[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33148-33149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16282]



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


OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Request for Third-Country Antidumping Investigation of Sodium 
Azide From Japan

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Request for written comments.

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

SUMMARY: On March 11, 1996 the Government of Canada, through its 
embassy in the United States, filed with the United States Trade 
Representative (``USTR'') a request for the initiation of a third-
country antidumping duty investigation with respect to sodium azide 
from Japan, pursuant to section 783 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (19 U.S.C. 1677n). The petition attached to the request alleges 
that imports of sodium azide from Japan are being sold in the United 
States at less than fair value (i.e., dumped), and that an industry in 
Canada is materially injured and threatened with material injury by 
reason of these imports. The petition alleges that ICI Canada Inc. is 
the sole Canadian producer of sodium azide. USTR invites comments from 
the public on the appropriateness of initiating a section 783 
investigation with respect to sodium azide from Japan, on the 
substantive and procedural standards USTR should establish for the 
determinations of the Department of Commerce and International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') in such an investigation, if initiated, and on 
other issues that may be relevant.

DATES: Written comments from the public are due on or before 12 noon, 
on July 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Kane, Associate General Counsel, (202) 395-6800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 232 of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act of 1994 added section 783 to the Tariff Act of 1930 concerning 
antidumping petitions by third countries. Under section 783, the 
government of a WTO member may file with USTR a petition requesting 
that an investigation be conducted to determine if imports from another 
country are being sold in the United States at less than fair value, 
and an industry in the petitioning country is materially injured by 
reason of those imports. After receiving a petition, USTR must consult 
with Commerce and ITC, provide an opportunity for public comment, and 
determine whether to initiate an investigation. Before initiating any 
investigation, USTR must obtain the approval of the WTO Council for 
Trade in Goods. The URAA Statement of Administrative Action (H.R. Doc. 
103-316, vol. l1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 845-6) (``SAA'') notes that, in 
determining whether to initiate an investigation, USTR will take into 
account whether the petitioning country provides an equivalent 
opportunity to the United States to seek the initiation of an 
antidumping investigation.
    Should USTR determine to initiate an investigation, it must request 
Commerce and the ITC to make determinations with respect to dumping and 
injury, respectively. If both determinations are affirmative, Commerce 
must issue an antidumping order in accordance with section 736 of the 
Tariff Act.
    USTR is to specify the substantive and procedural requirements for 
the Commerce and ITC determinations. The SAA indicates that USTR is to 
develop consistent, transparent standards of general applicability that 
provide meaningful guidance to Commerce and ITC, while according them 
the necessary flexibility to develop appropriate procedures. With 
regard to procedural issues, USTR is to specify deadlines, persons who 
may participate in the investigation, and the applicability of 
requirements such as hearings and exchanges of information under 
administrative protective order. With regard to substantive issues, 
USTR is to specify the extent to which existing antidumping standards 
will apply, particularly with regard to the ITC's injury determination. 
In the SAA, the Administration stated its intention that the standards 
should, to a considerable extent, permit the ITC to incorporate by 
analogy existing standards concerning injury to a U.S. industry, but 
also noted that certain concepts, such as regional industry, may have 
little applicability in third-country investigations.
    On January 16, 1996, an antidumping petition was filed on behalf of 
American Azide Corporation, the sole U.S. producer of sodium azide, 
pursuant to section 732 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

[[Page 33149]]

The petition alleges that sodium azide from Japan is being sold in the 
United States at dumped prices and that an industry in the United 
States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by 
reason of such imports. On March 1, 1996, the ITC issued an affirmative 
preliminary injury determination. 61 FR 10596 (March 14, 1996). 
Commerce is scheduled to issue a preliminary investigation of dumping 
by August 13, 1996. 61 FR 26878 (May 29, 1996).

Public Comment

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the 
following issues:
    (A) whether it is appropriate to initiate a third-country 
antidumping investigation on sodium azide from Japan; including as part 
of this issue are, inter alia, the relevance of the pending antidumping 
investigation on sodium azide from Japan, and the extent to which 
Canada provides an opportunity to the United States to seek an 
antidumping investigation in Canada on behalf of a U.S. industry.
    (B) if an investigation were initiated, what procedural and 
substantive standards USTR should establish for Commerce's and ITC's 
determinations required by section 783; persons submitting comments on 
this issue may wish simply to use as a starting point the existing 
standards for antidumping investigations on behalf of a U.S. industry, 
and specify how the procedural and substantive standards for a third-
country antidumping investigation should differ.
    (C) any other issues relevant to the request for the initiation of 
a third-country antidumping investigation on sodium azide from Japan.

Requirements for Submissions

    Comments are due no later than 12 noon, July 26, 1996. Comments 
must be in English and provided in twenty copies to: Sodium Azide 
Antidumping, Room 223, USTR, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20508.
    Comments will be placed in a file (Docket 783-1) open to public 
inspection, except for confidential business information exempt from 
public inspection. (Confidential business information must be clearly 
marked ``BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL'' in a contrasting color ink at the top 
of each page on each of 20 copies, and must be accompanied by a 
nonconfidential summary of the confidential information. The 
nonconfidential summary shall be placed in the Docket which is open to 
public inspection.) USTR will generally apply to the standards set out 
in 15 C.F.R. Sec. 2006.13 (Information Open to Public Inspection) and 
Sec. 2006.15 (Information Exemption from Public Inspection) with 
respect to comments received.
Jennifer A. Hillman,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-16282 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M