Ammonium Nitrate From Russia

Investigation No. 731-TA-856 (Review)

Publication 3844 March 2006
U.S. International Trade Commission

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

COMMISSIONERS

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

Jennifer A. Hillman

Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman

Stephen Koplan, Chairman

Charlotte R. Lane

Daniel R. Pearson

Shara L. Aranoff

Staff assigned

Karen Taylor, Investigator

Elizabeth Nesbitt, Industry Analyst

Ray Cantrell, Industry Analyst

Robert Hughes, Economist

Charles Yost, Accountant

Mark Rees, Attorney

Lemuel Shields, Statistician

George Deyman, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

March 2006

www.usitc.gov

Publication 3844

Ammonium Nitrate From Russia

Investigation No. 731-TA-856 (Review)
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Part I: Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

The original investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Previous investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Commerce’s final results of full review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Commerce’s administrative reviews and duty absorption rulings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Suspension agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds to affected domestic producers . I-9

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Manufacturing facilities, production process, and production employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Related party issues and imports and purchases of AN from Russia by U.S. producers . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ..................................... II-1

Market segments/market structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations .................................................. II-1

U.S. supply ................................................................. II-1

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4

Substitutability issues ............................................................ II-7

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7

Comparison of domestic products and subject imports ................................ II-9

Comparison of domestic products and nonsubject imports ............................ II-11

Comparison of subject imports and nonsubject imports .............................. II-11

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

U.S. supply elasticity ......................................................... II-11

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

Substitution elasticity ........................................................ II-12

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry ................................................. III-1

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization ............................ III-1

Changes in character of operations and capacity projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments ............... III-4

U.S. producers’ purchases and imports of AN from Russia ............................... III-4

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity .................................. III-5

Effects of hurricanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

Financial experience of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

Background ................................................................. III-6

Operations on AN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-8

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-9
ii

CONTENTS

Page

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry--Continued

Financial experience of U.S. producers--Continued

Assets and return on investment ................................................ III-10

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ......................... III-10

Part IV: U.S. imports and the industry in Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

The industry in Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Russia’s capacity, production, capacity utilization, domestic shipments, export 

shipments, and inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Export markets developed as a result of the Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Trade restrictions in other countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

The world market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Prices in other markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and reference prices

 pertaining to the suspension agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. List of witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Responses of U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers concerning

 the significance of the existing agreement suspending the antidumping investigation

 and the likely effects of termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Price data including sales by *** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published 

and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.
 1

 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-856 (Review)

AMMONIUM NITRATE FROM RUSSIA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)) (the Act), that termination of the suspended investigation on ammonium

nitrate from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry

in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on March 31, 2005 (70 F.R.16517) and determined on

July 5, 2005 that it would conduct a full review (70 F.R. 41426, July 19, 2005). Notice of the scheduling

of the Commission’s review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by

posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on September 9, 2005 (70 F.R.

53687). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on January 19, 2006, and all persons who requested

the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1

 Certain Ammonium Nitrate From Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Final), USITC Pub. 3338 (Aug. 2000) (the

original investigation). The cites below to the views in the original investigation are to the confidential version

(Views). Ammonium nitrate was also the subject of a section 332 investigation, Ammonium Nitrate: A

Comparative Analysis of Factors Affecting Global Trade, Inv. No. 332-393, USITC Pub. 3135 (Oct. 1998). The

Commission also investigated ammonium nitrate in Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine, Inv. No. 731-TA-894

(Final), USITC Pub. 3448 (Aug. 2001) (affirmative determination). 

 2

 65 Fed. Reg. 42669 (July 11, 2000).

 3

 The agreement is set forth in Appendix 1 to Commerce’s original notice of suspension of the investigation. 65

Fed. Reg. 37759 (June 16, 2000) (suspension agreement); see Confidential Staff Report, INV-DD-025 (Feb. 16,

2006) (CR) at I-8-I-10, Public Staff Report (PR) at I-7-I-8 (describing terms). 

 4

 70 Fed. Reg. 16517 (Mar. 31, 2005).

 5

 In five-year reviews, the Commission initially determines whether to conduct a full review (which would

include a public hearing, the issuance of questionnaires, and other procedures) or an expedited review. In order to

make this decision, the Commission first determines whether individual responses to the notice of institution are

adequate. Next, based on those responses deemed individually adequate, the Commission determines whether the

collective responses submitted by two groups of interested parties – domestic interested parties (such as producers,

unions, trade associations, or worker groups) and respondent interested parties (such as importers, exporters, foreign

producers, trade associations, or subject country governments) – demonstrate a sufficient willingness among each

group to participate and provide information requested in a full review. If the Commission finds the responses from

both groups of interested parties adequate, or if other circumstances warrant, it will determine to conduct a full

review. See 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(a); 63 Fed. Reg. 30599, 30602-05 (June 5, 1998).

 6

 In the original investigation, COFANT’s membership consisted of six members: Air Products; El Dorado;

Mississippi Chemical Corp. (MCC); LaRoche Industries, Inc. (LaRoche); Nitram, Inc. (Nitram); and Wil-Gro

Fertilizer, Inc. (Wil-Gro). Nitram and Wil-Gro have since ceased ammonium nitrate operations; Air Products

(continued...)

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Act), that termination of the suspended investigation on certain ammonium

nitrate from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry

in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

In August 2000, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being

materially injured by reason of imports of ammonium nitrate from Russia that were being sold at less than

fair value (LTFV).1

 Commerce had also made a final affirmative dumping finding2 but did not proceed to

issue an antidumping duty order following the Commission’s final affirmative determination because

Commerce had entered into a suspension agreement with the Ministry of Trade of the Russian Federation. 

That agreement, which was a condition of the suspension of the investigation, restricts exports of

ammonium nitrate to the United States from all Russian producers or exporters and requires that such

exports are sold at or above the agreed reference price.3

In March 2005, the Commission instituted the present review, pursuant to section 751(c) of the

Act, to determine whether termination of the suspended investigation on ammonium nitrate from Russia

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable

time.4 5

The Commission received three substantive responses to the notice of institution. The Committee

for Fair Ammonium Nitrate Trade (COFANT) filed a response on behalf of three domestic producers, Air

Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Air Products); El Dorado Chemical Co. (El Dorado); and Terra Industries,

Inc. (Terra).6

 A fourth domestic producer, Agrium US, Inc. (Agrium), also filed a response to the notice
 6

 (...continued)

announced in December 2005 its intention to close fertilizer operations; LaRoche’s ammonium nitrate facilities were

acquired by El Dorado; and MCC was acquired by Terra. CR at I-2, PR at I-1; CR, PR at Table I-5. 

 7

 Russian Respondents are JSC Azot Nevinnomyssk Azot, JSC Novomoskovsk, JSC Minudobreniya, JSC Acron,

JSC Dorogobuzh, and MCC EuroChem.

 8

 70 Fed. Reg. 41426 (Jul. 19, 2005).

 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United

States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91

(1979).

 11 71 Fed. Reg. 11177 (Mar. 6, 2006). Commerce’s scope remains unchanged from the original investigation,

with one clarification. On March 11, 2004, Commerce ruled that a particular type of treated ammonium nitrate, NP

33-3-0 (also referred to as “stabilized ammonium nitrate” or “nitric phosphate”), is within the scope because the

primary component is ammonium nitrate and the product is purchased and used for the same applications as

ammonium nitrate. See 70 Fed. Reg. 41376 (July 19, 2005) (March 2004 ruling inadvertently omitted from prior

published lists); CR at I-12 n.17, PR at I-10 n.18. NP 33-3-0 is reportedly not domestically produced. CR at I-11-I12, PR at I-10. 

 12 CR at I-10-I-11, PR at I-9-I-10.

4

of institution but subsequently reported that it did not intend to participate in the review because it had

ceased ammonium nitrate production. Six Russian producers and exporters of the subject merchandise

(collectively, Russian Respondents) jointly filed the third response received by the Commission.7

The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response and the respondent

interested party group response were adequate. The Commission therefore determined to conduct a full

review.8

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic like

product” and the “industry.”9

 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 subtitle.”10

Commerce has defined the scope of the review as 

solid, fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate products, whether prilled, granular or in other solid form,

with or without additives or coating, and with a bulk density equal to or greater than 53 pounds

per cubic foot.11 

Industrial or explosive grade ammonium nitrate (low-density ammonium nitrate or LDAN) and liquid

ammonium nitrate are excluded from the scope. Subject ammonium nitrate is a dry, solid agricultural

fertilizer that contains approximately 34 percent plant-available nitrogen by weight. It is used to fertilize

certain row crops (corn and tobacco) and for “no-till” farming (that is, on acreage that is not plowed, such

as hay, pasture, turf grasses and orchards). Ammonium nitrate is manufactured as a solution that is then

used in the production of urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) or concentrated to produce the solid product.12 

In the original investigation, the Commission found a single domestic like product co-extensive

with the subject merchandise: fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate products with a bulk density equal to or
 13 Ammonium nitrate within the scope is hereafter referred to as “AN,” while ammonium nitrate products that are

not included within the scope are referred to by the specific type of product.

 14 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to

include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively

consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted

in the United States. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 15 Views at 6.

 16 We find no basis to exclude any producer from the domestic industry pursuant to section 771(4)(B) of the Act.

That provision allows the Commission to exclude from the domestic industry, if appropriate circumstances exist, any

producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or that are themselves importers. 19

U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

 17 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 18 Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I (SAA), at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states

that “[t]he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination

(material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to

suspended investigations that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

 19 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

(continued...)

5

greater than 53 pounds per cubic foot. No party in this review takes issue with the Commission’s

domestic like product definition from the original investigation, and the record does not contain

information warranting a change in that definition. Accordingly, we continue to define a single domestic

like product consisting of all ammonium nitrate corresponding to the scope.13

B. Domestic Industry and Related Parties

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole

of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”14 In the original

investigation, the Commission defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers of AN.15 No party

in this review objects to that definition. Consistent with the original determination and our definition of

the domestic like product in this review, we continue to define the domestic industry as all producers of

AN.16

III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE SUSPENDED INVESTIGATION IS TERMINATED

A. Legal Standard In A Five-Year Review

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping duty order or terminate a suspended investigation unless: (1) it makes a determination that

dumping is likely to continue or recur, and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of

an order or termination of a suspended investigation “would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”17 The Statement of Administrative

Action states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counter-factual

analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in

the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects

on volumes and prices of imports.”18 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.19 The U.S.
 19 (...continued)

shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 20 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d without opinion, 05-1019 (Fed.

Cir. Aug. 3, 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24, 2002)

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20, 2002)

(“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to

imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105

at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a

certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount

to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 21 Vice Chairman Okun notes that, consistent with her dissenting views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from

Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004) at 15-17, she does not concur with the

U.S. Court of International Trade’s interpretation of “likely” to mean “probable.” See Usinor Industeel, S.A. et. al.

v. United States, No. 01-00006, Slip Op. 02-39 at 13 (Ct. Int’l Trade April 29, 2002). However, she will apply the

Court’s standard in this review and all subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses the issue. See also Additional Views of Vice Chairman Deanna

Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and 731-TA-707-710

(Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 22 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No.

AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue. 

 23 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 24 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 25 In analyzing what constitutes a reasonably foreseeable time, Chairman Koplan examines all the current and

likely conditions of competition in the relevant industry. He defines “reasonably foreseeable time” as the length of

time it is likely to take for the market to adjust to a revocation or termination. In making this assessment, he

considers all factors that may accelerate or delay the market adjustment process, including any lags in response by

foreign producers, importers, consumers, domestic producers, or others due to: lead times; methods of contracting;

the need to establish channels of distribution; product differentiation; and any other factors that may only manifest

themselves in the longer term. In other words, this analysis seeks to define “reasonably foreseeable time” by

reference to current and likely conditions of competition, but also seeks to avoid unwarranted speculation that may

occur in predicting events into the more distant future.

6

Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset review provisions of the Act,

means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.20 21 22

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or

termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”23

According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will

exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis [in antidumping

investigations].”24 25

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

antidumping investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides that
 26 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s

determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 28 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 29 Views at 9-10.

 30 Views at 11-12 & n.49.

 31 Views at 11-12. 

 32 CR, PR at Table C-1.

7

the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”26 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the suspended investigation is terminated or the suspension

agreement is terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(4).27

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”28

Original Investigation. In the original investigation, the Commission found that demand for

fertilizer was mature, and that U.S. producers and importers characterized the demand for AN as “steady

to falling,” while purchasers characterized it as stable. From 1997 to 1999, apparent U.S. consumption

rose from 2.4 million to 2.6 million short tons.29

The Commission found that subject import volume declined appreciably after the filing of the

petition in July 1999, and subject imports essentially disappeared from the market after November 1999. 

