1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 25377-25382 [2016-09881]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2016 / Notices
requesting such safeguard measures, for
making its determinations under section
322(a) of the Act, and for providing
relief under section 322(b) of the Act.
In Proclamation No. 8894 (77 FR
66507, November 5, 2012), the President
delegated to CITA his authority under
Subtitle B of Title III of the Act with
respect to textile and apparel safeguard
measures.
CITA must collect information in
order to determine whether a domestic
textile or apparel industry is being
adversely impacted by imports of these
products from Panama, thereby allowing
CITA to take corrective action to protect
the viability of the domestic textile or
apparel industry, subject to section
322(b) of the Act.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households; businesses or other forprofit organizations.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
This information collection request
may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov.
Follow the instructions to view the
Department of Commerce collections
currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to OIRA Submission@
omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016–09927 Filed 4–27–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–045]
1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid From the People’s
Republic of China: Initiation of LessThan-Fair-Value Investigation
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:
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
The Petition
On March 31, 2016, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) received an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:09 Apr 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
antidumping duty (AD) petition
concerning imports of 1hydroxyethylidene-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
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
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
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.
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-1,1Diphosphonic 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: 1Hydroxyethylidene-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, 1Diphosphonic 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: 1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from
the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated April 8,
2016 (Second AD Supplemental Response).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25377
also finds that Petitioner demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect
to the initiation of the AD investigation
that Petitioner is requesting.6
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
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,
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
6 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition’’ section below.
7 See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire
at 2; see also General Issues Supplement at 2.
8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
25378
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2016 / Notices
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.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
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 productcomparison 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) productcomparison criteria. We note that it is
not always appropriate to use all
product characteristics as productcomparison criteria. We base productcomparison 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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:09 Apr 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
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
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
10 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
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)).
12 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: 1Hydroxyethylidene-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, 1Diphosphonic 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.
13 See Volume I of the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit
I–1.
14 Id.
11 See
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2016 / Notices
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.
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
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
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
Petitioner contends that the industry’s
injured condition is illustrated by
reduced market share; underselling and
price suppression or depression; decline
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.
19 Id.
20 See General Issues Supplement, at 2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:09 Apr 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
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
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
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 1Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from
the People’s Republic of China.
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.
25 Id., at 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25379
PRC’s NME status and the granting of
separate rates to individual exporters.
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
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
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
26 See Volume II of the Petition, at 2–4 and
Exhibits II–1—II–4.
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.
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
25380
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2016 / Notices
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, nonindustry-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.
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
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
Valuation of Packing Materials
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Petitioner valued the packing
materials used by PRC producers
(intermediate bulk carriers) using
import data obtained from GTA for the
POI.41
32 See Volume II of the Petition at 6 and Exhibit
II–16.
33 Id.
34 Id.
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.
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.
41 See Volume II of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibit
II–15.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:09 Apr 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
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
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
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
42 Id.
43 Id.;
see also Exhibit II–18.
44 Id.
at 7 and Exhibit II–20.
at 7 and Exhibit II–21.
47 Id., at 3–4.
48 Id., at 3.
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.
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
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
investigation54 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 https://
www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
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
45 Id.,
46 Id.,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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/114thcongress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
53 See Volume I of the Petition at 9 and Exhibit
I–3.
54 See Appendix I, ‘‘Scope of the Investigation.’’
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2016 / Notices
25381
two weeks from the signature date of
this notice. All Q&V responses must be
filed electronically via ACCESS.
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter
during the period of investigation.57
prior to submitting factual information
in this investigation.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
Extensions of Time Limits
Separate Rates
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).
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 https://
enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-seprate.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 separaterate application by their respective
deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status.
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:
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
{w}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
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
https://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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:09 Apr 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
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
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
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201309-20/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.
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
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
63 See
57 See
58 See
Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).
section 733(a) of the Act.
59 Id.
60 See
61 See
PO 00000
19 CFR 351.301(b).
19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
25382
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2016 / Notices
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 1hydroxyethylidene-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
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
International Trade
Administration, Commerce.
