Hydrofluorocarbon Blends and Components Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 43387-43392 [2015-17984]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43387-43392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17984]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-028]


Hydrofluorocarbon Blends and Components Thereof From the People's 
Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

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

DATES: Effective date: July 22, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey or Dennis McClure at 
(202) 482-0193 and (202) 482-5973, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, 
Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street 
and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition

    On June 25, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of 
certain hydrofluorocarbon blends and certain single hydrofluorocarbon 
components thereof (HFCs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), 
filed in proper form on behalf of the American HFC Coalition and its 
individual members,\1\ as well as District Lodge 154 of the 
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers 
(collectively, the petitioners).\2\ The petitioners are either domestic 
manufacturers or blenders of HFCs, or a union representing the HFC 
industry.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The individual members of the American HFC Coalition are: 
Amtrol Inc., Arkema Inc., The Chemours Company FC LLC, Honeywell 
International Inc., Hudson Technologies, Mexichem Fluor Inc., and 
Worthington Industries, Inc.
    \2\ See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Hydrofluorocarbon Blends and Components from the PRC, 
dated June 25, 2015 (the Petition).
    \3\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 1, 5, and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 2015, the Department requested additional information 
and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.\4\ The petitioners 
filed responses to these requests on July 6, 2015, July 7, 2015, and 
July 14, 2015.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letter from the Department to the Petitioners entitled 
``Re: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports 
of Hydrofluorocarbon Blends and Components from the PRC: 
Supplemental Questions'' dated June 30, 2015 (Supplemental 
Questionnaire).
    \5\ See Response to the Department's June 30, 2015, 
Questionnaire Regarding Volume I of the Petition for Antidumping 
Duties, dated July 6, 2015 (Petition Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of HFCs from the 
PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less 
than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that 
such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury 
to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 
732(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), the Petition is accompanied 
by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their 
allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested 
parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C), (D), and (F) of the Act. The 
Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the initiation of this AD 
investigation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petition'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on June 25, 2015, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2014, 
through March 31, 2015.

Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are blended HFCs and 
certain single HFC components of those blends thereof, from the PRC. 
For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the 
``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the 
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would 
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic

[[Page 43388]]

industry is seeking relief.\7\ In the scope provided by the petitioners 
was the following substantive provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Supplemental Questionnaire; see also Petition 
Supplement.

    This investigation includes any Chinese HFC components that are 
blended in a third country to produce a subject HFC blend before 
being imported into the United States. Also included are semi-
finished blends of Chinese HFC components. Semi-finished blends are 
blends of one or more of the single-component Chinese HFCs used to 
produce the subject HFC blends, whether or not blended in China or a 
third country, that have not been blended to the specific 
proportions required to meet the definition of one of the subject 
HFC blends described above (R-404A, R-407A, R-407C, R-410A, and R-
507A). Single-component HFCs and semi-finished HFC blends are not 
excluded from the scope of this investigation when blended with HFCs 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
from non-subject countries.

    The Department has not adopted this provision for the purposes of 
initiation because the additional language has presented the Department 
with some novel and complex issues with respect to administering any 
potential AD order and, as such, we believe this warrants further 
discussion and analysis from parties to this proceeding.\8\ As 
discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\9\ we are 
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage (scope). The period for scope comments is intended to 
provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments 
and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 
CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to 
public information. The Department encourages all interested parties to 
submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, August 
4, 2015, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this 
notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, 
must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, August 14, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Department has independent authority to determine the 
scope of its investigations. See Diversified Products Corp. v. 
United States, 572 F. Supp. 883, 887 (CIT 1983).
    \9\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties 
consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during 
this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that 
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the 
investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and 
request permission to submit the additional information.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\10\ An electronically-
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the 
time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic 
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) 
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 
the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); see 
also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic 
Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 
39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the Department's electronic 
filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. 
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaire

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of HFCs to be reported in 
response to the Department's AD questionnaire. This information will be 
used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject 
merchandise in order to report the relevant factors of production 
(FOPs).
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, although there 
may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers 
to describe HFCs, it may be that only a select few product 
characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical 
characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the 
order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching 
products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important 
physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics 
last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed 
by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, August 4, 2015, which is 20 calendar days 
from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be 
filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, August 14, 2015. All comments and 
submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using 
ACCESS, as explained above.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