Prior to the petition’s filing, the subject import share of apparent U.S. consumption reached *** percent

in the first half of 1999, as compared to *** percent in the first half of 1998. The share of non-subject

imports increased from 8.0 percent in 1997 to 10.3 percent in 1998, before declining to *** percent in

1999. The bulk of non-subject imports originated from Canada and the Netherlands.30

The Commission found that domestically produced AN and subject imports were relatively

substitutable, with U.S. producers, purchasers, and importers indicating that the two, as well as

domestically produced AN and non-subject imports, were interchangeable. The Commission also found

that price played an important role in purchasing decisions, with more purchasers listing it as the number

one factor than any other factor, and over half of responding purchasers listing it as their first or second

most important factor.31

 In addition to the conditions noted in the original investigation, the following conditions of

competition during the period of review are relevant to our determination in this five-year review.

Demand. Between 2000 and 2003, apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** million short

tons to *** million short tons. In 2004, however, apparent U.S. consumption declined *** percent to ***

million short tons. Apparent U.S. consumption is *** percent lower in interim 2005 (*** million short

tons) than in interim 2004 (*** million short tons).32 This trend in apparent U.S. consumption since 2003

contrasts with the 9.9 percent increase in the original investigation between 1997 and 1999. This trend is

consistent with reports by market participants of declining demand in the AN market. Three of four

responding producers, all five responding importers, and five of 14 purchasers indicated that demand for
 33 CR at II-7, PR at II-4. Russian respondents’ own witness agreed that security issues have created a decline in

AN demand. Revised and Corrected Transcript of Hearing (Tr.) at 225-27 (Mr. Adamchak). U.S. producers,

importers, foreign producers, and purchasers have indicated that there are substitutes for AN, including anhydrous

ammonia, urea, and UAN, although AN’s properties make it particularly competitive in the U.S. in warm climate

zones and for no-till fertilizer applications. CR at II-10-II-11, PR at II-5-II-6; see Tr. at 22 (Mr. Green). 

 34 CR, PR at Table II-1. The trend of AN having a declining share of the overall nitrogen fertilizer market thus

appears to have started before the period of review. Solid urea and UAN solutions are the two major nitrogen

fertilizers displaying growth patterns in the United States. CR, PR at Table II-1. 

 35 Memorandum INV-DD-032 (Mar. 13, 2006) (INV-DD-032) (revisions to staff report) at Table IV-10.

 36 We note that there will always be regions of the country and certain crops for which AN will be the preferred

source of nitrogen. CR at II-7, PR at II-4.

 37 CR, PR at Table C-1 (its share was *** percent in interim 2005 as compared to *** percent in interim 2004). 

The domestic industry’s share in 1997 was 84.1 percent, which declined to 80.8 percent in 1999. CR, PR at Table I1.

 38 CR, PR at Tables I-1 & I-4.

 39 CR at III-1-III-2, PR at III-1; CR, PR at Table I-5.

8

AN decreased during the period of review. Generally, they cited increased costs associated with the

growing security requirements for AN, which we discuss further below, as resulting in the substitution of

other fertilizer products for AN.33 

The reports of declining demand for AN are also consistent with data regarding AN’s share of the

broader nitrogen fertilizer market. U.S. consumption of nitrogen fertilizers by weight of nitrogen has

increased overall by 6.0 percent from 1997 (12.4 million short tons) to 2004 (13.1 million short tons). 

AN consumption by weight of nitrogen, however, has decreased by 21.3 percent in this same period (from

659,000 short tons in 1997 to 518,000 short tons in 2004).34

The data on AN compiled by ***, show ***.35 Based on all of the available evidence, AN

demand appears to have declined since 2003 and will likely experience further declines in the reasonably

foreseeable future.36

Supply. The U.S. market continues to be supplied by domestic production as well as by subject

and non-subject imports. The domestic industry remains the largest supplier of AN to the U.S. market; its

share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in 2004.37

The domestic industry has consolidated and restructured since the original investigation, when

there were ten U.S. producers and a total capacity of 2.7 million short tons.38 During the period of

review, two firms (Wil-Gro in 2000 and Nitram in 2003) went out of business and their capacity was

mothballed or eliminated. LaRoche declared bankruptcy in 2000 and was acquired by El Dorado; ***. 

Coastal Chem was acquired by Dyno Nobel in 2003, and its production shifted to LDAN. PCS ceased

AN production in 2004 in favor of LDAN ***. Air Products *** and permanently closed at the end of

2005. Agrium acquired Prodica in 2000 and, in 2005, discontinued all AN production. In 2004, Terra,

the newest entrant into the market, acquired MCC, *** during the original investigation.39

At present, there are two remaining U.S. producers of AN, Terra and El Dorado. Terra has

reported capacity of *** short tons, and El Dorado has reported capacity of *** short tons at two

facilities, El Dorado, AR and Cherokee, AL, for a combined reported domestic capacity of *** short
 40 El Dorado has also reported AN capacity of *** short tons for the former Wil-Gro facility that was closed in

2000 and that El Dorado’s parent company acquired in 2001, because the facility is ***. CR, PR at Table III-2. 

***, and no party claims the Commission’s inclusion of it as domestic industry capacity is warranted. COFANT

also indicated that ***. CR, PR at Table III-2. Again, no party claims that these facilities should be included in the

domestic industry’s production capacity.

 41 CR, PR at Table III-2. El Dorado “***.” CR at III-4, PR at III-2.

 42 CR, PR at Table III-2.

 43 El Dorado’s Producers’ Questionnaire Response at Question II-2; COFANT’s Posthearing Brief at 2.

 44 COFANT’s Posthearing Brief Exh. 2 at 2; CR, PR at Figure II-1. 

 45 Tr. at 38 (Mr. Rydlund).

 46 COFANT’s Posthearing Brief Exh. 2 at 2.

 47 COFANT and Russian respondents dispute the propriety of counting Cherokee in domestic industry production

capacity. For the reasons discussed below, we would reach an affirmative determination under either scenario.

 48 Suspension Agreement at II(A)(2).

 49 CR at I-8-I-9, PR at I-7-I-8; CR, PR at Table I-2. Adjustments to AN limits are also being made during 2004-

06 for imports of NP 33-3-0 that Commerce determined were subject to the agreement because they fell within the

scope of investigation. See notes to Table I-2. 

 50 Suspension Agreement III(C)(3).

 51 CR at I-10, PR at I-8.

9

tons.40 El Dorado’s reported capacity at its El Dorado facility, at which it is currently producing AN, is

*** short tons ***.41 The reported capacity at El Dorado’s Cherokee facility is *** short tons.42

El Dorado produced AN at Cherokee during most of the period of review, but stated that it

suspended AN production in March 2004 based on “***.”43 El Dorado presently produces other products

at Cherokee, including ammonia for commercial sale, ammonium nitrate solutions, and UAN – all lowerpriced products than AN.44 El Dorado’s president has testified that the company “can and will and [is]

anxious to produce AN at Cherokee if and when market conditions permit us to do so.”45 He further

represented that “it would take only approximately two weeks for the Cherokee plant to produce solid

fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate to capacity. The two-week period would be necessary due to

requirements related to worker safety training.”46 With or without the inclusion of the Cherokee facility

in domestic industry capacity calculations, it is apparent that U.S. capacity has declined since the original

investigation.47 

Subject imports from Russia, as noted above, have been regulated by the terms of the suspension

agreement. The agreement sets export limits and establishes weekly reference prices. The Russian

government is responsible for allocating among Russian producers the amounts to be exported within the

limits set by the agreement. In order for any Russian producer to export AN to the United States, it must

obtain an export license issued by the Russian government. The export limit for 2004 and any subsequent

period is 165,345 short tons (150,000 metric tons).48 There are also provisions in the agreement for

carrying over to the next year and carrying back to the previous year 15 percent of each annual export

limit.49

The reference price in the agreement is intended to reflect an f.o.b. Russian port-of-export price.

It is calculated by averaging the four most recent weekly f.o.b. price ranges set by two sources (that may

be changed by agreement) – Fertilizer Markets (Midwest) and Green Markets (Mid Cornbelt), converting

the average to a per-metric-ton basis, and deducting an amount reflecting freight costs from the Russian

port of export to the United States of $55 per metric ton. The agreement sets a floor of $85.00 per metric

ton f.o.b. Russian port of export.50 Russian respondents indicated that they are in negotiations with

Commerce to adjust the freight component of the reference price.51
 52 Tr. at 27-28 (Mr. Elliott), 127 (Ms. Slater), 250 (Mr. Adamchak).

 53 Tr. at 127-128 (Ms. Slater).

 54 Tr. at 250 (Mr. Adamchak).

 55 Tr. at 27-28 (Mr. Elliott).

 56 CR, PR at Table I-2. We note that, although exports were also licensed during partial-year 2000, data were

unavailable. However, the export limit that year was 55,073 short tons, even less than that licensed in 2002. 

 57 CR, PR at Tables I-2 & IV-1 (subject imports’ share of U.S. consumption has increased from less than ***

percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004, and was *** percent in interim 2005 as compared to *** percent in interim

2004). 

 58 INV-DD-032 at Table IV-6. ***. 

 59 CR, PR at Table I-1.

 60 CR, PR at Table I-1.

 61 See 49 C.F.R. §§ 171-180. 

 62 See COFANT’s Posthearing Brief Exh. 1 at 29-30 & Exh. 27.

10

Russian AN exports, as well as non-subject AN exports, to the United States during the period of

review were usually if not predominantly arranged and transported by global trading companies.52 A

trading company’s decision to bring Russian AN into the U.S. market flows from the company’s ability to

find a U.S. purchaser willing to buy Russian AN at the price established under the suspension

agreement.53 Consequently, the restrictions on Russian AN exports under the suspension agreement

affect the ability of trading companies to substitute non-subject AN imports for Russian AN imports in

the U.S. market. Additionally, because the trading companies ship Russian and non-subject AN

worldwide in accordance with their own best economic interests,54 the trading companies have an

incentive to ship large volumes of AN as possible at any price that would cover the Russian purchase

price and their transportation costs.55

Based on available data, AN exports to the United States licensed by the Russian government

under the suspension agreement have ranged from 82,673 short tons (for 2002, when the actual agreement

limit was 121,253 short tons) to 161,487 short tons (for 2003, when the actual limit was this same

amount).56 Imports of subject merchandise generally tracked the license amounts, with Russian AN

maintaining a steady presence in the United States throughout the period of review under the suspension

agreement.57 There are also three antidumping duty orders in effect on imports on AN from Russia,

imposed by Australia, Brazil, and the European Union.58 

Non-subject imports have also supplied the U.S. market. Since the imposition of the suspension

agreement, the volume of non-subject imports has increased. During the period of the original

investigation, non-subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption was between 8.0 percent and 10.3

percent.59 During the period of review, the share of non-subject imports ranged from *** percent (2001)

to *** percent (2003).60 

Security Regulations. Ammonium nitrate transported by truck or rail has long been regulated by

Department of Transportation regulations governing the transport of hazardous materials, which include

such requirements as affixing hazard warning labels, properly packaging materials, and identifying the

class of material being transported.61 Additional concerns about secure handling and storage of

ammonium nitrate began to be raised after the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995, in which

ammonium nitrate was used as an explosive ingredient. Studies were undertaken but did not recommend

additional controls on AN. Producers and distributors nonetheless began to adopt security measures

voluntarily, sparked in part by joint public awareness campaigns initiated by The Fertilizer Institute, an

industry association, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), to raise awareness of

safety issues among distributors and dealers of ammonium nitrate and in the farming community.62 

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the federal government and some state

governments began to evaluate whether to impose additional controls on ammonium nitrate shipments. In
 63 See COFANT’s Posthearing Brief Exh. 1 at 29-30 & Exh. 28.

 64 See 33 C.F.R. § 105 (applies to barge fleeting facilities that receive bulk cargoes designated as solid hazardous

materials or “certain dangerous cargoes”); 33 C.F.R. § 104 (requiring similar security measures for owners and

operators of vessels, including barges carrying designated hazardous or dangerous cargoes and towing vessels

engaged in towing barges or other vessels carrying these cargoes).

 65 See 69 Fed. Reg. 51176 (Aug. 18, 2004).

 66 See COFANT’s Posthearing Brief Exh. 1 at 30-31 & Exh. 29.

 67 See 70 Fed. Reg. 74663, 74665 (Dec. 16, 2005) (a copy of which appears at Exh. 5 to Russian Respondents’

Prehearing Brief). The Coast Guard continues to address issues raised by AN barge companies, suggesting that

additional concerns will also be resolved. 

We note also that there is a bill pending in Congress (H.R. 3197 and S. 1141), the “Secure Handling of

Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2005,” that would require a uniform national regulatory system for the handling of AN.

