found that cumulated subject imports would further reduce the domestic industry’s sales and prices significantly or suppress domestic prices significantly and thus would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry regardless of demand levels. Id. 250 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 42-43. 251 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 43-44. 252 Combined 2016 Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 4605 at 44. 44 with respect to the domestic industry’s financial performance. The limited record in these reviews is insufficient for us to determine whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material injury in the event of revocation of the orders. The information on the record indicates that the domestic industry’s performance was mixed in 2020. The domestic industry’s capacity and production were substantially lower in 2020 than in the prior proceedings, though its capacity utilization rate was similar.253 In 2020, the domestic industry’s capacity was 58.0 billion bags, its production was 46.5 billion bags, and its capacity utilization rate was 80.2 percent.254 By comparison, the domestic industry’s capacity was 90.3 billion bags in 2014, 86.5 billion bags in 2009, 79.7 billion bags in 2008, and 88.1 billion bags in 2003; its production was 76.1 billion bags in 2014, 67.7 billion bags in 2009, 66.3 billion bags in 2008, and 67.3 billion bags in 2003; and its capacity utilization rate was 84.4 percent, 78.2 percent, 83.1 percent, and 76.3 percent, respectively.255 Domestic shipments totaled *** bags in 2020, which were lower than in 2014, 2009, 2008, and 2003.256 The domestic industry’s operating income, however, was higher in 2020 at $*** compared to 2014, 2009, 2008, and 2003, when it was $***, $31.0 million, negative $32.0 million, and $6.1 million, respectively.257 The domestic industry also reported a higher operating income to net sales ratio in 2020, at *** percent, than in 2014, 2009, 2008, or 2003.258 The record suggests that certain conditions of competition may have contributed to the domestic industry’s mixed performance indicators in 2020, particularly production shutdowns in the domestic industry due to hurricanes Laura and Delta, resulting in the largest price increase since 2009.259 Based on the available record in these reviews, we find that if the orders were revoked, the likely significant volume and price effects of the cumulated subject imports would likely have a significant impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenue of the domestic industry. These declines would likely impact the domestic industry’s profitability and employment, its ability to raise capital, and to make and maintain capital investments. We also have considered the role of factors other than subject imports, including the presence of nonsubject imports, so as not to attribute injury from other factors to the subject imports. The information available indicates that nonsubject imports were present in the U.S. 253 CR/PR at Table I-3. 254 CR/PR at Table I-3. 255 CR/PR at Table I-3. 256 CR/PR at Table I-3. 257 CR/PR at Table I-3. 258 CR/PR at Table I-3. 259 CR/PR at I-12. 45 market during the period of review, as they were during the original investigations and prior reviews, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2020.260 Because the domestic industry supplies the majority of the U.S. market, and because subject imports are highly substitutable with the domestic like product, any increase in cumulated subject imports would likely come predominantly at the expense of the domestic industry. Consequently, we find that the likely effects attributable to the subject imports will be material and consequential, and apart from any effects likely from nonsubject imports in the event of revocation of the orders. We find that any declines in demand in the U.S. market within a reasonably foreseeable time will likely exacerbate price-based competition between subject imports and domestic PRCBs to the detriment of the U.S. industry. Accordingly, we conclude that if the antidumping and countervailing duty orders were revoked, subject imports would likely have a significant impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Conclusion For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam and the countervailing duty order on PRCBs from Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 260 CR/PR at Table I-5. The record indicates that the quantity of nonsubject imports was lower in 2020 at 13.2 million bags than in 2014 at *** bags. Id. I-1 Part I: Information obtained in these reviews Background On April 1, 2021, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”),1 that it had instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (“PRCBs”) from Vietnam and the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.2 All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting certain information requested by the Commission.3 4 The following tabulation presents information relating to the background and schedule of this proceeding: Effective date Action April 1, 2021 Notice of initiation by Commerce (86 FR 16701, March 31, 2021) April 1, 2021 Notice of institution by Commission (86 FR 17200, April 1, 2021) July 6, 2021 Commerce’s results of its expedited reviews – AD (86 FR 35478, July 6, 2021) July 7, 2021 Commission’s vote on adequacy August 10, 2021 Commerce’s results of its expedited reviews – CVD (86 FR 43626, August 10, 2021) October 18, 2021 Commission’s determinations and views 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c). 2 86 FR 17200, April 1, 2021. In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the subject antidumping and countervailing duty orders. 86 FR 16701, March 31, 2021. Pertinent Federal Register notices are referenced in app. A, and may be found at the Commission’s website (www.usitc.gov). 3 As part of their response to the notice of institution, interested parties were requested to provide company-specific information. That information is presented in app. B. Summary data compiled in the original investigations and subsequent full reviews are presented in app. C. 4 Interested parties were also requested to provide a list of three to five leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the subject merchandise. Presented in app. D are the responses received from purchaser surveys transmitted to the purchasers identified in this proceeding. I-2 Responses to the Commission’s notice of institution Individual response The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution in the subject reviews. It was filed on behalf of the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee (“the PRCB Committee”), a trade association that a majority of its members manufacture, produce, or wholesale PRBCs (collectively referred to herein as “domestic interested party”).5 A complete response to the Commission’s notice of institution requires that the responding interested party submit to the Commission all the information listed in the notice. Responding firms are given an opportunity to remedy and explain any deficiencies in their responses. A summary of the number of responses and estimates of coverage for each is shown in table I-1. Table I-1 PRCBs: Summary of completed responses to the Commission’s notice of institution Interested party Type Number Coverage U.S. trade association Domestic 1 ***% Note: The U.S. producer coverage figure presented is the domestic interested party’s estimate of its members’ share of total U.S. production of PRCBs during 2020. Domestic interested party’s response to the notice of institution, May 3, 2021, exh. 38. Party comments on adequacy The Commission received party comments on the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct expedited or full reviews from the domestic interested party. The domestic interested party contends that there was an inadequate response from respondent interested parties and that there is no other reason to conduct full reviews. As such, the domestic interested party requests that the Commission conduct expedited reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on PRCBs.6 5 The members of the PRCB Committee are as follows: Hilex Poly Co.; Superbag LLC; Unistar Plastics, LLC; Command Packaging; Command Packaging Texas; and Roplast Industries, Inc. Command Packaging Texas, in addition to being a domestic producer, is a U.S. importer of PRCBs from China and Taiwan. Command Packaging Texas estimated that it accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from China and approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Taiwan in 2020. Command Packaging, in addition to being a domestic producer, is a U.S. importer of PRCBs from Vietnam. Command Packaging estimated that it accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Vietnam in 2020. 6 Domestic interested party’s comments on adequacy, June 11, 2021, p. 3. I-3 The original investigations and subsequent reviews The original China, Malaysia, and Thailand investigations The original antidumping investigations with respect to PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand resulted from petitions filed on June 20, 2003 with Commerce and the Commission by the PRCB Committee,7 an ad hoc coalition of U.S. PRCB producers.8 On June 18, 2004, Commerce determined that imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand were being sold at less than fair value (“LTFV”).9 The Commission determined on August 2, 2004, that the domestic industry was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.10 On August 9, 2004, Commerce issued its antidumping duty orders with the final weighted-average dumping margins ranging from 19.79 percent to 77.57 percent for China; 84.94 percent to 101.74 percent for Malaysia; and 2.26 percent to 122.88 percent for Thailand.11 The original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam investigations The original antidumping investigations with respect to PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the original countervailing duty investigation with respect to PRCBs from Vietnam resulted from petitions filed on March 31, 2009, with Commerce and the Commission by Hilex, Hartsville, South Carolina, and Superbag, Houston, Texas.12 On March 26, 2010, Commerce determined that imports of PRCBs from Taiwan were being sold at LTFV.13 On April 7 At the time of the petition filing, the PRCB Committee consisted of Inteplast Group, Ltd. (“Inteplast”), Livingston, New Jersey; PCL Packaging, Inc. (“PCL”), Barrie, Ontario; Sonoco Products Co., Hartsville, South Carolina; Superbag Corp. (“Superbag”), Houston, Texas; and Vanguard Plastics, Inc. (“Vanguard”), Farmers Branch, Texas. The High Density Film Division of Sonoco, which manufactured PRCBs, was sold to Hilex Poly Co., LLC (“Hilex”) in February 2004. 8 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1043-1045 (Final), USITC Publication 3710, August 2004 (“Original China, Malaysia, and Thailand publication”), p. I- 1. 9 69 FR 34125, 69 FR 34128, and 69 FR 34122, June 18, 2004. 10 69 FR 47957, August 6, 2004. 11 Commerce found de minimis dumping margins for two companies in China (Hang Lung Plastic Manufactory, Ltd. (“Han Lung”) and Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd (“Nantong Huasheng”)) and one firm in Malaysia (Bee Lian Plastic Industries Sbn. Bhd (“Bee Lian”)). 69 FR 48201, 69 FR 48203, and 69 FR 48204, August 9, 2004. 12 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA 1156-1158 (Final), USITC Publication 4144, April 2010 (“Original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam publication”), p. I-1. 13 75 FR 14569, March 26, 2010. I-4 1, 2010, Commerce determined that imports of PRCBs from Indonesia and Vietnam were being sold at LTFV and subsidized by the government of Vietnam.14 On April 26, 2010, the Commission determined that the domestic PRCB industry was threatened with material injury by reason of imports of PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam that Commerce had determined were sold in the U.S. market at LTFV and subsidized by the government of Vietnam.15 On May 4, 2010, Commerce issued a countervailing duty order on PRCBs from Vietnam with a net subsidy rate ranging from 5.28 percent to 52.56 percent16 and antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam with the final weighted-average dumping margins ranging from 69.64 percent to 85.17 percent for Indonesia; 36.54 percent to 95.81 percent for Taiwan; and 52.30 percent to 76.11 percent for Vietnam.17 The first five-year reviews of the China, Malaysia, and Thailand orders The Commission instituted reviews of the subject orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand effective July 1, 2009.18 On October 19, 2009, Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.19 On November 17, 2009, the Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews of the antidumping orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.20 On June 22, 2010, the Commission determined that material injury would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time.21 Following affirmative determinations in the five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective July 7, 2010, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping orders on imports of PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.22 23 14 75 FR 16428, 75 FR 16431, and 75 FR 16434, April 1, 2010. 15 75 FR 22842, April 30, 2010. 16 Commerce found a de minimis subsidy rate for one company in Vietnam (Chin Sheng Company, Ltd.). 75 FR 23670, May 4, 2010. 17 75 FR 23667, May 4, 2010. 18 74 FR 31750, July 2, 2009. 19 74 FR 53470, October 19, 2009. 20 74 FR 61172, November 23, 2009. 21 75 FR 36679, June 28, 2010. 22 75 FR 38978, July 7, 2010. 23 As a result of a WTO challenge, Commerce revised certain antidumping duty margins and revoked the order with respect to Thai Plastic Bags Industries, Winners Pack Co., and APEC Film Ltd., effective July 28, 2010. 75 FR 48940, August 12, 2010. I-5 The second five-year reviews of the China, Malaysia, and Thailand orders and the first five-year reviews of the Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam orders The Commission instituted reviews of the subject orders on PRCBs from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam on April 1, 2015.24 25 On July 6, 2015, the Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews of the countervailing duty order on PRCBs from Vietnam and the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.26 These full reviews constituted the second five-year reviews of the antidumping orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand and the first five-year reviews of the antidumping orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan and Vietnam and the countervailing duty order on PRCBs from Vietnam. On July 13, 2015, Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.27 On August 5, 2015, Commerce determined that revocation of the countervailing duty order on PRCBs from Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies.28 On April 22, 2016, the Commission determined that revocation of the countervailing duty order on PRCBs from Vietnam and revocation of the antidumping duty orders on PRCBs from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.29 Following affirmative determinations in the five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective May 5, 2016, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping orders on imports of PRCBs from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam and of the countervailing duty order on imports of PRCBs from Vietnam.30 24 80 FR 17490, April 1, 2015. 25 With respect to the orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Commerce published a notification concerning the advancement of the initiation date of these five-year reviews from June 1, 2015 to April 1, 2015, upon determining that the initiation of the reviews for all of the orders concerning PRCBs on the same date would promote administrative efficiency. 80 FR 11171, March 2, 2015. 26 80 FR 43118, July 21, 2015. 27 80 FR 39997, July 13, 2015. 28 80 FR 46539, August 5, 2015. 29 81 FR 23749, April 22, 2016. 