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

[[Page 43389]]

addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of 
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions 
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to law.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \12\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
Petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that HFCs constitute a 
single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in 
terms of that domestic like product.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Certain Hydrofluorocarbon Blends and Certain Single 
Hydrofluorocarbon Components Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China (Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry 
Support for the Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Certain 
Hydrofluorocarbon Blends and Certain Single Hydrofluorocarbon 
Components Thereof from the People's Republic of China (Attachment 
II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on 
file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS 
is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the 
main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of this 
notice. The petitioners provided their production of HFC blends in 
2014, and estimated the potential maximum U.S. production of HFC blends 
for the entire domestic industry using data on merchant market 
shipments and imports of HFC components.\14\ To establish industry 
support, the petitioners compared their own production of HFC blends to 
estimated potential maximum production of HFC blends for the entire 
domestic industry.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 9-10 and Exhibit I-1; see 
also Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibits II-2 and II-5; Petition 
Supplement, at 11-13 and Exhibits 3 and 4; and Second Petition 
Supplement.
    \15\ Id. For further discussion, see Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, Petition 
Supplements, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that the petitioners have established industry support.\16\ 
First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or 
workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required 
to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling).\17\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) 
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the 
Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product.\18\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) 
have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.\19\ 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \17\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \18\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C), (D), and (F) of the Act and they have 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD 
investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise sold at less than fair value. In addition, the petitioners 
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided 
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 37-38; see also Petition 
Supplement, at 13 and Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression 
or suppression; lost sales and revenues; negative impact on domestic 
industry capacity, capacity utilization, and employment; and negative 
impact on domestic industry sales revenues and operating profits.\22\ 
We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding 
material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have 
determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate 
evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-4, 39-52; see also 
Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibits II-1 through II-3 and II-5 
through II-13; and Petition Supplement, at 13-14 and Exhibits 5-6.
    \23\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of 
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 
Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Certain Hydrofluorocarbon Blends 
and Certain Single Hydrofluorocarbon Components Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate an investigation of imports of HFCs from the PRC. The sources 
of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and 
normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the initiation 
checklist.

Export Price

    The petitioners based export price (EP) on price lists and PRC 
export data.\24\ The petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for 
certain movement expenses consistent with the delivery terms.\25\ Where 
applicable, the petitioners also deducted from U.S. price sales 
commission and trading company mark-ups estimated using the 
petitioners' knowledge of the PRC HFC industry.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Initiation Checklist. The petitioners also based EP on 
prices calculated from other pricing data but we have not relied on 
these prices for purposes of initiation.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    The Department has always treated the PRC as a non-market economy 
(NME) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 
presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the 
Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been 
revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for 
purposes of the initiation of

[[Page 43390]]

this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately 
based on FOPs valued in a surrogate market economy country, in 
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this 
investigation, all parties, and the public, will have the opportunity 
to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME 
status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.
    The petitioners claim that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate 
country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer 
of the merchandise under consideration, and the data for valuing FOPs, 
factory overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, 
and profit are both available and reliable.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information provided by the petitioners, we believe it 
is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for initiation 
purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit 
comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled 
date of the preliminary determination.

Factors of Production

    The petitioners based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on 
petitioning U.S. producers' consumption rates for producing HFCs.\28\ 
The petitioners valued the estimated factors of production for most 
material using surrogate values from Thailand.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 55-56.
    \29\ See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit III-6; see also 
Petition Supplement, at 16-17 and Exhibit 8. Additionally, in 
certain cases, the petitioners used surrogate values from Bulgaria, 
as discussed in ``Valuation of Raw Materials,'' above. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Raw Materials

    The petitioners valued the FOPs for raw materials (e.g., 
hydrofluoric acid, methylene chloride, lime, caustic soda, sodium 
sulfite, etc.) using reasonably available, public import data for 
Thailand from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the POI.\30\ In 
addition, the petitioners valued the FOPs for 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 
chlorine, and hydrogen chloride using reasonably available, public 
import data for Bulgaria from the GTA for the POI because the 
petitioners claim that the Thai import data for these materials were 
either aberrational or did not exist.\31\ The petitioners excluded all 
import values from countries previously determined by the Department to 
maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and 
from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME 
countries. In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, 
the average import value excludes imports that were labeled as 
originating from an unidentified country. The Department determines 
that the surrogate values in the petition are those that are reasonably 
available to the petitioners and, thus, are acceptable for purposes of 
initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
    \31\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 56-57; see also Petition 
Supplement, at 14-16. Bulgaria has also recently been found to be a 
level of economic development comparable to the PRC by the 
Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Labor