See COFANT’s Posthearing Brief Exh. 1 at 31.

 68 See COFANT’s Feb. 7, 2006 Submission at 5 & Exh. 4. 

 69 See COFANT’s Posthearing Brief Exh. 1 at 31 & Exhs. 7; see also COFANT’s Feb. 7, 2006 Submission at 3-4

& Exh. 3 (noting that there are at least *** river terminals currently handling ammonium nitrate). 

 70 CR at II-11-II-17, PR at II-7-II-11.

 71 CR, PR at Table II-4.

11

April 2002, South Carolina promulgated regulations requiring a permit and record keeping for all

distributors selling ammonium nitrate. Nevada, Oklahoma, New York, Michigan, and California

subsequently followed suit.63

In November 2002, Congress enacted the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 that

mandated various security measures for certain facilities in U.S. ports. The Coast Guard promulgated

regulations under this act in October 2003 that required owners and operators of these facilities to

implement Coast Guard-approved security plans with provisions such as security training for personnel,

record keeping related to security issues, controlled access to facilities, and security measures for the

handling of cargo.64 

Although regulations were published in October 2003, they did not apply to ammonium nitrate

until August 2004, when the Coast Guard added AN to its “certain dangerous cargo” (CDC) list.65 The

Fertilizer Institute and other groups raised concerns with the Coast Guard that the new regulations created

uncertainty as to their scope and burdens. A Coast Guard advisory in March 2005 clarified that a vessel

security plan is not required when barges are not carrying AN.66 Further, in December 2005, the Coast

Guard agreed that barge companies are not considered to be carrying CDCs when they carry only AN

residue.67

These new federal security regulations in effect apply to AN transported on the water, not AN

transported by rail or truck. The measures apply primarily to barge companies and distributors of AN

with river terminals, including Terra’s port facility in Yazoo City, MS. There appear to be fewer barge

lines currently carrying AN than prior to AN’s designation as a CDC. However, the carriers that handle

AN operate over 3,000 covered dry cargo barges, compared to only 600 or fewer movements of AN by

barge each year.68 In addition, relatively few river terminals have ceased handling AN and it appears that

some additional terminals began handling AN after the Coast Guard regulations came into effect.69 

Substitutability. Domestically produced AN and AN imported from Russian and other import

sources are at least moderately substitutable.70 AN is a commodity product, without readily identifiable

variations or grades. Responding domestic producers indicated that U.S.-produced AN and imports of

AN from Russia are “always” interchangeable. Five of eight responding importers, and seven of nine

responding purchasers indicated that the two are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable.71 Most

responding purchasers reported that U.S. product and subject imports were comparable in terms of
 72 CR, PR at Table II-6.

 73 CR, PR at Table II-4.

 74 See, e.g., COFANT’s Feb. 14, 2006 Submission at Exhs. 1-6; Tr. at 254 (Mr. Adamchak) (noting

comparability of Bulgarian product). Cf. Tr. at 194 (Mr. Adamchak) (noting that the importer Ameropa no longer

handles AN from Georgia due to quality issues). 

 75 CR, PR at Table II-2.

 76 CR, PR at Table II-3.

 77 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 78 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 79 Views at 12-13.

 80 CR at IV-9, PR at IV-5.

12

quality.72 Subject and nonsubject imports are also interchangeable, with responding domestic producers

indicating that the two are “always” interchangeable, while most responding importers reported that the

two are at least “sometimes” interchangeable, and most purchasers reported that the two are “always” or

“frequently” interchangeable.73 The quality of nonsubject imports is generally comparable to the quality

of AN available from Russia.74 

Price remains an important factor in purchasing decisions for this commodity product. Price was

ranked as the first or second most important factor by 13 of 14 purchasers, with quality identified as the

next most important purchasing factor (listed by 8 of 10 purchasers).75 All but one of the responding

purchasers indicated that price is “very important” in making AN purchase decisions.76 

We find that these conditions in the AN market provide us with a reasonable basis on which to

assess the likely effects of termination of the suspended investigation.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports 

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the suspended investigation

is terminated, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.77 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the

exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories;

(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the

United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,

which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other

products.78

In the original investigation, the Commission found the volume of subject imports to be

significant. The quantity of subject imports increased from 198,701 short tons in 1997 to 261,545 short

tons in 1998, and then to *** short tons in 1999, an overall increase of *** percent. Subject import

market penetration also increased from 1997 to 1999, from 7.9 percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1999. 

Subject imports increased at a faster rate than did domestic shipments, taking market share from the

domestic industry. Thus, while market penetration of subject imports was rising, the domestic producers’

share of apparent U.S. consumption declined from 84.1 percent in 1997 to 80.8 percent in 1999.79

Under the discipline of the suspension agreement, subject import volume declined significantly. 

The Russian government, as noted above, is responsible for allocating the yearly quota among Russian

exporting firms. The allocations received by the reporting firms were ***.80 However, the Russian

producers responding to the Commission questionnaire collectively and consistently ***. For 2003 and
 81 CR, PR at Table IV-5.

 82 INV-DD-032 at IV-11; INV-DD-032 at Tables IV-7 & IV-9.

 83 CR at IV-4, PR at IV-2; CR, PR at Table IV-4. Capacity was reportedly 4.7 million short tons in interim 2004

as compared to 4.6 million short tons in interim 2005; production was 3.1 million short tons in interim 2004 as

compared to 3.3 million short tons in interim 2005. CR, PR at Table IV-4. End-of-period inventories for the

Russian industry increased irregularly between 2000 (41,089 short tons) and 2004 (60,300 short tons), and were

43,487 short tons in interim 2005 as compared to 58,196 short tons in interim 2004. CR, PR at Table IV-4.

 84 CR, PR at Tables IV-4 & I-6. ***. See CR at IV-5, PR at IV-3 & INV-DD-032 at IV-11. 

 85 INV-DD-32 at Table IV-7. 

 86 CR, PR at Table IV-4 (the share of exports for interim 2005 was *** percent as compared to *** for interim

2004).

 87 Russian Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 26-27 & Exh. 20.

 88 E.g., CR, PR at Table IV-4; INV-DD-32 at Table IV-10. 

 89 See, e.g., Tr. at 215 (Mr. Ward) (“I think there is a likelihood that we will see more Russian product . . .”), 222

(Mr. Adamchak) (“Of course we are not alleging that the Russian producers aren’t going to export at significant

levels.”)

 90 INV-DD-32 at IV-19.

13

2004, the ***.81 Given the demonstrated ability of the Russian industry to increase imports in the U.S.

market rapidly, the ongoing presence of subject imports in the U.S. market, and the experience

demonstrated with the suspension agreement in place, it is apparent that Russian producers are willing

and able to supply the U.S. market with volumes in excess of existing quota volumes and, if the

suspended investigation were terminated, would likely supply the U.S. market at levels equal to or

exceeding those found significant by the Commission in the original investigation.

Russia is the largest producer and exporter of AN in the world. In 2004, Russia accounted for

*** percent of world production and *** percent of world exports of AN.82 The questionnaire data

collected by the Commission, which came from six producers accounting for *** percent of total AN

capacity in Russia, shows that capacity overall has remained fairly constant between 2000 and 2004 at 6

million short tons, and that production at the beginning and end of the period was 4.2 million short tons,

with a high of 4.5 million short tons in 2001 and 2002.83 The Russian industry’s capacity utilization

during the period of review has ranged from approximately two-thirds to three-quarters of reported

capacity, leaving significant unused capacity that, in 2004, for example, was equivalent to *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption in that year.84 Forecasts are for *** production in the Russian AN industry in

2006 and 2007.85

The Russian AN industry is also export oriented. As noted above, it leads the world in AN

exports. As a share of total shipments, shipments for exportation during the period of review ranged from

a low of *** percent (2004) to a high of *** percent (2002).86 Russian respondents contend that there is

an export bias in the reporting of foreign producer data that overstates the share of shipments for

exportation, but the figure they would use, *** percent, still demonstrates the industry’s significant export

orientation.87 While Russia’s home market also appears to have grown during the period of review,88 the

Russian industry’s considerable size and unused capacity indicates that export markets remain an

important part of the industry’s commercial future. 

In addition, the U.S. market is an attractive market for foreign producers and exporters because of

its size and the prices it commands. In fact, Russian respondents concede that Russian imports will

increase due to the attractiveness of the U.S. market.89 In 2004, the U.S. market was the third-largest

import market in the world.90 A comparison of average unit values (AUVs) for commercial shipments of

the Russian product demonstrates that AN prices in the United States were much higher than prices in

alternative Russian export markets on an f.o.b. Russia basis throughout the period of review. In 2004, for

example, AUVs for Russian product shipped to the United States were $128.65 per short ton; the next
 91 CR, PR at Table IV-4 (in 2001, for example, shipment AUVs for exports to the U.S. were $*** per short ton as

compared to $43.81 per short ton for exports to the EU). Russian Respondents acknowledged at the hearing that

they sell at higher prices in the United States than elsewhere. Tr. at 262 (Mr. Adamchak).

 92 INV-DD-032 at Table IV-6 (a safeguard measure imposed in Bulgaria on imports of Russian AN expired in

July 2005; ***).

 93 See, e.g., Russian Respondents’ Final Comments at 5-8.

 94 See, e.g., CR at II-11-II-17, PR at II-7-II-11; COFANT’s Feb. 14, 2006 Submission at Exhs. 1-6.

 95 CR, PR at Table IV-1.

 96 Official Commerce Monthly Import Statistics, USITC (EDIS) doc. no. 248504. Imports from Canada are not

included because they include LDAN as well as AN. 

14

highest AUV was $100.90 per short ton for shipments to the EU; at other times, the U.S. premium

reflected in the shipment AUVs was approximately *** that of other export markets for the Russian

product.91 Moreover, exports of subject merchandise from Russia are subject to antidumping duty orders

in Australia, Brazil, and the EU, which further increases the attractiveness of the U.S. market as a target

for increased imports from Russia.92 

Russian Respondents, as noted, have conceded that subject import volumes will increase if the

suspended investigation were terminated. In their view, however, the increases will not reach significant

levels within the meaning of the Act because subject imports will simply displace non-subject imports as

a source in the U.S. market and, further, because the infrastructure or “bandwidth” to import AN into the

United States has become significantly reduced since the original investigation due to security-related

restrictions.93 Neither argument is persuasive.

The prediction that subject imports will only replace non-subject imports is not supported by the

current record and is inconsistent with the experience of the original investigation, in which increases in

volumes of dumped Russian imports came at the expense of the domestic industry’s market share. As

identified under conditions of competition, we reject the premise that most non-subject imports are

inferior to the Russian AN. Subject imports and non-subject imports of this commodity product are

sufficiently comparable such that competition between the two, as between the U.S. product and subject

imports, will largely be price based.94 Further, were the suspended investigation to be terminated and the

trading companies that currently ship Russian AN to the U.S. market to be freed from the reference price

and volume restrictions, we find that the trading companies would likely increase shipments of Russian

AN to the U.S. market consistent with import patterns during the original investigation. We see no basis

upon which to discount the significance of likely increased volumes of subject imports given the

competitive conditions of the U.S. market. 

The premise of Russian Respondents’ alternative argument – the “bandwidth” argument – is that

subject imports, in the event of termination of the suspended investigation, will be unable to reach

significant levels due to infrastructure constraints created by new security regulations. They point to

declines in non-subject imports in 2004 and interim 2005 as reflective of the impact of these constraints

on the market. Non-subject imports declined from *** short tons in 2003 to *** short tons in 2004, and

were *** short tons in interim 2005 as compared to *** in interim 2004.95 However, the monthly data

for 2004 and full year 2005 show that, as the uncertainties surrounding the new Coast Guard regulations

were clarified, non-subject import volumes rebounded to historical levels.

The decline in non-subject import volumes started in the second half of 2004, when the Coast

Guard regulations were applied to AN. In January to April 2005, non-subject import volume ebbed, and

the total for the first half of 2005 was 93,541 short tons, as compared to 305,046 short tons for the same

period in 2004. With the subsequent regulatory clarifications, however, non-subject imports rebounded. 

Non-subject import volume for the second half of 2005 was 211,960 short tons. In December 2005, there

were over 99,000 short tons of non-subject AN imported into the United States, the highest monthly level

of AN imports into the United States since January 2004.96
 97 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on

circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” 

SAA at 886.

 98 Views at 14.

 99 Views at 13-14.

 100 Views at 14. The Commission also considered whether other factors – raw material costs, non-subject

imports, and the price of other nitrogen-based fertilizers – explained the magnitude of the price declines. The

Commission concluded that none of these exogenous factors provided a sufficient explanation for the sharp drop in

(continued...)

