Sodium Sulfate Anhydrous From Canada: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 17138-17142 [2019-08272]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17138
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2019 / Notices
Comment 13: Small Glass Balls Surrogate
Value
Comment 14: Sealing Tape Surrogate Value
Comment 15: Treatment of Stanley’s
Rubber Bands
Comment 16: Black Liquor and Passivation
Liquid Surrogate Values
Comment 17: Transportation Distances for
Stanley’s Packing Materials
Comment 18: Treatment of Irrecoverable
VAT
Comment 19: Correction of a Transposition
Error for Zinc Phosphate
V. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2019–08273 Filed 4–23–19; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[Application No. 14–5A004]
Export Trade Certificate of Review
Notice of Issuance of an Export
Trade Certificate of Review to DFA of
California (‘‘DFA’’), Application No. 14–
5A004.
ACTION:
The Secretary of Commerce,
through the Office of Trade and
Economic Analysis (‘‘OTEA’’), issued an
amended Export Trade Certificate of
Review Certificate to DFA on April 12,
2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Flynn, Director, OTEA,
International Trade Administration, by
telephone at (202) 482–5131 (this is not
a toll-free number) or email at etca@
trade.gov.
SUMMARY:
Title III of
the Export Trading Company Act of
1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001–21) (‘‘the
Act’’) authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce to issue Export Trade
Certificates of Review. An Export Trade
Certificate of Review protects the holder
and the members identified in the
Certificate from State and Federal
government antitrust actions and from
private treble damage antitrust actions
for the export conduct specified in the
Certificate and carried out in
compliance with its terms and
conditions. The regulations
implementing Title III are found at 15
CFR part 325 (2018). OTEA is issuing
this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b),
which requires the Secretary of
Commerce to publish a summary of the
certification in the Federal Register.
Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15
CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by
the Secretary’s determination may,
within 30 days of the date of this notice,
bring an action in any appropriate
district court of the United States to set
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Apr 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
aside the determination on the ground
that the determination is erroneous.
Description of Certified Conduct
DFA’s Export Trade Certificate of
Review has been amended to:
1. Add the following two new
Members of the Certificate within the
meaning of section 325.2(1) of the
Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)):
• The DeRousi Group LLC—DBA
DeRousi Nut
• Santa Clara Nut Company
DFA’s amendment of its Export Trade
Certificate of Review results in the
following membership list:
1. Alpine Pacific Nut Company,
Hughson, CA
2. Andersen & Sons Shelling, Vina, CA
3. Avanti Nut Company, Inc., Stockton,
CA
4. Berberian Nut Company, LLC, Chico,
CA
5. Carriere Family Farms, Inc., Glenn,
CA
6. California Almond Packers and
Exporters, Inc. (CAPEX), Corning CA
7. California Walnut Company, Inc., Los
Molinos, CA
8. Chico Nut Company, Chico, CA
9. Continente Nut LLC, Oakley, CA
10. C. R. Crain & Sons, Inc., Los
Molinos, CA
11. Crain Walnut Shelling, Inc., Los
Molinos, CA
12. Diamond Foods, LLC, Stockton, CA
13. Empire Nut Company, Colusa, CA
14. Fig Garden Packing, Inc., Fresno, CA
15. Gold River Orchards, Inc., Escalon,
CA
16. Grower Direct Nut Company,
Hughson, CA
17. Guerra Nut Shelling Company,
Hollister, CA
18. Hill View Packing Company Inc.,
Gustine, CA
19. John B. SanFilippo & Son, Inc.
20. Mariani Nut Company, Winters, CA
21. Mariani Packing Company, Inc.,
Vacaville, CA
22. Mid Valley Nut Company Inc.,
Hughson, CA
23. Morada Nut Company, LP, Stockton,
CA
24. National Raisin Company, Fowler,
CA
25. O–G Nut Company, Stockton, CA
26. Omega Walnut, Inc., Orland, CA
27. Pearl Crop, Inc., Stockton, CA
28. Poindexter Nut Company, Selma,
CA
29. Prima Noce Packing, Linden, CA
30. RPC Packing Inc., Porterville, CA
31. Sacramento Packing, Inc., Yuba City,
CA
32. Sacramento Valley Walnut Growers,
Inc., Yuba City, CA
33. San Joaquin Figs, Inc., Fresno, CA
34. Santa Clara Nut Company, San Jose,
CA
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35. Shoei Foods USA Inc., Olivehurst,
CA
36. Stapleton-Spence Packing, Gridley,
CA
37. Sun-Maid Growers of California,
Kingsburg, CA
38. Sunsweet Growers Inc., Yuba City,
CA
39. Taylor Brothers Farms, Inc., Yuba
City, CA
40. The DeRousi Group LLC—DBA
DeRousi Nut, Escalon, CA
41. T.M. Duche Nut Company, Inc.,
Orland, CA
42. Wilbur Packing Company, Inc., Live
Oak, CA
43. Valley Fig Growers, Fresno, CA
The effective date of the amended
certificate is December 18, 2018, the
date on which DFA’s application to
amend was deemed submitted.
Dated: April 19, 2019.
Joseph Flynn,
Director, Office of Trade and Economic
Analysis, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
[FR Doc. 2019–08286 Filed 4–23–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–122–866]
Sodium Sulfate Anhydrous From
Canada: Initiation of Less-Than-FairValue Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
DATES:
Applicable April 17, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Hoefke or Daniel Deku at (202)
482–4947 or (202) 482–5075,
respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On March 28, 2019, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received an antidumping duty (AD)
petition concerning imports of sodium
sulfate anhydrous (sodium sulfate) from
Canada, filed in proper form, on behalf
of Cooper Natural Resources, Inc.;
Elementis Global LLC; and Searles
Valley Minerals, Inc. (collectively, the
petitioners).1
1 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Sodium Sulfate
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2019 / Notices
Between April 1 and April 5, 2019,
Commerce requested supplemental
information pertaining to certain aspects
of the Petition.2 The petitioners filed
responses to these requests on April 3
and April 9, 2019.3
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Act, the petitioners allege that
imports of sodium sulfate from Canada
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value
(LTFV) within the meaning of section
731 of the Act, and that such imports
are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, the domestic industry
producing sodium sulfate in the United
States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1)
of the Act, the Petition is accompanied
by information reasonably available to
the petitioners supporting their
allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry, because the
petitioners are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act.
Commerce also finds that the petitioners
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the initiation of
the requested AD investigation.4
Period of Investigation
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
Because the Petition was filed on
March 28, 2019,5 the period of
investigation (POI) for the investigation
is January 1, 2018, through December
31, 2018.6
Anhydrous from Canada,’’ dated March 27, 2019
(the Petition). The Petition was filed with
Commerce and the U.S. International Trade
Commission (ITC) on March 27, 2019, after 12:00
noon, and pursuant to 19 CFR 207.10(a), is deemed
to have been filed with the ITC on the next business
day, March 28, 2019. Because section 732(b)(2) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)
requires simultaneous filing of the petition with
Commerce and the ITC, Commerce deemed the
petition to have been filed with Commerce on
March 28, 2019. See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision
Memorandum Concerning the Filing Date of the
Petition,’’ dated April 1, 2019 (Petition Filing
Memo).
2 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Sodium Sulfate Anhydrous from Canada:
Supplemental Questions’’ (Petition Supplemental
Questionnaire), dated April 1, 2019; see also
Memorandum, ‘‘Phone Call with Counsel to the
Petitioners,’’ dated April 5, 2019.
3 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Petitioners’ Responses
to Department of Commerce Deficiency Questions:
Sodium Sulfate Anhydrous from Canada,’’ dated
April 3, 2019 (General Issues and AD Supplement);
see also Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Petitioners’
Supplemental Responses to Department of
Commerce Deficiency Questions: Sodium Sulfate
Anhydrous from Canada,’’ dated April 9, 2019
(Second General Issues and AD Supplement).
