[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