30 81 FR 27087, May 5, 2016. I-6 Previous and related investigations PRCBs have not been the subject of any prior related antidumping or countervailing duty investigations in the United States. Superbag filed a complaint in 2004 alleging infringement of one of the firm’s patents under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 related to the importation into the United States, sale for importation, and/or sale within the United States after importation of certain “T-styled” plastic grocery and retail bags. An administrative law judge of the Commission found that a violation had occurred and recommended that the Commission issue a general exclusion order on these bags. Settlements and consent orders were entered into with some respondents, and the Commission entered a general exclusion order against all other covered imports.31 Commerce’s five-year reviews Commerce announced that it would conduct expedited reviews with respect to the orders on imports of PRCBs from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam with the intent of issuing the final results of these reviews based on the facts available not later than July 29, 2021.32 Commerce’s Issues and Decision Memoranda, published concurrently with Commerce’s final results, will contain complete and up-to-date information regarding the background and history of the orders, including scope rulings, duty absorption, changed circumstances reviews, and anti-circumvention. Upon publication, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memoranda can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The Issues and Decision Memoranda will also include any decisions that may have been pending at the issuance of this report. Any foreign producers/exporters that are not currently subject to the antidumping and/or countervailing duty orders on imports of PRCBs from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, or Vietnam are noted in the section titled “The original investigations and subsequent reviews.” 31 Original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam publication, p. I-4. 32 Letter from Melissa G. Skinner, Senior Director, Office VII, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce to Nannette Christ, Director of Investigations, May 21, 2021. I-7 The product Commerce’s scope Commerce has defined the scope as follows: {PRCBs}, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the order excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.33 33 81 FR 27087, May 5, 2016. I-8 U.S. tariff treatment PRCBs are currently imported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085 (“Polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) with handles (including drawstrings), with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (152.4 mm) or longer than 40 inches (1,016 mm)”).34 PRCBs produced in the subject countries come into the U.S. market at a column 1-general duty rate of 3.0 percent ad valorem. Subheading 3923.21.00 is designated as covering goods eligible for duty-free entry under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). Thailand is currently excluded from GSP benefits for this subheading, but importers of eligible products of Indonesia can claim duty-free entry. The remaining respondents are not designated beneficiary countries. Effective September 24, 2018, PRCBs produced in China were subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as provided for in statistical reporting number 9903.88.03.23.35 Effective May 10, 2019, this additional duty increased from 10 percent to 25 percent ad valorem.36 Decisions on the tariff classification and treatment of imported goods are within the authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Description and uses37 PRCBs are non-sealable plastic sacks or bags made of polyethylene with carrying handles, dispensed to retail customers to carry purchased merchandise. PRCBs, whether domestically produced or imported, consist principally of FDA-approved high-density polyethylene (“HDPE”) resin films, low-density polyethylene (“LDPE”) resin films, or combinations thereof varying in size, shape, thickness, and strength characteristics depending on their intended use and may contain single- or double-sided printing in single or multiple colors. PRCBs produced in the United States generally carry a printed manufacturer’s 34 Prior to July 2005, PRCBs were reported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0090, a broader category that included additional out-of-scope merchandise. After July 2005, imports of PRCBs were reported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085 specifically designated for PRCBs with handles (including drawstrings), with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (152.4 mm) or longer than 40 inches (1,016 mm). The remainder of the imports reported under the former category are reported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0095. Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA- 1156-1158 (First Review) and 731-TA-1043-1045 (Second Review), USITC Publication 4605, April 2016 (“First/second review publication”), p. I-3. 35 83 FR 47974, September 21, 2018. 36 84 FR 20459, May 9, 2019. 37 Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on First/second review publication, pp. I-25 to I- 26. I-9 identification or logo on the bag surface along with a recycling symbol specifying the predominate form of plastic, #2 for HDPE and #4 for LDPE. Imported PRCBs usually carry the recycling symbol but not necessarily the producer logo or country-of-origin identification. All PRCBs, whether produced domestically or imported, are equipped with carrying handles of various types including drawstrings, die-cut handles formed in the bag surface, and applied handles. They may be designed with side or bottom pleats (gussets), square bottoms, or bottom and side seals depending upon the intended use. PRCBs are generally dispensed free of charge to customers by a wide range of outlets, including grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, and discount stores as well as restaurants. T-shirt bags (named for their resemblance to sleeveless undershirts with two straps that rest on the shoulders) are the highest volume type of PRCBs, dispensed in a wide variety of retail outlets. Such PRCBs range from low-end, thin-walled HDPE bags found in grocery and other stores, to larger and thicker t-shirt bags found in department stores. T-shirt merchandise bags may also be made of softer, glossier, and more puncture-resistant LDPE resins, especially liner low-density polyethylene (“LLDPE”). In contrast, higher-end bags of either HDPE, LDPE, or LLDPE range from medium-scale die cut bags of various configurations dispensed at restaurant and merchandise outlets to higher scale die-cut, drawstring, and soft loop handle shopping bags found in more fashionable chain and upscale department stores. Other upscale bags are typically dispensed to customers in boutiques and other specialty stores and have features such as detailed high-quality multicolored printing and graphics, attached soft loop or trifold handles, and flat bottoms. Manufacturing process38 The process for manufacturing PRCBs is generally the same everywhere in the world. The four-step process consists of (1) blending polyethylene resin pellets, color concentrates, and other additives; (2) extrusion and film forming; (3) printing; and (4) bag conversion. U.S. producers run high-volume plants on a 24 hours per day/7 days a week basis when in operation, due to the capital intensive and competitive nature of the business. Figure I-1 illustrates the fundamentals of the typical blown film extrusion process used by PRCB producers worldwide. 38 Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on First/second review publication, pp. I-26 to I- 28. I-10 Figure I-1: PRCBs: Typical production process Source: “10 Steps to Plastic Bags,” J.T. McWilliams, President, Multi-Pak USA, at http://www.5starwriting.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/10_Steps_To_Plastic_Bags_May06.pdf (accessed June 14, 2015). During production, a polyethylene resin blend is fed to an extruder or series of extruders, with the plastic melt product then forced through a circular die and air blown into a cylindrical film bubble. Once the film cools, solidifies, and reaches the desired thickness, the bubble is collapsed and formed into a thick two-sided plastic film which is smoothed through rollers and wound on spools in preparation for printing and conversion to bags. U.S. producers generally have separate extrusion and bag processes that employ different equipment and usually a selected set of trained employees. During bag conversion, a continuous run of wide film sheet is pre-treated, then fed into a flexographic printing press where the sheet is printed on one or both sides in up to eight colors with logos and identification.39 The printed film roll is then, in a continuous process, cut and sealed into individual bag sections.40 Completing the conversion process, handles are then 39 The flexographic printing process employed in the United States is an environmentally friendly water-based system which eliminates undesirable toxic volatile organic compound (“VOC”) emissions into the atmosphere, whereas certain subject country producers of imported bags employ the organic solvent-based rotogravure printing process, which they claim produces superior print quality. 40 If the film is to have side or bottom pleats (gussets), the parallel sections of individual bag film pass though gusseting equipment to form the pleats. I-11 either die cut into or attached to the bag film. High volume t-shirt or die-cut bags are typically boxed in quantities of 1,000 to 2,000 bags by an operator at the end of the line. Following bag inspection, boxes are loaded onto pallets, warehoused, and shipped, usually by truck in the United States. Most production scrap is recycled. The industry in the United States U.S. producers During the final phase of the original China, Malaysia, and Thailand investigations, the Commission received U.S. producer questionnaires from 22 firms, which were believed to account for approximately 98 percent of production of PRCBs in the United States during 2001- 03.41 During the final phase of the original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam investigations, the Commission received U.S. producer questionnaires from 13 firms, which accounted for nearly all U.S. production of PRCBs during 2008.42 During the first five-year reviews of the antidumping orders on PRCBs from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission received usable U.S. producer questionnaires from 12 firms, which accounted for more than 90 percent of production of PRCBs in the United States during 2009.43 During the second five-year reviews of the China, Malaysia, and Thailand orders and the first five-year reviews of the Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam orders, the Commission received U.S. producer questionnaires from 11 firms, which were believed to account for the vast majority of production of PRCBs in the United States during 2014.44 In response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these current reviews, the domestic interested party provided a list of seven other known and currently operating U.S. producers of PRCBs in addition to the PRCB Committee member firms. The six PRCB Committee member firms which provided U.S. industry data in response to the Commission’s notice of institution accounted for approximately *** percent of production of PRCBs in the United States during 2020.45 41 Original China, Malaysia, and Thailand publication, p. I-2. 42 Original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam publication, p. III-1. 43 China, Malaysia, and Thailand first review publication, p. I-20. 44 First/second review publication, p. I-30. 45 Domestic interested party’s response to the notice of institution, May 3, 2021, exh. 38. I-12 Recent developments In 2020, the combination of stable demand for polyethylene resin, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, and production shutdowns due to hurricanes Laura and Delta resulted in the largest price increase since 2009.46 Table I-2 presents events in the U.S. PRCB industry since the last five-year reviews.47 Table I-2 PRCBs: Recent developments in the U.S. industry Item Event Restriction 2016: California banned single-use plastic bags at large retail stores. Restriction 2019: New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Oregon, and Vermont enacted restrictions on single-use bags. Source: “State plastic bag regulations,” February 8, 2021. National Conferences of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx. U.S. producers’ trade and financial data The Commission asked domestic interested parties to provide trade and financial data in their response to the notice of institution in the current five-year reviews.48 Table I-3 presents a compilation of the trade and financial data submitted from all responding U.S. producers in the original investigations and subsequent five-year reviews. 46 “Most resins see higher prices in 2020 amid pandemic,” Plastics News, December 23, 2020, found at https://www.plasticsnews.com/news/most-resins-see-higher-prices-2020-amid-pandemic, retrieved June 22, 2021. “PE, PP, PET markets battle through 2021,” Plastics News, June 08, 2021, found at https://www.plasticsnews.com/news/pe-pp-pet-markets-battle-through-2021, retrieved June 22, 2021. 47 App. D presents additional information on recent developments in the market and the industry. 48 Trade and financial data are presented in app. B. I-13 Table I-3 PRCBs: Trade and financial data submitted by U.S. producers, by period Quantity in 1,000 bags; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per 1,000 bags; ratio is production to production capacity in percent, COGS to net sales in percent, or operating income or (loss) to net sales in percent Item Measure 2003 2008 2009 2014 2020 Capacity Quantity 88,108,015 79,737,217 *** 90,253,452 *** Production Quantity 67,260,527 66,276,349 *** 76,142,156 *** Capacity utilization Ratio 76.3 83.1 *** 84.4 *** U.S. shipments Quantity 67,420,261 65,085,412 *** 73,556,008 *** U.S. shipments Value 772,295 983,006 *** 1,120,838 *** U.S. shipments Unit value 11.45 15.10 *** 15.24 *** Net sales Value 785,636 1,008,444 *** *** *** COGS Value 702,598 937,213 *** *** *** COGS to net sales Ratio 89.4 92.9 *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Value 83,038 71,231 *** *** *** SG&A expenses Value 76,098 103,228 *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Value 6,130 (31,997) *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) to net sales Ratio 0.8 (3.2) *** *** *** Source: For the year 2003, data are compiled using data submitted in the Commission’s original China, Malaysia, and Thailand investigations. For the year 2008, data are compiled using data submitted in the Commission’s original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam investigations. For the year 2009, data are compiled using data submitted in the Commission’s first China, Malaysia, and Thailand five-year reviews. For the year 2014, data are compiled using data submitted in the Commission’s second China, Malaysia, Thailand five-year reviews and its first Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam five-year reviews. For the year 2020, data are compiled using data submitted by domestic interested party. Domestic interested party’s response to the notice of institution, May 3, 2021, exh. 38. Note: ***. Note: For a discussion of data coverage, please see “U.S. producers” section. I-14 Definitions of the domestic like product and domestic industry The domestic like product is defined as the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the subject merchandise. The domestic industry is defined as the U.S. producers as a whole of the domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of the domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. Under the related parties provision, the Commission may exclude a U.S. producer from the domestic industry for purposes of its injury determination if “appropriate circumstances” exist.49 In its original determinations and its full first five-year review determinations concerning Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and in its original determinations and its full first and second five-year review determinations concerning China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found one domestic like product consisting of the range of polyethylene retail carrier bags corresponding to Commerce’s scope.50 In its original determinations and its full first five-year review determinations concerning Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and in its original determinations and its full first and second five-year review determinations concerning China, Malaysia, and Thailand, the Commission found a single domestic industry consisting of all U.S. producers of PRCBs.51 In 2020, *** estimated that it accounted for *** percent of total U.S. imports from China and *** percent of total U.S. imports from Taiwan. In 2020, its imports from China were equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of its U.S. production of PRCBs and its imports from Taiwan were equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of its U.S. production of PRCBs. *** estimated that it accounted for *** percent of total U.S. production of PRCBs in 2020. In 2020, *** estimated that it accounted for *** percent of total U.S. imports from Vietnam. Its imports from Vietnam were equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of its U.S. production of PRCBs in 2020. *** estimated that it accounted for *** percent of total U.S. production of PRCBs in 2020.52 49 Section 771(4)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 50 86 FR 17200, April 1, 2021. 