[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92853-92854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30534]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-318 and 731-TA-538 and 561 (Fourth Review)]


Sulfanilic Acid From China and India; Scheduling of Expedited 
Five-Year Reviews

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of 
expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') to 
determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on 
sulfanilic acid from India and antidumping orders on sulfanilic acid 
from China and India would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of

[[Page 92854]]

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

DATES: Effective Date: December 5, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Jones (202-205-3358), Office 
of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 
information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need 
special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact 
the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these 
reviews may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at 
https://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background.-- On December 5, 2016, the Commission determined that 
the domestic interested party group response to its notice of 
institution (81 FR 60386, September 1, 2016) of the subject five-year 
reviews was adequate. The Commission also determined that the 
respondent interested party group response with respect to the order on 
sulfanilic acid from China was adequate but that the respondent 
interested party group response with respect to the orders on 
sulfanilic acid from India was inadequate. However, on November 18, 
2016, the sole participating respondent interested party, in the review 
on sulfanilic acid from China (Archroma), withdrew its position and 
statements that advocated for revocation of the order. The Commission 
therefore determined that it would not be appropriate to conduct a full 
review of the order concerning China. The Commission did not find any 
circumstances that warranted conducting full reviews with respect to 
the orders concerning India.\1\ Accordingly, the Commission determined 
that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's 
statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements 
will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 
Commission's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and 
rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), 
and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
    Staff report.--A staff report containing information concerning the 
subject matter of the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on 
December 15, 2016, and made available to persons on the Administrative 
Protective Order service list for these reviews. A public version will 
be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 
Commission's rules.
    Written submissions.--As provided in section 207.62(d) of the 
Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews 
and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of 
institution,\2\ and any party other than an interested party to the 
reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what 
determinations the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are 
due on or before December 22, 2016 and may not contain new factual 
information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year 
reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement 
(which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the 
reviews by December 22, 2016. However, should the Department of 
Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results 
of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new 
factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days 
after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business 
proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements 
of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The 
Commission's rules with respect to filing were revised effective July 
25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission 
Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at 
https://edis.usitc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has found the responses submitted by Nation 
Ford Chemical Co. and Archroma U.S., Inc. to be individually 
adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be 
accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each 
document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other 
parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI 
service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The 
Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate 
of service.
    Determinations.--The Commission has determined these reviews are 
extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise 
its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 
19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

    Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of 
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 
pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

     Issued: December 14, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-30534 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P