[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40665-40670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14668]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-049]
Ammonium Sulfate 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: June 14, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin at (202) 482-3936 or
Andrew Martinez (202) 482-3627, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement &
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On May 25, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of
ammonium sulfate from the People's Republic of China (PRC), filed in
proper form on behalf of PCI Nitrogen, LLC (PCI or Petitioner).\1\ The
AD petition was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition for
ammonium sulfate from the PRC.\2\ Petitioner is a domestic producer of
ammonium sulfate.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties on Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic
of China, dated May 25, 2016 (the Petition) at Volumes I and II.
\2\ Id., at Volume III.
\3\ Id., at Volume I, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 27, 2016 and June 3, 2016, the Department requested
additional information and clarification of certain areas of the
Petition.\4\ Petitioner filed responses to these requests on June 1 and
6, 2016.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the Letter from the Department to Petitioner entitled,
``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic of
China: Supplemental Questions,'' dated May 27, 2016 (General Issues
Supplemental Questionnaire); see also the Letter from the Department
to Petitioner entitled, ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Imports of Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic of
China: Supplemental Questions,'' dated May 27, 2016 (AD Supplemental
Questionnaire); see also the Letter from the Department to
Petitioner entitled, ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Imports of Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic of
China: Supplemental Questions,'' dated June 3, 2016 (Second AD
Supplemental Questionnaire).
\5\ See the Letter from Petitioner to the Department entitled,
``Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic of China/Petitioner's
Response to the Department's Questions Regarding the Petition,''
dated June 1, 2016 (General Issues Supplement); see also the Letter
from Petitioner to the Department entitled, ``Ammonium Sulfate from
the People's Republic of China/Petitioner's Response to the
Department's Questions Regarding the Petition,'' dated June 1, 2016
(AD Supplement) ; see also the Letter from Petitioner to the
Department entitled, ``Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic
of China/Petitioner's Response to the Department's Questions
Regarding the Petition,'' dated June 6, 2016 (Second AD and General
Issues Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of ammonium sulfate
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 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petition'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on May 25, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2015
through March 31, 2016.
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is ammonium sulfate 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, 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire at 2, and
General Issues Supplement at 2-4, and Exhibits I-S2 and I-S3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\8\ 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
[[Page 40666]]
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 Time (ET) on Monday, July 4, 2016, which is 20
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. However, as
Monday July 4, 2016, is a Federal Holiday, interested parties may
submit comments by 5:00 p.m. ET the next business day, Tuesday, July 5,
2016.\9\ Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information,
must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, July 15, 2016. 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. All such comments must also be
filed on the record of the concurrent CVD investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27323 (May 19, 1997).
\9\ See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next Business
Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to
the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\10\ An electronically
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form)
with Enforcement & Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by
the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 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 ammonium sulfate 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 ammonium sulfate, it may be that only a select few product
characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical
characteristics. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most
important physical characteristics first and the least important
characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed
by 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday, July, 4, 2016, which is twenty (20) calendar
days from the signature date of this notice. However, as Monday, July
4, 2016, is a Federal Holiday, interested parties may submit comments
by 5:00 p.m. ET the next business day, Tuesday, July 5, 2016.\11\ Any
rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed
by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, July 12, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next Business
Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to
the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,\12\ 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\13\ 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).
[[Page 40667]]
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 ammonium sulfate, as defined in
the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic of China (PRC AD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, ``Analysis of Industry
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic of China,''
(Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this
notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents
filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room
B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether 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. Petitioner and supporters of the Petition provided their own
production data of the domestic like product in 2015. Petitioner also
provided data from The Fertilizer Institute to determine total 2015
production of the domestic like product by the entire U.S. domestic
industry. To establish industry support, Petitioner compared the
production of Petitioner and supporters of the Petition to the total
2015 production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry.\15\ We relied on data Petitioner provided for purposes of
measuring industry support.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 2-3, and Exhibits I-3, I-
4, and I-5; see also General Issues Supplement, at 5.
