1522 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Notices 

droplet diameter and its influence on 

wellhead ejection behavior) adequately 

characterized? Were there any apparent 

strengths, weaknesses, omissions, or 

errors? Provide an explanation for your 

answers. 

3. Was the physical model for multiphase flow adequately developed to 

capture the liquid droplet phase and the 

gas-phase flow field? Were the soot and 

radiation models adequately 

characterized? Were Lagrangian droplet 

dynamics and thermophysics 

adequately incorporated into the model? 

Were there any apparent strengths, 

weaknesses, omissions, or errors? 

Provide an explanation for your 

answers. 

4. Does the droplet injection model 

adequately simulate realistic diameters 

and velocities of two-phase, high-speed 

flows that would occur during a 

wellhead blowout event? Were there 

any apparent strengths, weaknesses, 

omissions, or errors? Provide an 

explanation for your answers. 

5. Does the validation process capture 

the controlling physical properties to a 

sufficient level of accuracy, including 

transport and boundary conditions at 

the bench- and intermediate-scales for 

both gas-phase and two-phase turbulent 

spray? Were there any apparent 

strengths, weaknesses, omissions, or 

errors? Provide an explanation for your 

answers. 

6. Were the phase doppler 

anemometry and diffuse back-light 

illumination imaging diagnostic 

methods (6.1.1 and 6.1.2 below) for the 

droplet behavior measurements 

appropriately designed, clearly 

described, and adequate to capture 

droplet behavior for the Gas Phase and 

Two-Phase Spray Flame? Were there 

any apparent strengths, weaknesses, 

omissions, or errors? Provide an 

explanation for your answers. 

6.1.1. Phase Doppler Anemometry 

6.1.2. Diffuse Back-Illumination Imaging 

7. Were the diagnostic methods (7.1.1 

and 7.1.2 below) for the temperature 

measurements appropriately designed, 

clearly described, and adequate to 

capture temperature for the Gas Phase 

and Two-Phase Spray Flame? Were 

there any apparent strengths, 

weaknesses, omissions, or errors? 

Provide an explanation for your 

answers. 

7.1.1. Coherent Anti-Stokes Raman 

Spectrometry-based Thermometry 

(CARS) 

7.1.2. 3-Color High-Speed Pyrometry 

8. Do the results adequately 

characterize evidence of the droplet 

characteristics, including droplet 

breakup, the droplet size (diameter), 

droplet speed, and the duration of a 

droplet in fire (bench- and intermediatescales)? Does the research product 

accurately expand predictions of droplet 

diameters beyond current limited 

validated ranges? Were there any 

apparent strengths, weaknesses, 

omissions, or errors? Provide an 

explanation for your answers. 

9. Does the research product 

accurately characterize the impact of 

two-phase flow regimes (bubble, slug, 

and churn) on the effluent plume 

(bench- and intermediate-scales)? Were 

there any apparent strengths, 

weaknesses, omissions, or errors? 

Provide an explanation for your 

answers. 

10. Does the research product 

adequately address how the wellbore 

flow would influence the ejected spray 

plume behavior, which directly 

influences how the oil and gas burns 

and how much will either fall back to 

the surface or remain vapor? Were there 

any apparent strengths, weaknesses, 

omissions, or errors? Explain your 

answers. 

11. Does the research product 

accurately predict the length of fire 

plume, location of flame anchoring, 

height of flame, width/angle, expansion, 

etc.? Were there any apparent strengths, 

weaknesses, omissions, or errors? 

Explain your answers. 

12. Does the research product 

determine the primary mechanism 

driving burn efficiency? 

13. Were the conclusions based on the 

OSRR 1063 study findings in the report 

logical and appropriate based on the 

results? What other conclusions related 

to the study were made and are 

appropriate? Are there any additional 

study findings or conclusions that could 

be drawn from the study? Provide an 

explanation for your answers. 

Background on OSRR 1063 Study 

BSEE oversees oil spill planning and 

preparedness for oil and gas 

exploration, development, and 

production facilities in both state and 

Federal offshore waters of the United 

States. BSEE’s Oil Spill Preparedness 

Division (OSPD) is responsible for 

promulgating regulations pursuant to 

BSEE’s delegated authority under the 

Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1321), 

and implementing those regulations (30 

CFR part 254). 

To receive the necessary approvals 

under 30 CFR part 254, operators of oil 

and gas facilities operating seaward of 

the coastline must demonstrate that they 

are prepared to respond to a loss of well 

control event and a ‘‘worst case’’ 

discharge release (30 CFR 254.26; 

254.51–.53). For decades, intentional 

wellhead ignition has been viewed as a 

possible source control method for wellhead blowouts in ice-bound 

environments. BSEE is researching this 

response method to better understand 

its efficiencies and limitations in the 

North Slope area of Alaska. As part of 

this review process, BSEE contracted 

the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory 

(NRL) to first conduct a review of an 

interested party’s report and related 

scientific literature and provide 

preliminary technical guidance on the 

feasibility of wellhead burning as a 

mitigation method. The review suggests 

scientific evidence is lacking to fully 

support claims that wellhead burning 

would be highly efficient and would 

result in little to no unburned oil fallout 

for the proposed project. BSEE then 

contracted NRL to conduct a scientific 

research project. The research project’s 

primary objective was to develop a CFD 

model of wellhead burning validated 

with experimental data at multiple 

scales. BSEE is seeking an independent 

peer review of the interim final NRL 

report for this research program titled 

OSRR 1063: BSEE Report: CFD Model 

for Predicting Wellhead Oil-Burning 

Efficiency at Bench and Intermediate 

Scales: Interim Report (July 30, 2020). 

