1, 1, 1, 2-Tetrafluoroethane From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less Than Fair Value Investigation, 18830-18835 [2016-07316]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
18830
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices
Dated: March 29, 2016.
Gary Taverman,
Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
Information Required From Interested
Parties
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews
can be very short, we urge interested
parties who want access to proprietary
information under administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) to file an APO
application immediately following
publication in the Federal Register of
this notice of initiation. The
Department’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.
1, 1, 1, 2-Tetrafluoroethane From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation
of Less Than Fair Value Investigation
Domestic interested parties, as
defined in section 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 the
Department’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, the
Department will automatically revoke
the order without further review.6
If we receive an order-specific notice
of intent to participate from a domestic
interested party, the Department’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 the Department’s
information requirements are distinct
from the Commission’s information
requirements. Consult the Department’s
regulations for information regarding
the Department’s conduct of Sunset
Reviews. Consult the Department’s
regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for
definitions of terms and for other
general information concerning
antidumping and countervailing duty
proceedings at the Department.
This notice of initiation is being
published in accordance with section
751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
6 See
19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Mar 31, 2016
Jkt 238001
[FR Doc. 2016–07452 Filed 3–31–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–044]
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: March 23, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keith Haynes at (202) 482–5139, AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petition
On March 3, 2016, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received an
antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition
concerning imports of 1,1,1,2Tetrafluoroethane (‘‘R–134a’’) 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 (‘‘IAMAW’’)
(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’).2
On March 8, 2016, the Department
requested additional information and
clarification of certain areas of the
Petition.3 Petitioners submitted the
requested information and clarification
to the Department on March 11, 2016.4
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
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 1, 1, 1, 2-Tetrafluoroethane (R–
134a) from the People’s Republic of China, dated
March 3, 2016 (‘‘Petition’’).
3 See the Department’s letter to Petitioners,
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
on Imports of 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R–134a)
from the People’s Republic of China: Supplemental
Questions,’’ dated March 8, 2016 (‘‘Supplemental
Questionnaire’’).
4 See Petitioners’ response, ‘‘Petitioners’ Response
to the Department’s March 8, 2016 Supplemental
Questionnaire,’’ dated March 11, 2016 (‘‘Petition
Supplement’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Act’’), Petitioners alleged that imports of
R–134a 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, the Petition is accompanied by
information reasonably available to
Petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because Petitioners
are interested parties as defined in
sections 771(9)(C),(D), and (F) of the
Act. The Department also finds that
Petitioners demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
initiation of the AD investigation that
Petitioners are requesting.5
Period of Investigation
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1),
because the Petition was filed on March
3, 2016, the period of investigation
(‘‘POI’’) is July 1, 2015 through
December 31, 2015.
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this
investigation is R–134a 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, 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
industry is seeking relief.6
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations,7 we are
setting aside a period for interested
parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage (scope). The Department will
consider all comments received from
parties and, if necessary, will 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. In order to facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests all interested
parties to submit such comments by
5 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition’’ section, below.
6 See Supplemental Questionnaire and Petition
Supplement.
7 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (‘‘ET’’) on
Tuesday, April 12, 2016, 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,
April 22, 2016, which is 10 calendar
days after the initial comments
deadline.
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’’).8 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.
Comments on Product Characteristics
for AD Questionnaires
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The Department requests comments
from interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of
R–134a to be reported in response to the
Department’s AD questionnaires. This
information will be used to identify the
key physical characteristics of the
subject merchandise in order to report
the relevant factors and costs of
production accurately as well as to
develop appropriate productcomparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any
information or comments that they feel
8 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR
39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System
Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) 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%20
Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Mar 31, 2016
Jkt 238001
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) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is
not always appropriate to use all
product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products.
In other words, although there may be
some physical product characteristics
utilized by manufacturers to describe R–
134a, 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 questionnaires, all
comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET
on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, which is
twenty calendar days from the signature
date of this notice. Any rebuttal
comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET
on Tuesday, April 19, 2016, which is
seven calendar days from the initial
comments deadline. All comments and
submissions to the Department must be
filed electronically using ACCESS, as
explained above, on the record of this
investigation.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18831
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,9 they do so
for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In
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.10
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, 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 R–
134a, as defined in the scope,
constitutes a single domestic like
product and we have analyzed industry
support in terms of that domestic like
product.11
9 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988),
aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
11 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see the Department’s
memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane from
the People’s Republic of China,’’ (‘‘Initiation
Checklist’’) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Antidumping Duty Petition
Covering 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane 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.