\16\ Id. For further discussion, see PRC AD Initiation
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues
Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that Petitioner has established industry support.\17\ 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).\18\ 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.\19\ 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.\20\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\18\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\19\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\20\ 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 that the Department initiate.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 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.\22\ Petitioner contends that the
industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share,
underselling and price suppression or depression, lost sales and
revenues, decline in shipments and production, and decline in financial
performance.\23\ 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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See General Issues Supplement, at 5-6 and Exhibit I-S8.
\23\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 15-23 and Exhibits I-13
through I-19; see also General Issues Supplement, at 5-6 and Exhibit
I-S8.
\24\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less-
than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate an investigation of imports of ammonium sulfate 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 PRC AD initiation
checklist, at Attachment III.
Export Price
Petitioner based export price (EP) on six average unit values
(AUVs). Specifically, Petitioner based one U.S. EP on the AUV of U.S.
imports from the PRC obtained from ITC Dataweb under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3102.21.0000 (the
relevant HTSUS subheading for imports of ammonium sulfate) for the
period of October 2015 through March 2016 (i.e., the POI). Petitioner
also based EP on five transaction-specific AUVs for shipments of
ammonium sulfate identified from the PRC under HTSUS subheading
3102.21.0000 during the POI. Petitioner obtained ship manifest data
from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Automated Manifest
System (AMS), via Datamyne. Petitioner then linked monthly U.S. port-
specific import statistics (obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau
(Census) via Datamyne), for imports of ammonium sulfate entered under
HTSUS subheading 3102.21.0000 to five shipments by the PRC exporters
identified in the ship manifest data.\25\ These five shipments
correspond with the POI Dataweb information. Because the overall POI
AUV and the transaction-specific AUVs were based on FOB China port
terms, Petitioner adjusted EP to deduct foreign inland freight and
brokerage and handling at the port of exportation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.
\26\ See Second AD and General Issues Supplement at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Petitioner stated that the Department has long treated the PRC as a
non-market economy (NME) country.\27\ In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in
effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status
for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore,
remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation.
Accordingly, the NV of the product is
[[Page 40668]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Volume II of Petition, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner claims that South Africa 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 and it is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Volume II of Petition, at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided by Petitioner, we believe it is
appropriate to use South Africa as a surrogate country for initiation
purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit
comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly
available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled
date of the preliminary determination.
Factors of Production
Because Petitioner claims that information regarding the volume of
inputs consumed by PRC producers/exporters is not reasonably available,
Petitioner relies on its own, actual consumption of direct materials,
labor, and energy as an estimate of the PRC manufacturers' FOPs,
claiming that it utilizes a similar production method to that utilized
by PRC producers to produce ammonium sulfate.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Volume II of Petition, at 6-7; see also AD Supplement
at 1-3 and Exhibits II-S1 and II-S-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Raw Materials
Petitioner valued direct materials based on publicly available data
for imports into South Africa obtained from the Global Trade Atlas
(GTA) for the period October 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 (i.e., the
POI).\30\ Petitioner excluded all import data from countries previously
determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies, and from countries previously
determined by the Department to be NME countries. In addition, in
accordance with the Department's practice, Petitioner excluded imports
that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country.\31\ To
account for foreign inland freight from port to producer, Petitioner
determined the weighted-average distance between the ten largest PRC
ammonium sulfate producers and their closest respective ports and
applied this distance to the South African inland freight charges
reported in Doing Business 2016, Economic Profile: South Africa,
published by the World Bank.\32\ The Department determines that the
surrogate values used by Petitioner are reasonably available and, thus,
are acceptable for purposes of initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id., at 8 and Exhibit II-11; see also AD Supplement at 4-5
and Exhibit II-S5.
\31\ Id.
\32\ See Volume II of Petition, at 8 and Exhibits II-8 and II-
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Labor
Petitioner relied on 2013 data from the International Labor
Organization's (ILO) ILOSTAT data service \33\ to derive a South
African hourly labor rate, and then inflated it using the South African
consumer price index.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The 2013 publication of ILOSTAT contains the most current
data from this source. See Volume II of Petition at 8.
