[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35492-35497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12588]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-822-805, A-451-804, A-823-814, A-821-818]


Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Urea Ammonium Nitrate 
Solutions from Belarus, Lithuania, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor, Paige Rivas, John Conniff, 
or Crystal Crittenden, AD/CVD Enforcement Office IV, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4114, (202) 482-0651, (202) 482-1009, or 
(202) 482-0989 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

INITIATION OF INVESTIGATIONS:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department) 
regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

The Petitions

    On April 19, 2002, the Department received petitions filed in 
proper form by the Nitrogen Solutions Fair Trade Committee (the 
petitioner). Its members consist of CF Industries, Inc., Mississippi 
Chemical Corporation, and Terra Industries, Inc.. The Department 
received information supplementing the petitions on May 3, 2002.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioner 
alleges that imports of urea ammonium nitrate solutions (UANS) from 
Belarus, Lithuania, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine are being, or 
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such 
imports are materially injuring an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed these petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the antidumping investigations that it 
is requesting the Department to initiate. See Determination of Industry 
Support for the Petitions section below.

Scope of Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is all 
mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal 
solution, regardless of nitrogen content by weight, and regardless of 
the presence of additives, such as corrosion inhibitors. The 
merchandise subject to these investigations is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 
3102.80.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and U.S. Customs Service (U.S. Customs) purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.
    During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioner and commodity specialists at U.S. Customs to ensure that it 
accurately reflects the product for which the domestic industry is 
seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the 
Department's regulations (62 FR 27296, 27323), we are setting aside a 
period for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The 
Department encourages all parties to submit such comments within 20 
days of publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to 
Import Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU) at Room 1870, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to 
provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments 
and consult with parties prior to the issuance of our preliminary 
determinations.

Period of Investigations

    Section 351.204(b) of the Department's regulations states that, in 
the case of a non market economy (NME) country, in an investigation, 
the Department normally will examine merchandise sold during the two 
most recently completed fiscal quarters as of the month preceding the 
month in which the petitions were filed. The regulations further state 
that the Department may examine merchandise sold during any additional 
or alternate period it concludes is appropriate.
    Following the above noted guidelines from section 351.204(b) of the 
Department's regulations, the

[[Page 35493]]

anticipated period of investigation (POI) for each of these 
investigations is October 1, 2001, through March 31, 2002.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    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: (1) at least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(2) 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.
    Finally, 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 administering agency 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 any statistically valid sampling 
method to poll the industry.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the 
petition has the requisite industry support, the Act directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who account for production 
of 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 (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to 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 
domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to the law.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass Therefore from Japan: Final Determination; 
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 
32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product that 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. Moreover, the petitioner does not offer a definition of 
domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.
    The domestic like product referred to in these petitions is the 
domestic like product defined in the Scope of Investigations section 
above. The Department has no basis on the record to find this 
definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. The 
Department, therefore, has adopted this domestic like product 
definition.
    The Department has further determined that these petitions contain 
adequate evidence of industry support. Information contained in the 
petitions demonstrates that the domestic producers or workers who 
support the petitions account for over 50 percent of total production 
of the domestic like product. See Petitions for Imposition of 
Antidumping Duties: Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from Ukraine, 
Lithuania, Belarus, and the Russian Federation, dated April 19, 2002, 
at Exhibit 9. Therefore, the domestic producers or workers who support 
the petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production 
of the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 
732(c)(4)(A)(i) are met. See Initiation Checklists (public version on 
file in the CRU of the Department, Room B-099). Furthermore, because 
the Department received no opposition to the petitions, the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petitions 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. See Initiation Checklists. Thus, the requirements of section 
732(c)(4)(A)(ii) are met.
    Accordingly, the Department determines that these petitions were 
filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 
732(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation Checklists at Industry Support.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at LTFV 
upon which our decisions to initiate these investigations are based. 
Based on the information submitted in the petitions, adjusted where 
appropriate, we are initiating these investigations, as discussed below 
and in the Initiation Checklists.
    The Department has analyzed the information in the petitions and 
considers the country-wide import statistics for the anticipated POI 
and market information used to calculate the estimated margins for the 
subject countries to be sufficient for purposes of initiation. Should 
the need arise to use any of this information in our preliminary or 
final determinations for purposes of facts available under section 776 
of the Act, we may re-examine the information and revise the margin 
calculations, if appropriate.

Non Market Economies

    Regarding an investigation involving an NME, the Department 
presumes, based on the extent of central government control in an NME, 
that a single dumping margin, should there be one, is appropriate for 
all NME exporters in the given country. 66 FR 33525 (June 22, 2001) and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid 
Agricultural Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine, 66 FR 38632 (July 25, 
2001).

Belarus

Export Price
    The petitioner based export price (EP) on import weighted average 
unit value (AUV) data from official U.S. Census Bureau statistics for 
the period October 2001 through February 2002, for the subject HTSUS 
number. The petitioner calculated a net U.S. price by deducting foreign 
inland freight and brokerage and handling from the AUV data.
    The petitioner based foreign inland freight on a price quote for 
the rail transport effective during calender year 2000, obtained from a 
South African rail company provider and adjusted for inflation using 
the South African Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as published in the 
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. 
See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair 
Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 21319, 21324 
(April 30, 2001) (Preliminary LTFV Determination: Pure Magnesium from 
the Russian Federation). Foreign brokerage and handling charges were 
based on the ``waterfront charges'' for the port of Durban, as 
published in a report by the South African Department of 
Transportation.

[[Page 35494]]

Normal Value
    The petitioner asserted that the Department has long treated 
Belarus as an NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the 
Act, because Belarus's status as an NME remains in effect, the 
petitioner determined the dumping margin using a factors of production 
(FOP) analysis.
    For normal value (NV), the petitioner based the FOP, as defined by 
section 773(c)(3) of the Act, on the quantities of inputs of one U.S. 
UANS producer. The petitioner asserted that information regarding 
consumption rates for the production of this product in Belarus is not 
reasonably available, and has therefore assumed, for purposes of the 
petition, that the producer in Belarus used the same inputs in the same 
quantities as the petitioner. Based on the information provided by the 
petitioner, we believe that the petitioner's FOP methodology represents 
information reasonably available to the petitioner and is appropriate 
for purposes of initiating this investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, the petitioner asserted that 
South Africa is the most appropriate surrogate country for Belarus, 
claiming that South Africa is: (1) a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise, and (2) is at a level of development comparable to Belarus 
in terms of per capita gross national income (GNI), which is the 
current World Bank term for what was previously termed ``Gross National 
Product'' (GNP). The petitioner notes that the Department's regulations 
state that it will place primary emphasis on per capita GNP in 
determining whether a given market economy is at a level of economic 
development comparable to the NME country. See e.g. Cold-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation: Non-Market Economy 
Status and Surrogate Country Selection, Memorandum from Jeffery May to 
Jim Doyle, February 28, 2002 (Cold-Rolled Surrogate Country Selection 
Memo). The petitioner further notes that South Africa has been included 
on the Department's most recent list of potential surrogates for 
Belarus. See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from Belarus: Non-market Economy Status and 
Surrogate Country Selection, Memorandum from Jeff May to Tom Futtner 
(August 31, 2000). Furthermore, the petitioner has been able to obtain 
all of the necessary data to value factors of UANS production in South 
Africa. Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe 
that the petitioner's use of South Africa as a surrogate country is 
appropriate for purposes of initiating this investigation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner 
valued FOP, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate 
data from South Africa. Materials were valued based on South African 
import values, as published by Statistics of the South African 
Department of Minerals & Energy (DME Statistics), and Global Trade 
Information Services: World Trade Atlas (GTI Services), sourced from 
the South Africa Revenue Service.
    Labor was valued using the Department's regression-based wage rate 
for Belarus, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    Natural gas was valued using DME Statistics for October through 
December 2001. Electricity was valued using DME Statistics for the 
calender year 2000. Petitioners assert that the same figures were 
recently relied upon by the Department in pure magnesium from the 
Russian Federation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not 
Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 
49347 (September 27, 2001) (Pure Magnesium from the Russian 
Federation).
    Catalysts and the corrosion inhibitor were valued using AUVs of 
imports into South Africa taken from GTI Services. For manufacturing 
overhead, depreciation, general expenses and profit, the petitioner 
relied upon publicly available financial data from a South African 
producer of nitrogen fertilizers, Omnia Holdings, covering the period 
January 2000 through March 2001. Based on the information provided by 
the petitioner, we believe that the surrogate values represent 
information reasonably available to the petitioners and are acceptable 
for purposes of initiating this investigation. See Initiation 
Checklist.

Lithuania

Export Price
    The petitioner based EP on the import weighted AUV data from 
official U.S. Census Bureau statistics for the period October 2001 
through February 2002 for the subject HTSUS number. The petitioner 
calculated a net U.S. price by deducting brokerage, handling and 
domestic inland freight from the AUV. The petitioner based foreign 
inland freight on a price quote for the rail transport effective during 
calendar year 2000, obtained from a South African rail company provider 
and adjusted for inflation using the South African Wholesale Price 
Index (WPI) as published in the International Financial Statistics of 
the International Monetary Fund. See Preliminary LTFV Determination: 
Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation. Foreign brokerage and 
handling charges were based on the ``waterfront charges'' for the port 
of Durban, as published in a report by the South African Department of 
Transportation.
Normal Value
    The petitioner asserted that Lithuania is an NME country and no 
determination to the contrary has yet been made by the Department. The 
petitioner claimed that, pursuant to 19 USC 1677(18)(C)(i), Lithuania 
presumptively remains an NME country until that status is revoked.
    For NV, the petitioner based the FOP, as defined by section 
773(c)(3) of the Act, on the quantities of inputs of one U.S. UANS 
producer. The petitioner asserted that information regarding the 
Lithuanian producer's consumption rates is not reasonably available, 
and has therefore assumed, for purposes of the petition, that the 
producer in Lithuania uses the same inputs in the same quantities as 
the petitioner uses. Based on the information provided by the 
petitioner, we believe that the petitioner's FOP methodology represents 
information reasonably available to the petitioner and is appropriate 
for purposes of initiating this investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, the petitioner asserted that 
South Africa is the most appropriate surrogate country for Lithuania, 
claiming that South Africa is: (1) a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise; (2) at a level of economic development comparable to 
Lithuania in terms of per capita GNI; and (3) that 30 percent of South 
Africa's labor force is employed in the agricultural sector, which 
corresponds to Lithuania's rate of 20 percent. The petitioner notes 
that the Department's regulations state that it will place primary 
emphasis on per capita GNP in determining whether a given market 
economy is at a level of economic development comparable to the NME 
country. See Cold-Rolled Surrogate Country Selection Memo. Furthermore, 
the petitioner has been able to obtain all of the necessary data to 
value factors of UANS production in South Africa. Based on the 
information provided by the petitioner, we believe that the 
petitioner's use of South Africa as a surrogate country is appropriate 
for purposes of initiating this investigation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner 
valued FOP, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate 
data from South Africa.

[[Page 35495]]

 Materials were valued based on South African import values, as 
published by DME Statistics and GTI Services.
    Labor was valued using the Department's regression-based wage rate 
for Lithuania, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    Natural gas was valued using DME Statistics for October to December 
2001. Electricity was valued using DME Statistics for the calender year 
2000. Petitioners assert that the same figures were recently relied 
upon by the Department in pure magnesium from the Russian Federation. 
See Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation.
    Catalysts, chemicals, and the corrosion inhibitor were valued using 
AUVs of imports into South Africa taken from GTI Services for July to 
December 2001. For manufacturing overhead, depreciation, general 
expenses and profit, the petitioner has relied upon publicly available 
financial data from a South African producer of nitrogen fertilizers, 
Omnia Holdings, covering the period January 2000 through March 2001. 
Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe that 
the surrogate values represent information reasonably available to the 
petitioner and are acceptable for purposes of initiating this 
investigation. See Initiation Checklist.

The Russian Federation

Export Price
    The petitioner based EP on import weighted AUV data from official 
U.S. Census Bureau statistics for the period October 2001 through 
February 2002 for the subject HTSUS number. The petitioner calculated a 
net U.S. price by deducting brokerage, handling and domestic inland 
freight from the AUV. The petitioner based foreign inland freight on a 
price quote for the rail transport effective during calender year 2000, 
obtained from a South African rail company provider and adjusted for 
inflation using the South African WPI as published in the International 
Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. See 
Preliminary LTFV Determination: Pure Magnesium From the Russian 
Federation. Foreign brokerage and handling charges were based on the 
``waterfront charges'' for the port of Durban, as published in a report 
by the South African Department of Transportation.
Normal Value
    The petitioner asserted that the Department has treated the Russian 
Federation as an NME country in the past and has issued no 
determinations to the contrary. Pursuant to19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) 
of the Department's regulations, because the Russian Federation's 
status as an NME remains in effect, the petitioner determined the 
dumping margin using a FOP analysis.
    For NV, the petitioner based the FOP, as defined by section 
773(c)(3) of the Act, on the quantities of inputs of one U.S. UANS 
producer. The petitioner asserted that information regarding the 
Russian producers' consumption rates is not reasonably available, and 
it has therefore assumed, for purposes of the petition, that producers 
in Russia use the same inputs in the same quantities as the petitioner 
used. Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe 
that the petitioner's FOP methodology represents information reasonably 
available to the petitioner and is appropriate for purposes of 
initiating this investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, the petitioner asserted that 
South Africa is the most appropriate surrogate country for the Russian 
Federation, claiming that South Africa is: (1) a significant producer 
of comparable merchandise; and (2) at a level of economic development 
comparable to the Russian Federation in terms of per capita GNI. The 
petitioner further notes that in recent antidumping cases involving the 
Russian Federation, the Department identified a group of countries at a 
level of economic development comparable to the Russian Federation 
based primarily on per capita GNI. This group includes Colombia, Egypt, 
the Philippines, Thailand, and Tunisia. The petitioner claimed that 
none of these potential surrogates were suitable for the instant 
petition for the following reasons: 1) the petitioner stated that 
surrogate country producer information is not available for Colombia; 
2) in the case of Egypt, the petitioner asserted that it is unable to 
locate reliable, countrywide natural gas pricing data; 3) for the 
Philippines and Thailand, the petitioner stated that there is no 
nitrogen fertilizer production in those two countries; and 4) in the 
case of Tunisia, the petitioner asserted that it was unable to locate 
any sources of nationwide natural gas or electricity prices, in 
addition to being unable to obtain financial data for the one nitrogen 
producer in Tunisia. The petitioner claims it has been able to obtain 
all of the necessary data to value factors of UANS production in South 
Africa.
    Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe 
that the petitioner's use of South Africa as a surrogate country is 
appropriate for purposes of initiating this investigation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner 
valued FOP, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate 
data from South Africa. Materials were valued based on South African 
import values, as published by DME Statistics and GTI Services.
    Labor was valued using the Department's regression-based wage rate 
for the Russian Federation, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    Natural gas was valued using DME Statistics for October through 
December 2001. Electricity was valued using DME Statistics for the 
calender year 2000. The petitioner asserted that the same figures were 
recently relied upon by the Department in pure magnesium from the 
Russian Federation. See Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation. 
These figures were adjusted to account for known price differences 
between U.S. production factors and factors reported to the Department 
by a Russian Federation producer in the production of ammonium nitrate 
(AN), and publicly reported factors for AN provided in the AN 
antidumping investigations. See Initiation of Antidumping 
Investigation: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian 
Federation, 64 FR 45226 (September 27, 2000) (Initiation of Ammonium 
Nitrate). The petitioner assumed that the proprietary factor data was 
ranged upward by the full 10 percent maximum adjustment percentage. 
Therefore, to be conservative, the petitioner reduced the publicly 
reported factors by 10 percent to account for the possibility for an 
upward adjustment.
    Catalysts, chemicals, and the corrosion inhibitor were valued using 
AUVs of imports into South Africa taken from GTI Services for July 
through December 2001. For manufacturing overhead, depreciation, 
general expenses and profit, the petitioner relied upon publicly 
available financial data from a South African producer of nitrogen 
fertilizers, Omnia Holdings, covering the period January 2000 through 
March 2001. Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we 
believe that the surrogate values represent information reasonably 
available to the petitioner and are acceptable for purposes of 
initiating this investigation. See Initiation Checklist.

