Sulfanilic Acid From India and the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders, 1321-1322 [2016-31993]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2017 / Notices Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses ≤ 0.148 inches and 65,000 psi minimum for thicknesses > 0.148 inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum. Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phasehardened, primarily with a ferriticmartensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by either (i) tensile strength between 540 N/mm2 and 640 N/mm2 and an elongation percentage ≥ 26 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or (ii) a tensile strength between 590 N/mm2 and 690 N/mm2 and an elongation percentage ≥ 25 percent for thicknesses of 2mm and above. Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 45, Method A, with excellent surface quality and chemistry restrictions as follows: 0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent maximum residuals including 0.15 percent maximum chromium. Grade ASTM A570–50 hot-rolled steel sheet in coils or cut lengths, width of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM tolerances), thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inches nominal), mill edge and skin passed, with a minimum copper content of 0.20 percent. The covered merchandise is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered include: Vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.01.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the covered merchandise is dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Adverse Facts Available. [FR Doc. 2016–31995 Filed 1–4–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Jan 04, 2017 Jkt 241001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–815, A–533–806] Sulfanilic Acid From India and the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce SUMMARY: As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) orders would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping at the dumping margins identified in the ‘‘Final Results of Reviews’’ section of this notice. DATES: Effective January 5, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mandy Mallott, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6430. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On September 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset reviews of the AD Orders 1 on sulfanilic acid from India and the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).2 On September 14, 2016, Nation Ford Chemical Company (‘‘Petitioner’’) notified the Department of its intent to participate within the 15-day period specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s regulations. Archroma, U.S., Inc. (‘‘Archroma’’) claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(A) of the Act as a domestic importer of subject merchandise to the United States. On September 30, 2016, the Department received from Petitioner complete substantive responses to the Notice of Initiation, with respect to both of the Orders, within the 30-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).3 1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Sulfanilic Acid from India, 58 FR 12025 (March 2, 1993) (‘‘India Order’’), and Antidumping Duty Order: Sulfanilic Acid from the People’s Republic from China, 57 FR 37524 (August 19, 1992) (‘‘PRC Order’’) (collectively, ‘‘Orders’’). 2 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 81 FR 60386 (September 1, 2016) (‘‘Notice of Initiation’’). 3 See Submissions from Petitioner to the Department, ‘‘Sulfanilic Acid from the People’s PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1321 Also on September 30, 2016 the Department received a response from Archroma, which the Department determined did not adequately meet the requirements of a substantive response under 19 CFR 351.218(d)–(e).4 Specifically, Archroma failed to address and/or provide additional information required of a respondent interested party pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(iii), nor did it demonstrate whether the substantive submission is eligible to be considered adequate pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A).5 No other interested parties submitted substantive responses. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department has conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from India and the PRC. Scope of the Orders Imports covered by the antidumping duty orders are all grades of sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid. Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powders. Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’), contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Republic of China/Petitioner’s Substantive Response’’ (‘‘PRC Substantive Response’’), and ‘‘Sulfanilic Acid from India/Petitioner’s Substantive Response’’ (‘‘India Substantive Response’’), each dated September 30, 2016. 4 See Submissions from Archroma to the Department, both titled ‘‘Sulfanilic Acid from India and China: Archroma’s Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,’’ each dated September 30, 2016. See letter from the Department to Archroma, ‘‘Sunset Reviews of Sulfanilic Acid from the People’s Republic of China and India,’’ dated October 24, 2016. 5 Id. E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1 1322 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2017 / Notices Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), classifiable under the HTS subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or crystalline material which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received A complete discussion of all issues raised with respect to these sunset reviews is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.6 The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if the Orders were revoked. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of the Sunset Reviews mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from India and the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up to 71.09 percent for India, and up to 85.20 percent for the PRC. 6 See the Department’s memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Sulfanilic Acid from India and the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently with this notice. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:06 Jan 04, 2017 Jkt 241001 Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: December 29, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2016–31993 Filed 1–4–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–888] Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews Pursuant to Settlement; 2004– 2005 and 2006–2007 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the final results of the February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005 and August 1, 2005–July 31, 2006 antidumping duty administrative reviews of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) with respect to Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware) pursuant to an agreement that settles the related litigation. DATES: Effective January 5, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Erin Kearney, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482– 0167, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Background On August 6, 2004, the Department published the antidumping duty order on floor standing, metal top ironing tables and certain parts thereof.1 On April 19, 2007, the Department published the amended final results of the February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005 administrative review.2 On, March 18, 2008, the Department published the final results of the August 1, 2005–July 31, 2006 administrative review.3 Following the publication of the February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005 Amended Final Results, and the August 1, 2005–July 31, 2006 Final Results, Since Hardware filed lawsuits with the CIT challenging the Department’s final results of both the February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005 and the August 1, 2005–July 31, 2006 administrative reviews. The United States and Since Hardware have entered into an agreement to settle the outstanding litigation. The Court issued its Judgment on December 8, 2016.4 Assessment of Duties Pursuant to the Court’s Judgment, the Department shall instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all shipments of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof, from the PRC, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period February 3, 2004–July 31, 2005, and that were produced or exported by Since Hardware at a rate of 72.29 percent. The Department shall also instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all shipments of floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof, from the PRC, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the 1 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Floor Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004) (Order). 2 See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 13239 (Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 21, 2007), amended by Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Floor Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 19689 (April 19, 2007) (February 3–2004–July 31, 2005 Amended Final Results). 3 See Floor Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 73 FR 14437 (March 18, 2008) August 1, 2005–July 31, 2006 Final Results). 4 See Home Products International, Inc. v. United States, Court Nos. 07–00123, 08–00094 (December 8, 2016). E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1321-1322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31993]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-815, A-533-806]