BSEE considers this study to be a 

highly influential scientific assessment. 

Scott A. Angelle, 

Director, Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00148 Filed 1–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1469 (Final)] 

Wood Mouldings and Millwork 

Products From Brazil; Termination of 

Investigation 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On January 4, 2021, the 

Department of Commerce published 

notice in the Federal Register of a 

negative final determination of sales at 

less than fair value in connection with 

the subject investigation concerning 

Brazil (86 FR 70). Accordingly, the 

antidumping duty investigation 

concerning wood mouldings and 

millwork products from Brazil 

(Investigation No. 731–TA–1469 (Final)) 

is terminated. 

DATES: January 4, 2021. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Notices 1523 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired individuals are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained 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 investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. 

Authority: This investigation is being 

terminated under authority of title VII of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 and pursuant to 

section 207.40(a) of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

207.40(a)). This notice is published 

pursuant to section 201.10 of the 

Commission’s rules (19 CFR 201.10). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 5, 2021. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00140 Filed 1–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1184] 

Certain Shaker Screens for Drilling 

Fluids, Components Thereof, and 

Related Materials; Commission 

Determination To Review-nn-Part an 

Initial Determination Granting 

Summary Determination of Violation of 

Section 337; Request for Written 

Submissions on Remedy, the Public 

Interest, and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to reviewin-part an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 20) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

granting a motion for summary 

determination of violation of section 

337. The Commission requests written 

submissions from the parties, interested 

government agencies, and interested 

persons on the issues of remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding, under the 

schedule set forth below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Benjamin S. Richards, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5453. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. 

Hearing-impaired persons are advised 

that information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on November 21, 2019, based on a 

complaint, as amended, filed by M–I 

L.L.C. of Houston, Texas (‘‘M–I’’). 84 FR 

64339 (Nov. 21, 2019). The amended 

complaint alleged violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain shaker screens for drilling fluids, 

components thereof, and related 

marketing materials by reason of 

infringement of: (1) Certain claims of 

U.S. Patent Nos. 7,210,582 (‘‘the ’582 

patent’’), 7,810,649 (‘‘the ’649 patent’’), 

and (‘‘the ’735 patent’’);; and (2) U.S. 

Trademark Registration Nos. 2,151,736 

and 2,744,891. Id. The Commission’s 

notice of investigation named six 

respondents, including Anping Shengjia 

Hardware Mesh Co., Ltd. (‘‘SJ Screen’’) 

and Hebei Hengying Wire Cloth Co. Ltd 

(‘‘Hengying Wire Cloth’’) (collectively 

the ‘‘Defaulting Respondents’’). Id. at 

64339–40. The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is participating 

in this investigation. Id. at 64340. 

On February 5, 2020, the Commission 

found SJ Screen and Hengying Wire 

Cloth in default. Order No. 10, 

unreviewed, Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 

704161 (Mar. 5, 2020). Thereafter, and 

after the termination of the other 

remaining respondents by consent 

order, see Order No. 8, unreviewed, 

Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 701736 (Feb. 6, 

2020); Order No. 14, unreviewed, 

Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 708798 (Apr. 23, 

2020), M–I withdrew all of its 

trademark-based allegations, as well as 

claims 2–11 of the ’582 patent; claims 

2–7 and 9 of the ’649 patent; and claims 

2–9, 13, 16, and 18–19 of the ’735 patent 

from the investigation. See Order No. 

19, unreviewed, Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 

720447 (Sept. 24, 2020). 

On August 27, 2020, M–I filed a 

motion for summary determination that 

the Defaulting Respondents violated 

section 337 and that M–I satisfies the 

domestic industry requirement of 

section 337. The motion sought issuance 

of a general exclusion order (‘‘GEO’’) 

and imposition of a one hundred 

percent (100%) bond on accused 

products imported during the 

Presidential review period. On 

September 16, 2020, OUII filed a 

response supporting M–I’s motion, 

including the remedial relief requested 

therein. 

On November 19, 2020, the ALJ 

issued the subject ID granting M–I’s 

motion and recommending issuance of 

a GEO and imposition of a bond in the 

amount of 100 percent of the entered 

value of infringing products. 

Specifically, the ID found that (1) the 

Commission has jurisdiction over the 

products, the parties, and the 

investigation; (2) the importation 

requirement is satisfied; (3) M–I has 

standing to bring this investigation; (4) 

all of the remaining asserted claims are 

infringed by one or more of the 

Defaulting Respondents’ products; and 

(5) M–I has satisfied the domestic 

industry requirement of section 337. 

Additionally, the ALJ recommended 

that the Commission issue a GEO and 

impose a bond in the amount of one 

hundred percent (100%) of the entered 

value of infringing articles imported 

during the period of Presidential review. 

The Commission has determined to 

review the ID’s finding that M–I’s 

investments in plant and equipment and 

M–I’s employment of labor and capital 

are significant under section 

337(a)(3)(A) and (B). The Commission 

has determined not to review the 

remainder of the ID. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, 

(1) an exclusion order that could result 

in the exclusion of the subject articles 

from entry into the United States and/ 

or (2) cease and desist orders that could 

result in the respondents being required 

to cease and desist from engaging in 

unfair acts in the importation and sale 

of such articles. Accordingly, the 

Commission is interested in receiving 

written submissions that address the 

form of remedy, if any, that should be 

ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an 

article from entry into the United States 

for purposes other than entry for 

consumption, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES