[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25377-25382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09881]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-045]


1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid 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: April 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos at (202) 482-2243 or 
Paul Walker (202) 482-0413, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement & 
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    On March 31, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of 1-
hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of Compass 
Chemical International LLC (Compass or Petitioner).\1\ The AD petition 
was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition for the PRC.\2\ 
Petitioner is a domestic producer of HEDP.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Imports of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-
Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China, dated March 
31, 2016 (the Petition) at Volumes I and II.
    \2\ Id., at Volume III.
    \3\ See Volume I of the Petition at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 5, 2016, the Department requested additional information 
and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.\4\ Petitioner filed 
responses to these requests on April 7, 8, and 14, 2016.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the letters from the Department to Petitioner entitled, 
``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Imports of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid 
(HEDP) from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental 
Questions,'' dated April 5, 2016 (General Issues Supplemental 
Questionnaire) and ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 
Duties on Imports of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,1-Diphosphonic Acid 
(HEDP) from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions'' 
dated April 5, 2016.
    \5\ See the letter from Petitioner to the Department entitled, 
``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties, Supplemental Submission, Petition Volume I: 1-
Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic 
of China,'' dated April 7, 2016 (General Issues Supplement); see 
also the letter from Petitioner to the Department entitled, 
``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties, Supplemental Submission, Petition Volume II: 1-
Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic 
of China,'' dated April 8, 2016 (AD Supplemental Response); see also 
the letter from Petitioner to the Department entitled, ``Petition 
for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, 
Supplemental Submission, Petition Volume II: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 
1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People's Republic of China,'' dated 
April 8, 2016 (Second AD Supplemental Response).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of HEDP 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 March 31, 2016, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015 
through December 31, 2015.

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is HEDP 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; see also 
General Issues Supplement at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 Tuesday,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    May 10, 2016, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of 
this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual 
information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, May 20, 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

[[Page 25378]]

information. All such comments must also be filed on the record of the 
concurrent CVD investigation.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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 HEDP 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 HEDP, 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 questionnaire, all comments must be filed 
by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, which is 20 calendar days 
from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which 
may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on 
Tuesday, May 17, 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 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,\10\ 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \11\ 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 HEDP, as defined in the scope, 
constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed 
industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid 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 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid 
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. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its 2015 
production of the domestic like product.\13\ Petitioner states that it 
is the only known producer of HEDP in the United States; therefore, the 
Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit I-1.
    \14\ Id.

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

[[Page 25379]]

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that 
Petitioner has established industry support.\15\ 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).\16\ 
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.\17\ 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.\18\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \16\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC AD 
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \17\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \18\ 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See General Issues Supplement, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression 
or depression; decline in shipments and production; decline in 
employment; decline in financial performance; and lost sales and 
revenues.\21\ 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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 10-13, 19-38 and Exhibit 
I-5; see also General Issues Supplement, at 2.
    \22\ 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 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid 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 HEDP from the PRC. The sources 
of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and 
NV are discussed in greater detail in the initiation checklist.

Export Price

    Petitioner based U.S. price on an offer for sale for HEDP from a 
Chinese producer.\23\ Petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for 
movement expenses consistent with the delivery terms.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibit II-5; see 
also AD Supplemental Response at Questions 1-2 and Exhibit Supp (AD) 
II-5; see also Second AD Supplemental Response at the attachment.
    \24\ Id., at 4-5 and Exhibits II-6 through II-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Petitioner stated that the Department has found the PRC to be a 
non-market economy (NME) country in every administrative proceeding in 
which the PRC has been involved.\25\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id., at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner claims that Mexico is an appropriate surrogate country 
because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the PRC and it is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 2-4 and Exhibits II-1--
II-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information provided by Petitioner, we believe it is 
appropriate to use Mexico 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

    In the case of chemical inputs, Petitioner explained that its major 
chemical inputs likely differ from those used by most HEDP 
manufacturers in the PRC due to differences in production 
processes.\27\ To approximate the Chinese production process (which 
begins with phosphorus trichloride), Petitioner used the chemical 
formula and known molecular weights of the various chemical inputs and 
resulting by-product for the Chinese production method.\28\ Petitioner 
believes that this methodology provides a reasonably accurate 
reflection of presumed consumption rates for Chinese HEDP 
producers.\29\ Petitioner based the FOPs for labor, energy, and packing 
on its own consumption rates for producing 60-percent aqueous solution 
HEDP (which is substantially identical to the HEDP product offered for 
sale in the U.S. market by a Chinese producer), as it did not have 
access to records of the consumption rates of PRC producers of the 
subject merchandise.\30\ Petitioner believes that these usage rates 
reasonably approximate those incurred by Chinese HEDP producers.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id., at 5 and Exhibit II-13; see also AD Supplemental 
Response at Question 6.
    \28\ See AD Supplemental Response at Question 3; see also Volume 
II of the Petition at Exhibit II-13.
    \29\ See AD Supplemental Response at Question 3.
    \30\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 5-8 and Exhibit II-13; 
see also AD Supplemental Response at Question 4.
    \31\ Id., at Exhibit II-13; see also AD Supplemental Response at 
Question 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Raw Materials