15

The level of imports in 2005 since the Coast Guard clarifications suggests that any constraints in

the distribution system are not significantly impeding imports. In addition, as we noted in our discussion

of conditions of competition, the record does not demonstrate a shortage of available barge supply or

warehouse storage capacity. To the contrary, the record shows that imports in the distribution system

have lately increased and barge supply and storage are sufficient. All of these factors lead us to conclude

that subject producers from Russia have the ability and incentive to increase exports to the United States

to significant levels if the suspended investigation were terminated.

Accordingly, based on the continued presence of Russian AN in the U.S. market during the

period of review, the demonstrated ability of the Russian AN industry to increase imports into the U.S.

market rapidly during the original investigation, the experience of Russian producers and exporters under

the suspension agreement, the substantial production capability and unused capacity of the Russian

industry as the world’s largest producer and exporter of AN, the Russian industry’s reliance on export

markets (despite numerous barriers), and the incentives that exist to increase imports into the United

States in the absence of the suspension agreement, we find that the likely volume of subject imports, both

in absolute terms and relative to production and consumption in the United States, would be significant. 

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the suspended investigation is

terminated, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling

by the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are

likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or

suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product.97

In the original investigation, the Commission found that subject imports undersold the domestic

like product in 33 out of 35 monthly pricing product comparisons, with substantial underselling margins

that exceeded 15 percent in 29 months. Given the relative substitutability of domestically produced AN

and subject imports and the importance of price in purchasing decisions, the Commission determined that

the underselling by subject imports was significant. Numerous instances of confirmed lost sales and lost

revenue allegations also supported this conclusion.98

The Commission further found that prices for both subject imports and the domestic like product

declined sharply between 1997 and 1999. Prices for subject imports and domestically produced AN were

lower in each year than in the previous year, although within each year prices generally rose in the spring,

the period of peak demand for AN. During the last month for which data were collected, December 1999,

prices for the domestic product were 32.4 percent lower and prices for the subject imports were ***

percent lower than they were in January 1997, the first month for which data were collected.99

Based on the sharp declines in prices for both products, as well as witness testimony that the

domestic industry was forced to cut prices to retain market share, the Commission concluded that the

substantial volumes of subject imports that entered the U.S. market substantially depressed and

suppressed prices for the domestic like product.100 
 100 (...continued)

AN prices during the period examined. Views at 14-17. 

 101 See, e.g., Tr. at 194 (Mr. Adamchak).

 102 CR at I-10, PR at I-8.

 103 E.g., CR, PR at V-1.

 104 CR at III-19-III-20, PR at III-8-III-9; CR, PR at Figure V-1.

 105 E.g., COFANT’s Posthearing Brief Exh. 18 (U.S. Energy Information Administration’s “Russia Country

Analysis Brief”) at 12. 

 106 CR, PR at V-1.

 107 CR at V-1, PR at V-2. See also COFANT’s Posthearing Brief Exh. 1 at 2 & Exh. 20 (noting that the average

price in the United States for natural gas to industrial consumers for the period January to October 2005 was $282.76

per 1,000 cubic meters, whereas regional wholesale natural gas prices in the most recent period in Russia range in

price from the equivalent of $23.57 to $45.08 per 1,000 cubic meters).

 108 Russian Respondents argue that Russia’s future WTO accession and stipulations that would be agreed to as a

condition of that accession would result in Russian AN producers incurring higher natural gas costs. E.g., Russian

Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 21-22. COFANT counters that the fact and specific terms of Russia WTO

accession are speculative on this record. See Tr. at 94-95 (Ms. Slater). We note that even under a recent bilateral

agreement that Russia concluded with the EU to increase natural gas costs to Russian industrial users, increases were

scheduled to be phased in over many years, and prices by 2010 would reportedly range from $49 to $57 per 1,000

cubic meters. See Russian Respondents’ Prehearing Brief Exh. 18 at 2 (compare note 107 supra and accompanying

text). See also Tr. at 95 (Mr. Szamosszegi) (describing Russia-EU pricing agreement as not promising a

liberalization of Russia’s natural gas prices). 

 109 CR at V-6, PR at V-5; CR, PR at Table V-1.

16

The record continues to show that price for this commodity product is an important factor in

purchasing decisions, and that domestically produced AN and subject imports from Russia remain

substitutable products. Subject import prices throughout the period of review were regulated by the

reference price in the suspension agreement discussed above. Russian Respondents complained that this

reference price, which sets a floor beneath which prices may not fall, has artificially inflated subject

import prices.101 They also claim that the deduction for freight in the reference price calculation does not

reflect the increase in transportation costs in the current market.102

Natural gas is the most important cost component in the production of AN.103 Natural gas prices

in the United States have increased during the period of review and exhibited considerable volatility.104

Russian producers, on the other hand, have access to low-priced natural gas because Russian law requires

Gazprom, the state-run natural gas monopoly, to supply gas to the domestic market at regulated prices

that are below gas costs in the U.S. market.105 Unit values for natural gas in the United States increased

from $2.08 per MMBTU in 1998 to $8.84 per MMBTU in 2005, and were $10.92 per MMBTU as of

January 2006.106 Although, natural gas prices in Russia increased during the period of review, they remain

very low relative to prices in the United States during the period of review. Natural gas prices in Russia

ranged from $*** to $*** per MMBTU.107 While Russia’s natural gas sector might ultimately undergo

liberalization, any such changes do not reflect current or reasonably foreseeable market conditions.108

For the period of review, the Commission collected price data for AN in the U.S. market on three

bases – f.o.b. plant (or port for importers), f.o.b. other-than-plant (or f.o.b. other-than-port for importers),

and on a delivered basis. AN imported from Russia was priced lower than domestic AN in 24 of 33

possible comparisons, with margins ranging from 0.5 percent to 21.1 percent. In the remaining 9

instances, AN imported from Russia was priced above domestic AN, with margins ranging from 0.4 to

9.0 percent.109

The prices for domestic AN and subject imports generally followed a similar trend, although data

for subject imports were not reported in all periods. Prices increased irregularly to an interim peak in

March 2001, before irregularly declining and then leveling off until February 2003, when they began
 110 CR, PR at Table V-1.

 111 CR, PR at App. A (Reference Prices Pertaining to Suspension Agreement).

 112 Tr. At 28 (Mr. Elliott).

 113 Commissioner Pearson does not join in the remainder of this paragraph. He concludes that if the suspended

investigation were terminated, significant volumes of subject imports from Russia likely would enter the United

States. Since AN is a bulk commodity product, those volumes would likely have a depressing or suppressing effect

on domestic prices regardless of the degree of underselling. Any underselling would tend to magnify the negative

effects related to subject imports. 

 114 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 115 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). 

The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as

“the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 

(continued...)

17

gradually, irregularly increasing again. Prices reached their highest level in the last reported period of

September 2005.110

The price trends during the period of review reflect the discipline of the suspension agreement

and its reference price. Subject import prices moved with the established reference price, which is based

on U.S. prices. For a significant portion of the period of review, the reference price was at or about the

floor price.111 The discipline of the reference price notwithstanding, subject imports continued to

undersell U.S. product. The record demonstrates that, absent this discipline, subject import prices would

repeat the trends of the original investigation, and would continue to undersell U.S. product and depress

or suppress U.S. prices. For the global trading companies that drive the flow of imports, profit is a

function of total margin and total volume, so they have a strong incentive to move as much volume as

feasible so long as their margins that cover their purchase price and transportation costs are maintained.112

Russian prices for natural gas, which are lower than global market levels and provide a raw material cost

advantage to Russian AN producers, help maintain these margins and may allow for profitable trading

operations at prices that undersell U.S. product. 

Given the likely significant volume of imports, the importance of price in the AN market,

artificially low Russian natural gas costs, the substitutability of subject imports and the domestic like

product, the price effects of low-priced imports in the original investigations, the underselling by subject

imports during the period of review, and the incentive that exists for subject imports to enter the U.S.

market, we find a likelihood of significant negative price effects from the subject imports.113 We

conclude that, if the suspended investigation were terminated, significant volumes of subject imports from

Russia likely would enter the United States and significantly undersell the domestic like product. Since

AN is a bulk commodity product, those volumes would likely have a depressing or suppressing effect on

domestic prices. 

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the suspended investigation is

terminated, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to: (1) likely declines in

output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity;

(2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital,

and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like

product.114 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle

and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.115 As instructed by the statute, we
 115 (...continued)

19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. In the final results of its investigation, Commerce found that

termination of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on AN from Russia would likely lead to continuation

or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weight-average margins: JSC Azot Nevinnomyssky, 253.98

percent; Russia-wide, 253.98 percent. 71 Fed. Reg. at 11178.

 116 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885.

 117 Views at 17-18.

 118 Views at 18-19.

 119 Views at 19.

 120 CR at III-11, PR at III-6.

 121 CR, PR at Table III-1 & Table III-3.

 122 CR, PR Tables III-1 & III-5.

 123 CR, PR at Table III-6.

18

have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to

the suspension agreement and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the suspended

investigation is terminated.116

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the industry’s revenue and financial

performance deteriorated significantly during the period examined. Although domestic producers’ U.S.

shipments increased between 1997 and 1999, the industry’s sales revenues declined from $*** million in

1997 to $*** million in 1999. The Commission attributed this decline to the sharp drop in domestic

prices, which outpaced any declines in costs during this period: the cost of goods sold (COGS) declined

from $*** per short ton in 1997 to $*** in 1999 (a decline of $***), and sales, general, and

administrative expenses declined from $*** per short ton in 1997 to $*** in 1999 (a decline of $***). 

Net sales values, on the other hand, declined from $*** per short ton in 1997 to $*** in 1999 (a decline

of $***). 117

As a consequence, notwithstanding increasing shipments and increasing apparent U.S.

consumption, the domestic industry’s operating income declined from $*** million in 1997 to $***

million in 1998, and then to an operating loss of $*** million in 1999, a year in which six *** producers

reported operating losses. One producer also ceased production in this period; another filed for

bankruptcy. Employment declined industry-wide, and capital expenditures also declined.118

The Commission found that these performance declines were attributable to lower U.S. prices,

which in turn were driven by the price depressing and suppressing effects of LTFV imports from Russia. 

The Commission concluded that subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the domestic

industry.119

During the period of review, the structure of the U.S. AN industry changed significantly. Five

firms discontinued production completely and either shut down or sold their AN production assets.

Several continue to produce other types of nitrogen fertilizers but have ceased producing AN, and a new

firm entered the market, purchasing an existing producer that had gone into bankruptcy.120 Production

and shipments declined irregularly between 2000 and 2004, while capacity utilization increased

irregularly in the same period.121 Capacity declined with the consolidation, and employment declined

steadily between 2000 and 2004.122

Total net sales quantities declined irregularly between 2000 and 2004, but total net sales values

increased irregularly in this same period, attributable to increases in average unit sales values.123 Average

unit net sales values increased *** percent, from $*** per short ton in 2000 to $*** per short ton in
 124 CR, PR at Table C-1.

 125 CR, PR at Table III-6.

 126 CR, PR at Table III-6.

 127 CR, PR at Table III-6.

 128 We note that the two remaining producers experienced *** from 2000 through 2003. CR, PR at Table C-2.

 129 CR, PR at Table III-7.

 130 See, e.g., Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Final), USITC Pub. 3838 (Mar. 2006) at

20 n.143.

19

2004.124 Increasing raw material costs during this same period led to an overall increase in COGS, which

increased roughly in tandem with sales values.125 The industry reported ***.126 

Between interim 2004 and interim 2005, sales quantity and value rose. Although COGS

increased as well, due to rising raw material costs, AUVs of net sales increased more, resulting in the

industry reporting ***.127

The suspension agreement has benefitted the consolidating domestic industry during the period of

review by limiting the volume of unfairly traded imports from Russia and inhibiting the price depressing

effects of Russian AN exported to the United States, as took place during the investigation period. 

Increased prices have allowed the domestic industry’s financial condition to improve in the most recent

period despite challenges from falling demand, rising gas prices, and rising third-country imports.

However, the industry, which at present consists of El Dorado and Terra, remains vulnerable to material

injury from subject imports, particularly given the high price of open-market natural gas evidenced in this

investigation, and current declining demand trends.128 

Russian Respondents have argued that the consolidated domestic industry would be insulated

from adverse effects of increased subject imports because of increased market power as a “duopoly.”

However, the two domestic producers – one of which ***129 in the most recent period – compete for

business with each other and with the large importers that source from a number of countries producing

AN. Although domestic prices have risen faster than COGS toward the end of the period of review, we

do not find evidence of market coordination by domestic producers or enhanced market power.