10 See
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
18832
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In determining whether 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. To establish
industry support, Petitioners provided
the 2015 production of the domestic like
product by the members of the
American HFC Coalition that produce
R–134a in the United States (Arkema
Inc., The Chemours Company FC LLC,
and Mexichem Fluor Inc.).12 Petitioners
state that these three companies are the
only known producers of R–134a in the
United States; therefore, the Petition is
supported by 100 percent of the U.S.
industry.13
Our review of the data provided in the
Petition and other information readily
available to the Department indicates
that Petitioners have established
industry support.14 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).15 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.16 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.17 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.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because they are
interested parties as defined in sections
12 See
Petition, at 7.
at 7 and Exhibit I–1 (1,1,1,2Tetrafluoroethane from China, Inv. Nos. 701–TA–
509 and 731–TA–1244 (Final), USITC Pub. 4503
(December 2014), at 3 and III–1 through III–2).
14 See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
15 See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
16 See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
17 Id.
13 Id.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Mar 31, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.18
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
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 normal
value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.19
Petitioners contend that the industry’s
injured condition is illustrated by
reduced market share, underselling and
price suppression or depression,
adverse impact on capacity, capacity
utilization, and employment, decline in
shipments and output, negative impact
on sales revenues and operating profits,
and lost sales and revenues.20 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.21
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value
The following is a description of the
allegations of sales at less-than-fair
value upon which the Department based
its decision to initiate an investigation
of imports of R–134a from the PRC. The
sources of data for the deductions and
adjustments relating to U.S. price and
NV are discussed in greater detail in the
Initiation Checklist.
Export Price
Petitioners based export price (‘‘EP’’)
on several sources in order to reflect the
various packaging of R–134a.22 First,
Petitioners used price lists distributed to
the service and replacement market by
suppliers of Chinese R–134a.23 Second,
Petitioners relied on specific
competitive quotes for sales in the U.S.
18 Id.
19 See
Petition, at 25 and Exhibit II–1A.
at 2–5, 17–19, 25–45 and Exhibits II–1 and
II–3 through II–13.
21 See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
‘‘Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Antidumping Duty
Petition Covering 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R–
134a) from the People’s Republic of China.’’
22 For further discussion regarding the prices used
as the basis for export price, see Initiation Checklist.
23 See Petition, at 54 and Exhibits II–6 and III–20;
see also Petition Supplement, at 2–3 and Exhibit 2
and 7.
20 Id.,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
market, by suppliers of the Chinese
product that resulted in lost sales.24
Third, the Petitioners relied on average
unit values of R–134a imports from the
PRC for the POI, based on official U.S.
import statistics obtained from the ITC’s
DataWeb for the relevant HTSUS
subheading for R–134a (HTSUS
2903.39.2020).25 Fourth, Petitioners
relied on internet price offers from
suppliers in the PRC for the sale of
merchandise to a U.S. customer during
the period of investigation.26 Finally,
Petitioners relied upon trade statistics
obtained from a proprietary source.27
Where applicable, Petitioners made
adjustments to the prices for cost,
insurance, and freight charges and sales
commissions/sales mark-ups.28
Normal Value
Petitioners note that, for purposes of
the antidumping statute, the Department
treats the PRC as a nonmarket economy
(‘‘NME’’) country.29 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 NME status for the PRC has not
been revoked by the Department and,
therefore, remains in effect for purposes
of the initiation of this investigation.
Accordingly, the NV of the product is
appropriately based on factors of
production (‘‘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.
Petitioners claim that Mexico 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 comparable merchandise,
24 See Petition, at 54 and Exhibits II–10 and III–
20; see also Petition Supplement, at 2 and Exhibits
1, 2, and 7.
25 See Petition, at 54–55 and Exhibit III–18 and
III–20; see also Petition Supplement, at Exhibit 7.
26 See Petition, at 54–55 and Exhibits III–19 and
III–20; see also Petition Supplement, at 3 and
Exhibit 7.