    Petitioner valued the FOPs for raw materials (e.g., phosphorus 
trichloride, glacial acetic acid, hydrochloric acid, etc.) using 
reasonably available, public import data for Mexico obtained from

[[Page 25380]]

the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the POI.\32\ Petitioner excluded all 
import values 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.\33\ In addition, in accordance with the Department's 
practice, the average import value excludes imports that were labeled 
as originating from an unidentified country.\34\ The Department 
determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioner are reasonably 
available and, thus, are acceptable for purposes of initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibit II-16.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Water

    Petitioner valued water using data from the Mexican government's 
National Water Commission of Mexico publication, ``Statistics on Water 
in Mexico, 2010 edition.'' \35\ Petitioner converted the water rates to 
U.S. dollars using the average exchange rate during the POI.\36\ 
Petitioner used a POI-average consumer price index adjustment to adjust 
water rates for inflation in Mexico.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id., at 7 and Exhibit II-19; see also AD Supplemental 
Response at Question 7.
    \36\ See AD Supplemental Response at Question 7 and Exhibits 
Supp (AD) II-14 and Supp (AD) II-24.
    \37\ See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit II-23; see also 
AD Supplemental Response at Question 9 Exhibit Supp (AD) II-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Labor

    Petitioner valued labor using the most-recently-available Mexican 
labor data published by the United Nations' International Labour 
Organization (ILO).\38\ Specifically, Petitioner relied on data 
pertaining to wages and benefits earned by Mexican workers engaged in 
``manufacture of other chemical products'' in the Mexican economy.\39\ 
Petitioner converted to U.S. dollars using the average exchange rate 
during the POI.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id., at 6 and Exhibit II-17.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.; see also AD Supplemental Response at Question 8 and 
Exhibit Supp (AD) II-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Packing Materials

    Petitioner valued the packing materials used by PRC producers 
(intermediate bulk carriers) using import data obtained from GTA for 
the POI.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibit II-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Energy

    Petitioner calculated energy usage based upon its own production 
experience associated with electricity and steam produced by natural 
gas.\42\ Petitioner valued electricity based on the industry rate 
identified in the International Energy Agency's 2015 ``Key World Energy 
Statistics.'' \43\ This information was reported in U.S. dollars per 
unit and multiplied by Petitioner's factor usage rates.\44\ Petitioner 
valued steam based on imports of natural gas (from GTA data for the 
POI) converted to steam based on relevant conversion factors.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id.; see also Exhibit II-18.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id., at 7 and Exhibit II-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative 
Expenses, and Profit

    Petitioner calculated ratios for factory overhead, selling, general 
and administrative expenses and profit based on the most recent audited 
financial statements for Grupo Pochteca, S.A.B. de C.V. and 
Subsidiaries, a manufacturer of sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP),\46\ 
which the ITC has found to be a polyphosphate chelating agent similar 
to HEDP.\47\ Petitioner contends that SHMP and HEDP are comparable 
merchandise; it uses SHMP because HEDP production exists only in in the 
United States, the PRC, India, and the United Kingdom (i.e., does not 
in exist in any potential surrogate country).\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id., at 7 and Exhibit II-21.
    \47\ Id., at 3-4.
    \48\ Id., at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of HEDP 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 HEDP from the PRC is 96 percent.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id., at 8 and Exhibit II-24; see also AD Supplemental 
Response at Question 10 and Exhibit Supp (AD) II-24; see also PRC AD 
Initiation Checklist. Petitioner also provided a margin calculated 
using a normal value calculated based on its own production process 
and factor usage rates; however, Petitioner indicated that Chinese 
producers do not use this production process, see PRC AD Initiation 
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petition on HEDP 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 HEDP 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.\50\ 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.\51\ 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.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-
27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \51\ 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).
    \52\ 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 13 companies as producers/exporters of HEDP.\53\ 
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\54\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Volume I of the Petition at 9 and Exhibit I-3.
    \54\ See Appendix I, ``Scope of the Investigation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Producers/exporters of HEDP 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 March 1, 2016, which is

[[Page 25381]]

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.\55\ 
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.\56\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 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).
    \56\ 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.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 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 HEDP from the PRC are materially injuring or 
threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.\58\ A negative ITC 
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; \59\ 
otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \59\ 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 \60\ 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.\61\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \61\ 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 part 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 part 351 expires. For submissions 
that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request 
will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the 
due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a 
different time limit by which extension requests will be considered 
untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties 
simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or 
memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by 
which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An 
extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; 
under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for 
the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final 
Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to 
submitting factual information in this investigation.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\62\ 
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.\63\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \63\ 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.

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

[[Page 25382]]

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: April 20, 2016.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.

Appendix I--Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation includes all 
grades of aqueous acidic (non-neutralized) concentrations of 1-
hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP), also referred to as 
hydroxyethylidenendiphosphonic acid, hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid, 
acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic acid. The CAS (Chemical 
Abstract Service) registry number for HEDP is 2809-21-4.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) at subheading 2931.90.9043. It may also enter under HTSUS 
subheadings 2811.19.6090 and 2931.90.9041. While HTSUS subheadings 
and the CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes only, the written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2016-09881 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P