4 See the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition’’ section, infra.
5 See Petition Filing Memo.
6 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Apr 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this
investigation is sodium sulfate from
Canada. For a full description of the
scope of this investigation, see the
Appendix to this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition,
Commerce issued questions to, and
received responses from, the petitioners
pertaining to the proposed scope, to
ensure that the scope language in the
Petition is an accurate reflection of the
products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief.7 No
modifications were made to the scope of
the Petition as a result of these
exchanges.
As discussed in the Preamble to
Commerce’s regulations, we are setting
aside a period for interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage
(scope).8 Commerce will consider all
comments received from interested
parties and, if necessary, will consult
with interested parties prior to the
issuance of the preliminary
determinations. If scope comments
include factual information,9 all such
factual information should be limited to
public information. To facilitate
preparation of its questionnaires,
Commerce requests that all interested
parties submit such comments by 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on May 7, 2019,
which is 20 calendar days from the
signature date of this notice.10 Any
rebuttal comments, which may include
factual information, must be filed by
5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2019, which
is 10 calendar days from the initial
comment deadline.
Commerce requests that any factual
information parties consider relevant to
the scope of the investigation be
submitted during this 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 Commerce and request
permission to submit the additional
information on the record the
investigation.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to Commerce must be
filed electronically using Enforcement
and Compliance’s Antidumping Duty
and Countervailing Duty Centralized
7 See Petition Supplemental Questionnaire, at 3;
see also General Issues and AD Supplement, at 2.
8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual
information’’).
10 See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17139
Electronic Service System (ACCESS).11
An electronically filed document must
be received successfully in its entirety
by the time and date it is due.
Documents exempted from the
electronic submission requirements
must be filed manually (i.e., in paper
form) with Enforcement and
Compliance’s APO/Dockets Unit, Room
18022, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1401 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped
with the date and time of receipt by the
applicable deadlines.
Comments on Product Characteristics
for AD Questionnaires
Commerce is providing interested
parties an opportunity to comment on
the appropriate physical characteristics
of sodium sulfate to be reported in
response to Commerce’s AD
questionnaires. This information will be
used to identify the key physical
characteristics of the merchandise under
consideration in order to report the
relevant 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) productcomparison 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
sodium sulfate, 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,
Commerce attempts to list the most
important physical characteristics first
and the least important characteristics
last.
11 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 Commerce’s electronic filing requirements,
effective 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.
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
17140
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2019 / Notices
In order to consider the suggestions of
interested parties in developing and
issuing the AD questionnaires, all
product characteristics comments must
be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 7, 2019,
which is 20 calendar days from the
signature date of this notice.12 Any
rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00
p.m. ET on May 17, 2019. All comments
and submissions to Commerce must be
filed electronically using ACCESS, as
explained above.
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
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,
Commerce 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 Commerce 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 Commerce and the
ITC must apply the same statutory
definition regarding the domestic like
product,13 they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to a separate and
distinct authority. In addition,
Commerce’s determination is subject to
limitations of time and information.
Although this may result in different
definitions of the like product, such
12 See
13 See
19 CFR 351.303(b).
section 771(10) of the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Apr 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to law.14
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, the petitioners do not offer a
definition of the domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the Petition.15
Based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have
determined that sodium sulfate, as
defined in the scope, constitutes a single
domestic like product, and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of
that domestic like product.16
In determining whether the
petitioners have 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 the
Appendix to this notice. To establish
industry support, the petitioners
provided their own production of the
domestic like product in 2018.17 The
petitioners compared their own
production to the estimated total
production of the domestic like product
for the entire domestic industry.18 We
relied on data the petitioners provided
for purposes of measuring industry
support.19
14 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)).
15 See Volume I of the Petition, at 11–14; see also
General Issues and AD Supplement, at 1 and
Exhibit 1.
16 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis as applied to this case and information
regarding industry support, see Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Sodium Sulfate
Anhydrous from Canada (AD Initiation Checklist),
at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for
the Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Sodium
Sulfate Anhydrous from Canada (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.
17 See Volume I of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibit
1.