Sulfanilic Acid From India and the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty 
Orders

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce

SUMMARY: As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of 
Commerce (``Department'') finds that revocation of the antidumping duty 
(``AD'') orders would be likely to lead to the continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the dumping margins identified in the ``Final 
Results of Reviews'' section of this notice.

DATES: Effective January 5, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mandy Mallott, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On September 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of 
initiation of the fourth sunset reviews of the AD Orders \1\ on 
sulfanilic acid from India and the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act'').\2\ On September 14, 2016, Nation Ford Chemical 
Company (``Petitioner'') notified the Department of its intent to 
participate within the 15-day period specified in section 
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Archroma, U.S., Inc. 
(``Archroma'') claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(A) 
of the Act as a domestic importer of subject merchandise to the United 
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Sulfanilic Acid from India, 58 
FR 12025 (March 2, 1993) (``India Order''), and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic from China, 57 FR 
37524 (August 19, 1992) (``PRC Order'') (collectively, ``Orders'').
    \2\ See Initiation of Five-Year (``Sunset'') Reviews, 81 FR 
60386 (September 1, 2016) (``Notice of Initiation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2016, the Department received from Petitioner 
complete substantive responses to the Notice of Initiation, with 
respect to both of the Orders, within the 30-day period specified in 19 
CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).\3\ Also on September 30, 2016 the Department 
received a response from Archroma, which the Department determined did 
not adequately meet the requirements of a substantive response under 19 
CFR 351.218(d)-(e).\4\ Specifically, Archroma failed to address and/or 
provide additional information required of a respondent interested 
party pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(iii), nor did it demonstrate 
whether the substantive submission is eligible to be considered 
adequate pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A).\5\ No other 
interested parties submitted substantive responses. As a result, 
pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department has conducted expedited (120-
day) sunset reviews of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from India and 
the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Submissions from Petitioner to the Department, 
``Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of China/Petitioner's 
Substantive Response'' (``PRC Substantive Response''), and 
``Sulfanilic Acid from India/Petitioner's Substantive Response'' 
(``India Substantive Response''), each dated September 30, 2016.
    \4\ See Submissions from Archroma to the Department, both titled 
``Sulfanilic Acid from India and China: Archroma's Substantive 
Response to Notice of Initiation,'' each dated September 30, 2016. 
See letter from the Department to Archroma, ``Sunset Reviews of 
Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of China and India,'' 
dated October 24, 2016.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Orders

    Imports covered by the antidumping duty orders are all grades of 
sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, 
refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic 
acid.
    Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the 
direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is 
used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food 
colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal 
differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of 
residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the 
sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powders.
    Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable under the subheading 
2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS''), contains 96 
percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 
percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, 
also classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 
98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 
0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials.

[[Page 1322]]

    Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), classifiable under the HTS 
subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or crystalline material 
which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 
percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid 
content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on 
the equivalent sulfanilic acid content.
    Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these 
proceedings is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    A complete discussion of all issues raised with respect to these 
sunset reviews is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.\6\ The issues 
discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood 
of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the 
margins of dumping likely to prevail if the Orders were revoked. The 
Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file 
electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``ACCESS''). 
ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and 
to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main 
Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum 
and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the Department's memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 
Compliance, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results 
of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on 
Sulfanilic Acid from India and the People's Republic of China,'' 
dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of the Sunset Reviews

    Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, 
the Department determines that revocation of the AD orders on 
sulfanilic acid from India and the PRC would likely lead to a 
continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the 
dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up 
to 71.09 percent for India, and up to 85.20 percent for the PRC.

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 
notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is 
subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.218(f)(4).

    Dated: December 29, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-31993 Filed 1-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P