51 Ibid. 52 Domestic interested party’s response to the notice of institution, May 3, 2021, exh. 38 and 39. I-15 U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption U.S. importers During the final phase of the original China, Malaysia, and Thailand investigations, the Commission received U.S. importer questionnaires from 87 firms, which were believed to account for the great majority of total U.S. imports of PRCBs during the period examined.53 Import data presented in the original China, Malaysia, and Thailand investigations are based on questionnaire responses. During the final phase of the original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam investigations, the Commission received U.S. importer questionnaires from 42 firms, which were believed to account for 60 percent of U.S. imports of PRCBs in 2008 from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam.54 Import data presented in the original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam investigations were based on official Commerce statistics.55 During the first full five-year reviews of the China, Malaysia, and Thailand orders, the Commission received U.S. importer questionnaires from 52 firms, which were believed to account for 48 percent of subject U.S. imports in 2009 from China, Malaysia, and Thailand.56 Import data presented in the original China, Malaysia, and Thailand investigations are based on official Commerce statistics and questionnaire data. During the combined full reviews of the antidumping orders with respect to China, Malaysia, and Thailand (second review) and the antidumping orders with respect to Indonesia, Taiwan and Vietnam and the countervailing duty order with respect to Vietnam (first review), the Commission received U.S. importer questionnaires from 27 firms, which accounted for *** percent of subject imports during January 2009-September 2015.57 Import data for the first/second reviews were compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and Customs data. Although the Commission did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties in these current reviews, in its response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic interested party provided a list of 105 potential U.S. importers of PRCBs.58 53 Original China, Malaysia, and Thailand publication, p. I-2. 54 Original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam publication, p. IV-1. 55 Original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam publication, p. I-3. 56 China, Malaysia, and Thailand review publication, p. IV-1. 57 Investigation Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (First Review) and 731-TA-1043-1045 (Second Review): Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, Confidential Report, INV-OO-021, March 16, 2016, as revised in INV-OO-024, March 22, 2016, and INV-OO-026, March 24, 2016 (“First/second review confidential report”), p. IV-1. 58 Domestic interested party’s response to the notice of institution, May 3, 2021, exh. 35. I-16 U.S. imports Table I-4 presents U.S. imports from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, as well as from all other import sources (shown in descending order of 2020 imports by quantity). As noted in “The original investigations and subsequent reviews” section, foreign producers/exporters have been excluded from the orders with respect to China, Malaysia, and Thailand. No foreign producers/exporters from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam have been excluded from the orders. Table I-4 presents all imports from each country but does not distinguish between subject and nonsubject sources. I-17 Table I-4 PRCBs: U.S. imports, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 bags; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per 1,000 bags U.S. imports from Measure 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Malaysia (subject and nonsubject) Quantity 8,507,848 8,986,797 8,477,065 8,229,374 10,676,077 10,970,482 Thailand (subject and nonsubject) Quantity 6,307,154 5,923,809 4,821,505 5,606,513 5,960,423 5,622,456 China (subject and nonsubject) Quantity 9,966,859 6,304,765 5,454,548 4,947,292 2,331,992 1,300,560 Vietnam (subject) Quantity 17,994 53,953 5,227 16,371 135,356 238,952 Taiwan (subject) Quantity 414,270 107,648 66,883 29,303 38,394 52,553 Indonesia (subject) Quantity 151 32 685 75 262 190 Subtotal Quantity 25,214,276 21,377,004 18,825,913 18,828,928 19,142,504 18,185,193 All other sources Quantity 10,407,621 12,306,908 12,330,123 13,812,648 15,140,050 13,174,436 All import sources Quantity 35,621,897 33,683,912 31,156,036 32,641,576 34,282,554 31,359,629 Malaysia (subject and nonsubject) Value 113,116 99,741 94,182 100,442 109,194 108,816 Thailand (subject and nonsubject) Value 61,104 62,569 51,770 58,052 59,979 50,065 China (subject and nonsubject) Value 100,566 68,782 66,172 65,823 33,745 23,044 Vietnam (subject) Value 514 347 370 289 671 1,251 Taiwan (subject) Value 5,418 1,327 508 499 597 725 Indonesia (subject) Value 77 4 104 2 15 4 Subtotal Value 280,795 232,769 213,106 225,108 204,202 183,904 All other sources Value 145,544 162,065 158,036 175,269 166,213 143,902 All import sources Value 426,339 394,834 371,142 400,377 370,415 327,807 Malaysia (subject and nonsubject) Unit value 13.30 11.10 11.11 12.21 10.23 9.92 Thailand (subject and nonsubject) Unit value 9.69 10.56 10.74 10.35 10.06 8.90 China (subject and nonsubject) Unit value 10.09 10.91 12.13 13.30 14.47 17.72 Vietnam (subject) Unit value 28.57 6.43 70.70 17.64 4.96 5.24 Taiwan (subject) Unit value 13.08 12.33 7.60 17.04 15.56 13.79 Indonesia (subject) Unit value 509.44 111.00 151.13 28.76 56.30 20.61 Subtotal Unit value 11.14 10.89 11.32 11.96 10.67 10.11 All other sources Unit value 13.98 13.17 12.82 12.69 10.98 10.92 All import sources Unit value 11.97 11.72 11.91 12.27 10.80 10.45 Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics for HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085, accessed June 3, 2021. Note: Imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand are not distinguished between subject and nonsubject sources. During the first/second reviews, *** percent of U.S. imports from China by quantity were from nonsubject sources, *** percent of U.S. imports from Malaysia by quantity were from nonsubject sources, and *** percent of U.S. imports from Thailand by quantity were from nonsubject sources in 2014. First/second review confidential report, table C-1. I-18 Cumulation considerations59 In assessing whether imports should be cumulated in five-year reviews, the Commission considers, among other things, whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports and the domestic like product. Additional information concerning geographical markets and simultaneous presence in the market is presented below.60 61 Imports from China, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand were reported in all 72 of the 72 months between 2015 and 2020; imports from Vietnam were reported in 52 of the 72 months between 2015 and 2020; and imports from Indonesia were reported in 13 of the 72 months between 2015 and 2020. Imports from China, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam were reported in all 12 months of 2020, whereas imports from Indonesia were reported in one month of 2020. Imports from China, Taiwan, and Thailand entered through northern/ southern/ eastern/ western borders of entry in all years from 2015 through 2020. Imports from Vietnam entered through northern/ southern/ eastern/ western borders of entry in all years from 2015 through 2020, except in 2017 when no imports from Vietnam entered through the southern border. Imports from Malaysia entered through northern/ southern/ eastern/ western borders of entry in all years from 2015 through 2020, except in 2015 when no imports from Malaysia entered through the southern or northern borders, in 2016 when no imports from Malaysia entered through the southern border, and in 2017 and 2018 when no imports from Malaysia entered through the northern border. Lastly, imports from Indonesia entered through the northern, southern, and western borders in 2015, the northern border in 2016, the eastern border in 2017, the southern and western borders in 2018, the southern border in 2019, and the western border in 2020. 59 Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on official U.S. import statistics for HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085. 60 In addition, available information concerning subject country producers and the global market is presented in the next section of this report. 61 As noted in “The original investigations and subsequent reviews” section, foreign producers/exporters have been excluded from the orders with respect to China, Malaysia, and Thailand. Information presented on U.S. imports with respect to China, Malaysia, and Thailand in this section do not distinguish between subject and nonsubject sources. I-19 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares Table I-5 presents data on U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares. As noted in “The original investigations and subsequent reviews” section, foreign producers/exporters have been excluded from the orders with respect to China, Malaysia, and Thailand. Data for imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand in 2003, 2008, 2009, and 2014 exclude imports from nonsubject sources, whereas the data for imports from those countries in 2020 do not distinguish between subject and nonsubject sources. As such, data for subject imports and apparent U.S. consumption are overstated in 2020, while data for nonsubject imports are correspondingly understated in 2020. Table I-5 PRCBs: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 bags; value in 1,000 dollars; share of quantity is the share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in percent; share of value is the share of apparent U.S. consumption by value in percent Source Measure 2003 2008 2009 2014 2020 U.S. producers Quantity 67,420,261 65,085,412 *** 73,556,008 *** China Quantity *** NA *** *** 1,300,560 Indonesia Quantity NA 2,819,569 NA *** 190 Malaysia Quantity *** NA *** *** 10,970,482 Taiwan Quantity NA 4,575,499 NA *** 52,553 Thailand Quantity *** NA 3,655,709 *** 5,622,456 Vietnam Quantity NA 7,192,325 NA *** 238,952 Subject sources Quantity 15,424,725 14,587,393 8,910,671 *** 18,185,193 Nonsubject sources Quantity 4,661,115 21,776,828 21,631,674 *** 13,174,436 Total imports Quantity 20,085,840 36,364,221 *** 29,909,126 31,359,629 Apparent U.S. consumption Quantity 87,506,101 101,449,633 *** 103,465,134 *** U.S. producers Value 772,295 983,006 *** 1,120,838 *** China Value *** NA *** *** 23,044 Indonesia Value NA 40,948 NA *** 4 Malaysia Value *** NA *** *** 108,816 Taiwan Value NA 56,848 NA *** 725 Thailand Value *** NA 39,059 *** 50,065 Vietnam Value NA 88,189 NA *** 1,251 Subject sources Value 183,959 185,986 90,616 *** 183,905 Nonsubject sources Value 39,238 318,412 214,511 *** 143,902 All import sources Value 223,197 504,398 *** 380,128 327,807 Apparent U.S. consumption Value 995,491 1,487,404 *** 1,500,966 *** Table continued on next page. I-20 Table I-5 Continued PRCBs: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, by source and period Quantity in units; value in 1,000 dollars; share of quantity is the share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in percent; share of value is the share of apparent U.S. consumption by value in percent Source Measure 2003 2008 2009 2014 2020 U.S. producers Share of quantity 77.0 64.2 68.5 71.1 *** China Share of quantity *** NA 4.9 *** *** Indonesia Share of quantity NA 2.8 NA *** *** Malaysia Share of quantity *** NA 0.5 *** *** Taiwan Share of quantity NA 4.5 NA *** *** Thailand Share of quantity *** NA 3.8 *** *** Vietnam Share of quantity NA 7.1 NA *** *** Subject sources Share of quantity 17.6 14.4 9.2 *** *** Nonsubject sources Share of quantity 5.3 21.5 22.3 *** *** Total imports Share of quantity 23.0 35.8 31.5 28.9 *** U.S. producers Share of value 77.6 66.1 71.5 74.7 *** China Share of value *** NA 4.3 *** *** Indonesia Share of value NA 2.8 NA *** *** Malaysia Share of value *** NA 0.5 *** *** Taiwan Share of value NA 3.8 NA *** *** Thailand Share of value *** NA 3.6 *** *** Vietnam Share of value NA 5.9 NA *** *** Subject sources Share of value 18.5 12.5 8.5 *** *** Nonsubject sources Share of value 3.9 21.4 20.0 *** *** All import sources Share of value 22.4 33.9 28.5 25.3 *** Source: For the year 2003, data are compiled using data submitted in the Commission’s original China, Malaysia, and Thailand investigations. For the year 2008, data are compiled using data submitted in the Commission’s original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam investigations. For the year 2009, data are compiled using data submitted in the Commission’s first China, Malaysia, and Thailand five-year reviews. For the year 2014, data are compiled using data submitted in the Commission’s second China, Malaysia, Thailand five-year reviews and its first Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam five-year reviews. For the year 2003, data are presented as U.S. shipments of U.S. imports while all other years are presented as U.S. imports. For the year 2020, data are compiled using data submitted by domestic interested party and official import statistics. Domestic interested party’s response to the notice of institution, May 3, 2021, exh. 38 and official Commerce statistics for HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0085, accessed June 3, 2021. Note: Import data for China, Malaysia, and Thailand in 2020 are not distinguished between subject and nonsubject sources. As such, data for subject imports and apparent U.S. consumption in 2020 are overstated, while data for nonsubject imports are correspondingly understated. However, data for imports from China, Malaysia, and Thailand in 2003, 2009, and 2014 are distinguished between subject and nonsubject sources. Consequently, data for nonsubject sources in those years include imports from foreign producers/exporters in China, Malaysia, and Thailand that have been exempt from the orders. In 2014, *** percent of imports from China, *** percent of imports from Malaysia, and *** percent of imports from Thailand, by quantity, were from nonsubject sources. First/second review confidential report, table C-1. Note: Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent values greater than zero, but less than “0.05” percent. I-21 The industry in China During the final phase of the original China, Malaysia, and Thailand investigations, the Commission received foreign producer/exporter questionnaires from 38 firms. The responding 38 firms reported that they accounted for an estimated nearly 68 percent of reported subject U.S. imports from China during 2003 . The industry appeared to be export oriented: by far the largest share of these firms' total PRCB shipments were sent to markets outside China.62 During the first five-year reviews, the Commission received foreign producer/exporter questionnaires from two firms. Reported exports of PRCBs to the United States by the responding firms in 2009 were equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of PRCBs from China in that year based on official Commerce statistics.63 The Commission did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties in its second five-year reviews, but the domestic interested party provided a list of 96 possible producers of PRCBs in China in that proceeding.64 Although the Commission did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties in these five-year reviews, the domestic interested party provided a list of 51 possible producers of PRCBs in China.65 Table I-6 presents export value data for HTS subheading 3923.21, “Sacks And Bags (Including Cones), of Polymers of Ethylene,” a category that includes PRCBs and out-of-scope products, from China (by export destination in descending order of value for 2020). 62 Original China, Malaysia, and Thailand publication, p. VII-1. In the original investigations, Commerce excluded two firms from the antidumping duty order of PRCBs from China (Hang Lung and Nantong Huasheng) due to finding de minimis dumping margins for those companies. 69 FR 48201, August 9, 2004. In 2009, these firms accounted for approximately *** percent of all Chinese PRCBs exported to the United States, by quantity. Hang Lung reportedly had bag production capacity of 25,000 metric tons (27,558 short tons) and Nantong Huasheng had a capacity of 40,000 metric tons (44,092 short tons). Original China, Malaysia, and Thailand publication, pp. IV-11 and VII-2. 63 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand, Investigation Nos. 731-TA- 1043-1045 (Final), Confidential Report, INV-HH-054, May 24, 2010 (“China, Malaysia, and Thailand first review confidential report”), p. IV-12. 64 First/second review publication, pp. IV-10 to IV-11. 