18 See Volume I of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibit
1; see also General Issues and AD Supplement, at
2–3 and Exhibit 3; see also Second General Issues
and AD Supplement, at 1 and Exhibit 8.
19 See Volume I of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibit
1; see also Second General Issues and AD
Supplement, at 1 and Exhibit 8. For further
discussion, see Attachment II of the AD Initiation
Checklist.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Our review of the data provided in the
Petition, the General Issues and AD
Supplement, the Second General Issues
and AD Supplement, and other
information readily available to
Commerce indicates that the petitioners
have established industry support for
the Petition.20 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, Commerce is not required
to take further action in order to
evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).21 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.22 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.23 Accordingly, Commerce
determines that the Petition was filed on
behalf of the domestic industry within
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the
Act.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege 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 LTFV. In addition,
the petitioners allege that subject
imports exceed the negligibility
threshold provided for under section
771(24)(A) of the Act.24
The petitioners contend that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by a significant and
increasing volume of subject imports;
increased market share of subject
imports; underselling and price
depression or suppression; lost sales
and revenues; the magnitude of the
alleged dumping margins; and a decline
in the domestic industry’s U.S.
20 See Attachment II of the AD Initiation
Checklist.
21 Id.; see also section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
22 See Attachment II of the AD Initiation
Checklist.
23 Id.
24 See Volume I of the Petition, at 19 and Exhibit
15.
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2019 / Notices
shipments and financial performance.25
We have assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material
injury, threat of material injury,
causation, as well as negligibility, and
we have determined that these
allegations are properly supported by
adequate evidence, and meet the
statutory requirements for initiation.26
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value
The following is a description of the
allegations of sales at LTFV upon which
Commerce based its decision to initiate
an AD investigation of imports of
sodium sulfate from Canada. The
sources of data for the deductions and
adjustments relating to U.S. price and
normal value (NV) are discussed in
greater detail in the initiation checklist.
Export Price
The petitioners based EP on pricing
information for sodium sulfate
produced in, and exported from, Canada
and sold or offered for sale in the United
States.27 Where appropriate, the
petitioners made deductions from U.S.
price for foreign brokerage and
handling, rail hopper car leasing
expenses, and U.S. inland freight,
consistent with the terms of sale.28
Normal Value
The petitioners based NV on a home
market price they obtained for sodium
sulfate produced and sold in Canada
during the POI.29 The petitioners
calculated a net home market price,
adjusted for freight expenses, consistent
with the terms of sale.30 The petitioners
provided information indicating that the
home market price was below the cost
of production (COP) and, therefore, the
petitioners also calculated NV based on
constructed value (CV), pursuant to
section 773(a)(4) of the Act.31
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
Normal Value Based on Constructed
Value
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act,
CV consists of the cost of manufacturing
25 See Volume I of the Petition, at 15–30 and
Exhibits 4 and 7 through 13.
26 See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Sodium
Sulfate Anhydrous from Canada (Attachment III).
27 See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 In accordance with section 773(b)(2) of the Act,
for this investigation, Commerce will request
information necessary to calculate the CV and cost
of production (COP) to determine whether there are
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales
of the foreign like product have been made at prices
that represent less than the COP of the product.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Apr 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
(COM), selling, general and
administration (SG&A) expenses,
financial expenses, packing and profit.
The petitioners calculated the COM
based on a domestic producer’s input
factors of production and usage rates for
raw materials, labor, energy and factory
overhead. The petitioners valued the
input factors of production using
publicly available data on costs specific
to Canada during the POI. Specifically,
the petitioners calculated raw material
cost as the mineral royalty rate paid for
extracting lake brine.32 The petitioners
valued labor and energy costs using
publicly available sources for Canada.33
The petitioners calculated factory
overhead based on a U.S. producer’s
experience. The petitioners calculated
SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and
profit for Canada based on the
experience of a Canadian producer of
comparable merchandise (i.e., potash).34
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the
petitioners, there is reason to believe
that imports of sodium sulfate from
Canada are being, or are likely to be,
sold in the United States at LTFV. Based
on comparisons of EP to NV in
accordance with sections 772 and 773 of
the Act, the estimated dumping margins
for sodium sulfate from Canada range
from 43.37 to 170.08 percent.35
Initiation of LTFV Investigation
Based upon the examination of the
Petition and supplements to the
Petition, 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 sodium sulfate from Canada
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at LTFV. In accordance
with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed,
we will make our preliminary
determination no later than 140 days
after the date of this initiation.
Identification of Respondents
The petitioners named two producers
of sodium sulfate in Canada (i.e.,
Saskatchewan Mining and Minerals Inc.
(SSM) and TODA Advanced Materials,
Inc. (TODA)).36 Following standard
practice in AD investigations involving
market economy countries, if necessary,
Commerce intends to select respondents
based on U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports
32 See
Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 See
36 See
PO 00000
Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
Volume 2 of the Petition at 3.
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17141
under the appropriate HTSUS numbers
listed with the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation,’’ in the Appendix.
On April 15, 2019, Commerce
released CBP data on imports of sodium
sulfate from Canada under APO to all
parties with access to information
protected by APO and indicated that
interested parties wishing to comment
on the CBP data must do so within three
business days of the publication date of
the notice of initiation of this
investigation.37 We further stated that
we will not accept rebuttal comments.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version
of the Petition have been provided to
the Government of Canada 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
sodium sulfate from Canada are
materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, a U.S. industry.38 A
negative ITC determination will result
in the investigation being terminated.39
Otherwise, the 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 Commerce; and (v)
evidence other than factual information
described in (i)–(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b)
requires any party, when submitting
factual information, to specify under
which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being
37 See Memoranda, ‘‘Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigation of Sodium Sulfate Anhydrous from
Canada: Release of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Data,’’ dated April 16, 2019.
38 See section 733(a) of the Act.
39 Id.
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
17142
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2019 / Notices
submitted 40 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.41 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. Interested
parties should review the regulations
prior to submitting factual information
in this investigation.
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
Particular Market Situation Allegation
Section 504 of the Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act
by adding the concept of particular
market situation (PMS) for purposes of
CV under section 773(e) of the Act.42
Section 773(e) of the Act states that ‘‘if
a particular market situation exists such
that the cost of materials and fabrication
or other processing of any kind does not
accurately reflect the cost of production
in the ordinary course of trade, the
administering authority may use
another calculation methodology under
this subtitle or any other calculation
methodology.’’ When an interested
party submits a PMS allegation pursuant
to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce
will respond to such a submission
consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v).
If Commerce finds that a PMS exists
under section 773(e) of the Act, then it
will modify its dumping calculations
appropriately.
Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor
19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline
for the submission of PMS allegations
and supporting factual information.
However, in order to administer section
773(e) of the Act, Commerce must
receive PMS allegations and supporting
factual information with enough time to
consider the submission. Thus, should
an interested party wish to submit a
PMS allegation and supporting new
factual information pursuant to section
773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later
than 20 days after submission of a
respondent’s initial section D
questionnaire response.
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of
time limits before the expiration of a
time limit established under 19 CFR
351.301, or as otherwise specified by the
Secretary. In general, an extension
request will be considered untimely if it
40 See
19 CFR 351.301(b).
19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
42 See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015,
Public Law 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
41 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Apr 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
is filed after the expiration of the time
limit established under 19 CFR 351.301.
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 a
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. Parties should 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.43
Parties must use the certification
formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).44 Commerce intends to
reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with
the applicable revised certification
requirements.
Dated: April 17, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix—Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers
sodium sulfate (Na2SO4) (Chemical Abstracts
Service (CAS) Number 7757–82–6) that is
anhydrous (i.e., containing no water),
regardless of purity, grade, color, production
method, and form of packaging, in which the
percentage of particles between 20 mesh and
100 mesh, based on U.S. mesh series screens,
ranges from 10–95% and the percentage of
particles finer than 100 mesh, based on U.S.
mesh series screens, ranges from 5–90%.
Excluded from the scope of this
investigation are specialty sodium sulfate
anhydrous products, which are products
whose particle distributions fall outside the
described ranges. Glauber’s salt
(Na2SO4·10H2O), also known as sodium
sulfate decahydrate, an intermediate product
in the production of sodium sulfate
anhydrous that has no known commercial
uses, is not included within the scope of the
investigation, although some end-users may
mistakenly refer to sodium sulfate anhydrous
as Glauber’s salt. Other forms of sodium
sulfate that are hydrous (i.e., containing
water) are also excluded from the scope of
the investigation.
The merchandise subject to this
investigation is classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS) subheading 2833.11.5010.
Subject merchandise may also be classified
under 2833.11.1000, 2833.11.5050, and
2833.19.0000. Although the HTSUS
subheadings and CAS registry number are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of the investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2019–08272 Filed 4–23–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
January 22, 2008, Commerce 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 at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i)
of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
43 See
section 782(b) of the Act.
also Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule are available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
44 See
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Environmental Technologies Trade
Advisory Committee (ETTAC) Public
Meeting
International Trade
Administration, DOC.
ACTION: Notice of an open meeting of a
Federal Advisory Committee.
AGENCY:
This notice sets forth the
schedule and proposed agenda of a
meeting of the Environmental
Technologies Trade Advisory
Committee (ETTAC).
DATES: The meeting is scheduled for
May 15, 2019, from 8:45 a.m. to 3:30
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The
deadline for members of the public to
register or to submit written comments
for dissemination prior to the meeting is
5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, May 3, 2019.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17138-17142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08272]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-866]
Sodium Sulfate Anhydrous From Canada: Initiation of Less-Than-
Fair-Value Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable April 17, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Hoefke or Daniel Deku at (202)
482-4947 or (202) 482-5075, respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On March 28, 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of sodium
sulfate anhydrous (sodium sulfate) from Canada, filed in proper form,
on behalf of Cooper Natural Resources, Inc.; Elementis Global LLC; and
Searles Valley Minerals, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties: Sodium Sulfate Anhydrous from Canada,'' dated
March 27, 2019 (the Petition). The Petition was filed with Commerce
and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) on March 27, 2019,
after 12:00 noon, and pursuant to 19 CFR 207.10(a), is deemed to
have been filed with the ITC on the next business day, March 28,
2019. Because section 732(b)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act) requires simultaneous filing of the petition with
Commerce and the ITC, Commerce deemed the petition to have been
filed with Commerce on March 28, 2019. See Memorandum, ``Decision
Memorandum Concerning the Filing Date of the Petition,'' dated April
1, 2019 (Petition Filing Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17139]]
Between April 1 and April 5, 2019, Commerce requested supplemental
information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition.\2\ The
petitioners filed responses to these requests on April 3 and April 9,
2019.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Sodium Sulfate Anhydrous from
Canada: Supplemental Questions'' (Petition Supplemental
Questionnaire), dated April 1, 2019; see also Memorandum, ``Phone
Call with Counsel to the Petitioners,'' dated April 5, 2019.
\3\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Petitioners' Responses to
Department of Commerce Deficiency Questions: Sodium Sulfate
Anhydrous from Canada,'' dated April 3, 2019 (General Issues and AD
Supplement); see also Petitioners' Letter, ``Petitioners'
Supplemental Responses to Department of Commerce Deficiency
Questions: Sodium Sulfate Anhydrous from Canada,'' dated April 9,
2019 (Second General Issues and AD Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioners
allege that imports of sodium sulfate from Canada are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV)
within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic
industry producing sodium sulfate in the United States. Consistent with
section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by
information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their
allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of
the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested parties
as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that
the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect
to the initiation of the requested AD investigation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petition'' section, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on March 28, 2019,\5\ the period of
investigation (POI) for the investigation is January 1, 2018, through
December 31, 2018.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Petition Filing Memo.