Ukraine

Export Price
    The petitioner based EP on the AUV data from official U.S. Census 
Bureau statistics for the period October 2001 through February 2002 for 
the subject HTSUS number. The petitioner

[[Page 35496]]

calculated a net U.S. price by deducting brokerage, handling and 
domestic inland freight from the AUV. The petitioner based foreign 
inland freight on rail freight information provided by the U.S. Embassy 
in Jakarta, Indonesia for February 2001 and adjusted for inflation 
using the Indonesian WPI as published in the International Financial 
Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Solid Agricultural Grade Ammonium 
Nitrate From Ukraine, 66 FR 13286 (March 5, 2001) (Ammonium Nitrate 
from Ukraine). Foreign brokerage and handling charges were based on 
Indonesian brokerage and handling cost for February 2001 used by the 
Department in the antidumping investigation of AN from Ukraine and were 
inflated to the POI using the Indonesian WPI as published in the 
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. 
See Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine, 66 FR at 13290-91.
Normal Value
    The petitioner asserted that the Department has treated Ukraine as 
an NME country in the past and has issued no determinations to the 
contrary. Pursuant to19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C), because Ukraine's 
status as an NME remains in effect, the petitioner determined the 
dumping margin using a FOP analysis.
    For NV, the petitioner based the FOP, as defined by section 
773(c)(3) of the Act, on the quantities of inputs of one U.S. UANS 
producer. The petitioner asserted that information regarding the 
Ukrainian producers' consumption rates is not reasonably available, and 
it has therefore assumed, for purposes of the petition, that producers 
in Ukraine use the same inputs in the same quantities as the petitioner 
uses. Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe 
that the petitioner's FOP methodology represents information reasonably 
available to the petitioner and is appropriate for purposes of 
initiating this investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, the petitioner asserted that 
Indonesia is the most appropriate surrogate country for Ukraine, 
claiming that Indonesia is: (1) a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise; and (2) at a level of economic development comparable to 
Ukraine in terms of per capita GNI. The petitioner further notes that 
Indonesia, in addition to Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and 
Egypt, is included on the Department's most recent list of possible 
surrogate countries for Ukraine. See Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine. 
Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe that 
the petitioner's use of Indonesia as a surrogate country is appropriate 
for purposes of initiating this investigation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, petitioner valued 
FOP, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate data 
from Indonesia.
    Labor was valued using the Department's regression-based wage rate 
for Ukraine, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    Natural gas and electricity were valued from the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development's Energy Prices & Taxes (4th 
quarter 2001) and adjusted to the anticipated POI to take inflation 
into account. Adjustments were also made to account for known price 
differences between U.S. production factors and factors reported to the 
Department by Ukrainian producer, J.S.C. Stirol, for the production of 
AN, and publicly reported factors for AN provided in the AN antidumping 
investigations. See Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine. The petitioner 
assumed that the proprietary factor data was ranged upward by the full 
10 percent maximum adjustment percentage. Therefore, to be 
conservative, the petitioner reduced the publicly reported factors by 
10 percent to account for the possibility for an upward adjustment.
    For manufacturing overhead, depreciation, general expenses and 
profit, the petitioner has relied upon publicly available financial 
data from an Indonesian producer of ammonia and urea, PT Pupuk 
Kalimantan.
    Catalysts, chemicals and the corrosion inhibitor were valued using 
import data from Indonesia taken from GTI Services for July to December 
2001. The petitioner used Indonesian import statistics for HTSUS number 
3815.1100 to value the catalysts containing nickel and, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.408(a), subtracted NME values from the total quantity 
and value of imports. The Indonesian import statistics also contained 
values listed as being imports from Indonesia. Because we do not know 
what these values represent, we adjusted the petitioner's surrogate 
value data by subtracting these values from the Indonesian import 
statistics. Furthermore, it is the Department's practice to disregard 
import values from South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia. The Department 
has determined that each of these countries maintain broadly available, 
non-industry specific export subsidies which may benefit all exporters 
to all export markets. Therefore, we have also adjusted the 
petitioner's surrogate data by subtracting these imports from these 
countries from the statistics. See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From 
the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002). Based 
on the information provided by the petitioner and taking into account 
adjustments made by the Department, we believe that the surrogate 
values represent information reasonably available to the petitioner and 
are acceptable for purposes of initiating this investigation.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on a comparison of EP to NV, the petitioner calculated 
estimated weighted-average dumping margins of 75.80, 103.90, and 331.40 
percent for Belarus, Lithuania, and the Russian Federation, 
respectively. In the case of Ukraine, the Department adjusted the 
petitioner's calculations, which then produced an estimated weighted-
average dumping margin of 144.70 percent. Summaries of the margin 
calculations are contained in the Initiation Checklists.
    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of UANS from Belarus, Lithuania, the Russian 
Federation, and Ukraine are being, or are likely to be, sold at LTFV.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitions allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, and is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than NV. The allegations of injury and causation are 
supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs import data, ITC 
data, information gathered during the AN investigations, lost sales 
data, and pricing information. See Ammonium Nitrate From Ukraine. See 
also Ammonium Nitrate from Russia. The Department assessed the 
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and 
causation and determined that these allegations are supported by 
accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation. See Initiation Checklists at 4 and 5.