\34\ See Volume II of Petition, at 8 and Exhibits II-12 and II-
9; see also AD Supplement, at 7-8 and Exhibit II-S7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Packing Materials
Petitioner derived the packing material input amounts based upon
information reported in ship manifest data and U.S. import
statistics.\35\ Petitioner valued the direct materials associated with
packing based on publicly-available data for imports into South Africa
obtained from the GTA for the POI.\36\ Petitioner calculated packing
labor in the same manner as direct labor.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Volume II of Petition, at 9-10 and Exhibit II-15.
\36\ See AD Supplement at 5-6 and Exhibit II-S5.
\37\ See Volume II of Petition at Exhibit II-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Energy
Petitioner valued electricity and water using 2015/16 electricity
and water rates reported by the energy authority Govan Mbeki Local
Municipality; \38\ and natural gas and steam using the same methodology
and source used in a recent Department case involving South Africa as
surrogate country.\39\ Where applicable, Petitioner converted values
from South African Rand to U.S. dollars using a POI-average exchange
rate and adjusted for inflation in South Africa using a POI-average
consumer price index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Id., at 8-9 and Exhibit II-13A.
\39\ See AD Supplement at 7-8 and Exhibits II-S6B, II-S6C, and
II-S6A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative
Expenses, and Profit
Petitioner valued factory overhead, selling, general, and
administrative costs, and profit using publicly available financial
statements from a South African company Sasol Limited (Sasol). Sasol is
a major producer of ammonium sulfate which utilizes the synthetic
process to create ammonium sulfate which involves reacting ammonia and
sulfuric acid.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Volume II of Petition, at 9 and Exhibit II-14; see also
AD Supplement at 8-9 and Exhibit II-S8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to
believe that imports of ammonium sulfate 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 margin for ammonium sulfate from the PRC
ranges from 250.81 to 493.46 percent.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See AD Supplement at Exhibit II-S3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation
Based upon the examination of the AD Petition on ammonium sulfate
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 ammonium sulfate 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 intend to 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.\42\ 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.\43\ The amendments to
sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are
[[Page 40669]]
applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and,
therefore, apply to this AD investigation.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
\43\ 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).
\44\ 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 95 companies as producers/exporters of ammonium
sulfate.\45\ In accordance with our standard practice for respondent
selection in cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity
and value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise
subject to the investigation,\46\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Second AD and General Issues Supplement at Exhibit II-
2S3.
\46\ See Appendix I, ``Scope of the Investigation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producers/exporters of ammonium sulfate 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 &
Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant
PRC exporters/producers no later than June 28, 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.\47\
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.\48\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 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).
\48\ 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.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has 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 Determinations 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 ammonium sulfate from the PRC are materially
injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. \50\ A
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being
terminated;\51\ otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
\51\ 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 \52\ 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.\53\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\53\ 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
[[Page 40670]]
(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.\54\
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 petition
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.\55\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\55\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also
``Department's Regulation on Certification--19 CFR 351.303(g):
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)'' 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
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: June 14, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is ammonium
sulfate in all physical forms, with or without additives such as
anti-caking agents. Ammonium sulfate, which may also be spelled as
ammonium sulphate, has the chemical formula
(NH4)2SO4.
The scope includes ammonium sulfate that is combined with other
products, including by, for example, blending (i.e., mixing granules
of ammonium sulfate with granules of one or more other products),
compounding (i.e., when ammonium sulfate is compacted with one or
more other products under high pressure), or granulating
(incorporating multiple products into granules through, e.g., a
slurry process). For such combined products, only the ammonium
sulfate component is covered by the scope of this investigation.
Ammonium sulfate that has been combined with other products is
included within the scope regardless of whether the combining occurs
in countries other than China.
Ammonium sulfate that is otherwise subject to this investigation
is not excluded when commingled (i.e., mixed or combined) with
ammonium sulfate from sources not subject to this investigation.
Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by
the scope of this investigation.
The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number for
ammonium sulfate is 7783-20-2.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) subheading 3102.21.0000. Although this HTSUS subheading and
CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation
is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2016-14668 Filed 6-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P