\6\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigation
The product covered by this investigation is sodium sulfate from
Canada. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see
the Appendix to this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, Commerce issued questions to,
and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed
scope, to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate
reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking
relief.\7\ No modifications were made to the scope of the Petition as a
result of these exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Petition Supplemental Questionnaire, at 3; see also
General Issues and AD Supplement, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage (scope).\8\ Commerce will consider all comments
received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with
interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determinations. If scope comments include factual information,\9\ all
such factual information should be limited to public information. To
facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that
all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
(ET) on May 7, 2019, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date
of this notice.\10\ Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual
information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2019, which is 10
calendar days from the initial comment deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ``factual
information'').
\10\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider
relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this
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 Commerce and request permission to
submit the additional information on the record the investigation.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\11\ An electronically
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form)
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable
deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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 Commerce's electronic filing
requirements, effective 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
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment
on the appropriate physical characteristics of sodium sulfate to be
reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information
will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the
merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant 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 sodium sulfate, 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, Commerce attempts to list the most important
physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics
last.
[[Page 17140]]
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product
characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 7, 2019,
which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.\12\
Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 17, 2019.
All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically
using ACCESS, as explained above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Commerce 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 Commerce 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 Commerce and the
ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product,\13\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce'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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\14\ 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, the petitioners do not
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope
of the Petition.\15\ Based on our analysis of the information submitted
on the record, we have determined that sodium sulfate, as defined in
the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 11-14; see also General
Issues and AD Supplement, at 1 and Exhibit 1.
\16\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as
applied to this case and information regarding industry support, see
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Sodium Sulfate
Anhydrous from Canada (AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II,
Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping Duty Petition
Covering Sodium Sulfate Anhydrous from Canada (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 the petitioners have 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 the Appendix to
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided
their own production of the domestic like product in 2018.\17\ The
petitioners compared their own production to the estimated total
production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry.\18\ We relied on data the petitioners provided for purposes
of measuring industry support.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibit 1.
\18\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibit 1; see also
General Issues and AD Supplement, at 2-3 and Exhibit 3; see also
Second General Issues and AD Supplement, at 1 and Exhibit 8.
\19\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibit 1; see also
Second General Issues and AD Supplement, at 1 and Exhibit 8. For
further discussion, see Attachment II of the AD Initiation
Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues
and AD Supplement, the Second General Issues and AD Supplement, and
other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the
petitioners have established industry support for the Petition.\20\
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, Commerce is not required to
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).\21\ 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.\22\ 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.\23\ Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petition was
filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section
732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Attachment II of the AD Initiation Checklist.
\21\ Id.; see also section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
\22\ See Attachment II of the AD Initiation Checklist.
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioners allege 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 LTFV. In addition, the petitioners allege that
subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under
section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 19 and Exhibit 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports;
increased market share of subject imports; underselling and price
depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; the magnitude of
the alleged dumping margins; and a decline in the domestic industry's
U.S.
[[Page 17141]]
shipments and financial performance.\25\ We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat
of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have
determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate
evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 15-30 and Exhibits 4 and 7
through 13.
\26\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III,
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation for the Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Sodium Sulfate
Anhydrous from Canada (Attachment III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV
upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate an AD investigation
of imports of sodium sulfate from Canada. The sources of data for the
deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV)
are discussed in greater detail in the initiation checklist.
Export Price
The petitioners based EP on pricing information for sodium sulfate
produced in, and exported from, Canada and sold or offered for sale in
the United States.\27\ Where appropriate, the petitioners made
deductions from U.S. price for foreign brokerage and handling, rail
hopper car leasing expenses, and U.S. inland freight, consistent with
the terms of sale.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
The petitioners based NV on a home market price they obtained for
sodium sulfate produced and sold in Canada during the POI.\29\ The
petitioners calculated a net home market price, adjusted for freight
expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.\30\ The petitioners
provided information indicating that the home market price was below
the cost of production (COP) and, therefore, the petitioners also
calculated NV based on constructed value (CV), pursuant to section
773(a)(4) of the Act.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id.