65 Domestic interested party’s response to the notice of institution, May 3, 2021, exhibit 36. I-22 Table I-6 Sacks and bags (including cones), of polymers of ethylene: Value of exports from China, by destination and period Value in 1,000 dollars Destination market 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 United States 791,750 756,426 793,219 867,198 629,585 722,428 Japan 553,077 515,356 509,117 520,291 493,205 418,388 Australia 143,908 141,278 153,648 175,085 154,027 159,875 Hong Kong 198,802 177,929 169,340 168,565 142,004 130,975 United Kingdom 102,860 94,059 99,282 100,578 93,678 106,485 Vietnam 33,886 35,305 40,254 57,814 74,030 105,644 Canada 80,266 69,625 77,336 88,044 87,971 94,551 Germany 87,751 84,089 79,813 83,385 71,817 76,251 Netherlands 66,558 61,642 65,348 75,916 81,724 75,007 Thailand 20,139 22,491 25,257 30,196 37,462 46,928 All other markets 716,144 684,432 696,464 762,188 758,789 810,180 All markets 2,795,140 2,642,632 2,709,077 2,929,260 2,624,292 2,746,711 Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. Source: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas, HTS subheading 3923.21, accessed June 2, 2021. These data may be overstated as HTS subheading 3923.21 may contain products outside the scope of these reviews. The industry in Indonesia During the final phase of the original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam investigations, the Commission received foreign producer/exporter questionnaires from three firms in Indonesia. The responding firms reported that they accounted for an estimated *** percent of production of PRCBs in Indonesia during 2008 and *** percent of exports of PRCBs from Indonesia to the United States during 2008.66 67 During the first five-year reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to 14 firms in Indonesia believed to be possible producers of PRCBs, but did not receive a response from any of those firms .68 Although the Commission did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties in these five-year reviews, the domestic interested party provided a list of 16 possible producers of PRCBs in Indonesia.69 66 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA 1156-1158 (Final); Confidential Staff Report, INV-HH-027, April 1, 2010, as revised in INV-HH-037, April 14, 2010 (“Original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam confidential report”), p. VII-1. 67 Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam confidential staff report, pp. VII-1 to VII-2 68 First/second review publication, p. IV-14. 69 Domestic interested party’s response to the notice of institution, May 3, 2021, exhibit 36. I-23 Table I-7 presents export value data for HTS subheading 3923.21, “Sacks And Bags (Including Cones), Of Polymers Of Ethylene,” a category that includes PRCBs and out-of-scope products, from Indonesia (by export destination in descending order of value for 2020). Table I-7 Sacks and bags (including cones), of polymers of ethylene: Value of exports from Indonesia, by destination and period Value in 1,000 dollars Destination market 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Japan 112,856 105,605 109,880 117,301 109,730 97,831 United States 48 249 509 1,739 4,138 11,093 United Kingdom 8,280 9,078 10,335 9,994 8,100 7,255 Somalia 2,317 4,723 6,273 5,156 4,252 4,261 Germany 2,272 3,059 4,952 6,033 4,189 4,244 Singapore 16,291 4,136 4,528 3,383 4,140 2,730 Thailand 1,226 243 620 1,252 1,805 1,526 Australia 2,740 1,375 1,525 1,585 1,219 1,103 Poland - 43 1,003 1,114 1,076 1,011 East Timor 756 630 823 871 921 992 All other markets 14,749 10,859 8,900 8,881 9,352 7,367 All markets 161,535 140,001 149,349 157,310 148,922 139,414 Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. Source: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas, HTS subheading 3923.21, accessed June 2, 2021. These data may be overstated as HTS subheading 3923.21 may contain products outside the scope of these reviews. The industry in Malaysia During the final phase of the original China, Malaysia, and Thailand investigations, the Commission received foreign producer/exporter questionnaires from nine firms in Malaysia, with eight firms accounting for an estimated 97 percent of reported subject U.S. imports of PRCBs from Malaysia in 2003.70 During the first five-year reviews, the Commission received foreign producer/exporter questionnaires from 16 firms, which accounted for approximately *** percent of production of PRCBs in Malaysia during 2009, and approximately *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Malaysia in 2009 based on official Commerce statistics.71 70 During the original investigations, Commerce excluded Bee Lian from the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia due to finding a de minimis dumping margin for that company. 69 FR 34128, June 18, 2004. The eight firms that were still subject to the order accounted for 97 percent of reported imports of PRCBs from Malaysia. Original China, Malaysia, and Thailand publication, p. VII-3. 71 First review China, Malaysia, and Thailand confidential report, pp. IV-14-IV-15. I-24 During the second five-year reviews, the Commission received foreign producer/ exporter questionnaires from nine firms, which accounted for approximately *** percent of production of PRCBs in Malaysia and *** percent of exports of PRCBs from Malaysia to the United States during 2014.72 Although the Commission did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties in these five-year reviews, the domestic interested party provided a list of 25 possible producers of PRCBs in Malaysia.73 Table I-8 presents export value data for HTS subheading 3923.21, “Sacks And Bags (Including Cones), Of Polymers Of Ethylene,” a category that includes PRCBs and out-of-scope products, from Malaysia (by export destination in descending order of value for 2020). Table I-8 Sacks and bags (including cones), of polymers of ethylene: Value of exports from Malaysia, by destination and period Value in 1,000 dollars Destination market 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 United States 20,206 21,706 22,629 79,899 124,462 122,171 Australia 68,967 71,591 76,538 73,689 59,628 60,606 Singapore 29,150 27,142 35,590 35,311 46,127 45,500 Japan 60,519 56,789 55,669 54,906 48,630 37,352 United Kingdom 88,986 50,987 51,587 51,562 37,495 33,054 Indonesia 10,724 10,740 9,270 13,768 22,989 13,776 Thailand 22,953 17,289 20,976 21,366 19,721 13,355 Norway 6,256 6,524 7,395 6,169 4,919 6,959 Vietnam 2,347 2,367 2,308 3,319 3,626 5,908 New Zealand 7,074 7,803 7,987 7,028 5,848 5,576 All other markets 92,829 85,533 75,849 71,935 56,703 42,941 All markets 410,011 358,470 365,798 418,951 430,149 387,198 Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. Source: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas, HTS subheading 3923.21, accessed June 2, 2021. These data may be overstated as HTS subheading 3923.21 may contain products outside the scope of these reviews. The industry in Taiwan During the final phase of the original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam investigations, the Commission received foreign producer/exporter questionnaires from three producers and one 72 First/second review confidential report, p. IV-26. 73 Domestic interested party’s response to the notice of institution, May 3, 2021, exhibit 36. I-25 exporter in Taiwan. The responding firms reported that they accounted for *** percent of production of PRCBs in Taiwan and *** percent of exports of PRCBs from Taiwan to the United States.74 During the first five-year reviews, the Commission did not receive any responses to the notice of institution from foreign producers or exporters in Taiwan, the domestic producers of PRCBs provided a list of 25 firms that they believe currently produce PRCBs in Taiwan. No foreign producers or exporters in Taiwan provided a questionnaire response in the full reviews.75 Although the Commission did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties in these five-year reviews, the domestic interested party provided a list of 26 possible producers of PRCBs in Taiwan.76 Table I-9 presents export value data for HTS subheading 3923.21, “Sacks And Bags (Including Cones), Of Polymers Of Ethylene,” a category that includes PRCBs and out-of-scope products, from Taiwan (by export destination in descending order of value for 2020). Table I-9 Sacks and bags (including cones), of polymers of ethylene: Value of exports from Taiwan, by destination and period Value in 1,000 dollars Destination market 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 United States 55,246 54,230 60,804 68,110 68,876 76,874 Japan 14,995 15,833 16,332 17,150 14,921 13,794 Vietnam 1,157 731 940 864 1,722 1,338 China 379 694 238 318 1,011 1,114 Hong Kong 1,713 1,565 702 770 1,029 884 Canada 1,023 431 74 779 267 749 Philippines 410 353 413 920 1,213 676 South Africa - 10 - - 3 562 Indonesia 947 532 593 534 611 519 Australia 140 117 352 251 253 475 All other markets 3,520 1,715 2,258 2,600 2,119 2,322 All markets 79,531 76,211 82,707 92,296 92,025 99,308 Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. Source: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas, HTS subheading 3923.21, accessed June 2, 2021. These data may be overstated as HTS subheading 3923.21 may contain products outside the scope of these reviews. 74 Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam confidential staff report, p. VII-3. 75 First/second review publication, p. IV-21-IV-22. 76 Domestic interested party’s response to the notice of institution, May 3, 2021, exhibit 36. I-26 The industry in Thailand During the final phase of the original China, Malaysia, and Thailand investigations, the Commission received foreign producer/exporter questionnaires from eight firms in Thailand, with seven firms accounting for virtually all reported subject U.S. imports of PRCBs from Thailand in 2003.77 During the first five-year reviews, five Thai firms provided questionnaire responses. Three of the responding firms estimated that in 2009 they collectively accounted for *** percent of production of PRCBs in Thailand, and four firms estimated that in 2009 they collectively accounted for *** percent of exports of PRCBs from Thailand to the United States. During the second five-year reviews, the Commission received foreign producer/exporter questionnaires from two firms in Thailand: Universal Polybag Co., Ltd. (“Universal Polybag”) and Sahachit Watana Plastic Industry Co. (“Sahachit”) .78 Universal Polybag estimated that it accounted for *** percent of PRCB production in Thailand in 2014 while Sahachit did not provide an estimate of its share of production of PRCBs in Thailand. Reported exports of PRCBs to the United States by Sahachit and Universal Polybag in 2014 were equivalent to *** percent and *** percent, respectively, of the quantity of subject U.S. imports of PRCBs from Thailand in 2014.79 Although the Commission did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties in these five-year reviews, the domestic interested party provided a list of 38 possible producers of PRCBs in Thailand.80 Table I-10 presents export data for HTS subheading 3923.21, “Sacks And Bags (Including Cones), Of Polymers Of Ethylene,” a category that includes PRCBs and out-of-scope products, from Thailand (by export destination in descending order of value for 2020). 77 Original China, Malaysia, and Thailand publication, p. VII-4. 78 First/second review publication, p. IV-24. 79 First/second review confidential report, pp. IV-36-IV-37. 80 Domestic interested party’s response to the notice of institution, May 3, 2021, exhibit 36. I-27 Table I-10 Sacks and bags (including cones), of polymers of ethylene: Value of exports from Thailand, by destination and period Value in 1,000 dollars Destination market 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 United States 160,594 176,344 173,297 202,786 210,504 245,634 Japan 150,910 157,969 162,481 169,370 160,306 158,805 Australia 94,695 78,210 84,297 68,455 55,198 57,558 United Kingdom 51,621 46,399 45,421 46,328 48,376 42,504 China 3,263 5,792 10,085 10,579 11,004 12,513 Canada 5,891 6,670 6,918 12,136 9,737 10,502 Laos 1,404 3,252 3,739 5,473 6,723 10,305 Switzerland 3,529 4,061 6,154 7,619 12,595 10,251 Vietnam 2,517 2,253 2,838 5,808 9,754 8,895 New Zealand 16,654 16,418 16,505 14,673 7,579 7,819 All other markets 91,996 88,111 96,231 106,039 95,612 84,264 All markets 583,074 585,479 607,965 649,265 627,387 649,049 Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. Source: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas, HTS subheading 3923.21, accessed June 2, 2021. These data may be overstated as HTS subheading 3923.21 may contain products outside the scope of these reviews. Table I-11 presents events in the Thai PRCB industry since the last five-year reviews. Table I-11 PRCBs: Recent developments in the Thai industry Item Country Event Restriction Thailand Jan 1, 2020, retail bags distribution was banned at 75 major retailers. Source: “Thailand’s plastic bag ban is an overdue step towards pragmatism,” East Asia Forum, January 22, 2020. https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2020/01/22/thailands-plastic-bag-ban-is-an-overdue-step- towards-pragmatism/. I-28 The industry in Vietnam During the final phase of the original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam investigations, the Commission received foreign producer/exporter questionnaires from six firms in Vietnam, which accounted for *** percent of production of PRCBs in Vietnam and *** percent of PRCBs exports from Vietnam to the United States during 2008.81 During the first five-year reviews, the Commission received a questionnaire response from one firm (RKW Lotus, Ltd.), which accounted for *** of total PRCB production in Vietnam.82 Reported exports of PRCBs to the United States by RKW Lotus in 2014 were equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of PRCBs from Vietnam in that year.83 Although the Commission did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties in these five-year reviews, the domestic interested party provided a list of 62 possible producers of PRCBs in Vietnam.84 Table I-12 presents export value data for HTS subheading 3923.21, “Sacks And Bags (Including Cones), Of Polymers Of Ethylene,” a category that includes PRCBs and out-of-scope products, from Vietnamese (by export destination in descending order of value for 2020). 81 Original Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam confidential report, p. VII-5. 82 First/second review confidential report, p. IV-42 83 Ibid. 84 Domestic interested party’s response to the notice of institution, May 3, 2021, exhibit 36. I-29 Table I-12 Sacks and bags (including cones), of polymers of ethylene: Value of exports from Vietnam, by destination and period Value in 1,000 dollars Destination market 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Japan 153,234 169,570 209,111 274,898 285,190 243,223 United States 28,146 43,009 55,128 80,166 121,942 152,049 Germany 102,657 95,942 100,444 107,213 96,055 96,304 United Kingdom 68,632 64,185 66,111 74,836 71,490 68,544 Netherlands 23,365 28,016 26,936 35,817 37,042 37,877 France 31,620 28,663 33,945 36,594 36,793 31,177 Poland 13,955 17,746 23,876 31,956 29,619 22,999 Australia 7,040 9,208 9,585 11,479 13,207 13,429 South Korea 1,136 1,941 5,691 5,177 8,796 13,167 Canada 1,788 3,051 4,535 8,804 9,019 9,954 All other markets 67,328 74,298 89,250 111,134 109,626 107,473 All markets 527,058 558,521 644,980 778,227 807,966 776,597 Note: Data in the table are mirror data, based on imports from Vietnam by the rest of the world. Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown. Source: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas, HTS subheading 3923.21, accessed June 2, 2021. These data may be overstated as HTS subheading 3923.21 may contain products outside the scope of these reviews. Third-country trade actions Based on available information, PRCBs from subject countries are currently not subject to other antidumping or countervailing duty investigations outside the United States. I-30 The global market One development in the global PRCB market was a directive on April 29, 2015 from the EU to member states to reduce consumption of plastic carrier bags.85 Table I-13 presents global export value data for HTS subheading 3923.21, “Sacks And Bags (Including Cones), Of Polymers Of Ethylene,” a category that includes PRCBs and out-of-scope products (by source in descending order of value for 2020). Table I-13 Sacks and bags (including cones), of polymers of ethylene: Value of global exports by country and period Value in 1,000 dollars Exporting country 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 China 2,795,140 2,642,632 2,709,077 2,929,260 2,624,292 2,746,711 Germany 888,983 939,668 996,868 1,052,782 986,013 994,592 United States 709,608 717,197 747,412 772,714 746,069 771,598 Thailand 583,074 585,479 607,965 649,265 627,387 649,049 Vietnam 527,058 558,521 644,980 778,227 807,966 776,597 Canada 464,824 467,751 485,442 530,915 568,346 593,964 Malaysia 410,011 358,470 365,798 418,951 430,149 387,198 Poland 283,397 332,928 360,646 427,217 403,450 389,252 United Kingdom 265,400 286,898 224,110 301,837 326,747 331,053 Netherlands 239,296 325,239 335,327 383,793 343,484 321,570 All other exporters 4,015,943 4,249,671 4,325,575 4,660,602 3,669,071 3,360,322 All exporters 11,182,732 11,464,454 11,803,201 12,905,566 11,532,975 11,321,905 Source: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas, HTS subheading 3923.21, accessed June 2, 2021. These data may be overstated as HTS subheading 3923.21 may contain products outside the scope of this/these reviews. Note: Data for Vietnam are mirror data, based on imports from Vietnam by the rest of the world. Because of rounding, figures may not add to total shown. 