G/ADP/Q2/USA/6  
 
 
17 March 2016  
(16-1572)  Page: 1/5  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
REPLIES TO QUESTIONS1 POSED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION TO THE UNITED STATES 
REGARDING DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE 
ON AMMONIUM NITRATE (INVESTIGATION NO A-821-811) 
The following communication, dated 16 March 2016, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States.  
_______________ 
  
The United States thanks the Russian Federation for its questions and replies as follows: 
 Question 1 
 
Please, confirm, that petitioners in their application for the initiation of original 
antidumping investigation in respect of ammo nium nitrate and products thereof did not 
specifically identify ammonium sulfate nitr ate NS 30:7. If this was the case, please, 
confirm that while considering the state of  the domestic industry the investigating 
authority did not assess the data regarding production and sale of ammonium sulfate 
nitrate NS 30:7 by the domestic industry. 
 
Reply: 
 
The scope of the antidumping order on Russian ammonium nitrate covers "ammonium nitrate 
products." It does not, as the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce") explained in its preliminary and final scope rulings, endeavour to list every potential "ammonium nitrate product." To determine whether NS 30:7 qualifies as an "ammonium nitrate product," Commerce analysed 
the language of the order, the petition and initial investigation, prior determinations by Commerce 
and the U.S. International Trade Commission, and all other information properly submitted by the interested parties during the course of the proceeding. 
 
Commerce also considered the information presented by Russian respondent OJSC Uralchem concerning the domestic industry. Commerce summarized in its final scope ruling the arguments 
presented by OJSC Uralchem on this issue: 
 
U r a l c h e m  c l a i m s  t h a t  t h e  D e p a r t m e n t  m a d e  t w o  a d d i t i o n a l  f a c t u a l  e r r o r s  i n  t h e  Preliminary Scope Ruling which it should correct. Specifically, Uralchem argues that 
the Department improperly determined that the usage area of NS 30:7 is the same as 
AN…  
Regarding the intended usage area of NS 30:7, Uralchem disagrees with the 
Department's finding in the Preliminary Scope Ruling that there is significant overlap 
between the warm climate zones of the Unit ed States (where AN is the preferred 
fertilizer) and areas with sulfur deficient soils (where NS 30:7 is intended for use). 
Uralchem contends it never claimed that NS  30:7 is designed for warm climate zones, 
and instead it submitted evidence that the product is designed for sulfur-deficient areas or low-phosphorous content soils. Uralchem notes that there are sulfur deficient 
                                               
1 G/ADP/Q2/USA/5, dated 3 November 2015. G/ADP/Q2/USA/6 
 
- 2 - 
 
  soils in areas of the United States that are not "warm" climate zones, such as the 
Northeast and Northwest. Uralchem states that it also provided information indicating that NS 30:7 could be used: 1) without geographic limitation wherever a beneficial response to sulfur may be expected; and 2) as a banded fertilizer at the time of 
planting for corn and small grain production. However, Uralchem argues that, instead 
of considering this evidence, the Department simply ignored "inconvenient truths" and relied solely on the petitioners' speculatio n regarding the overlap of the areas where 
AN and NS 30:7 are used. 
Memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior An alyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2 to Gary 
Taverman, Senior Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations re Final Scope Ruling – NS 30:7 Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian Federation (Russia) 
(6 August 2013) ("Final Scope Ruling") at 21-22 (citations omitted). Commerce then addressed 
OJSC Uralchem's arguments concerning the domestic industry:  
After considering the information on the record with respect to usage area, we 
disagree that the usage area of NS 30:7 is not largely the same as that of AN. In the ITC Second Sunset Review Report, the ITC stated:  
Unlike most fertilizers, 50% of the nitrogen in ammonium nitrate is 
immediately available to plants as nitrate (NO3) nitrogen. The combination of this rapid availability with good solubility and low volatility at ambient temperatures has enhanced ammonium nitrate's 
competitiveness as a direct application fertilizer in a specialty niche 
market, particularly in warm climate zones where early-fall and spring temperatures do not fall below 50°F for extended periods. Moreover, as a 
"no-till" fertilizer, ammonium nitrate can be applied on hay, pasture, turf 
grasses, corn, tobacco, and citrus, all crops that use no-till fertilizer application. 
Based on this statement, in the Preliminary Scope Ruling we found that NS 30:7 and 
AN have significant similarities in terms of their usage areas and uses. Specifically, we stated: 
We find that the ITC's description of AN is generally consistent with 
NS 30:7 qualities because NS 30:7 is part of the same "niche" nitrogen 
fertilizer market. Specifically, like AN, NS 30:7 is: 1) a …. nitrogen fertilizer product with low volatility (and, thus, applicable for use in warm 
climate zones); and 2) a "no-till" fertilizer. These characteristics are 
distinct from urea, in that urea only contains nitrogen in amide form (rather than ammonical or nitrate form), which must be hydrolyzed 
before it can be absorbed by plants . The hydrolysis of urea produces 
ammonium gas, which volatizes into the atmosphere, resulting in significant nitrogen losses and, thus, urea is not commonly used in no-till applications. 
Our analysis of the intended usage area was not limited to information provided in ITC 
determinations. Rather, we also examined the information in the petition and reached a similar conclusion: 
Finally, we disagree that the petition sets out an intended usage area for 
in-scope AN which sets this product apart from NS 30:7. Because there is significant overlap between the warm climate zones of the United States 
(where AN is the preferred fertilizer) and those areas with sulfur deficient 
soils (where NS 30:7 is intended for us e), we find that the petition equally 
describes NS 30:7 and pure AN with respect to this factor. 
We disagree with Uralchem that the above finding is inaccurate. According to the 
Association of American Plant Food Control Officials, Inc. (AAPFCO), more than 50% of 
the AN consumed in the United States during 2009 and 2010 was in Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas, and over 75 percent was consumed in these states G/ADP/Q2/USA/6 
 