Request for an Expedited Preliminary Determinations

    The petitioner has requested that, in accordance with the 
Department's June 8, 2000, policy bulletin regarding expedited 
antidumping duty investigations, the Department issue

[[Page 35497]]

 expedited preliminary determinations in these investigations. See 
Department Policy Bulletin No. 00.1, ``Expedited Antidumping Duty 
Allegations'' (policy bulletin), which can be found on the Department's 
web page at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The policy bulletin lays out 
specific criteria that the Department will consider in deciding whether 
to expedite an investigation, including evidence of an extraordinary 
surge in imports prior to the filing of the petition, evidence of 
significant import penetration, evidence of an unusually high dumping 
margin or recent declines in import prices, whether there are prior 
determinations of dumping against the same product (or class of 
product) from the subject country in the United States or in other 
countries, and whether the Department's resources permit it to expedite 
the preliminary determination.
    The petitioner contended that there has been a surge of ``unfairly 
traded imports'' of UANS from Belarus, Lithuania, the Russian 
Federation, and Ukraine at ``unprecedented levels'' and that subject 
country producers have captured U.S. market share through ``aggressive 
and persistent underselling.'' The petitioner also alleged that the 
United States market has been and continues to be flooded with UANS 
traded at LTFV from the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Lithuania, and 
Belarus. Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that after the imposition 
of antidumping restrictions in the European Union in 2000, the United 
States, the largest unrestricted market for UANS, has become a target 
for unfairly traded imports of UANS. Moreover, the petitioner argued 
that the massive surge of imports from the Russian Federation, Ukraine, 
Lithuania, and Belarus did not recede in 2001, but instead comprised 
84.1 percent of the total share of UANS imports. The petitioner claimed 
the rapid and voluminous increase of imports from the Russian 
Federation, Ukraine, Lithuania, and Belarus warrants an expedited 
preliminary determination.
    The Department is considering the petitioner's arguments on this 
matter and will make a determination on whether to expedite the 
preliminary determination. Section 351.205(b)(1) of the Department's 
regulations states that the deadline for a preliminary determination in 
an antidumping investigation is normally not later than 140 days after 
the date on which the Secretary initiated the investigation.
    We are inviting parties to comment on the petitioner's request for 
expedited preliminary determination. The Department encourages all 
parties to submit such comments no later than May 20, 2002. Comments 
should be addressed to the Import Administration's Central Records Unit 
at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based on our examination of the petitions, we have found that the 
petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, 
we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether 
imports of UANS from Belarus, Lithuania, the Russian Federation, and 
Ukraine are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
LTFV. Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts 
available under Section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final 
determinations, we may reexamine the information and revise the margin 
calculations, if appropriate. Unless this deadline is extended, we will 
make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the 
date of these initiations.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, copies of the 
public versions of the petitions have been provided to representatives 
of the government of Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine, and the Russian 
Federation.

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by June 3, 2002, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports of UANS from Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine, and the Russian 
Federation. A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigations being terminated; otherwise, these investigations will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued an published in accordance with section 
777(i) of the Act.

    DATED: May 9, 2002
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-12588 Filed 5-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S