85 “Directive (EU) 2015/20 of the European Parliament and of the Council,” Official Journal of the European Union, April 29, 2015. A-1 APPENDIX A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES A-3 The Commission makes available notices relevant to its investigations and reviews on its website, www.usitc.gov. In addition, the following tabulation presents, in chronological order, Federal Register notices issued by the Commission and Commerce during the current proceeding. Citation Title Link 86 FR 16701 March 31, 2021 Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-03-31/pdf/2021-06645.pdf 86 FR 17200 April 1, 2021 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Institution of Five-Year Reviews https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-04-01/pdf/2021-06357.pdf B-1 APPENDIX B COMPANY-SPECIFIC DATA B-3 RESPONSE CHECKLIST FOR U.S. TRADE ASSOCIATION Table B-1 PRCBs: Response checklist for U.S. trade association Item PRCB Committee Nature of operation *** Statement of intent to participate *** Statement of likely effects of revoking the order *** U.S. producer list *** U.S. importer/foreign producer list *** List of 3-5 leading purchasers *** List of sources for national/regional prices *** Changes in supply/demand *** Table B-2 PRCBs: Trade and financial data submitted by U.S. trade association, 2020 Quantity in 1,000 bags, value in dollars, ratio in percent Item Measure PRCB Committee Capacity Quantity *** Production Quantity *** Percent of total production reported Ratio *** Commercial U.S. shipments Quantity *** Commercial U.S. shipments: Value *** Internal consumption and company transfers Quantity *** Internal consumption and company transfers Value *** Net sales Value *** COGS Value *** Gross profit or (loss) Value *** SG&A expenses Value *** Operating income or (loss) Value *** Note: The production, capacity, shipment data, and financial data presented are for calendar year 2020. ***. C‐1 APPENDIX C SUMMARY DATA COMPILED IN PRIOR PROCEEDINGS Table C-1 PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2009-14, January to September 2014, and January to September 2015 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount............................................................. 95,258,394 100,064,227 99,250,295 103,777,785 101,080,012 103,465,134 74,720,990 76,887,278 Producers' share (fn1)....................................... 69.6 72.6 72.8 70.9 74.5 71.1 72.9 68.9 Importers' share (fn1): China, subject................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Indonesia....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, subject............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Taiwan........................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, subject............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Vietnam.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources........................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** China, nonsubject........................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, nonsubject...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, nonsubject...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports............................................ 30.4 27.4 27.2 29.1 25.5 28.9 27.1 31.1 U.S. consumption value: Amount............................................................. 1,079,461 1,283,734 1,348,977 1,341,148 1,418,554 1,500,966 1,084,633 1,044,845 Producers' share (fn1)....................................... 70.3 73.4 74.9 74.2 74.9 74.7 75.5 73.4 Importers' share (fn1): China, subject................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Indonesia....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, subject............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Taiwan........................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, subject............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Vietnam.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources........................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** China, nonsubject........................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, nonsubject...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, nonsubject...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources..................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports............................................ 29.7 26.6 25.1 25.8 25.1 25.3 24.5 26.6 U.S. imports from China, subject: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Indonesia: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, subject: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Taiwan: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, subject: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Vietnam: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued next page. (Quantity=1,000 bags; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per 1,000 bags; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted) Reported data Calendar year January to September C-3 Table C-1--Continued PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2009-14, January to September 2014, and January to September 2015 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 U.S. imports from China, nonsubject: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, nonsubject: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, nonsubject: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports: Quantity.......................................................... 29,004,138 27,462,281 26,999,312 30,239,920 25,776,033 29,909,126 20,271,431 23,894,065 Value.............................................................. 320,339 341,784 338,381 346,290 355,537 380,128 265,853 278,451 Unit value....................................................... $11.04 $12.45 $12.53 $11.45 $13.79 $12.71 $13.11 $11.65 Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity.................................. 86,882,830 88,283,460 90,719,374 89,430,483 90,355,808 90,253,452 67,869,630 67,567,051 Production quantity............................................ 67,299,968 73,713,044 74,271,847 75,123,749 76,902,874 76,142,156 57,137,408 55,641,472 Capacity utilization (fn1)..................................... 77.5 83.5 81.9 84.0 85.1 84.4 84.2 82.4 U.S. shipments: Quantity.......................................................... 66,254,256 72,601,946 72,250,983 73,537,865 75,303,979 73,556,008 54,449,559 52,993,213 Value.............................................................. 759,122 941,950 1,010,596 994,858 1,063,017 1,120,838 818,780 766,394 Unit value....................................................... $11.46 $12.97 $13.99 $13.53 $14.12 $15.24 $15.04 $14.46 Export shipments: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................... 2,276,472 1,871,742 2,142,918 1,956,460 1,594,688 2,106,408 2,747,867 2,972,604 Inventories/total shipments (fn1)........................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers............................................ 2,695 2,770 2,838 2,918 2,955 2,954 2,720 3,065 Hours worked (1,000s)...................................... 5,751 6,097 6,154 6,416 6,754 6,629 5,015 5,209 Wages paid ($1,000)......................................... 103,294 109,789 116,165 117,808 124,734 128,916 98,581 98,871 Hourly wages..................................................... $17.96 $18.01 $18.88 $18.36 $18.47 $19.45 $19.66 $18.98 Productivity (bags per hour)............................... 11,702 12,090 12,069 11,709 11,386 11,486 11,393 10,682 Unit labor costs................................................. $1.53 $1.49 $1.56 $1.57 $1.62 $1.69 $1.73 $1.78 Net Sales: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS)............................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss).......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss).......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital expenditures.......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS........................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss).......................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit net income or (loss).................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (fn1).............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1)............... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)......................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued next page. C-4 (Quantity=1,000 bags; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per 1,000 bags; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted) Reported data Calendar year January to September Table C-1--Continued PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2009-14, January to September 2014, and January to September 2015 Jan-Sept 2009-14 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount............................................................. 8.6 5.0 (0.8) 4.6 (2.6) 2.4 2.9 Producers' share (fn1)....................................... 1.5 3.0 0.2 (1.9) 3.6 (3.4) (3.9) Importers' share (fn1): China, subject................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Indonesia....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, subject............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Taiwan........................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, subject............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Vietnam.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources........................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** China, nonsubject........................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, nonsubject...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, nonsubject...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All others sources........................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports............................................ (1.5) (3.0) (0.2) 1.9 (3.6) 3.4 3.9 U.S. consumption value: Amount............................................................. 39.0 18.9 5.1 (0.6) 5.8 5.8 (3.7) Producers' share (fn1)....................................... 4.4 3.1 1.5 (0.7) 0.8 (0.3) (2.1) Importers' share (fn1): China, subject................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Indonesia....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, subject............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Taiwan........................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, subject............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Vietnam.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources........................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** China, nonsubject........................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, nonsubject...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, nonsubject...................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources............................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All others sources........................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports............................................ (4.4) (3.1) (1.5) 0.7 (0.8) 0.3 2.1 U.S. imports from China, subject: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Indonesia: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, subject: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Taiwan: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, subject: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Vietnam: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued next page. (Quantity=1,000 bags; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per 1,000 bags; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted) Period changes Calendar year comparisons C-5 Table C-1--Continued PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2009-14, January to September 2014, and January to September 2015 Jan-Sept 2009-14 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 U.S. imports from China, nonsubject: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, nonsubject: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, nonsubject: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports: Quantity.......................................................... 3.1 (5.3) (1.7) 12.0 (14.8) 16.0 17.9 Value.............................................................. 18.7 6.7 (1.0) 2.3 2.7 6.9 4.7 Unit value....................................................... 15.1 12.7 0.7 (8.6) 20.5 (7.9) (11.1) Ending inventory quantity................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity.................................. 3.9 1.6 2.8 (1.4) 1.0 (0.1) (0.4) Production quantity............................................ 13.1 9.5 0.8 1.1 2.4 (1.0) (2.6) Capacity utilization (fn1)..................................... 6.9 6.0 (1.6) 2.1 1.1 (0.7) (1.8) U.S. shipments: Quantity.......................................................... 11.0 9.6 (0.5) 1.8 2.4 (2.3) (2.7) Value.............................................................. 47.6 24.1 7.3 (1.6) 6.9 5.4 (6.4) Unit value....................................................... 33.0 13.2 7.8 (3.3) 4.3 7.9 (3.8) Export shipments: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments (fn1)........................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers............................................ 9.6 2.8 2.5 2.8 1.3 (0.0) 12.7 Hours worked (1,000s)...................................... 15.3 6.0 0.9 4.3 5.3 (1.9) 3.9 Wages paid ($1,000)......................................... 24.8 6.3 5.8 1.4 5.9 3.4 0.3 Hourly wages..................................................... 8.3 0.3 4.8 (2.7) 0.6 5.3 (3.4) Productivity (1,000 bags per hour)..................... (1.8) 3.3 (0.2) (3.0) (2.8) 0.9 (6.2) Unit labor costs................................................. 10.3 (3.0) 5.0 0.3 3.4 4.4 3.0 Net Sales: Quantity.......................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value.............................................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS)............................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit of (loss).......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss).......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital expenditures.......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS........................................................ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses......................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss).......................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit net income or (loss).................................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (fn1).............................................. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1)............... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)......................... *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Notes: fn1.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. fn2.--***. fn3.--***. fn4.--***. Source : Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, and ***. See parts III, IV, and VI for a detailed discussion of sources. (Quantity=1,000 bags; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per 1,000 bags; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted) Period changes Calendar year comparisons C-6 Table C-1 All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-09 (Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources - Importers' share (1): China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources - Importers' share: China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal, nonsubject . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total U.S. imports . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources - Importers' share (1): China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources - Importers' share: China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal, nonsubject . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total U.S. imports . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from: China, subject: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, subject: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Thailand, subject: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,789,506 11,034,532 17,037,139 5,899,864 7,794,664 3,655,709 -36.9 90.6 54.4 -65.4 32.1 -53.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,829 79,837 100,939 76,002 100,492 39,059 -4.3 95.5 26.4 -24.7 32.2 -61.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.05 $7.24 $5.92 $12.88 $12.89 $10.68 51.5 2.6 -18.1 117.4 0.1 -17.1 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. C-7 Table C-1 --Continued All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-09 (Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Subtotal, subject: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,618,338 17,574,755 23,526,589 10,574,169 13,655,013 8,910,671 -29.4 39.3 33.9 -55.1 29.1 -34.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,437 146,402 159,707 142,671 170,429 90,616 -5.1 53.4 9.1 -10.7 19.5 -46.8 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.56 $8.33 $6.79 $13.49 $12.48 $10.17 34.5 10.1 -18.5 98.8 -7.5 -18.5 Ending inventory quantity . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) China, nonsubject: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia, nonsubject: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: Quantity (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,109,628 4,670,359 12,858,117 19,421,619 17,530,327 14,008,206 240.9 13.6 175.3 51.0 -9.7 -20.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,342 44,641 130,132 238,470 249,165 142,143 291.1 22.8 191.5 83.3 4.5 -43.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.84 $9.56 $10.12 $12.28 $14.21 $10.15 14.7 8.1 5.9 21.3 15.8 -28.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal, nonsubject: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,137,256 9,478,087 18,410,756 24,961,782 22,709,208 21,631,674 321.1 84.5 94.2 35.6 -9.0 -4.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,237 68,898 190,188 323,881 333,969 214,511 396.1 59.4 176.0 70.3 3.1 -35.8 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.42 $7.27 $10.33 $12.98 $14.71 $9.92 17.8 -13.6 42.1 25.6 13.3 -32.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,755,595 27,052,842 41,937,345 35,535,951 36,364,221 30,542,345 72.0 52.4 55.0 -15.3 2.3 -16.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,674 215,300 349,895 466,552 504,398 305,127 120.0 55.3 62.5 33.3 8.1 -39.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.81 $7.96 $8.34 $13.13 $13.87 $9.99 27.9 1.9 4.8 57.4 5.6 -28.0 Ending inventory quantity . . . 1,105,764 1,843,128 2,141,470 3,587,728 4,173,052 4,291,448 288.1 66.7 16.2 67.5 16.3 2.8 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (bags per hour) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Inventory data for China and Malaysia are not available broken out between subject and nonsubject PRCBs. (3) Data for All Other Sources for 2006 adjusted to include PRCBs imported under HTS statistical reporting number 3923.21.0095. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Note.--Importers' inventories are based on questionnaire data and were not reported as "subject" and "nonsubject" so only total inventories are presented. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, from proprietary Customs data, and from official Commerce statistics. C-8 Table C-1 All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009 (Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-September Jan.-Sept. Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108,266,796 105,303,892 101,449,633 74,422,263 74,546,715 -6.3 -2.7 -3.7 0.2 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.7 66.3 64.2 64.9 66.8 2.5 4.6 -2.1 1.9 Importers' share (1): Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 3.2 2.8 3.2 2.0 1.3 1.8 -0.4 -1.2 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 3.8 4.5 4.8 3.0 2.5 1.8 0.7 -1.8 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 6.9 7.1 6.8 7.8 4.3 4.1 0.2 1.0 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 13.9 14.4 14.8 12.7 8.1 7.6 0.4 -2.0 China. Malaysia, and Thailand . . . . . . . 26.9 15.3 18.6 17.4 16.6 -8.3 -11.6 3.3 -0.7 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 4.5 2.9 3.0 3.8 -2.2 -0.6 -1.6 0.8 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.3 33.7 35.8 35.1 33.2 -2.5 -4.6 2.1 -1.9 U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,294,816 1,389,493 1,487,404 1,085,214 793,447 14.9 7.3 7.0 -26.9 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.0 66.4 66.1 66.9 71.1 -8.0 -7.6 -0.3 4.2 Importers' share (1): Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 3.3 2.8 3.0 1.6 0.8 1.3 -0.5 -1.4 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 3.0 3.8 4.0 2.5 2.3 1.5 0.8 -1.4 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 5.3 5.9 5.5 5.6 4.4 3.8 0.6 0.1 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 11.7 12.5 12.5 9.7 7.5 6.7 0.9 -2.8 China. Malaysia, and Thailand . . . . . . . 17.0 16.4 17.2 16.4 14.2 0.2 -0.6 0.7 -2.2 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 5.5 4.2 4.2 5.0 0.2 1.5 -1.3 0.8 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0 33.6 33.9 33.1 28.9 8.0 7.6 0.3 -4.2 U.S. imports from: Indonesia: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,592,965 3,396,505 2,819,569 2,365,162 1,469,854 77.0 113.2 -17.0 -37.9 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,400 45,808 40,948 33,005 12,998 61.2 80.3 -10.6 -60.6 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.95 $13.49 $14.52 $13.95 $8.84 -8.9 -15.4 7.7 -36.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Taiwan: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,171,587 3,988,867 4,575,499 3,561,990 2,215,669 110.7 83.7 14.7 -37.8 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,454 42,318 56,848 42,993 20,008 192.2 117.5 34.3 -53.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.96 $10.61 $12.42 $12.07 $9.03 38.7 18.4 17.1 -25.2 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Vietnam: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,061,998 7,288,037 7,192,325 5,055,117 5,811,440 134.9 138.0 -1.3 15.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,734 73,757 88,189 59,982 44,323 346.9 273.8 19.6 -26.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.44 $10.12 $12.26 $11.87 $7.63 90.3 57.0 21.2 -35.7 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,826,550 14,673,409 14,587,393 10,982,269 9,496,963 113.7 114.9 -0.6 -13.5 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,588 161,884 185,986 135,980 77,328 188.0 150.6 14.9 -43.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.46 $11.03 $12.75 $12.38 $8.14 34.8 16.6 15.6 -34.2 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668,553 1,184,206 1,485,017 1,615,175 1,584,666 122.1 77.1 25.4 -1.9 China. Malaysia, and Thailand: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,079,228 16,114,332 18,833,894 12,928,070 12,408,875 -35.2 -44.6 16.9 -4.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219,763 228,082 255,232 177,532 112,403 16.1 3.8 11.9 -36.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.56 $14.15 $13.55 $13.73 $9.06 79.3 87.3 -4.3 -34.0 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) All other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,575,003 4,748,210 2,942,934 2,212,148 2,829,145 -47.2 -14.8 -38.0 27.9 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,774 76,586 63,180 46,116 39,907 22.0 47.9 -17.5 -13.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.29 $16.13 $21.47 $20.85 $14.11 131.2 73.7 33.1 -32.3 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,525,185 2,500,051 2,575,341 2,552,719 2,480,862 68.9 63.9 3.0 -2.8 All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,480,781 35,535,951 36,364,221 26,122,487 24,734,983 -12.3 -14.3 2.3 -5.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336,125 466,552 504,398 359,628 229,639 50.1 38.8 8.1 -36.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.10 $13.13 $13.87 $13.77 $9.28 71.2 62.0 5.6 -32.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,193,738 3,684,257 4,060,358 4,167,894 4,065,528 85.1 67.9 10.2 -2.5 Table continued on next page. C-9 Table C-1--Continued All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009 (Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-September Jan.-Sept. Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83,182,701 83,232,332 79,737,217 60,936,535 67,365,922 -4.1 0.1 -4.2 10.6 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,212,269 72,320,872 66,276,349 51,085,031 51,516,891 -5.6 3.0 -8.4 0.8 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.4 86.9 83.1 83.8 76.5 -1.3 2.5 -3.8 -7.4 U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66,786,015 69,767,941 65,085,412 48,299,776 49,811,732 -2.5 4.5 -6.7 3.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958,691 922,941 983,006 725,586 563,808 2.5 -3.7 6.5 -22.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.35 $13.23 $15.10 $15.02 $11.32 5.2 -7.8 14.2 -24.7 Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,207,673 2,351,519 2,209,901 1,574,534 1,400,301 0.1 6.5 -6.0 -11.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,645 38,575 30,330 21,908 16,549 -19.4 2.5 -21.4 -24.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.05 $16.40 $13.72 $13.91 $11.82 -19.5 -3.8 -16.3 -15.1 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,800,923 3,995,589 2,976,270 5,202,339 3,350,997 -21.7 5.1 -25.5 -35.6 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 5.5 4.4 7.8 4.9 -1.1 0.0 -1.1 -2.9 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,495 3,160 2,971 3,011 2,874 -15.0 -9.6 -6.0 -4.5 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,597 7,154 6,903 5,108 4,903 -9.1 -5.8 -3.5 -4.0 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,452 105,602 103,881 80,564 75,528 8.8 10.6 -1.6 -6.3 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12.56 $14.76 $15.05 $15.77 $15.41 19.8 17.5 1.9 -2.3 Productivity (bags per hour) . . . . . . . . . . 9,242 10,109 9,601 10,001 10,508 3.9 9.4 -5.0 5.1 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.36 $1.46 $1.57 $1.58 $1.47 15.3 7.4 7.3 -7.0 Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,728,820 72,926,211 67,241,013 49,874,583 51,209,397 -2.2 6.1 -7.8 2.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996,078 971,203 1,008,444 747,446 580,137 1.2 -2.5 3.8 -22.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.49 $13.32 $15.00 $14.99 $11.33 3.5 -8.1 12.6 -24.4 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896,911 874,034 937,213 689,309 502,469 4.5 -2.6 7.2 -27.1 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99,167 97,169 71,231 58,137 77,668 -28.2 -2.0 -26.7 33.6 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94,307 90,407 103,228 62,737 53,070 9.5 -4.1 14.2 -15.4 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,860 6,762 (31,997) (4,600) 24,598 (2) 39.1 (2) (2) Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,799 17,643 14,548 10,300 6,044 -62.5 -54.5 -17.5 -41.3 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.05 $11.99 $13.94 $13.82 $9.81 6.8 -8.2 16.3 -29.0 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.37 $1.24 $1.54 $1.26 $1.04 11.9 -9.7 23.8 -17.6 Unit operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . $0.07 $0.09 ($0.48) ($0.09) $0.48 (2) 31.1 (2) (2) COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.0 90.0 92.9 92.2 86.6 2.9 -0.0 2.9 -5.6 Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.7 -3.2 -0.6 4.2 -3.7 0.2 -3.9 4.9 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not available/not applicable. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. C-10 TableC-1 All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03 (Quantity= 1,000 bags, value= 1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, aid unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes Item 200 1 200 2 2003 200 1-03 200 1-02 2002-03 U.S. coosumption quantity: Amount. .................. 7 7,0 55,8 93 82,0 20,663 8 7,506, 101 13.6 6.4 6.7 Producers' share (1) ........ 88.0 84.0 7 7.0 -1 1.0 -4.1 -6.9 Subject importers' share ( 1): China ................... ... ... Malaysia ................. ... ... Thailand ................. ... ... ... ... Subtotal, subject ......... 10.5 13.5 18.6 8.1 3.0 5.1 Nonsubject importers' share ( 1): China ................... ... ... Malaysia ................. ... ... Thailand ................. ... ... All other sources ..... ... .. ... ... Subtotal, nonsubject ...... Total imports ........... 12.0 1 6.0 23.0 1 1.0 4.1 6.9 U.S. coosumption value: Amount ................... 9 7 1,1 40 935,596 9 9 5,4 91 2.5 -3.7 6.4 Producers' share (1) ........ 8 7.7 83.1 7 7.6 - 10.1 -4.6 -5.5 Subject importers' share ( 1): China ................... ... ... Malaysia ...... ·........... Thailand ................. ... ... *** ... Subtotal, subject ......... Nonsubject importers' share ( 1): China ................... ... *** ... Malaysia ................. ... Thailand ................. *** ... All other sources .......... ... ... Subtotal, nonsubject ...... Total imports ........... 1 2.3 16.9 22.4 10.1 4.6 5.5 U.S. shipments d imports from: China (subject): Quantity ................. ... *** ... Value ................... ... ...Unit value .............. .. ... ... ... ... Ending inventory quantity .... ... ... ... Malaysia (subject): Quantity ................. ... ... Value ................•.. ... Unit value ................ ... Ending inventory quantity ••.. ... ... ... *** *** *** Thailand (subject): Quantity ....•........•... ... ... ... -· ... *** Value •.........•.....•.. ... ... ... *** ... ...Unit value ................ ... ... ... *** ... ...Ending Inventory quantity .•.. ... ... *** *** *** ...Subtotal (subject): Quantity ...•.......•..... Value ................... Unit value ................ Ending inventory quantity .... Table continued on next page. C- 1 1 ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Table C-1-Continued All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03 (Quantity=1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, aid unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes Item 2001 2002 2003 2001-03 2001-02 2002-03 U.S. shipments cl imports from: China (nonsubject): Quantity................. Value................... Unit value ..•............. Ending inventory quantity.... Malaysia (nonsubject): Quantity ........ ........ . Value................... Unit value................ Ending inventory quantity ... . Thailand (nonsubject): Quantity................. Value .................. . Unit value................ Ending inventory quantity ... All other sources: Quantity ................ . Value................... Unit value................ Ending inventory quantity ... . S ubtotal (nonsubject): Quantity. ............ . . . . Value................... Unit value................ Ending inventory quantity ... All sources: Quantity ......... ........ Value.................. . Unit value................ Ending inventory quantity ... Table continued on next page. ... ...... ...... *** *** ... *** ...*** ...... ...... ... ... ...... ...... ...... ... *** ...... ...*** ...*** *** ... ... 9,213 ,290 13 ,146,907 11 9,41 7 157,8 7 8 $12.96 $12.01 *** ... C-12 ... ... ... ...... ... *** ...*** ... *** ...*** ... *** ... *** ... *** *** *** ... *** ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ...*** *** *** ... ... ... *** ...... ... *** ...*** ... *** ...*** ... *** *** ... ... 20,085,840 118.0 4 2.7 52.8 223,1 97 86.9 3 2.2 41.4 $ 11.11 -14.3 -7.3 -7.5 *** ... ... -· ... ... ... ... ......... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... ......... ... ......... Table C-1--Continued All PRCBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03 (Quantity:1,000 bags, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per 1,000 bags; period changes=percent, except Vt/here noted) Reported data Item 2001 2002 2003 U.S.producers': Average capacity quantity .... 84,307,568 87,194,502 88,108,015 Production quantity ....... .. 68,918,284 69,275,404 67,260,527 Capacity utilization (1) .•.•..• 81.7 7 9.4 76.3 U.S. shipments: Quantity .. ............... 67,842,603 68,873,756 67,420,261 Value ........... . . ...... 851,723 777,718 772,295 Unit value . ........ ....... $12.55 $11.29 $11.45 Export shipments: Quantity .... ... ..... . ... . ... ... ...Value ... ................ ... ... ...Unit value ..... . .. .... .. . . ... ... ...Ending inventory quantity ..... 4,667,815 4,005,465 2,888,366 Inventories/total shipments (1) ... ... ...Production workers ......... 4,578 4,271 3,904 Hours worked (1,000s) ...... 9,447 9,004 8,327 Wages paid ($1,000s) ••..... 125,385 123,524 11 4,814 Hourly wages .••..•. ..... .. $13.27 $13.72 $13.7 9 Productivity (units/hour) ...... 7,295.5 7,693.6 8,077.8 Unit labor costs ............ $1.82 $1.78 $1.71 Net sales: Quantity .......... ....... 68,567,027 69,448,037 68,451,856 Value ....... ............ 862,624 784,727 785,636 Unit value ........ . ....... $12.58 $11.30 $11.48 Cost of goods sold (COGS) ... 724,372 669,068 702,598 Gross profit or (loss) ........ 138,252 115,659 83,038 SG&A expenses ............ 84,112 82, 922 76,908 Operating income or (loss) .. . 54,140 32,737 6,130 Capital expenditures . . ...•.