27 See Petition Supplement, at Exhibit 2. Whereas
Petitioners’ initial margin calculations used the
price average for only one month of this data,
consistent with Department’s past practice with
respect to using average unit value data as the basis
for U.S. price is to rely on data for the entire POI
(or as many months of the POI as were available at
the time the Petition was filed), we have
recalculated Petitioners’ submitted price using
average unit values for the full POI. See Attachment
V to the Initiation Checklist.
28 See Petition, at 55–56 and Exhibits III–6, III–
18, and III–20; see also Petition Supplement, at
Exhibit 7.
29 See Petition, at 46.
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices
and reliable surrogate factor data for
Mexico are available.30
Based on the information provided by
Petitioners, we consider it appropriate
to use Mexico as the 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
Petitioners based the FOPs for
materials, labor, and energy on the
production experience of a domestic
producer of R–134a, as they did not
have access to the consumption rates of
PRC producers of R–134a.31 Petitioners
state that the domestic producer’s
production process is the same as that
of the Chinese producers.32 Petitioners
estimated FOPs for the purposes of
calculating NV using surrogate prices
sourced from Mexican import data, as
applied to the domestic producer’s
reported factor usage rates.33
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Valuation of Raw Materials
For direct materials, Petitioners
valued these inputs based on publicly
available Mexican import data obtained
from the Global Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’) for
the period covering June 2015 through
November 2015, the most recent POIcontemporaneous data available at the
time the Petition was filed.34 Petitioners
excluded all import data from countries
previously determined by the
Department to maintain broadly
available, non-industry-specific export
subsidies, as well as countries
previously determined by the
Department to be NME countries.35 In
addition, in accordance with the
Department’s practice, Petitioners
excluded imports that were labeled as
originating from an unidentified
country.36 To calculate a surrogate value
for anhydrous hydrogen fluoride,
Petitioners excluded July 2015 imports
from Germany from the full dataset for
Mexican imports under HTS 2911.11.01
(‘‘hydrogen fluoride (hydrofluoric acid),
technical grade’’), which they contend
to be aberrational.37 Petitioners
30 Id.,
at 47–49 and Exhibits III–1 through III–4.
at 50 and Exhibit II–6; see also Petition
Supplement, at 4–5 and Exhibit 3.
32 See Petition, at 50 and Exhibit II–12.
33 Id., at 50 and Exhibit III–7
34 Id., at 50–51 and Exhibit III–8.
35 Id., at 51.
36 Id., at Exhibit III–8.
37 Id., at 51–52 and Exhibits III–11 and III–12; see
also Petition Supplement, at 5–6 and Exhibit 4 .
31 Id.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Mar 31, 2016
Jkt 238001
18833
converted the GTA import values from
Mexican pesos to U.S. dollars using the
POI-average exchange rate.38
company—Quimobasicos S.A. de C.V—
produces comparable merchandise (R–
22) in Mexico.47
Valuation of Labor
Petitioners valued labor using data
specific to the ‘‘manufacture of other
chemical products (ISIC-Rev.3)’’ in
Mexico published by the International
Labor Organization (‘‘ILO’’).39
Specifically, Petitioners based their
calculations on 2008 Mexico ILO data
for labor, which they inflated to be
contemporaneous with the POI and
converted from Mexican pesos to U.S.
dollars using the POI exchange rate.40
Fair Value Comparisons
Valuation of Packing Materials
Petitioners valued packing inputs
using Mexican GTA import data for the
period covering June 2015 to November
2015.41
Valuation of Energy
Petitioners calculated consumption
rates for electricity based on the
production experience of a domestic
producer.42 Petitioners valued
electricity based on published data by
the International Energy Agency (‘‘IEA’’)
for the most recent period for which
data are available, i.e., April 2015—
September 2015.43 Petitioners converted
the electricity rates from Mexican pesos
per kilowatt hour into U.S. dollars per
kilowatt hour.44 Additionally,
Petitioners calculated consumption
rates of natural gas based on the
production experience of a domestic
producer.45 Petitioners converted the
natural gas consumption rate
calculation from a million BTU to a
kilogram basis and then converted the
natural gas rates from Mexican pesos
into U.S. dollars.46
Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling,
General and Administrative Expenses,
and Profit
Petitioners calculated surrogate
financial ratios (i.e., manufacturing
overhead, selling, general and
administrative expenses, and profit)
based on the 2014 financial statements
of Mexichem S.A.B. de C.V., a producer
of hydrogen fluoride (the major raw
material used in R–134a production) in
Mexico, and CYDSA, whose subsidiary
38 See Petition, at 51; see also Petition
Supplement, at 6 and Exhibits 5 and 6.
39 See Petition, at 53 and Exhibit III–14.
40 Id., at Exhibit III–8; see also Petition
Supplement, at Exhibit 6.
41 See Petition, at Exhibit III–14.
42 Id., at 52 and Exhibit III–13.
43 Id.
44 Id., at 53; see also Petition Supplement, at
Exhibit 6.
45 See Petition, at Exhibit III–5.
46 Id., at Exhibit III–6.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Based on the data provided by
Petitioners, there is reason to believe
that imports of R–134a 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
R–134a from the PRC range from 153.68
to 220.87 percent.48
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigation
Based upon the examination of the
AD Petition on R–134a 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 R–134a 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 determinations no later
than 140 days after the date of this
initiation.
On June 29, 2015, the President of the
United States signed into law the Trade
Preferences Extension Act of 2015,
which made certain amendments to the
AD and CVD law.49 The 2015 law does
not specify dates of application for those
amendments. On August 6, 2015, the
Department published an interpretative
rule, in which it announced the
applicability dates for each amendment
to the Act, except for amendments
contained in section 771(7) of the Act,
which relate to determinations of
material injury by the ITC.50 The
amendments to sections 771(15), 773,
776, and 782 of the Act are applicable
to all determinations made on or after
August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to
this AD investigation.51
Respondent Selection
Petitioners named thirty-three
companies from the PRC as producers/
47 Id.,
at 53–54 and Exhibits III–15 through III–17.
Petition Supplement, at 7 and Exhibit 7;
see also Initiation Checklist, at Attachment V
‘‘Revised Margin Calculation’’.
49 See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015,
Pub. L. 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
50 See Dates of Application of Amendments to the
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made
by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80
FR 46793 (August 6, 2015).
51 Id., at 46794–95. The 2015 amendments may be
found at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
48 See
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
18834
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices
exporters of R–134a.52 Consistentwith
our practice for respondent selection in
cases involving NME countries, we
intend to issue quantity and value
(‘‘Q&V’’) questionnaires to potential
respondents 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.
Exporters/producers of R–134a 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.
The Q&V response must be submitted
by the relevant PRC exporters/producers
no later than April 6, 2016, which is two
weeks from the signature date of this
notice. All Q&V responses must be filed
electronically via ACCESS.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status
in an NME investigation, exporters and
producers must submit a separate-rate
application.53 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-seprate.html. The separate-rate application
will be due 30 days after publication of
this initiation notice.54 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 separaterate application by their respective
deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status.
Use of Combination Rates
The Department will calculate
combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in an NME investigation.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
52 See
Petition, at 17 and Exhibit I–9.
53 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’’).
54 Although in past investigations this deadline
was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a),
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Mar 31, 2016
Jkt 238001
The Separate Rates and Combination
Rates Bulletin states:
{w}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.55
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 will notify 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
R–134a from the PRC are materially
injuring or threatening material injury to
a U.S. industry.56 A negative ITC
determination will result in this
investigation being terminated; 57
otherwise, this investigation will
proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
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
55 See
56 See
Policy Bulletin 05.1, at 6.
section 733(a) of the Act.
57 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the record by the Department; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). Any party, when
submitting factual information, must
specify under which subsection of 19
CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is
being submitted 58 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.59 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 these investigations.
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
time limit established under 19 CFR
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 19 CFR 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. ET
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; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790
(September 20, 2013), available at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201309-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to
submitting factual information in this
investigation.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify to the accuracy
and completeness of that information.60
Parties are hereby reminded that revised
certification requirements are in effect
58 See
19 CFR 351.301(b).
19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
60 See section 782(b) of the Act.
59 See
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Notices
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 or
CVD proceedings initiated on or after
August 16, 2013, should use the formats
for the revised certifications provided at
the end of the Certification Final Rule.61
The Department intends to reject factual
submissions if the submitting party does
not comply with applicable revised
certification requirements.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order (‘‘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 3634 (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: March 23, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The product subject to this investigation is
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, R–134a, or its
chemical equivalent, regardless of form, type,
or purity level. The chemical formula for
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane is CF3-CH2F, and
the Chemical Abstracts Service registry
number is CAS 811–97–2.62
Merchandise covered by the scope of this
investigation is currently classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading
2903.39.2020. Although the HTSUS
subheading and CAS registry number are
provided for convenience and customs
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
61 See
Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration during Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (‘‘Certification Final Rule’’); see also
frequently asked questions regarding the
Certification Final Rule, available at: https://
enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_
final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
62 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane is sold under a
number of trade names including Klea 134a and
Zephex 134a (Mexichem Fluor); Genetron 134a
(Honeywell); FreonTM 134a, Suva 134a, Dymel
134a, and Dymel P134a (Chemours); Solkane 134a
(Solvay); and Forane 134a (Arkema). Generically,
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane has been sold as
Fluorocarbon 134a, R–134a, HFC–134a, HF A–134a,
Refrigerant 134a, and UN3159.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:25 Mar 31, 2016
Jkt 238001
purposes, the written description of the
scope is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2016–07316 Filed 3–31–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE524
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
General Provisions for Domestic
Fisheries; Application for Exempted
Fishing Permit
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
The Assistant Regional
Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries,
Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has
made a preliminary determination that
an Exempted Fishing Permit application
submitted by the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center contains all of the
required information and warrants
further consideration.
Regulations under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act require publication of
this notification to provide interested
parties the opportunity to comment on
Exempted Fishing Permit applications.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 18, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written
comments by any of the following
methods:
• Email: nmfs.gar.efp@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line ‘‘Comments
on NEFSC Study Fleet EFP.’’
• Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great
Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Mark the outside of the envelope
‘‘Comments on NEFSC Study Fleet
EFP.’’
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Luers, Fishery Management
Specialist, 978–282–8457,
Daniel.Luers@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
(NEFSC) submitted a complete
application for an Exempted Fishing
Permit (EFP) on March 4, 2016, to
enable data collection activities that the
regulations on commercial fishing
would otherwise restrict. The EFP
would exempt 36 federally permitted
commercial fishing vessels from the
regulations detailed below while
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18835
participating in the Study Fleet Program
and operating under projects managed
by the NEFSC. The EFP would exempt
participating vessels from: Minimum
fish size restrictions; fish possession
limits for species not protected under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA); gearspecific fish possession restrictions for
the purpose of at-sea sampling; and, in
limited situations for research purposes
only, retaining and landing prohibited
fish species.
The NEFSC Study Fleet Program was
established in 2002 to more fully
characterize commercial fishing
operations and to leverage sampling
opportunities to augment NMFS data
collection programs. Participating
vessels are contracted by NEFSC to
collect tow-by-tow catch and
environmental data, and to fulfill
specific biological sampling needs
identified by NEFSC. To collect these
data, the NEFSC Study Fleet Program
has obtained an EFP to secure the
necessary waivers needed by the vessels
to possess and land fish that would
otherwise be prohibited by regulations.
Fishing vessel crews trained by the
NEFSC Study Fleet Program would sort,
weigh, and measure fish that are to be
discarded. In the course of sampling,
some discarded species would be on
deck slightly longer than under normal
sorting procedures, which requires an
exemption from the following
restrictions: Minimum fish size; fish
possession limits; prohibited fish
species, not including species protected
under the ESA; and gear-specific fish
possession restrictions for at-sea
sampling.
Participating vessels would also be
authorized to retain and land, in limited
situations for research purposes only,
fish species and/or sizes that are not in
compliance with fishing regulations.
The vessels would be authorized to
retain specific amounts of particular
species in whole or round weight
condition, which would be delivered
upon landing to Study Fleet Program
technicians. To ensure that the
collection needs of the Study Fleet
Program are not exceeded, NEFSC
would require participating vessels to
obtain a formal Biological Sampling
Request from the NEFSC Study Fleet
Program prior to landing any sublegal
fish. None of the landed biological
samples from these trips would be sold
for commercial use or utilized for any
purpose other than scientific research.
The table below details the
regulations from which the participating
vessels would be exempt when retaining
and landing fish for research purposes.