Russian Respondents have also argued that a significant shortfall of U.S. supply compared to

demand will render increased Russian imports non-injurious. We note that there is no “short supply

provision” in the statute; the fact that the domestic industry may not be able to supply all of the demand

does not mean the industry may not be materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of

subject imports.130 Given the demand declines since 2003 and current demand trends, the reported

capacity of Terra and El Dorado, with or without the inclusion of the Cherokee plant, and the availability

of other sources of AN to the U.S. market, we do not find any gap in supply in the U.S. market that would

necessitate additional imports from Russia, nor that would insulate the domestic industry from the likely

adverse effects of terminating the suspended investigation. 

Based on the record in this review, we conclude that termination of the suspended investigation

would likely lead to a significant increase in the volume of subject imports that would undersell the

domestic like product and would significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices. We find that these volume

and price effects of the subject imports have an adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales values,

employment, and market share of the domestic industry, and would necessarily have a significant adverse

impact on the likely revenues of the domestic industry. These reductions, in turn, would have a direct

adverse impact on the industry’s profitability as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain

necessary capital investments. Accordingly, we conclude that, if the suspended investigation were

terminated, subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry

within a reasonably foreseeable time.
20

CONCLUSION 

For the above-stated reasons, we determine that termination of the suspended investigation on AN

from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
 1

 For purposes of this investigation, subject ammonium nitrate is solid, fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate

products, whether prilled, granular, or in other solid form, with or without additives or coating, and with a bulk

density equal to or greater than 53 pounds per cubic foot. Specifically excluded from this scope is solid ammonium

nitrate with a bulk density less than 53 pounds per cubic foot (commonly referred to as industrial-grade or

explosive-grade ammonium nitrate). Subject ammonium nitrate is provided for in subheading 3102.30.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) with a normal trade relations tariff rate of “Free”

applicable to imports from Russia.

 2

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy appear in app. A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address www.usitc.gov). 

Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct an expedited or full review may also be found at the web site.

 3

 The petition was filed by Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. (“Air Products”), Allentown, PA; Mississippi

Chemical Corp. (“MCC”), Yazoo City, MS; El Dorado Chemical Co. (“El Dorado”), Oklahoma City, OK; Nitram,

Inc., Tampa, FL; LaRoche Industries, Inc. (“LaRoche”), Atlanta, GA; and Wil-Gro Fertilizer, Inc., Celina, TX.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On March 31, 2005, the Commission gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (the Act), that it had instituted a review to determine whether termination of the suspended

investigation on ammonium nitrate (“AN”)1

 from Russia would likely lead to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. Effective July 5, 2005, the Commission determined

that it would conduct a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. Information relating to the

background and schedule of the review is provided in the following tabulation.2

Effective date Action

May 19, 2000 Commerce suspends its antidumping investigation (65 FR 37759, June 16, 2000)

August 14, 2000 Commission’s affirmative final determination (65 FR 50719, August 21, 2000)

March 31, 2005 Commission’s institution of review (70 FR 16517)

July 5, 2005 Commission’s decision to conduct a full review (70 FR 41426, July 19, 2005)

September 2, 2005 Commission’s scheduling of the review (70 FR 53687, September 9, 2005)

January 19, 2006 Commission’s hearing1

March 6, 2006 Commerce’s final results of full review (71 FR 11177)

March 14, 2006 Commission’s vote

March 27, 2006 Commission’s determination sent to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses appearing at the hearing is included in app. B.

The Original Investigation

On July 23, 1999, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of dumped imports of AN from Russia.3

On May 19, 2000, before the Commission reached a final determination, Commerce entered into a

suspension agreement with Russia and suspended the antidumping investigation. On June 29, 2000, the
I-2

petitioners requested a continuation of the investigation and both Commerce and the Commission

resumed their investigations. On July 11, 2000, Commerce made a final affirmative dumping

determination, with margins as follows: 253.98 percent ad valorem for JSC Azot Nevinnomyssk

(“Nevinka”) and Russia-wide. Critical circumstances were found also with respect to Nevinka and

Russia-wide. The Commission made its final affirmative injury determination on August 14, 2000, and

also determined that critical circumstances did not exist with respect to the subject imports. Commerce

did not issue an antidumping duty order because of the suspension agreement.

Previous Investigation

The subject product was included in an investigation of all ammonium nitrate that the

Commission instituted on April 27, 1998. This investigation, No. 332-393, was instituted under section

332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 in response to a request from the Committee on Finance of the U.S.

Senate. The results are contained in USITC Publication 3135 (October 1998): Ammonium Nitrate: A

Comparative Analysis of Factors Affecting Global Trade.

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigation and from this review; figure

I-1 shows U.S. imports of AN from Russia since 1997. 
I-3

Table I-1

AN: Summary data from the original investigation and the current review, 1997-2004

(Quantity=1,000 short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per short ton)

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount 2,362 2,547 2,595 *** *** *** *** ***

Producers’ share1 84.1 80.7 80.8 *** *** *** *** ***

Import share:

Russia1 7.9 9.0 *** (2

) *** *** *** ***

Other sources1 8.0 10.3 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports1 15.9 19.3 19.2 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

Amount 327,485 298,997 258,670 *** *** *** *** ***

Producers’ share1 85.0 82.1 82.5 *** *** *** *** ***

Import share:

Russia1 7.1 8.9 *** (2

) *** *** *** ***

Other sources1 7.9 9.0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 15.0 17.9 17.5 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from–3

Russia:

Quantity 187 230 *** 0.29 96 115 162 1264

Value 23,131 26,531 *** 37 11,859 11,085 18,239 21,039

Unit value $123.43 $115.17 $*** $128.80 $123.31 $96.68 $112.28 $166.37

Nonsubject countries:

Quantity 189 262 *** *** *** *** *** ***4

Value 25,968 26,932 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $137.19 $102.72 $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

All countries:

Quantity 377 493 499 *** *** *** *** ***

Value 49,099 53,463 45,326 *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $130.34 $108.54 $90.76 $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Table continued on next page.
I-4

Table I-1--Continued

AN: Summary data from the original investigation and the current review, 1997-2004

(Quantity=1,000 short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs,

and unit financial data are per short ton)

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity 2,532 2,648 2,736 *** *** *** *** ***

Production quantity 2,111 2,174 2,005 *** *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization1 83.4 82.1 73.3 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments:

Quantity 1,985 2,055 2,095 *** *** *** *** ***

Value 278,386 245,534 213,344 *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $140.24 $119.49 $101.82 $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Ending inventory quantity 282 385 267 *** *** *** *** ***

Inventories/total 

shipments1 14.2 18.7 12.7 *** *** *** *** ***

Production workers 499 450 449 329 293 290 287 277

Hours worked (1,000 

hours) 1,102 997 989 716 658 664 636 604

Wages paid (1,000 

dollars) 22,241 20,872 21,047 15,651 13,898 14,505 13,914 13,870

Hourly wages $20.18 $20.94 $21.28 $21.86 $21.12 $21.84 $21.88 $22.96

Productivity (short tons 

per hour) 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.7

Net sales:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Cost of goods sold *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Gross profit or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit cost of goods sold *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit operating income or 

(loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Cost of goods sold/sales1 78.5 85.5 98.6 *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or 

(loss)/sales1 13.7 5.9 (6.3) *** *** *** *** *** 1

 In percent. 2

 ***.

3

 During 1997-99, “imports” are shipments of imports; during 2000-04, “imports” are from official statistics. 4

 Domestic interested parties contend that in 2004 an additional 34,000 short tons reported in official Commerce statistics as

imports from Ukraine were misclassified and are believed to consist of Russian product.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Note.–***.

Note.–Import data during 1997-99 are of U.S. shipments of imports. Data during 2000-04 are of imports. 

Source: Compiled from Staff Report on Investigation No. 731-TA-856 (Final), pp. C-3 and C-4 for 1997-99 (which were compiled

from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and adjusted official Commerce import statistics for nonsubject

imports). Data for 2000-05 were compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, adjusted official

Commerce import statistics for Canada and Russia, and official Commerce import statistics for all other countries. Official

Commerce import statistics for Canada were adjusted by including only *** imports obtained from proprietary Customs data. Staff

believes that ***’s imports constitute the majority of AN imports from Canada. Official Commerce import statistics for Russia were

adjusted by deducting imports determined by staff to be misclassified (accounting for 23,998 short tons in quantity and $1,883,176

in value) in 2002 and adding imports of nitric phosphate (“NP 33-3-0") provided for under subheading 3105.51 (see discussion of

NP 33-3-0 later in this chapter in “The Product” section). Staff determined that all imports from Russia under subheading 3105.51

during 2000-05 were of NP 33-3-0. There are small amounts of imports from other countries under the same subheading but it is

unknown if these imports consist of NP 33-3-0. Therefore, only imports from Russia under subheading 3105.51 are included. 
 4

 Agrium did not supply data for the partial year periods of January-September 2004 and January-September

2005.

 5

 Official Commerce import statistics for Canada were adjusted by including only *** imports obtained from

proprietary Customs data because staff believes that ***’s imports constitute the majority of AN imports from

Canada. Official Commerce import statistics for Russia were adjusted by deducting imports determined by staff to

be misclassified in 2002 and adding imports of nitric phosphate (“NP 33-3-0”) provided for under subheading

3105.51 (see discussion of NP 33-3-0 later in this chapter in “The Product” section). 

I-5

Figure I-1

AN: U.S. imports from Russia, 1997–2004

* * * * * * *

Summary Data

Information obtained during the course of the review is presented throughout this report. A

summary of data collected in the review is presented in appendix C. U.S. industry data are based on

questionnaire responses of five firms that accounted for virtually all U.S. production of AN during 2004.4

U.S. imports from Russia and Canada are based on adjusted official Commerce import statistics5

 and

imports from all other countries are based on official Commerce import statistics. Responses by U.S.

producers, importers, and purchasers of AN and producers of AN in Russia to a series of questions

concerning the significance of the existing suspension agreement and the likely effects of termination are

presented in appendix D.

 Statutory Criteria and Organization of the Report

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later

than five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of an

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation

“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the

case may be) and of material injury.”

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuation

or recurrence of material injury--

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of

an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The

Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the

subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price

effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry

before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . ..
I-6

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is

terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,

including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in

the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject

merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors

which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to--

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context

of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected

industry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy.” 
 6

 Commerce’s notice is presented in app. A.

 7

 The suspension agreement notice providing detailed information on the agreement and a list of the reference

prices established during the agreement appear in app. A.

I-7

COMMERCE’S FINAL RESULTS OF FULL REVIEW

On March 6, 2006, Commerce found that termination of the suspended antidumping duty

investigation on AN from Russia would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the

following percentage weighted-average margin:6

 

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent)

JSC Azot Nevinnomyssk ........ 253.98

Russia-wide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.98

COMMERCE’S ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS AND DUTY ABSORPTION RULINGS

Commerce has not conducted any administrative reviews or had any duty absorption rulings.

SUSPENSION AGREEMENT

The agreement suspending the antidumping investigation (“Agreement”) was signed on May 19,

2000. In the Agreement, Commerce set limits on exports of AN from Russia to the United States and

establishes weekly “reference prices.”7

 The Russian government allocates the amount to be exported

among the Russian producers. In order for a Russian producer to export AN to the United States, the

producer must obtain permission from the Russian government and is issued an export license. The

export limits set in the Agreement can be adjusted annually. Fifteen percent of each annual export limit

can be carried over to the next year or carried back to the last 60 days of the previous export period. 

These carryovers and carrybacks must be requested by the Russian government in advance. No more

than 60 percent of the annual export limit can be exported in the January-June and July-December

periods. The export limits during 2000-06 are presented in table I-2. 
 8

 Hearing transcript, p. 197 (Morgan) and p. 198 (Adamchak).

I-8

Table I-2

Suspension agreement export limits and licensed exports

Export limit period

Agreement

export limit 

Actual

export limit 

Exports

licensed by

Government

of Russia

(Short tons)

May 19, 2000 to December 31, 2000 55,073 55,073 (1

)

January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001 110,230 110,230 101,412

January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002 121,253 121,253 82,673

January 1, 2003 to December 31, 20032 143,299 161,487 161,487

January 1, 2004 to December 31, 20043

 and all subsequent periods 165,345 159,834 137,923

January 1, 2005 to December 31, 20054 165,345 176,232 (1

)

January 1, 2006 to December 31, 20065 165,345 174,653 (6

)

 1 Data are unavailable.

 2

 Actual export limit adds 18,188 tons carried over from 2002.

 3

 Actual export limit deducts a payback of 5,512 tons.

 4

 Actual export limit deducts a payback of 11,023 tons and adds 21,910 tons carried over from 2004.

 5

 Actual export limit deducts a payback of 13,841 tons and adds 23,148 tons carried over from 2005.

 6

 Not applicable.

Note: NP 33-3-0 was shipped to the United States but was not originally included in the product scope of the

Agreement. Commerce determined that NP 33-3-0 was within scope of the Agreement and will deduct (“payback”)

the amount of the NP 33-3-0 shipments. These paybacks will be made in three installments during 2004-06.

Source: Notification by Commerce of the suspension of the antidumping investigation on ammonium nitrate from

Russia (65 FR 37759, June 16, 2000), fax from Commerce, January 30, 2006, and staff telephone interviews with

Commerce official, January 30, 2006 and February 1, 2006.

The reference price is intended to reflect an f.o.b. Russian port-of-export price and is calculated

by taking an average of the four most recent weekly Fertilizer Markets’ Midwest f.o.b. price ranges and

Green Markets’ Mid-Cornbelt f.o.b. price range, converting the average to a per-metric-ton basis, and

deducting an amount reflecting freight costs from the Russian port of export to the United States of $55

per metric ton. A price floor of $85 per metric ton f.o.b. Russian port of export was also established

under this agreement. If the reference price calculations result in a price below $85.00 per metric ton

f.o.b. Russian port of export, the floor price of $85.00 is used. The respondent interested parties stated

that the freight costs have increased since 2000 and the freight component in the reference price no longer

reflects conditions in the U.S. market. They also said that there are negotiations with Commerce on

adjusting the freight component of the reference price.8
 9

 Most AN has a density of between 55 and 62 pounds per cubic foot.

 10 LDAN’s higher porosity and its oil absorption properties increase its detonation sensitivity significantly,

making it a highly effective explosive. LDAN’s density generally ranges between 45 and 52 pounds per cubic foot.

 11 In this report, “AN” refers to the subject ammonium nitrate, as defined by the scope. The term “ammonium

nitrate” refers to both AN and LDAN.

 12 AN’s chemical structure is NH4NO3.

 13 Whereas pure ammonium nitrate is typically 35 percent nitrogen by weight, the amount of nitrogen declines to

almost 34 percent when additives are used to prevent moisture absorption and expansion and contraction of the

particles.

 14 Some exceptions were noted during the hearing. For example, imports from Georgia were characterized as

being “marginal” (hearing transcript, pp. 250-251 (Ward), and pp. 253-255 (Adamchak).

 15 As noted in the hearing, Russian AN is considered a “perfect substitute for U.S. produced ammonium nitrate of

quality and uses” (hearing transcript, p. 20 (Green). Available information from the questionnaires indicates that

most imported AN sold in the United States is interchangeable with domestic product. AN imported from Russia is

reportedly in prill form (staff telephone interview with ***).

 16 The remaining nitrogen in the product is converted more slowly to available nitrogen by soil microflora.

I-9

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS TO

AFFECTED DOMESTIC PRODUCERS

No antidumping duties were paid during 2000-05, so there were no distributions of Continued

Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) funds.

THE PRODUCT

As defined in the scope of the suspended investigation, the subject product is solid high-density

ammonium nitrate (AN) with a density of 53 pounds or more per cubic foot,9

 primarily used as a

fertilizer. Forms of ammonium nitrate specifically excluded from the scope include solid low-density

ammonium nitrate (“LDAN”) with a bulk density less than 53 pounds per cubic foot, used primarily as an

explosive,10 and liquid ammonium nitrate, also known as ammonium nitrate liquor, used mainly as an

intermediate in the production of solid AN and LDAN or, when added to urea, in the production of ureaammonium nitrate (“UAN”) solution fertilizers.11 On March 11, 2004, the Department of Commerce

ruled that an imported product–“NP 33-3-0” (or “stabilized ammonium nitrate” or “nitric phosphate”)–is

within the scope of the investigation. AN is provided for in subheading 3102.30.00 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) with a normal trade relations tariff rate of “Free” applicable to

imports from Russia.

AN,12 which assays at about 34.0 percent minimum plant-available nitrogen (N) by weight,13 is

typically produced either in prills (spherical shapes about 1.5 to 2.5 millimeters in diameter) or granules

(slightly larger, more irregularly shaped particles). Although prills and granules are equally effective in

use and roughly equivalent in price, manufacturers tend to produce one or the other because they require

different processing equipment. As a bulk commodity product, AN produced worldwide generally14

meets similar specifications and exhibits similar physical and chemical characteristics.15

AN prills and granules are either applied to crops directly or, after being mechanically blended

with two other major fertilizer nutrients–phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), as bulk blends known as

NPKs. Granular AN is usually used in the production of NPKs because its irregular surface and larger

particle size minimize segregation of blends with other fertilizer nutrients. 

Unlike most fertilizers, 50 percent of the nitrogen in AN is immediately available to plants as

nitrate (NO3) nitrogen.16 The combination of this rapid availability with good solubility and low volatility
 17 The product is not typically used on acreage that is plowed or tilled.

 18 AN is also known as “34-0-0,” referring to the percent of the individual nutrients in the formulation (34 percent

nitrogen by weight with no added phosphorus or potassium, respectively). In comparison, NP 33-3-0 has 33 percent

nitrogen by weight and a phosphorus content of at least 3 percent. According to the ruling by the Department of

Commerce, NP 33-3-0 is included in the scope of the investigation given that the product is primarily AN and is

bought and used for the same applications as AN. Reportedly, the added phosphorus in NP 33-3-0 is generally

considered to be insufficient as a nutrient when the product is applied directly to crops (hearing transcript, pp. 82-83

(Slater)).

 19 This reaction is accomplished by passing the ammonia over a platinum-rhodium catalyst under elevated

pressure and temperatures to form nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which are then passed through a

countercurrent absorption tower with water to form an aqueous solution of about 55 percent nitric acid. 

 20 The aqueous AN solution can either be further processed into AN or mixed with urea to form UAN liquid

fertilizers.

 21 E-mail from *** and staff telephone interview with ***.

 22 AN is sensitive to moisture absorption from the atmosphere (hygroscopic) and also is sensitive to expansion

and contraction (phase changes) with temperature fluctuations which eventually lead to caking (the lumping or

agglomeration of individual free-flowing particles into a solid mass) and degradation, respectively; the addition of

stabilizing agents reduces degradation caused by expansion and contraction, and coating with moisture-barrier

agents prevents caking, thus circumventing interference with fertilizer application. Prills are more susceptible to

caking than granules and are usually more heavily coated. 

 23 LDAN is also prilled, but from an AN melt that has different moisture inhibiting agents added and was

evaporated to only about a 95-percent melt concentration. The remaining water is evaporated from the prills after

they are formed, leaving them more porous (i.e., less dense) than AN prills. Their low density allows them to readily

I-10

at ambient temperatures has enhanced AN’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,17 AN can be applied on hay, pasture,

turf grasses, corn, tobacco, and citrus, all crops that use no-till fertilizer application. According to various

sources, NP 33-3-0, which is reportedly not produced domestically, can be used for the same

applications.18

Manufacturing Facilities, Production Process, and Production Employees

The AN manufacturing process is relatively standard. Ammonia (NH3), either purchased or

derived from natural gas and atmospheric nitrogen, is directly reacted with nitric acid (HNO3) to form 

NH4NO3. A nitric acid solution, generally formed from combining a portion of the ammonia with

oxygen,19 is then, in turn, reacted with the remaining ammonia in a neutralization chamber to form an

aqueous AN solution (otherwise known as liquid ammonium nitrate or ammonium nitrate liquor).20 The

AN solution is then heated and evaporated to a molten concentration, or melt, of 99 percent AN or

greater.

Producers then either produce granules from the molten AN by layering the material onto seed

particles in a rotary pan, or drum granulator, or prills by spraying molten AN droplets into specially

designed towers in which the molten droplets free fall through an upward current of cool air, solidifying

into small spheres as they fall. U.S. and Russian producers produce AN in prilled form; according to

industry sources, there is currently no granular production in the United States or in Russia.21 Stabilizers,

typically clay for granules and magnesium oxide (MgO) for prills, are added to the AN melt prior to

prilling and granulation. The stabilizers limit moisture absorption, expansion, and contraction at selected

temperatures. To further prevent moisture absorption and caking, the solid AN granules and prills may be

coated with a liquid surface-active agent,22 fine powders, or other anticaking agents.23
absorb fuel oil, which is added (in a quantity equivalent to 6 percent by weight) to make them a more effective

explosive. The difference in processing results in a product that is generally 10-20 percent more costly to produce

than AN and is priced accordingly.

 24 ***, foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, section II-5, and ***, foreign producer/exporter

questionnaire response, section II-5.

 25 Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Final), USITC Publication 3338, August 2000,

pp. 4-5. 

 26 Domestic interested parties in this review are Air Products, El Dorado, and Terra, individual members of the

Committee for Fair Ammonium Nitrate Trade (“COFANT”), represented by the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss

Hauer and Feld LLP. U.S. producer Agrium U.S., Inc., (“Agrium”) was represented by the law firm Joel R. Junker

and Associates, but on November 14, 2005, withdrew as a domestic interested party.

 27 ***. 

I-11

According to questionnaire responses, the Russian production process for AN GOST 2-85, said to

be ***, is *** to that in the United States. The questionnaires cite the following general production steps: 

***.24 In regard to other forms of AN produced in Russia, ***.

U.S. AN plants, strategically situated to serve major market areas, have access to economic barge

traffic of the Mississippi and other major rivers and/or have access to truck and rail connections. Plants

are also situated near economic sources of natural gas and ammonia, which serve as feedstocks to produce

AN.

Domestic Like Product

In the original investigation, the Commission found a single domestic like product coextensive

with the scope and consisting of solid, fertilizer grade AN products with a bulk density equal to or greater

than 53 pounds per cubic foot.25 The Commission also determined that neither LDAN nor any additional

nitrogen fertilizer products were part of the domestic like product.

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

According to domestic interested parties,26 there were five U.S. firms producing AN during 

2000-04.27 Relevant information on these firms is presented in table I-3. The industry has consolidated

since the original investigation when ten firms reported AN production. Information on the producers

during the original investigation is presented in table I-4. 
I-12

Table I-3

AN: U.S. producers, locations, positions on termination of the suspended investigation, shares 

of reported 2004 production, parent company and country, and production status in January 2006

Producer

Production

location(s)

Position on

termination of

the

investigation

Share of

reported

production

(percent)

Parent

company

Produced

AN in

January

2006

Agrium 

Homestead, NE

Kennewick, WA Oppose1 ***

Agrium

(Canada) No

Air Products Pace, FL Oppose ***

Air Products,

Allentown, PA No

El Dorado

Cherokee, AL

El Dorado, AR Oppose ***

LSB Industries,

Oklahoma City,

OK Yes

PCS Augusta, GA *** ***

Potash Corp. of

Saskatchewan

(Canada) ***

Terra Yazoo City, MS Oppose ***

Terra Industries,

Inc.,

Sioux City, IA Yes

 1 Agrium, in its Response to the Notice of Institution, stated “Agrium US, Inc. concurs in and adopts by reference

in this regard the submission of {domestic interested parties}.” In a submission dated November 15, 2005, Agrium

states that it has “discontinued production and sales of fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate . . . consequently will no

longer participate in this review.” It is unclear if Agrium continues to have the same position on termination of the

suspended investigation as it had in its Response to the Notice of Institution. 

Note.–Agrium provided information on production, U.S. shipments, U.S. sales, capacity, and profit in submissions

on January 4 and January 9, 2006. 

Note.– ***.

Source: Domestic interested parties’ Response to the Notice of Institution, data compiled in response to

Commission questionnaires, Air Products, Air Products Announces Planned Closure of Converted Products

Fertilizer Manufacturing Operations at Pace, Florida, news release dated December 22, 2005, found at

http://www.airproducts.com/PressRoom/CompanyNews/Archived/2005/22Dec05.htm, retrieved January 24, 2006; 

Agrium, Agrium to switch out of agricultural ammonium nitrate in favor of other nitrogen products, news release

dated June 27, 2005, found at http://www.agrium.com/investor_information/5784_6066.jsp, retrieved January 25,

2006, and hearing transcript p. 18 (Green), and p. 36 (Rydlund).
I-13

Table I-4

AN: U.S. producers in the original investigation, U.S. production locations, positions on the

petition, shares of reported 1999 production, and parent company and country

Producer

Production

location(s)

Position on

petition

Share of

production Parent company

Agrium

Homestead,

NE *** *** Agrium (Canada)

Air Products Pace, FL Support ***

Air Products, 

Pace, FL

Coastal Chem, Inc.

Cheyenne,

WY *** ***

Coastal Chem, Inc. 

Houston, TX

El Dorado

El Dorado,

AR Support ***

LSB Industries

Oklahoma City, OK

LaRoche

Cherokee,

AL

Crystal City,

MO Support ***

LaRoche Industries,

Atlanta, GA

Mississippi Chemical

Corp. (“MCC”)

Yazoo City,

MS Support ***

Mississippi Chemical

Corp., Yazoo City, MS

Nitram Tampa, FL Support ***

Nitram was owned by a

statewide cooperative of

chemical fertilizer

producers. 

PCS

Augusta,

GA *** ***

Potash Corp. of

Saskatchewan (Canada)

Prodica LLC

Kennewick,

WA *** ***

Union Oil of California

El Segundo, CA

Wil-Gro Pryor, OK Support ***

Willard Grain and Feed

Celina, TX

Source: Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Final), USITC Publication 3338, August

2000, p. III-1 and Staff Report on Investigation No. 731-TA-856 (Final), July 25, 2000, p. III-2. Data from both

reports were compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Since the original investigation, the industry has contracted, with two producers closing and

several acquisitions and capacity reductions. Significant industry events are noted in table I-5.
 28 U.S. producer questionnaire response, sections II-10 and II-13.

I-14

Table I-5

AN: Important industry events, 2000-05

Year Company

Description of event

(Merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in capacity)

2000 Wil-Gro Closure, Capacity Loss: Closed in February after being idle

since December 1999. 

Prodica LLC Bought Out: Kennewick, WA facility was acquired by Agrium in

October.

LaRoche Bankruptcy, Divestiture, ***: Filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

protection in May and sold production facilities in Cherokee, AL

and Crystal City, MO to Orica LLC in August. Subsequently,

Orica LLC sold the facilities to LSB Industries (parent company

of El Dorado). ***.

2001 Coastal Chem Bought Out: Acquired by El Paso Energy Corp. in January.

Wil-Gro Bought Out: LSB Industries (parent company of El Dorado)

acquired Wil-Gro’s Pryor, OK facility but did not restart

production.

2003 MCC Bankruptcy: Filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May.

El Paso Energy Corp.

(Coastal Chem)

Bought Out, Capacity Loss: Dyno Nobel ASA acquired the AN

facilities of the former Coastal Chem. AN capacity was lost as

these facilities now produce LDAN.

Nitram Closure, Bankruptcy, Capacity Loss: Closed Tampa, FL

facility after filing for bankruptcy protection. Capacity

permanently lost as facility was liquidated. 

2004 MCC Bought Out: Acquired by Terra in December. 

PCS Capacity Loss: Ceased AN production in December and

produces LDAN *** instead.

El Dorado Capacity Loss: Production at Cherokee, AL was shifted from

AN to UAN.

2005 Agrium Capacity Loss: Ceased AN production. The Homestead, NE

facility will operate as a distribution terminal for ammonia and

other nitrogen products and the Kennewick, WA facility will

produce nitrogen solutions.

Air Products Capacity Loss: Air Products announced in December 2005 its

intention of permanently closing its fertilizer operations.

Source: United States Geological Survey, Minerals Yearbook, 2000-04 annual issues, Nitrogen chapter, found at

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/nitrogen/, retrieved December 2, 2005; ***; El Dorado, El Dorado Chemical

Manufacturing Facilities, found at http://www.eldoradochemical.com/acplant.html, retrieved November 30, 2005; Air Products, Air

Products Announces Planned Closure of Converted Products Fertilizer Manufacturing Operations at Pace, Florida, news release

dated December 22, 2005, found at http://www.airproducts.com/PressRoom/CompanyNews/Archived/2005/22Dec05.htm,

retrieved January 24, 2006; Agrium, Agrium to switch out of agricultural ammonium nitrate in favor of other nitrogen products,

news release dated June 27, 2005, found at http://www.agrium.com/investor_information/5784_6066.jsp, retrieved January 25,

2006; hearing transcript, p. 37 (Rydlund); domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, exh. 8; and domestic interested parties’

posthearing brief, exh. 2, affidavit of Paul Rydlund.

Related Party Issues and Imports and Purchases of AN from Russia by U.S. Producers

***.28 No U.S. producer’s questionnaire response reported imports of AN from Russia. 

U.S. Importers

Two importers accounted for *** imports from Russia during the original investigation and

during 2000-04: ***. Two substantial importers during the original investigation, ***, did not import

AN from Russia during 2000-04. However, imports fluctuated among the importers during 2000-04. ***

imported in every year except in 2000, and *** only imported in 2003-04. There were two importers

during 2000-04 that were not major importers during the entire period but had substantial imports in
 29 All data in this section were obtained from U.S. importer questionnaire responses.

I-15

certain years during this period. ***. *** was, ***, the largest importer during 2000-04. No importers

reported any affiliations with U.S. or Russian producers.29

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-6 presents apparent U.S. consumption for the review period and table I-7 presents U.S.

market shares for the same period. 

Table I-6

AN: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 2000-04,

January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year January-September

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’

U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

Russia 288 96,171 114,666 162,449 126,464 52,382 72,293

Other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 

imports *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apparent

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’

U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from1

--

Russia 37 11,859 11,085 18,239 21,039 8,511 14,147

Other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 

imports *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apparent

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires for U.S. producers’ shipments,

adjusted official Commerce import statistics for imports from Canada and Russia, and official Commerce import

statistics for imports from all other countries. Imports from Canada were adjusted by including only *** imports

obtained from proprietary Customs data. Staff believes that ***’s imports constitute the majority of AN imports from

Canada. Official Commerce import statistics for Russia were adjusted by deducting imports determined by staff to be

misclassified (accounting for 23,998 short tons in quantity and $1,883,176 in value) in 2002 and adding imports of NP

33-3-0 provided for under subheading 3105.51. Staff determined that all imports from Russia under subheading

3105.51 during 2000-05 were of NP 33-3-0. There are small amounts of imports from other countries under the

same subheading but it is unknown if these imports consist of NP 33-3-0. Therefore, only imports from Russia under

subheading 3105.51 are included. 
I-16

Table I-7

AN: U.S. market shares, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year January-September 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (short tons)

Apparent

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent

consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

Russia *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other 

sources *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 

 imports *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

Russia *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other 

sources *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 

imports *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires for U.S. producers’ shipments,

adjusted official Commerce import statistics for imports from Canada and Russia, and official Commerce import

statistics for imports from all other countries. Imports from Canada were adjusted by including only *** imports

obtained from proprietary Customs data. Staff believes that ***’s imports constitute the majority of AN imports from

Canada. Official Commerce import statistics for Russia were adjusted by deducting imports determined by staff to be

misclassified (accounting for 23,998 short tons in quantity and $1,883,176 in value) in 2002 and adding imports of NP

33-3-0 provided for under subheading 3105.51. Staff determined that all imports from Russia under subheading

3105.51 during 2000-05 were of NP 33-3-0. There are small amounts of imports from other countries under the

same subheading but it is unknown if these imports consist of NP 33-3-0. Therefore, only imports from Russia under

subheading 3105.51 are included. 
 1

 ***.

 2

 Two producers remain in the U.S. market: El Dorado and Terra. Russian respondents discussed the

anticompetitive aspects of this concentration in their posthearing brief, pp. 20-21, and app. 20.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

MARKET SEGMENTS/MARKET STRUCTURE

Two U.S. producers, ***, reported commercial sales of AN throughout the United States. Two

producers, ***, reported selling in the southeast region. U.S. producers’ shipments accounted for ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2004, U.S. shipments of imports from Russia accounted for ***

percent, and shipments of imports from all other sources accounted for *** percent. Of the five reporting

producers, ***1

 represented *** percent of total domestic production, *** *** percent, *** *** percent,

*** *** percent, and *** *** percent.

Twelve of 14 responding purchasers indicated that there are price leaders in the U.S. market for

AN. Seven of these reported that *** was the price leader. Terra was mentioned as a price leader by five

purchasers. *** indicated that, as the largest supplier, Terra was dominant and sets pricing for the U.S

market. *** reported that Terra, as one of the few remaining domestic producers, basically controls the

market. Transammonia and El Dorado were mentioned by four purchasers, and two purchasers indicated

that PCS is the price leader in their region.2

 

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

U.S. Producers

Based on available information, U.S. producers of AN are likely to respond to changes in demand

with moderate-to-large changes in the quantity shipped to the U.S. market. Supply responsiveness is

enhanced by the existence of alternative markets, the availability of production alternatives, and the

availability of unused capacity, but is somewhat limited by the low level of inventories.

In their questionnaire responses, three producers, ***, ***, and ***, indicated that they anticipate

a decrease in the availability of U.S.-produced AN in the U.S. market in the future. *** indicated that

low-priced imports and relatively high natural gas costs in the United States are likely to continue to

pressure U.S. producers to decrease the production of AN. *** pointed to *** announcement not to

produce agricultural grade AN in *** and ***, and that *** had discontinued production in ***. These

reductions represent *** to *** short tons of AN production. *** anticipated ***.

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ capacity utilization rates fluctuated between 2000 and 2004, increasing from ***

percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2002, before declining to *** percent in 2004. Interim data indicate

that capacity utilization was slightly higher in 2005 (*** percent) compared to 2004 (*** percent). This

level of capacity utilization indicates that U.S. producers have substantial unused capacity with which

they could increase production of AN in the event of a price change. The reported level of domestic
II-2

capacity decreased by *** percent from *** million short tons in 2000 to *** million short tons in 2004,

and is currently even lower. 

Alternative markets

Exports of AN fluctuated between 2000 and 2004, increasing from *** short tons in 2000 to ***

short tons in 2004, or *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments. These data indicate that U.S.

producers have limited ability to divert shipments to or from alternative markets in response to changes in

the price of AN.

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ inventories, as a ratio of their total shipments, fluctuated between 2000 and 2004,

increasing from *** percent of their shipments in 2000 to *** percent in 2001, and then falling to ***

percent in 2004. These data indicate that U.S. producers have a limited ability to use inventories as a

means of increasing shipments of AN to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Air Products is not producing as of 2005. ***. El Dorado’s facility in Arkansas is dedicated to

AN, and it is producing other products at its Cherokee, AL, facility. El Dorado is currently not producing

AN at the Cherokee facility. Other producers, such as PCS and Agrium, are producing LDAN at their

plants. 

Subject Imports

Based on available information, subject imports of AN from Russia are likely to respond to

changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity shipped to the U.S. market. Supply

responsiveness is enhanced by the availability of alternate markets and by unused capacity, but limited by

relatively low levels of inventories. The current suspension agreement limits imports from Russia to

165,345 short tons.

*** responding foreign producers reported that they anticipated no change in the availability of

Russian AN in the U.S. market in the future. *** further commented that they would consider the U.S.

market as simply an alternative market and will make shipments to the U.S. market only if warranted by

prevailing market conditions, i.e., profitability. *** also indicated that changes in future shipments to the

U.S. market will depend on the U.S. market situation and its price appeal. 

Three of five responding importers indicated that they anticipate no changes in terms of the

availability of AN imported from subject countries in the U.S. market in the future. One importer

indicated that it anticipated an increase in the availability of AN imported from Russia, while one

importer, ***, indicated that it anticipated a decrease in the availability of AN because the suspension

agreement formula inhibits Russian product with a significant price premium over all other imports. 

The responding foreign producers indicated that the product range, product mix, or marketing in

their home market did not differ significantly from that for export to the United States or to third-country

markets. ***.

The responding foreign producers reported that their AN sold in their home market is

interchangeable with what they sell in the United States and third-country markets. *** said that fertilizer

is used in agriculture and that there are no differences. The other three foreign producers reported that

ammonium nitrate was used as agricultural fertilizer or in the manufacture of explosives. *** reported

that the principal end use was agricultural, and that *** percent is used in explosives.
 3

 Russian respondents’ posthearing brief, app. 11, p. 2.

 4

 Russian respondents’ posthearing brief, app. 10, pp. 2-3, and app. 11, p. 2.

 5

 Ibid.

 6

 Russian respondents’ posthearing brief, app. 10, p. 6.

 7

 See staff report, pp. IV-1-2, concerning a substantial decline in imports of nonsubject AN from the Netherlands

in January-September 2005.

II-3

Industry capacity

Russian producers’ reported capacity utilization rates increased from 70.3 percent in 2000 to 75.6

percent in 2001, before decreasing to 69.7 percent in 2004. It would appear that at these levels of

capacity utilization, producers in Russia have available unused capacity with which they could increase

production of AN in the event of a price change. However, ***. ***.3

 ***.4 ***.5

Alternative markets

Shipments of AN reported by Russian producers to markets other than the United States were

substantial from 2000 to 2004. While exports to the United States were a small share of total shipments,

between *** and *** percent of total shipments, total exports were a large share of total shipments,

ranging between *** and *** percent of total shipments during 2000-04. ***.6

 Thus, these data indicate

that producers in the subject countries can divert shipments to or from alternative markets in response to

changes in the price of AN. Further details on alternative markets appear in Part IV.