• 31,044 33,171 17,734 Unit COGS ...... . ...... .. . $10.56 $9.63 $10.26 Unit SG&A expenses .. ...... $1.23 $1.19 $1.12 Unit operating income or (loss) $0.79 $0.47 $0.09 COGS/sales (1) . .... ....... 84.0 85.3 89.4 Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) .... .... ........ . 6.3 4.2 0.8 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. 2001-03 4.5 -2.4 -5.4 -0.6 -9.3 -8.8 .........-38.1 ...-14.7 -11.9 -8.4 3.9 10.7 -6.2 -0.2 -8.9 -8.8 -3.0 -39.9 -8.6 -88.7 -42.9 -2.8 -8.4 -88.7 5.5 -5.5 Period changes 2001-02 2002-03 3.4 1.0 0.5 -2.9 -2.3 -3.1 1.5 -2.1 -8.7 -0.7 -10.1 1.4 ... ...... ...... ...-14.2 -27.9 ... ...-6.7 -8.6 -4.7 -7.5 -1.5 -7.1 3.4 0.5 5.5 5.0 -2.0 -4.3 1.3 -1.4 -9.0 0.1 -10.2 1.6 -7.6 5.0 -16.3 -28.2 -1.4 -7.3 -39.5 -81.3 6.9 -46.5 -8.8 6.5 -2.7 -5.9 -40.3 -81.0 1.3 4.2 -2.1 -3.4 Note.-Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar )'ear basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. C-13 D-1 APPENDIX D PURCHASER QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES D-3 As part of their response to the notice of institution, interested parties were asked to provide a list of three to five leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the domestic like product. A response was received from domestic interested parties and it named the following five firms as the top purchasers of polyethylene retail carrier bags: ***. Purchaser questionnaires were sent to these five firms and three firms (***) provided responses, which are presented below. 1. Have there been any significant changes in the supply and demand conditions for polyethylene retail carrier bags that have occurred in the United States or in the market for polyethylene retail carrier bags in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam since January 1, 2015? Purchaser Yes / No Changes that have occurred *** *** ***. *** *** *** *** *** *** D-5 2. Do you anticipate any significant changes in the supply and demand conditions for polyethylene retail carrier bags in the United States or in the market for polyethylene retail carrier bags in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam within a reasonably foreseeable time? Purchaser Yes / No Changes that have occurred *** *** ***. *** *** *** *** *** ***. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Commerce: Malaysia: A-557-813 === 59366 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices 9 For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 10 See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 91906, 91908 (December 19, 2016). 1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 69 FR 48203 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Orders: Polyethylene companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 9 We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not subject to this review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company- specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or a previous segment, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.95 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 10 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 20, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of theAssistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Use of Adverse Facts Available V. Margin Calculations VI. Discussion of Issues Ajmal-Specific Issue Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Based on Failure to Cooperate Universal-Specific Issues Comment 2: Whether To Cap Universal’s Cutting Revenue Comment 3: Whether To Revise Universal’s Reported Theoretical Weight Comment 4: Whether To Use Universal’s Most Recently Submitted Data Sets Other Issue Comment 5: Rate for the Non-Selected Company VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2021–23372 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–560–822, A–557–813, A–570–886, A–583– 843, A–549–821, A–552–806, C–552–805] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China (China), Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and the countervailing duty (CVD) order on PRCBs from Vietnam would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Claudia Cott or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4270 or (202) 482–1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On August 9, 2004, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD orders on PRCBs from Malaysia, China, and Thailand, and on May 4, 2010, the AD orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the CVD order on PRCBs from Vietnam. 1 On VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 59367Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 75 FR 23667 (May 4, 2010); and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 23670 (May 4, 2010) (collectively, Orders). 2 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 86 FR 16701 (March 31, 2021). 3 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 86 FR 17200 (April 1, 2021). 4 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 86 FR 35478 (July 6, 2021), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM); see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Second Five-Year Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 86 FR 43626 (August 10, 2021), and accompanying IDM. 5 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA– 1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731–TA–1043– 1045 (Third Review)), 86 FR 58301 (October 21, 2021), see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA–1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731– TA1043–1045 (Third Review), USITC Pub. 5233 (October 2021). 6 See Orders. March 31, 2021, Commerce initiated,2 and on April 1, 2021, the ITC instituted, 3 sunset reviews of the Orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its reviews, Commerce determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies. Commerce, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping and net subsidies rates likely to prevail should these Orders be revoked. 4 On October 21, 2021, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act. 5 Scope of the Orders The merchandise covered by the Orders is PRCBs, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non- sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the orders excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the Orders is dispositive. 6 Continuation of the Orders As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the Orders. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of these Orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year (sunset) reviews of these Orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. Administrative Protective Order (APO) This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return, destruction, or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions. Notification to Interested Parties These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: October 21, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2021–23375 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–016] Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Remand Proceeding and Reopening of 2017– 2018 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Record AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting a remand of the 2017–2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from the People’s Republic of China (China), which includes a limited reopening of the record. Commerce received a notification from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that it found discrepancies and inaccuracies between the sales information certain parties reported during the 2017–2018 administrative review and that reported to CBP at the time of entry. Accordingly, Commerce intends to reopen the record of the 2017–2018 AD administrative review and reconsider the final results of the 2017–2018 review. Commerce is providing notice of the remand and the reopening of the record, and further, inviting participation from interested parties. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Commerce: Thailand: A-549-821 === 59366 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices 9 For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 10 See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 91906, 91908 (December 19, 2016). 1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 69 FR 48203 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Orders: Polyethylene companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 9 We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not subject to this review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company- specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or a previous segment, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.95 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 10 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 20, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of theAssistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Use of Adverse Facts Available V. Margin Calculations VI. Discussion of Issues Ajmal-Specific Issue Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Based on Failure to Cooperate Universal-Specific Issues Comment 2: Whether To Cap Universal’s Cutting Revenue Comment 3: Whether To Revise Universal’s Reported Theoretical Weight Comment 4: Whether To Use Universal’s Most Recently Submitted Data Sets Other Issue Comment 5: Rate for the Non-Selected Company VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2021–23372 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–560–822, A–557–813, A–570–886, A–583– 843, A–549–821, A–552–806, C–552–805] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China (China), Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and the countervailing duty (CVD) order on PRCBs from Vietnam would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Claudia Cott or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4270 or (202) 482–1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On August 9, 2004, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD orders on PRCBs from Malaysia, China, and Thailand, and on May 4, 2010, the AD orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the CVD order on PRCBs from Vietnam. 1 On VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 59367Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 75 FR 23667 (May 4, 2010); and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 23670 (May 4, 2010) (collectively, Orders). 2 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 86 FR 16701 (March 31, 2021). 3 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 86 FR 17200 (April 1, 2021). 4 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 86 FR 35478 (July 6, 2021), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM); see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Second Five-Year Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 86 FR 43626 (August 10, 2021), and accompanying IDM. 5 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA– 1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731–TA–1043– 1045 (Third Review)), 86 FR 58301 (October 21, 2021), see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA–1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731– TA1043–1045 (Third Review), USITC Pub. 5233 (October 2021). 6 See Orders. March 31, 2021, Commerce initiated,2 and on April 1, 2021, the ITC instituted, 3 sunset reviews of the Orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its reviews, Commerce determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies. Commerce, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping and net subsidies rates likely to prevail should these Orders be revoked. 4 On October 21, 2021, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act. 5 Scope of the Orders The merchandise covered by the Orders is PRCBs, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non- sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the orders excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the Orders is dispositive. 6 Continuation of the Orders As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the Orders. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of these Orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year (sunset) reviews of these Orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. Administrative Protective Order (APO) This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return, destruction, or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions. Notification to Interested Parties These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: October 21, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2021–23375 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–016] Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Remand Proceeding and Reopening of 2017– 2018 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Record AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting a remand of the 2017–2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from the People’s Republic of China (China), which includes a limited reopening of the record. Commerce received a notification from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that it found discrepancies and inaccuracies between the sales information certain parties reported during the 2017–2018 administrative review and that reported to CBP at the time of entry. Accordingly, Commerce intends to reopen the record of the 2017–2018 AD administrative review and reconsider the final results of the 2017–2018 review. Commerce is providing notice of the remand and the reopening of the record, and further, inviting participation from interested parties. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Commerce: Taiwan: A-583-843 === 59366 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices 9 For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 10 See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 91906, 91908 (December 19, 2016). 1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 69 FR 48203 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Orders: Polyethylene companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 9 We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not subject to this review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company- specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or a previous segment, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.95 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 10 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 20, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of theAssistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Use of Adverse Facts Available V. Margin Calculations VI. Discussion of Issues Ajmal-Specific Issue Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Based on Failure to Cooperate Universal-Specific Issues Comment 2: Whether To Cap Universal’s Cutting Revenue Comment 3: Whether To Revise Universal’s Reported Theoretical Weight Comment 4: Whether To Use Universal’s Most Recently Submitted Data Sets Other Issue Comment 5: Rate for the Non-Selected Company VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2021–23372 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–560–822, A–557–813, A–570–886, A–583– 843, A–549–821, A–552–806, C–552–805] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China (China), Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and the countervailing duty (CVD) order on PRCBs from Vietnam would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Claudia Cott or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4270 or (202) 482–1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On August 9, 2004, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD orders on PRCBs from Malaysia, China, and Thailand, and on May 4, 2010, the AD orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the CVD order on PRCBs from Vietnam. 1 On VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 59367Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 75 FR 23667 (May 4, 2010); and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 23670 (May 4, 2010) (collectively, Orders). 2 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 86 FR 16701 (March 31, 2021). 3 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 86 FR 17200 (April 1, 2021). 4 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 86 FR 35478 (July 6, 2021), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM); see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Second Five-Year Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 86 FR 43626 (August 10, 2021), and accompanying IDM. 5 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA– 1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731–TA–1043– 1045 (Third Review)), 86 FR 58301 (October 21, 2021), see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA–1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731– TA1043–1045 (Third Review), USITC Pub. 5233 (October 2021). 