    The petitioners valued labor using data published by Thailand's 
National Statistics Office (NSO).\32\ Specifically, the petitioners 
relied on Thai NSO data for the manufacturing industry (public and 
private) for the fourth quarter of 2014 and the first quarter of 2015. 
As the Thai wage data are monthly data denominated in Thai Baht, the 
petitioners converted these wage rates to hourly rates and then 
converted them to U.S. dollars using the average exchange rate during 
the POI.\33\ The petitioners then applied that resulting labor rate to 
the labor hours expended by a U.S. producer of HFCs.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit III-11.
    \33\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 59.
    \34\ See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit III-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Energy

    The petitioners used published rates by the Electricity Generating 
Authority of Thailand (EGAT) for 2013 to value electricity.\35\ The 
petitioners adjusted the EGAT rate information for inflation using the 
International Monetary Fund's producer price index and converted to 
U.S. dollars.\36\ The petitioners calculated the cost of natural gas in 
Thailand using the average unit value of imports of liquid natural gas 
for the period, as reported by GTA.\37\ Using universal conversion 
factors, the petitioners converted that cost to the U.S. producer-
reported factor unit of million British thermal units to ensure the 
proper comparison.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Volume I of the Petition, at page 58 and Volume III of 
the Petition, at Exhibit III-10.
    \36\ See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibits III-6 and III-
10.
    \37\ Id., at Exhibit III-6.
    \38\ Id., at Exhibit III-10; see also Petition Supplement, at 
17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Factory Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit

    The petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (i.e., 
manufacturing overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit) using the 2013 
audited financial statements of Air Liquide, Air Products, and Bangkok 
Industrial Gas, Thai producers of comparable merchandise (i.e., 
industrial gases).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 59; see also Petition 
Supplement, at Exhibit 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of HFCs from the PRC are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on 
comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, 
the estimated dumping margins for HFCs from the PRC range from 111.20 
to 300.30 percent.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Initiation Checklist; see also Petition Supplement, at 
Exhibit 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-than-Fair-Value Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the Petition on HFCs from the PRC, we 
find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the 
Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine 
whether imports of HFCs from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with 
section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless 
postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 
days after the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    The petitioners named 44 companies as producers/exporters of 
HFCs.\41\ In accordance with our standard practice for respondent 
selection in AD cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue 
quantity-and-value (Q&V) questionnaires to each potential respondent 
for which we have a complete address, and base respondent selection on 
the responses received. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V 
questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and 
Compliance Web site at https://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See the Volume I of the Petition, at 27 and Volume III of 
the Petition, at Exhibit III-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exporters/producers of HFCs from the PRC that do not receive Q&V 
questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V 
questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance 
Web site.

[[Page 43391]]

The Q&V response must be submitted by all PRC exporters/producers no 
later than 5:00 p.m. ET on July 29, 2015, which is two weeks from the 
signature date of this notice. With very limited exceptions, all Q&V 
responses should be filed electronically via ACCESS.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See, e.g., 19 CFR 351.303(b)(2)(ii)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.\43\ 
The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in 
the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, 
which is available on the Department's Web site at https://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate 
application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation 
notice.\44\ Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate 
application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be 
eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they 
respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory 
respondents. The Department requires that respondents from the PRC 
submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate 
application by 5:00 p.m. ET on their respective deadlines in order to 
receive consideration for separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 
https://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 
05.1).
    \44\ Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, 
consistent with section 351.301 (a) of the Department's regulations, 
which states that ``the Secretary may request any person to submit 
factual information at any time during a proceeding,'' this deadline 
is now 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME 
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin 
states:

    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise 
to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both 
to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated 
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms 
receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. 
This practice is referred to as the application of ``combination 
rates'' because such rates apply to specific combinations of 
exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned 
to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the 
firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 
during the period of investigation.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been 
provided to the government of the PRC via ACCESS. To the extent 
practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of 
the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of HFCs from the PRC are materially injuring or 
threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.\46\ A negative ITC 
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; \47\ 
otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence 
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any 
party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which 
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 
and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 
factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation 
identifying the information already on the record that the factual 
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the 
submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, 
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to 
submitting factual information in this investigation.

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise 
specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time 
limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions that are due 
from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. 
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time 
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for 
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such 
a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting 
forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension 
requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request 
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited 
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension 
of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 
20, 2013), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this 
investigation.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD proceeding must 
certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\48\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their 
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions 
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD 
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the 
formats for the revised certifications found in the Department's 
regulations at 19 CFR 351.303(g).\49\ The Department intends to reject 
factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with

[[Page 43392]]

the applicable revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \49\ See also Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (for additional information 
about the certification requirements); see also frequently asked 
questions regarding the Final Rule, available at: https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the 
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3627 (January 
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should 
ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the 
filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

     Dated: July 15, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I--Scope of the Investigation

    The products subject to this investigation are blended 
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and single HFC components of those blends 
thereof, whether or not imported for blending. HFC blends covered by 
the scope are R-404, a zeotropic mixture consisting of 52 percent 
1,1,1-Trifluoroethane, 44 percent Pentafluoroethane, and 4 percent 
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane; R-407A, a zeotropic mixture of 20 percent 
Difluoromethane, 40 percent Pentafluoroethane, and 40 percent 
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane; R-407C, a zeotropic mixture of 23 percent 
Difluoromethane, 25 percent Pentafluoroethane, and 52 percent 
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane; R-410A, a zeotropic mixture of 50 percent 
Difluoromethane and 50 percent Pentafluoroethane; and R-507A, an 
azeotropic mixture of 50 percent Pentafluoroethane and 50 percent 
1,1,1-Trifluoroethane also known as R-507. The foregoing percentages 
are nominal percentages by weight. Actual percentages of single 
component refrigerants by weight may vary by plus or minus two 
percent points from the nominal percentage identified above.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ R-404A is sold under various trade names, including 
Forane[supreg] 404A, Genetron[supreg] 404A, Solkane[supreg] 404A, 
Klea[supreg] 404A, and Suva[supreg]404A. R-407A is sold under 
various trade names, including Forane[supreg] 407A, Solkane[supreg] 
407A, Klea[supreg]407A, and Suva[supreg]407A. R-407C is sold under 
various trade names, including Forane[supreg] 407C, Genetron[supreg] 
407C, Solkane[supreg] 407C, Klea[supreg] 407C and Suva[supreg] 407C. 
R-410A is sold under various trade names, including EcoFluor R410, 
Forane[supreg] 410A, Genetron[supreg] R410A and AZ-20, 
Solkane[supreg] 410A, Klea[supreg] 410A, Suva[supreg] 410A, and 
Puron[supreg]. R-507A is sold under various trade names, including 
Forane[supreg] 507, Solkane[supreg] 507, Klea[supreg]507, 
Genetron[supreg]AZ-50, and Suva[supreg]507. R-32 is sold under 
various trade names, including Solkane[supreg]32, Forane[supreg]32, 
and Klea[supreg]32. R-125 is sold under various trade names, 
including Solkane[supreg]125, Klea[supreg]125, Genetron[supreg]125, 
and Forane[supreg]125. R-143a is sold under various trade names, 
including Solkane[supreg]143a, Genetron[supreg]143a, and 
Forane[supreg]125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The single component HFCs covered by the scope are R-32, R-125, 
and R-143a. R-32 or Difluoromethane has the chemical formula 
CH2F2, and is registered as CAS No. 75-10-5. 
It may also be known as HFC-32, FC-32, Freon-32, Methylene 
difluoride, Methylene fluoride, Carbon fluoride hydride, halocarbon 
R32, fluorocarbon R32, and UN 3252. R-125 or 1,1,1,2,2-
Pentafluoroethane has the chemical formula 
CF3CHF2 and is registered as CAS No. 354-33-6. 
R-125 may also be known as R-125, HFC-125, Pentafluoroethane, Freon 
125, and Fc-125, R-125. R-143a or 1,1,1-Trifluoroethane has the 
chemical formula CF3CH3 and is registered as 
CAS No. 420-46-2. R-143a may also be known as R-143a, HFC-143a, 
Methylfluoroform, 1,1,1-Trifluoroform, and UN2035.
    Excluded from this investigation are blends of refrigerant 
chemicals that include products other than HFCs, such as blends 
including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) or hydrochlorofluorocarbons 
(HCFCs).
    Also excluded from this investigation are patented HFC blends, 
such as ISCEON[supreg] blends, including MO99TM (RR-
438A), MO79 (R-422A), MO59 (R-417A), MO49PlusTM (R-437A) 
and MO29TM (R-4 22D), and Genetron[supreg] 
PerformaxTM LT (R-407F).
    HFC blends covered by the scope of this investigation are 
currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS) at subheading 3824.78.0000. Single component HFCs are 
currently classified at subheading 2903.39.2030, HTSUS. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
scope is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2015-17984 Filed 7-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P