The participating vessels would be
obligated to comply with all applicable
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18830-18835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07316]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-044]
1, 1, 1, 2-Tetrafluoroethane 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: March 23, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Haynes at (202) 482-5139, 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 March 3, 2016, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
received an antidumping duty (``AD'') petition concerning imports of
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (``R-134a'') 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
(``IAMAW'') (collectively, ``Petitioners'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 1, 1, 1, 2-Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) from the People's
Republic of China, dated March 3, 2016 (``Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 8, 2016, the Department requested additional information
and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.\3\ Petitioners
submitted the requested information and clarification to the Department
on March 11, 2016.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the Department's letter to Petitioners, ``Petition for
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 1,1,1,2-
Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) from the People's Republic of China:
Supplemental Questions,'' dated March 8, 2016 (``Supplemental
Questionnaire'').
\4\ See Petitioners' response, ``Petitioners' Response to the
Department's March 8, 2016 Supplemental Questionnaire,'' dated March
11, 2016 (``Petition Supplement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), Petitioners alleged that imports of R-134a 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, the Petition is accompanied by
information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting their
allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as
defined in sections 771(9)(C),(D), and (F) of the Act. The Department
also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support
with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that Petitioners
are requesting.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petition'' section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), because the Petition was filed on
March 3, 2016, the period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2015
through December 31, 2015.
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is R-134a 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, 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 industry is
seeking relief.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Supplemental Questionnaire and Petition Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\7\ we
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all
comments received from parties and, if necessary, will 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.
In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by
[[Page 18831]]
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (``ET'') on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, 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, April 22, 2016, which is 10 calendar days after the
initial comments deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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'').\8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046
(November 20, 2014) 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 Questionnaires
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding
the appropriate physical characteristics of R-134a to be reported in
response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will
be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject
merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of
production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-
comparison criteria.
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 R-134a, 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 questionnaires, all comments must be
filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, which is twenty
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal
comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, April 19, 2016,
which is seven calendar days from the initial comments deadline. All
comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of this investigation.
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,\9\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\10\ 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, 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 R-134a, as defined in the scope,
constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed
industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see the Department's memorandum, ``Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane from
the People's Republic of China,'' (``Initiation Checklist'') at
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping Duty
Petition Covering 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18832]]
In determining whether 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. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided the 2015
production of the domestic like product by the members of the American
HFC Coalition that produce R-134a in the United States (Arkema Inc.,
The Chemours Company FC LLC, and Mexichem Fluor Inc.).\12\ Petitioners
state that these three companies are the only known producers of R-134a
in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100
percent of the U.S. industry.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Petition, at 7.
\13\ Id., at 7 and Exhibit I-1 (1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane from
China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-509 and 731-TA-1244 (Final), USITC Pub. 4503
(December 2014), at 3 and III-1 through III-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other
information readily available to the Department indicates that
Petitioners have established industry support.\14\ 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).\15\
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.\16\ 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.\17\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\15\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
\16\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
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 normal value (``NV''). In addition, Petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Petition, at 25 and Exhibit II-1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price suppression
or depression, adverse impact on capacity, capacity utilization, and
employment, decline in shipments and output, negative impact on sales
revenues and operating profits, and lost sales and revenues.\20\ 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id., at 2-5, 17-19, 25-45 and Exhibits II-1 and II-3
through II-13.
\21\ See Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, ``Analysis of
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Antidumping Duty Petition Covering 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R-
134a) from the People's Republic of China.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-
than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate an investigation of imports of R-134a from the PRC. The
sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S.
price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Initiation
Checklist.
Export Price
Petitioners based export price (``EP'') on several sources in order
to reflect the various packaging of R-134a.\22\ First, Petitioners used
price lists distributed to the service and replacement market by
suppliers of Chinese R-134a.\23\ Second, Petitioners relied on specific
competitive quotes for sales in the U.S. market, by suppliers of the
Chinese product that resulted in lost sales.\24\ Third, the Petitioners
relied on average unit values of R-134a imports from the PRC for the
POI, based on official U.S. import statistics obtained from the ITC's
DataWeb for the relevant HTSUS subheading for R-134a (HTSUS
2903.39.2020).\25\ Fourth, Petitioners relied on internet price offers
from suppliers in the PRC for the sale of merchandise to a U.S.
customer during the period of investigation.\26\ Finally, Petitioners
relied upon trade statistics obtained from a proprietary source.\27\
Where applicable, Petitioners made adjustments to the prices for cost,
insurance, and freight charges and sales commissions/sales mark-
ups.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ For further discussion regarding the prices used as the
basis for export price, see Initiation Checklist.