6 See Orders. March 31, 2021, Commerce initiated,2 and on April 1, 2021, the ITC instituted, 3 sunset reviews of the Orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its reviews, Commerce determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies. Commerce, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping and net subsidies rates likely to prevail should these Orders be revoked. 4 On October 21, 2021, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act. 5 Scope of the Orders The merchandise covered by the Orders is PRCBs, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non- sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the orders excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the Orders is dispositive. 6 Continuation of the Orders As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the Orders. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of these Orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year (sunset) reviews of these Orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. Administrative Protective Order (APO) This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return, destruction, or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions. Notification to Interested Parties These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: October 21, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2021–23375 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–016] Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Remand Proceeding and Reopening of 2017– 2018 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Record AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting a remand of the 2017–2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from the People’s Republic of China (China), which includes a limited reopening of the record. Commerce received a notification from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that it found discrepancies and inaccuracies between the sales information certain parties reported during the 2017–2018 administrative review and that reported to CBP at the time of entry. Accordingly, Commerce intends to reopen the record of the 2017–2018 AD administrative review and reconsider the final results of the 2017–2018 review. Commerce is providing notice of the remand and the reopening of the record, and further, inviting participation from interested parties. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Commerce: Vietnam: A-522-806 === 59366 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices 9 For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 10 See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 91906, 91908 (December 19, 2016). 1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 69 FR 48203 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty Orders: Polyethylene companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 9 We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not subject to this review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company- specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or a previous segment, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.95 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 10 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 20, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of theAssistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Use of Adverse Facts Available V. Margin Calculations VI. Discussion of Issues Ajmal-Specific Issue Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Based on Failure to Cooperate Universal-Specific Issues Comment 2: Whether To Cap Universal’s Cutting Revenue Comment 3: Whether To Revise Universal’s Reported Theoretical Weight Comment 4: Whether To Use Universal’s Most Recently Submitted Data Sets Other Issue Comment 5: Rate for the Non-Selected Company VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2021–23372 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–560–822, A–557–813, A–570–886, A–583– 843, A–549–821, A–552–806, C–552–805] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China (China), Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and the countervailing duty (CVD) order on PRCBs from Vietnam would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Claudia Cott or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4270 or (202) 482–1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On August 9, 2004, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD orders on PRCBs from Malaysia, China, and Thailand, and on May 4, 2010, the AD orders on PRCBs from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the CVD order on PRCBs from Vietnam. 1 On VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 59367Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 27, 2021 / Notices Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 75 FR 23667 (May 4, 2010); and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 23670 (May 4, 2010) (collectively, Orders). 2 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 86 FR 16701 (March 31, 2021). 3 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 86 FR 17200 (April 1, 2021). 4 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 86 FR 35478 (July 6, 2021), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM); see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited Second Five-Year Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 86 FR 43626 (August 10, 2021), and accompanying IDM. 5 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA– 1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731–TA–1043– 1045 (Third Review)), 86 FR 58301 (October 21, 2021), see also Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam (Inv. Nos. 701–TA–462 and 731–TA–1156–1158 (Second Review) and 731– TA1043–1045 (Third Review), USITC Pub. 5233 (October 2021). 6 See Orders. March 31, 2021, Commerce initiated,2 and on April 1, 2021, the ITC instituted, 3 sunset reviews of the Orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of its reviews, Commerce determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies. Commerce, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping and net subsidies rates likely to prevail should these Orders be revoked. 4 On October 21, 2021, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act. 5 Scope of the Orders The merchandise covered by the Orders is PRCBs, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non- sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the orders excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the Orders is dispositive. 6 Continuation of the Orders As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the Orders. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of these Orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next five-year (sunset) reviews of these Orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. Administrative Protective Order (APO) This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return, destruction, or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions. Notification to Interested Parties These five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: October 21, 2021. Ryan Majerus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2021–23375 Filed 10–26–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–016] Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Remand Proceeding and Reopening of 2017– 2018 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Record AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting a remand of the 2017–2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from the People’s Republic of China (China), which includes a limited reopening of the record. Commerce received a notification from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that it found discrepancies and inaccuracies between the sales information certain parties reported during the 2017–2018 administrative review and that reported to CBP at the time of entry. Accordingly, Commerce intends to reopen the record of the 2017–2018 AD administrative review and reconsider the final results of the 2017–2018 review. Commerce is providing notice of the remand and the reopening of the record, and further, inviting participation from interested parties. DATES : Applicable October 27, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Oct 26, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Final Results - CVD - Vietnam === 43626 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 10, 2021 / Notices 1 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 23670 (May 4, 2010) (Order). 2 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review, 86 FR 16701 (March 31, 2021). 3 See Committee’s Letter, ‘‘Five-Year (‘Sunset’) Review the Countervailing Duty Order On Dated: August 5, 2021. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 2021–17020 Filed 8–9–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–34–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 5, 2021. The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by September 9, 2021. 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. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Title: National Agroforestry Survey. OMB Control Number: 0535–NEW. Summary of Collection: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is to collect, prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition; as well as economic statistics, environmental statistics related to agriculture and also to conduct the Census of Agriculture. The survey will collect data whether the operator uses any of five agroforestry practices typically used for conservation: Windbreaks, Silvopasture, Riparian Forest Buffers, Alley Cropping, as well as Forest Farming & Multi-story Cropping. Windbreaks are linear plantings of trees and shrubs designed to provide economic, environmental and community benefits. The primary purpose of most windbreaks is to slow the wind which creates a more beneficial condition for soils, crops, livestock, wildlife and people. Silvopasture is the deliberate integration of trees and grazing livestock operations on the same land. These systems are intensively managed for both forest products and forage, providing both short- and long-term income sources. A riparian forest buffer is an area adjacent to a stream, lake, or wetland that contains a combination of trees, shrubs, and/or other perennial plants and is managed differently from the surrounding landscape, primarily to provide conservation benefits. Forest farming is the cultivation of high-value crops under the protection of a managed tree canopy. In some parts of the world, this is called multi-story cropping and when used on a small scale in the tropics it is sometimes called home gardening. Alley cropping is defined as the planting of rows of trees and/or shrubs to create alleys within which agricultural or horticultural crops are produced. The trees may include valuable hardwood veneer or lumber species; fruit, nut or other specialty crop trees/shrubs; or desirable softwood species for wood fiber production. Need and Use of the Information: NASS would plan and conduct the survey and deliver access to a dataset or responses to approved staff from USDA- Forestry Service, who will publish the results of the survey. This project is conducted as a cooperative effort with the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s Forestry Service—National Agroforestry Center. Funding for this survey is being provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forestry Service—National Agroforestry Center. Description of Respondents: Farmers and Ranchers. Number of Respondents: 11,800. Frequency of Responses: Once. Total Burden Hours: 9,550. Levi S. Harrell, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 2021–16996 Filed 8–9–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–20–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–552–805] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. DATES : Applicable August 10, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Daniel Alexander, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4313. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On May 4, 2010, Commerce published its CVD order on PRCBs from Vietnam in the Federal Register. 1 On March 31, 2021, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 Commerce received a notice of intent to participate from the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee (the Committee), an ad hoc association of U.S. producers of PRCBs, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 3 The Committee VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Aug 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM 10AUN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 43627Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 10, 2021 / Notices Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Vietnam: Domestic Industry Notice Of Intent To Participate In Sunset Review,’’ dated April 9, 2021. 4 Id. The individual members of the Committee are Hilex Poly Co., LLC and Superbag LLC. 5 See Committee’s Letter, ‘‘Five-Year (Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order On Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Vietnam: Domestic Industry Substantive Response,’’ dated April 28, 2021. 6 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Sunset Reviews for April 2021,’’ dated May 21, 2021. 7 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 1 See Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic of China: Self-Initiation of Anti- Circumvention Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, 85 FR 71877 (November 12, 2020). claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(E) of the Act, as a trade or business association a majority of whose members manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic like product in the United States and stated that each member of the Committee is a manufacturer of the domestic like product and thus, is a domestic interested party pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act.4 Commerce received a substantive response from the Committee 5 within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive responses from the Government of Vietnam or any other domestic or interested parties in this proceeding, nor was a hearing requested. On May 21, 2021, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties.6 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order. Scope of the Order The scope of this Order covers PRCBs. Imports of merchandise included within the scope of this Order are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.7 Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. Final Results of Sunset Review Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the CVD order on PRCBs from Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following rates: Producer/exporter Net countervailable subsidy (percent) Advance Polybag Co., Ltd ... 52.56 Fotai Vietnam Enterprise Corp. and Fotai Enterprise Corporation ....................... 5.28 All Others .............................. 5.28 Administrative Protective Order (APO) This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218. Dated: July 23, 2021. Christian Marsh, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. History of the Order IV. Scope of the Order V. Legal Framework VI. Discussion of the Issues 1. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of a Countervailable Subsidy 2. Net Countervailable Subsidy Rates Likely To Prevail 3. Nature of the Subsidies VII. Final Results of Sunset Review VIII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2021–16961 Filed 8–9–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–943, C–570–944] Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determinations of Circumvention AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that imports of welded oil country tubular goods (OCTG) completed in Brunei or the Philippines using inputs manufactured in the People’s Republic of China (China) are circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on OCTG from China. DATES : Applicable August 10, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Yang Jin Chun or John Drury, AD/CVD Operations Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5760 and (202) 482–0195, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On November 3, 2020, Commerce self- initiated these anti-circumvention inquiries to determine whether certain imports of welded OCTG completed in Brunei or the Philippines using inputs manufactured in China are circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on OCTG from China. 1 Scope of the Orders The products covered by the orders are certain OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish. A full description of the scope of the orders is contained in the Preliminary Decision VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Aug 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM 10AUN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES