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 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 http:// 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 http:// 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: http://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 http://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: http:// 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 http://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 http://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: http://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 http://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: http://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