\23\ See Petition, at 54 and Exhibits II-6 and III-20; see also
Petition Supplement, at 2-3 and Exhibit 2 and 7.
\24\ See Petition, at 54 and Exhibits II-10 and III-20; see also
Petition Supplement, at 2 and Exhibits 1, 2, and 7.
\25\ See Petition, at 54-55 and Exhibit III-18 and III-20; see
also Petition Supplement, at Exhibit 7.
\26\ See Petition, at 54-55 and Exhibits III-19 and III-20; see
also Petition Supplement, at 3 and Exhibit 7.
\27\ See Petition Supplement, at Exhibit 2. Whereas Petitioners'
initial margin calculations used the price average for only one
month of this data, consistent with Department's past practice with
respect to using average unit value data as the basis for U.S. price
is to rely on data for the entire POI (or as many months of the POI
as were available at the time the Petition was filed), we have
recalculated Petitioners' submitted price using average unit values
for the full POI. See Attachment V to the Initiation Checklist.
\28\ See Petition, at 55-56 and Exhibits III-6, III-18, and III-
20; see also Petition Supplement, at Exhibit 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Petitioners note that, for purposes of the antidumping statute, the
Department treats the PRC as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') country.\29\
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 NME
status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and,
therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this
investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately
based on factors of production (``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Petition, at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners claim that Mexico 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 comparable merchandise,
[[Page 18833]]
and reliable surrogate factor data for Mexico are available.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id., at 47-49 and Exhibits III-1 through III-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided by Petitioners, we consider it
appropriate to use Mexico as the 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
Petitioners based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on the
production experience of a domestic producer of R-134a, as they did not
have access to the consumption rates of PRC producers of R-134a.\31\
Petitioners state that the domestic producer's production process is
the same as that of the Chinese producers.\32\ Petitioners estimated
FOPs for the purposes of calculating NV using surrogate prices sourced
from Mexican import data, as applied to the domestic producer's
reported factor usage rates.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id., at 50 and Exhibit II-6; see also Petition Supplement,
at 4-5 and Exhibit 3.
\32\ See Petition, at 50 and Exhibit II-12.
\33\ Id., at 50 and Exhibit III-7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Raw Materials
For direct materials, Petitioners valued these inputs based on
publicly available Mexican import data obtained from the Global Trade
Atlas (``GTA'') for the period covering June 2015 through November
2015, the most recent POI-contemporaneous data available at the time
the Petition was filed.\34\ Petitioners excluded all import data from
countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly
available, non-industry-specific export subsidies, as well as countries
previously determined by the Department to be NME countries.\35\ In
addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, Petitioners
excluded imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified
country.\36\ To calculate a surrogate value for anhydrous hydrogen
fluoride, Petitioners excluded July 2015 imports from Germany from the
full dataset for Mexican imports under HTS 2911.11.01 (``hydrogen
fluoride (hydrofluoric acid), technical grade''), which they contend to
be aberrational.\37\ Petitioners converted the GTA import values from
Mexican pesos to U.S. dollars using the POI-average exchange rate.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id., at 50-51 and Exhibit III-8.
\35\ Id., at 51.
\36\ Id., at Exhibit III-8.
\37\ Id., at 51-52 and Exhibits III-11 and III-12; see also
Petition Supplement, at 5-6 and Exhibit 4 .
\38\ See Petition, at 51; see also Petition Supplement, at 6 and
Exhibits 5 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Labor
Petitioners valued labor using data specific to the ``manufacture
of other chemical products (ISIC-Rev.3)'' in Mexico published by the
International Labor Organization (``ILO'').\39\ Specifically,
Petitioners based their calculations on 2008 Mexico ILO data for labor,
which they inflated to be contemporaneous with the POI and converted
from Mexican pesos to U.S. dollars using the POI exchange rate.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Petition, at 53 and Exhibit III-14.