- 3 - 
 
  plus Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Wyoming. Moreover, 
information from TSI shows that nearly all these states have sulfur deficient soils. Further, record evidence demonstrates sign ificant overlap between the crops for which 
AN is the preferred nitrogen source and the crops which require additional sulfur. 
Thus, despite Uralchem's assertions to the contrary, there is significant overlap in the 
usage areas of AN and the intended usage area of NS 30:7. 
We do not disagree with Uralchem's assertion that there are sulfur deficient soils in 
areas of the United States that are not "warm" climate zones, such as Northwest. 
However, as the AAPFCO data shows, AN is consumed in this area of the United States as well, and used in significant amounts in parts of the region (e.g., Wyoming). Thus, we do not find Uralchem's argument convincing. 
Final Scope Ruling at 23-25 (citations omitted). In addition, it bears noting that the 
Russian Federation mistakenly refers to NS 30:7 as "ammonium sulfate nitrate." Commerce addressed this point, too, in its final scope ruling: 
 
In addition, we disagree with Uralchem that NS 30:7 is actually {ammonium sulfate nitrate}, rather than AN. As noted above, NS 30:7 is covered by the scope language 
in the AD Order, given that it is an AN product primarily comprised of AN. Moreover, 
even if we were to rely on the additional sources cited by Uralchem, including the passage in the Fertilizer Encyclopedia, they would not support Uralchem's conclusion. The Fertilizer Encyclopedia describes ASN as having a nitrogen content of 
"about 26%," which is lower than the 30% nitrogen content of NS 30:7. This 
description is confirmed by The Fertilizer Handbook, which shows that ASN usually has a guaranteed nitrogen content of 26%, as well as an average sulfur content of 15.1%. 
However, the sulfur content of NS 30:7 is only 7%, which is less than half of the usual 
sulfur content of ASN. Furthermore, as noted above, because we find the physical structure of NS 30:7 irrelevant to the question  of whether it is in the scope of the AD 
Order on AN, the fact that Uralchem compared the structure of NS 30:7 to the 
structure of other products is similarly not relevant. 
Final Scope Ruling at 30 (citations omitted). 
 
Question 2 
 Please, confirm that International Trade Co mmission did not include into the scope of 
the like product produced by the domestic industry for the purpose of injury 
determination neither low density ammonium nitrate nor other mineral fertilizers, which 
are not ammonium nitrate. 
 
Reply: 
 Pursuant to its regulations, Commerce evaluated the description of "ammonium nitrate products" 
contained in the U.S. International Trade Commission's prior determination. As Commerce 
explained, the prior determinations by the U.S. International Trade Commission were consistent with the conclusion that the scope of the order on ammonium nitrate products covers NS 30:7: 
 
Moreover, we disagree that the ITC's statement that "neither LDAN {low density AN} nor any additional nitrogen fertilizer products were part of the domestic like product," 
can be read to include AN products such as NS 30:7. In its final injury determination, 
the ITC lists other fertilizers that it considered to be "nitrogen-based," and none of these was of the same type as NS 30:7.  
Final Scope Ruling at 26 (citations omitted).  
 
Question 3  
Please, clarify whether petitioners in the antidumping investigation in respect of 
ammonium nitrate were producers of ammonium sulfate nitrate NS 30:7. 
 G/ADP/Q2/USA/6 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Reply: 
 
OJSC Uralchem did not question petitioners' status as interested parties or that petitioners produce "ammonium nitrate products" which, as Commerce determined, includes NS 30:7. The issue before 
Commerce was not whether petitioners and OJSC Uralchem both produce the identical product. 
Rather, Commerce analysed whether NS 30:7 constitutes an "ammonium nitrate product" under the antidumping duty order. Indeed, before Commerce and on appeal to the U.S. Court of 
International Trade, OJSC Uralchem argued neit her that petitioners do not produce NS 30:7 nor 
that, if true, this fact would have any relevance to the scope inquiry before Commerce. For Commerce's full explanation of how the antidumping investigation and other sources support its determination concerning NS 30:7, we refer the Russ ian Federation to the final scope ruling itself.  
 
Question 4  
Please, clarify the criteria did the United St ates apply to make the determination of the 
"likeness" of ammonium sulfate nitrate NS 30 :7 which are consistent with Article 2.6 as 
well as Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 
Reply: 
 The provisions of the Antidumping Agreement to which Russia refers concern the "like product" 
produced by the domestic industry, which is a di fferent matter from the scope of the antidumping 
measures, i.e., the imported product subject to the antidumping measures. To determine whether the scope of the antidumping order on "ammonium nitrate products" covers NS 30:7, Commerce 
evaluated the plain language of the order as well as the description of "ammonium nitrate 
products" contained in the petition, initial investigation, and prior determinations by Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission concerning the order. In its final scope ruling of 
6 August 2013, Commerce analysed these sources, as well as arguments submitted by the 
interested parties, and explained how they demonstrated that NS 30:7 falls within the order.  Question 5 
 
Please, clarify the reasoning and rationale be hind the decision of the Department of 
Commerce not to resort to other agencies havi ng the expertise in the field of mineral 
fertilizers, as OJSC Uralchem re quested during the scope review. 
 Reply: 
 Commerce explained in its final scope ruling why it did not resort to outside assistance from other agencies:  
In this case, we find that an analysis of the information contained in the petition, 
initial investigation, and prior scope and ITC determinations is sufficient to make a determination as to whether NS 30:7 is with in the scope of the AD Order. Therefore, 
because we find this information dispositive, it would be contrary to the Department's 
regulations to consider the body of additional  "evidence" provided by the parties or to 
request – and affirmatively rely on – additional input from other governmental 
agencies. For this reason, we disagree with Uralchem that our preliminary ruling was 
unlawful. Moreover, because we provided an explanation of the basis of this ruling 
(including the relevant law and facts), we disagree that it was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence. For further discussion of the evidence underlying 
our conclusion, see Comments 4 through 6. 
We also disagree with Uralchem that the Department does not have the ability to 
evaluate correctly the data on the record without resorting to outside assistance. The 
Department routinely makes scope determinat ions in proceedings before it, many of 
which are complicated from a technical perspective. Moreover, the Department has institutional expertise in AN products, after administering the AN suspension 
agreement for over a decade and having analysed two prior scope rulings in this 
specific proceeding using only the data on the record provided by the interested parties involved in each segment. G/ADP/Q2/USA/6 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Uralchem's objections appear to be grounded in the fact that the Department's 
conclusions differ from Uralchem's own. We find it unnecessary to query other agencies regarding this scope ruling. Howe ver, even were the Department to query 
other agencies for their opinions on the matter (and supplementing the established 
criteria the Department considers under {U.S. law}, it is by no means certain that 
their expertise would further the Department's analysis. Other agencies have different mandates and administer different laws, and they do so in ways and for reasons that 
may differ from those of the Department. For example, a definition of AN made for 
national security reasons may differ from that of AN made for dumping purposes. In any event, if Uralchem had information relevant to this scope inquiry from other government agencies or elsewhere, it had ample opportunity to place such 
information on the record for the Department's consideration. 
Final Scope Ruling at 6-7 (citations omitted). That being said, in the interest of evaluating 
completely OJSC Uralchem's arguments, Commerce di d consider evidence placed on the record by 
OJSC Uralchem from other agencies and government bodies. Commerce explained: 
 
in an effort to respond to all issues raised with respect to the Preliminary Scope 
Ruling, we have examined this information and disagree that any of it undermines the 
analysis performed in this segment of the proceeding. With respect to the DHS Proposed Regulation, other agencies in the U.S. government have different mandates 
and administer different laws, which are cr eated for purposes other than determining 
whether a given product is within the scope of an antidumping duty order. The same 
holds true for U.S. states, including the state of Kentucky. Thus, while DHS may have proposed a regulation which defines solid AN as a product "chiefly the ammonium salt 
of nitric acid" which "contains not less than 33% nitrogen by weight" (including "any 
mixture containing a percentage of ammonium nitrate that is equal to or greater than the percentage determined by [DHS]"), this  proposed regulation is not controlling 
here. Indeed, as the petitioners have pointed out, this definition applies to AN capable 
of use in bomb making and thus it is unclear why the same standard would apply equally to fertilizer grade AN. Further, DHS limited its definition to a specific legal purpose (i.e., the DHS Proposed Regulation states "Congress has defined ammonium 
nitrate for purposes of Subtitle J" (emphasis added)), rather than providing an 
overarching definition which is applicable in all contexts and for all uses. Moreover, it appears that DHS itself may use different defi nitions of AN in different circumstances. 
As the petitioners pointed out, DHS's CFAT S defines fertilizer grade AN as solid AN 
with a nitrogen content of "23% or greater." For the same reason, we disagree that it is relevant that the DHS Proposed Regulation distinguishes Sulf-N 26 as an 
"alternative fertilizer." This product may indeed be different from AN as defined under 
the proposed regulation, but that fact has no bearing on whether NS 30:7 is AN as defined in the scope of this proceeding. 
Final Scope Ruling at 29-30. 
 
__________