On behalf of the Committee for the
Implementation of Textile Agreements
(CITA), the Department of Commerce
will submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35).
Agency: International Trade
Administration, Committee for the
Implementation of Textile Agreements.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:09 Apr 27, 2016
Jkt 238001
Title: Interim Procedures for
Considering Requests under the
Commercial Availability Provision of
the United States-Panama Trade
Promotion Agreement.
Form Number(s): N/A.
OMB Control Number: 0625–0273.
Type of Request: Regular submission.
Burden Hours: 89.
Number of Respondents: 16 (10 for
Requests; 3 for Responses; 3 for
Rebuttals).
Average Hours per Response: 8 hours
per Request; 2 hours per Response; and
1 hour per Rebuttal.
Needs and Uses: Title II, Section
203(o) of the United States-Panama
Trade Promotion Agreement
Implementation Act (the ‘‘Act’’) [Public
Law 112–43] implements the
commercial availability provision
provided for in Article 3.25 of the
United States-Panama Trade Promotion
Agreement (the ‘‘Agreement’’). The
Agreement entered into force on
October 31, 2012. Subject to the rules of
origin in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement,
and pursuant to the textile provisions of
the Agreement, a fabric, yarn, or fiber
produced in Panama or the United
States and traded between the two
countries is entitled to duty-free tariff
treatment. Annex 3.25 of the Agreement
also lists specific fabrics, yarns, and
fibers that the two countries agreed are
not available in commercial quantities
in a timely manner from producers in
Panama or the United States. The items
listed in Annex 3.25 are commercially
unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers.
Articles containing these items are
entitled to duty-free or preferential
treatment despite containing inputs not
produced in Panama or the United
States.
The list of commercially unavailable
fabrics, yarns, and fibers may be
changed pursuant to the commercial
availability provision in Chapter 3,
Article 3.25, Paragraphs 4–6 of the
Agreement. Under this provision,
interested entities from Panama or the
United States have the right to request
that a specific fabric, yarn, or fiber be
added to, or removed from, the list of
commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns,
and fibers in Annex 3.25 of the
Agreement.
Pursuant to Chapter 3, Article 3.25,
paragraph 6 of the Agreement, which
requires that the President publish
procedures for parties to exercise the
right to make these requests, Section
203(o)(4) of the Act authorizes the
President to establish procedures to
modify the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers
not available in commercial quantities
in a timely manner in either the United
States or Panama as set out in Annex
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
3.25 of the Agreement. The President
delegated the responsibility for
publishing the procedures and
administering commercial availability
requests to the Committee for the
Implementation of Textile Agreements
(‘‘CITA’’), which issues procedures and
acts on requests through the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Office of
Textiles and Apparel (‘‘OTEXA’’) (See
Proclamation No. 8894, 77 FR 66507,
November 5, 2012).
The intent of the Commercial
Availability Procedures is to foster the
use of U.S. and regional products by
implementing procedures that allow
products to be placed on or removed
from a product list, in a timely manner,
and in a manner that is consistent with
normal business practice. The
procedures are intended to facilitate the
transmission of requests; allow the
market to indicate the availability of the
supply of products that are the subject
of requests; make available promptly, to
interested entities and the public,
information regarding the requests for
products and offers received for those
products; ensure wide participation by
interested entities and parties; allow for
careful review and consideration of
information provided to substantiate
requests and responses; and provide
timely public dissemination of
information used by CITA in making
commercial availability determinations.
CITA must collect certain information
about fabric, yarn, or fiber technical
specifications and the production
capabilities of Panamanian and U.S.
textile producers to determine whether
certain fabrics, yarns, or fibers are
available in commercial quantities in a
timely manner in the United States or
Panama, subject to Section 203(o) of the
Act.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.
Frequency: Varies.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
This information collection request
may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov.
Follow the instructions to view the
Department of Commerce collections
currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806.
Dated: April 25, 2016.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016–09926 Filed 4–27–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
]]>Agencies
[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 https://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 https://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
https://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 https://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
https://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