\40\ Id., at Exhibit III-8; see also Petition Supplement, at
Exhibit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Packing Materials
Petitioners valued packing inputs using Mexican GTA import data for
the period covering June 2015 to November 2015.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Petition, at Exhibit III-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Energy
Petitioners calculated consumption rates for electricity based on
the production experience of a domestic producer.\42\ Petitioners
valued electricity based on published data by the International Energy
Agency (``IEA'') for the most recent period for which data are
available, i.e., April 2015--September 2015.\43\ Petitioners converted
the electricity rates from Mexican pesos per kilowatt hour into U.S.
dollars per kilowatt hour.\44\ Additionally, Petitioners calculated
consumption rates of natural gas based on the production experience of
a domestic producer.\45\ Petitioners converted the natural gas
consumption rate calculation from a million BTU to a kilogram basis and
then converted the natural gas rates from Mexican pesos into U.S.
dollars.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Id., at 52 and Exhibit III-13.
\43\ Id.
\44\ Id., at 53; see also Petition Supplement, at Exhibit 6.
\45\ See Petition, at Exhibit III-5.
\46\ Id., at Exhibit III-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative
Expenses, and Profit
Petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (i.e.,
manufacturing overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses,
and profit) based on the 2014 financial statements of Mexichem S.A.B.
de C.V., a producer of hydrogen fluoride (the major raw material used
in R-134a production) in Mexico, and CYDSA, whose subsidiary company--
Quimobasicos S.A. de C.V--produces comparable merchandise (R-22) in
Mexico.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Id., at 53-54 and Exhibits III-15 through III-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of R-134a 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 R-134a from the PRC range from 153.68
to 220.87 percent.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Petition Supplement, at 7 and Exhibit 7; see also
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment V ``Revised Margin
Calculation''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation
Based upon the examination of the AD Petition on R-134a 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 R-134a 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 determinations no later than
140 days after the date of this initiation.
On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into
law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made certain
amendments to the AD and CVD law.\49\ The 2015 law does not specify
dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the
Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the
applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for
amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to
determinations of material injury by the ITC.\50\ The amendments to
sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all
determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply
to this AD investigation.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-
27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
\50\ See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension
Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015).
\51\ Id., at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent Selection
Petitioners named thirty-three companies from the PRC as producers/
[[Page 18834]]
exporters of R-134a.\52\ Consistentwith our practice for respondent
selection in cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity
and value (``Q&V'') questionnaires to potential respondents 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Petition, at 17 and Exhibit I-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporters/producers of R-134a 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. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant PRC
exporters/producers no later than April 6, 2016, which is two weeks
from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed
electronically via ACCESS.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.\53\
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.\54\ 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 their respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ 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'').
\54\ Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days,
consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), 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.\55\
\55\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1, at 6.
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 will notify 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 R-134a from the PRC are materially injuring
or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.\56\ A negative ITC
determination will result in this investigation being terminated; \57\
otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
\57\ 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). Any party, when submitting
factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted \58\ 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.\59\ 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 these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\59\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 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 19 CFR 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. ET 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; Final Rule, 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 or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\60\
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect
[[Page 18835]]
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 or CVD proceedings
initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the
revised certifications provided at the end of the Certification Final
Rule.\61\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\61\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (``Certification Final
Rule''); see also frequently asked questions regarding the
Certification 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
administrative protective order (``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 3634 (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: March 23, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The product subject to this investigation is 1,1,1,2-
Tetrafluoroethane, R-134a, or its chemical equivalent, regardless of
form, type, or purity level. The chemical formula for 1,1,1,2-
Tetrafluoroethane is CF3-CH2F, and the
Chemical Abstracts Service registry number is CAS 811-97-2.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane is sold under a number of trade
names including Klea 134a and Zephex 134a (Mexichem Fluor); Genetron
134a (Honeywell); FreonTM 134a, Suva 134a, Dymel 134a,
and Dymel P134a (Chemours); Solkane 134a (Solvay); and Forane 134a
(Arkema). Generically, 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane has been sold as
Fluorocarbon 134a, R-134a, HFC-134a, HF A-134a, Refrigerant 134a,
and UN3159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation is
currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS'') at subheading 2903.39.2020. Although the HTSUS
subheading and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the scope is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2016-07316 Filed 3-31-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