\31\ In accordance with section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for this
investigation, Commerce will request information necessary to
calculate the CV and cost of production (COP) to determine whether
there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the
foreign like product have been made at prices that represent less
than the COP of the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of
manufacturing (COM), selling, general and administration (SG&A)
expenses, financial expenses, packing and profit.
The petitioners calculated the COM based on a domestic producer's
input factors of production and usage rates for raw materials, labor,
energy and factory overhead. The petitioners valued the input factors
of production using publicly available data on costs specific to Canada
during the POI. Specifically, the petitioners calculated raw material
cost as the mineral royalty rate paid for extracting lake brine.\32\
The petitioners valued labor and energy costs using publicly available
sources for Canada.\33\ The petitioners calculated factory overhead
based on a U.S. producer's experience. The petitioners calculated SG&A
expenses, financial expenses, and profit for Canada based on the
experience of a Canadian producer of comparable merchandise (i.e.,
potash).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
\33\ Id.
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of sodium sulfate from Canada are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons
of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the
estimated dumping margins for sodium sulfate from Canada range from
43.37 to 170.08 percent.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Canada AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of LTFV Investigation
Based upon the examination of the Petition and supplements to the
Petition, 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 sodium sulfate from Canada are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with
section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless
postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140
days after the date of this initiation.
Identification of Respondents
The petitioners named two producers of sodium sulfate in Canada
(i.e., Saskatchewan Mining and Minerals Inc. (SSM) and TODA Advanced
Materials, Inc. (TODA)).\36\ Following standard practice in AD
investigations involving market economy countries, if necessary,
Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate HTSUS
numbers listed with the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in the
Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Volume 2 of the Petition at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 15, 2019, Commerce released CBP data on imports of sodium
sulfate from Canada under APO to all parties with access to information
protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to
comment on the CBP data must do so within three business days of the
publication date of the notice of initiation of this investigation.\37\
We further stated that we will not accept rebuttal comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Memoranda, ``Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of
Sodium Sulfate Anhydrous from Canada: Release of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection Data,'' dated April 16, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been
provided to the Government of Canada 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 sodium sulfate from Canada are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.\38\ A
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being
terminated.\39\ Otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
\39\ 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 Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual
information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any
party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being
[[Page 17142]]
submitted \40\ 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.\41\ 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. Interested parties should review
the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\41\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particular Market Situation Allegation
Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended
the Act by adding the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for
purposes of CV under section 773(e) of the Act.\42\ Section 773(e) of
the Act states that ``if a particular market situation exists such that
the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind
does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary
course of trade, the administering authority may use another
calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation
methodology.'' When an interested party submits a PMS allegation
pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a
submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds
that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify
its dumping calculations appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a
deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual
information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act,
Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual
information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should
an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new
factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do
so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial
section D questionnaire response.
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the
time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. 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 a 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.
Parties should 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.\43\
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).\44\ Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\44\ See also Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce
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 at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2)
and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: April 17, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix--Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers sodium sulfate
(Na2SO4) (Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)
Number 7757-82-6) that is anhydrous (i.e., containing no water),
regardless of purity, grade, color, production method, and form of
packaging, in which the percentage of particles between 20 mesh and
100 mesh, based on U.S. mesh series screens, ranges from 10-95% and
the percentage of particles finer than 100 mesh, based on U.S. mesh
series screens, ranges from 5-90%.
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are specialty
sodium sulfate anhydrous products, which are products whose particle
distributions fall outside the described ranges. Glauber's salt
(Na2SO4[middot]10H2O), also known
as sodium sulfate decahydrate, an intermediate product in the
production of sodium sulfate anhydrous that has no known commercial
uses, is not included within the scope of the investigation,
although some end-users may mistakenly refer to sodium sulfate
anhydrous as Glauber's salt. Other forms of sodium sulfate that are
hydrous (i.e., containing water) are also excluded from the scope of
the investigation.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheading 2833.11.5010. Subject merchandise may also be classified
under 2833.11.1000, 2833.11.5050, and 2833.19.0000. Although the
HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope of the investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2019-08272 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
