[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49628-49632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17806]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-889]


Dioctyl Terephthalate From the Republic of Korea: Initiation of 
Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

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

DATES: Effective Date: July 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shanah Lee or Eve Wang, at (202) 482-
6386 or (202) 482-6231, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition

    On June 30, 2016, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
received an antidumping duty (``AD'') petition concerning imports of 
dioctyl terephthalate (``DOTP'') from the Republic of Korea 
(``Korea''), filed in proper form on behalf of Eastman Chemical Company 
(``Petitioner'').\1\ Petitioner is a domestic producer of DOTP.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties 
on Imports of Dioctyl Terephthalate from the Republic of Korea,'' 
dated June 30, 2016 (``Petition'').
    \2\ See Petition, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 5, 2016, the Department requested additional information 
and clarification of certain areas of the

[[Page 49629]]

Petition.\3\ Petitioner filed its response on July 7, 2016.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled 
``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Dioctyl Terephthalate from the Republic of Korea: Supplemental 
Questions'' dated July 5, 2016.
    \4\ See Letter from Petitioner entitled ``Petitioner's Response 
to the Department's January [sic] 5, 2016 Supplemental Questions 
Regarding the Petition,'' dated July 7, 2016 (``Petition 
Supplement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), Petitioner alleges that imports of DOTP from 
Korea 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 Petitioner supporting its 
allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed this Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that 
Petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the 
initiation of the AD investigation that Petitioner is requesting.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petition'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on June 30, 2016, the period of 
investigation (``POI'') is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), April 1, 
2015, through March 31, 2016.
Scope of the Investigation
    The merchandise covered by this investigation is DOTP from Korea. 
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, Petitioner 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 Petition Supplement, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (``EDT'') on Tuesday, August 9, 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. EDT on Friday, August 19, 2016, which is ten 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 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); see 
also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic 
Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 
39263 (July 6, 2011); 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 DOTP 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 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 DOTP, 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. EDT on August 9, 2016, which is 20 calendar days 
from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be 
filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on August 19, 2016. All comments and submissions 
to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as 
explained above, on the record of this less-than-fair-value 
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

[[Page 49630]]

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, Petitioner does 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 DOTP, 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 ``AD Investigation Initiation Checklist: Dioctyl 
Terephthalate from the Republic of Korea (``AD Initiation 
Checklist''), at Attachment II, Determination of Industry Support 
for the Petition. This checklist is dated concurrently with this 
notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents 
filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room 
B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioner has 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, Petitioner provided its 2015 
production of the domestic like product.\12\ Petitioner states that it 
is the only known producer of DOTP in the United States; therefore, the 
Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Petition, at 3 and Exhibit INJ-4.
    \13\ Id., at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that 
Petitioner has established U.S. industry support.\14\ First, the 
Petition established support from U.S. 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 AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \15\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \16\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is 
requesting the Department initiate.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges 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, Petitioner 
alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold 
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\19\ Petitioner 
contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the 
impact on the domestic industry's market share, underselling and price 
suppression or depression, lost sales and revenues, decline in wages 
and employment, and decline in profitability.\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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Petition, at 13-14; see also Petition Supplement, at 2 
and Exhibit Supp-1.
    \20\ See Petition, at 2, 11-35 and Exhibits GEN-3 through GEN-6, 
GEN-10 and INJ-1 through INJ-7; see also Petition Supplement, at 2-3 
and Exhibit Supp-1.
    \21\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of 
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 
Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Dioctyl Terephthalate from the 
Republic of Korea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegation of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value

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

Export Price

    Petitioner based export prices on a Korean producer's price 
offerings to its customers in the United States for DOTP produced in, 
and exported from, Korea during the POI.\22\ Because the quoted prices 
included delivery to the customer, Petitioner made a deduction from 
U.S. price for producer-to-customer freight.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See AD Initiation Checklist; see also Petition, at 38-39 
and Exhibits AD-1, AD-5, and AD-6; see also Petition Supplement, at 
Exhibit Supp-3.
    \23\ See AD Initiation Checklist.

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

[[Page 49631]]

Normal Value

    Petitioner provided home market price information from an industry 
report for DOTP produced in and offered for sale in Korea. The home 
market price information in the industry report included inland freight 
to the customer in Korea; therefore, Petitioner deducted inland freight 
expenses to calculate ex-factory prices.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.; see also Petition, at Exhibit GEN-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of DOTP from Korea are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons 
of export price to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the 
Act, the estimated dumping margins for DOTP for Korea range from 23.70 
to 47.86 percent.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Petition Supplement, at Exhibit Supp-3. See also AD 
Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petition on DOTP from Korea, 
we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the 
Act. Therefore, we are initiating a less-than-fair-value investigation 
to determine whether imports of DOTP from Korea are being, or are 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value. In 
accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary 
determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into 
law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD law.\26\ 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.\27\ 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \27\ 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) (Applicability Notice).
    \28\ 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

    Petitioner named three companies as producers/exporters of DOTP 
from Korea.\29\ Following the standard practice in AD investigations 
involving market economy countries, in the event the Department 
determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot 
individually examine each company based upon the Department's 
resources, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data for U.S. imports under the 
appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 
numbers listed in the ``Scope of Investigation'' in Appendix I. We 
intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order 
(``APO'') to all parties with access to information protected by APO 
within five business days of publication of this Federal Register 
notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should 
be submitted seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on 
the record of this investigation. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal 
comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the 
deadline for the initial comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Petition, at 3-4 and Exhibits GEN-7 and GEN-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An 
electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 
p.m. EDT, by the dates noted above. We intend to make our decision 
regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this 
notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been 
provided to the government of Korea via ACCESS. To the extent 
practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of 
the Petition to the exporters 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 DOTP from Korea are materially injuring or 
threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.\30\ A negative ITC 
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; \31\ 
otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \31\ 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 \32\ 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.\33\ Time limits for 
the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, 
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to 
submitting factual information in this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \33\ 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. EDT 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

[[Page 49632]]

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 countervailing 
duty (``CVD'') proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness 
of that information.\34\ Parties are hereby reminded that revised 
certification requirements are in effect for company/government 
officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated 
on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other 
segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 
2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at 
the end of the Final Rule.\35\ The Department intends to reject factual 
submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable 
revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \35\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also 
frequently asked questions regarding the 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 
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: July 20, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is dioctyl 
terephthalate (``DOTP''), regardless of form. DOTP that has been 
blended with other products is included within this scope when such 
blends include constituent parts that have not been chemically 
reacted with each other to produce a different product. For such 
blends, only the DOTP component of the mixture is covered by the 
scope of this investigation.
    DOTP that is otherwise subject to this investigation is not 
excluded when commingled with DOTP from sources not subject to this 
investigation. Commingled refers to the mixing of subject and non-
subject DOTP. Only the subject component of such commingled products 
is covered by the scope of the investigation.
    DOTP has the general chemical formulation 
C6H4(C8H17COO)2
 and a chemical name of ``bis (2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate'' and has 
a Chemical Abstract Service (``CAS'') registry number of 6422-86-2. 
Regardless of the label, all DOTP is covered by this investigation.
    Subject merchandise is currently classified under subheading 
2917.39.2000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Subject merchandise may also enter under subheadings 
2917.39.7000 or 3812.20.1000 of the HTSUS. While the CAS registry 
number and HTSUS classification are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2016-17806 Filed 7-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P