Inventory levels

Russian producers’ inventories, as a share of their total shipments of AN, increased slightly

between 2000 and 2004 from *** percent of their shipments in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. These data

indicate that Russian producers have a limited ability to use inventories as a means of increasing

shipments of AN to the U.S. market. 

Production alternatives

*** responding Russian producers indicated that other products cannot be produced using the

same equipment and workers as AN. One foreign producer, ***, reported that it could also produce

porous AN (LDAN) on the same equipment. This is industrial or explosive grade AN. The ***. The

decision to switch is based on buyers’ orders, not on the price of LDAN compared with the price of AN. 

LDAN is intrinsically more expensive, and its production depends on market demand. 

Nonsubject Imports

Based on available information, nonsubject imports of AN are not likely to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity shipped to the U.S. market. One of the four responding U.S.

producers and three of five responding importers indicated that the availability of nonsubject imported

AN has not changed since 2000. Two producers indicated that imports from Ukraine had flooded the

U.S. market after the suspension agreement was implemented with Russia. Three producers reported that

imports from Romania and Bulgaria have increased and one producer mentioned the Netherlands.7

 Two
 8

 ***.

 9

 Russian respondents’ posthearing brief, pp. 7-8.

 10 Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, pp. 8-11, and posthearing submissions.

 11 Russian respondents’ posthearing brief, pp. 9-12.

II-4

importers, ***, indicated that the availability of nonsubject imports from Romania and Bulgaria has

increased. 

Four responding purchasers reported no change in the pattern of purchases from nonsubject

countries; three purchasers reported increases; two did not purchase from nonsubject sources; and two

purchasers changed their patterns for reasons of demand and cost.

Seven of 14 responding purchasers indicated that new AN suppliers have entered the market in

the last three years. Only two purchasers expect new AN suppliers in the future. *** and ***. ***8

 ***.

U.S. Demand

Based on the available information regarding substitute products and the percentage cost of AN in

the products in which it is used, it is likely that changes in the price level of AN will result in a moderate

change in the quantity of AN demanded. The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of

responsiveness of demand is the substitutability of other products for AN and the high cost share of AN in

fertilizer.

Demand Characteristics

Demand for AN depends on the level of demand for the intermediate products in which it is used

and demand in the end-use industries, such as agriculture. Three of four responding producers, all five

responding importers, and five of 14 purchasers indicated that demand for AN has decreased since 2000. 

This is attributed to the increased costs associated with increased regulation and handling, especially for

security reasons. *** did not see reduced demand, but *** and may not have as much current experience

with demand in that market. Also, as *** pointed out, there will always be regions of the country and

certain crops where AN will be the preferred source of nitrogen. Four purchasers reported that demand

fluctuates based on conditions of changing weather, cost, and demand. Five purchasers reported that

demand was unchanged. In regions of the country where heat and humidity predominate and there is an

emphasis on no-till farming methods, AN is the preferred method of getting nitrogen to the crop. Seven

of 13 purchasers anticipated future reductions in demand for AN. Five of these purchasers blamed

security problems; *** said there was less farming; and *** thought the price was too high to use AN. 

Domestic interested parties and Russian respondents have addressed the issues of changes in

security requirements and their costs on both domestic and imported product, the availability of

transportation and storage for both domestic and imported product, and the tradeoffs between domestic,

subject, and nonsubject imports of AN at length in pre- and posthearing briefs and at the hearing. Russian

respondents maintain that limitations on U.S. infrastructure limit any increase in total AN imports, and

that security regulations are responsible for the decrease in total AN imports.9

 Domestic interested parties

argue that security and transportation restrictions will not prevent significant increases in Russian imports

if the investigation is terminated.10 They maintain that an ample supply of barges and warehouses are

available. Russian respondents describe most nonsubject imports as inferior and that if Russian imports

do increase, it would be at the expense of nonsubject imports for non-price reasons.11 Domestic
 12 Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, pp. 11-14.

 13 Domestic interested parties’ posthearing submission, February 14, 2006.

II-5

interested parties argue that Russian imports will have adverse price effects,12 and that nonsubject imports

are acceptable substitutes for Russian imports of AN ***.13 

U.S. consumption of nitrogenous fertilizers by weight of nitrogen is presented in table II-1. Total

consumption increased by 6.0 percent from 12.4 million short tons in 1997 to 13.1 million short tons in

2004. Urea and nitrogen solutions were the nitrogen fertilizers with the highest growth rates. AN

consumption decreased by 21.3 percent from 659,000 short tons in 1997 to 518,000 short tons in 2004. 

Table II-1

U.S. nitrogenous fertilizer consumption, by product form, 1997-20041

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

(Short tons of nitrogen)

Single-nutrient:

 Anhydrous 

ammonia . . . . . . . 3,977,936 3,638,259 3,828,171 3,649,340 3,014,993 3,177,171 3,147,893 3,336,317

 Ammonia 

 aqua . . . . . . 47,058 55,482 72,536 69,749 69,299 55,460 79,428 106,400

 Ammonia

 sulfate . . . . . 256,938 230,715 230,222 222,807 240,999 221,420 241,256 258,020

 AN . . . . . . . . . . 659,110 660,997 637,639 578,263 528,312 532,642 521,746 518,491

 Urea . . . . . . . . . 1,760,624 2,031,507 2,124,170 2,164,230 2,311,030 2,437,619 2,517,048 2,694,458

 Nitrogen

 Solutions2 . . 2,923,558 2,982,890 2,943,166 2,996,310 2,748,558 2,718,564 2.903,330 3,278,978

Multinutrient3 . . . . 2,412,023 2,389,659 2,306,351 2,352,210 2.303,528 2,499,986 2,315,217 2,566,573

Other4 ......... 314,853 323,091 309,645 300,981 317,981 366,438 366,182 338,363

 Total nitrogen . 12,352,100 12,312,600 12,451,900 12,333,890 11,534,700 12,009,300 12,092,100 13,097,600

 1 Fertilizer years, ending on June 30 of the indicated year. 2004 data are preliminary and subject to revision.

 2 Primarily urea ammonium nitrate solutions.

 3 Multi-nutrient fertilizers consist of various combinations of nitrogen (N), phosphate (P), and potassium (K); N-P-K, N-P, and

N-K.

 4

 Data include other single-nutrient nitrogenous fertilizers and natural organics.

Source: Commercial Fertilizers; a cooperative project of the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials, Inc.

(AAPFCO), and The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), Washington, DC, May 2005. 

All of the responding producers and importers agree that there have been no changes in the end

uses of AN since 2000, and they did not anticipate any future changes in the end uses of AN. Ten of 13

responding purchasers also did not anticipate any changes in terms of the end uses of AN. ***

anticipated reduced use of AN because of regulations and handling restrictions; *** saw less use because

of the increase in price; and *** observed that liability issues will move the production of AN

downstream into non-explosive products such as UAN solutions.

Several producers, importers, and purchasers indicated that prices in the United States generally

move in line with those in the global market. Several firms indicated that price differences are due to

differences in transportation costs. An importer indicated that demand in the United States is more elastic

than in most fertilizer markets because of the variety of nitrogen fertilizers available. 

Substitute Products

U.S. producers, importers, foreign producers, and purchasers indicated that there are substitutes

for AN. These substitutes include anhydrous ammonia, urea, and UAN. However, producers indicated

that nitrogen products may not easily be substituted for a number of reasons, including storage facilities

and types of applicators, specific nitrogen needs of different crops, and climate and weather conditions. 

Three of four producers indicated that changes in the prices of substitute products would not affect the
 14 The nitrogen content of anhydrous ammonia is 82 percent, urea 46 percent, AN 34 percent, and UAN varies

from 28 to 32 percent. 

II-6

price for AN. *** indicated that if urea prices are low enough there may be some substitutability, but that

it is limited. Figure II-1 shows changes in the price paid by farmers for anhydrous ammonia, UAN, AN,

and urea between 1977 and 2005.14 Prices for all four products increased in 2001, decreased in 2002, and

then increased from 2003 to 2005.

Figure II-1

Prices paid by farmers for anhydrous ammonia, UAN, AN, and urea in April of 1997-2005

Source: Agricultural Prices, National Agricultural Statistics Services, USDA.

All four responding producers indicated that they do not anticipate changes in the substitutability

of other products for AN in the future. Four of five responding importers agreed that they do not

anticipate changes in the substitutability of other products for AN in the future, but one importer, ***, did

anticipate changes in the substitutablity of other products for AN. It reported that several companies are

developing products that simulate AN’s controlled release characteristics, ***. Two of 13 responding

purchasers anticipated changes in the substitutability of other products for AN in the future. *** saw

increased use of slow release fertilizers, and in urea ammonium sulfate blends. *** saw an increase in

liquid solutions as a method of producing non-explosive fertilizer. 

Cost Share

The share of the cost that AN accounts for in the final products in which is it used varies by type

of final product. Responding purchasers are not end users and were not able to indicate the share of costs

that AN makes up of final products.
II-7

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported AN depends upon such factors as

relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, defect rates, etc.), and conditions of 

sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment terms, product

services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is at least a moderate level of

substitutability between domestically produced AN and AN imported from Russia and other import

sources.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Purchasers were asked a variety of questions to determine what factors influence their decisions

when buying AN. Information obtained from their responses indicates that both quality and price are

important factors. 

As indicated in table II-2, price was named by six of 14 responding purchasers as the number one

factor generally considered in deciding from whom to purchase AN, and as the number two factor by

seven responding purchasers. Also, as indicated in table II-3, all but one of the responding purchasers

(***) indicated that price was a “very important” factor in their purchase decisions. However, only two

of 13 responding purchasers indicated that the lowest-priced AN will “always” win a sale. Five

responding purchasers indicated that the lowest-priced AN “usually” will win a sale, three reported

“sometimes,” and three reported “never.” Nine purchasers indicated that, since 2000, there has been a

relative change in prices of U.S. and Russian AN. Eight of these purchasers said that the price of U.S.-

produced AN was now relatively higher.

Table II-2

AN: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Quality1 532

Availability 3 2 6

Price/discounts/cost 6 7 1

Terms 0 0 1

Reliability of supply 0 1 0

Timely delivery 0 0 4

 1 Consistency of melt.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-8

Table II-3

AN: Importance of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Reliability of supply 13 1 0

Availability 14 0 0

Price 13 1 0

Product consistency 11 3 0

Quality meets industry standards 11 2 1

U.S. transportation costs 10 4 0

Delivery time 13 1 0

Delivery terms 8 5 1

Discounts offered 8 4 2

Extension of credit 3 7 4

Technical support/service 1 5 8

Quality exceeds industry standards 4 6 4

Minimum quantity requirements 3 7 4

Packaging 1 3 10

Product range 2 4 7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Eight of 14 purchasers responded that purchasing AN from a U.S. source was an important

consideration for them. While one purchaser referred to environmental and pollution issues, all the other

purchasers indicated that their principal concern was government regulations and requirements, especially

concerning warehousing and storage at river locations. Fewer warehouses are handling AN and many

have eliminated it. Two of these purchasers said that there had been no changes in their purchases

because of increased security. 

Quality was named by five of the 14 responding purchasers as the number one factor generally

considered in deciding from whom to purchase AN, and as the number two factor by three responding

purchasers. Eleven responding purchasers indicated that quality meeting industry standards and product

consistency were “very important” factors in their purchasing decisions, while four of 14 responding

purchasers indicated that quality exceeding industry standards was a “very important” factor. Purchasers

named a number of factors they consider in evaluating quality, including: hardness and size of granules, 

consistency, density, analysis, color, storability, particle strength, cleanliness and dust, guaranteed

analyses and government standards, percent of fines, shelf life, and usability to melt.
II-9

Comparison of Domestic Products and Subject Imports

Three of 13 responding purchasers purchased AN from Russian sources before 2000, and 10 did

not. Two of these three purchasers, ***, had reduced their purchases from Russian sources because of the

suspension agreement. As indicated in table II-4, all three responding U.S. producers indicated that U.S.-

produced AN and imports of AN from Russia are “always” used interchangeably. Five of eight

responding importers indicated that U.S.-produced product and imports of AN from Russia are “always”

or “frequently” interchangeable. Most responding purchasers indicated that AN produced in Russia is

“always” or “frequently” used in the same applications as AN produced in the United States. As

indicated in table II-5, most responding importers and U.S. producers disagree on the perceived

significance of differences other than price between AN produced in the United States and in Russia. 

Table II-4

AN: Perceived degree of interchangeability of AN produced in the United States and in other

countries

Country pair

Number of U.S

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. Russia 3 0 0 0 2 3 2 1 3 4 1 1

U.S. vs. other 3 0 1 0 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 1

Russia vs. other 3 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 2 3 2 1

Note.–A=always; F=frequently; S=sometimes; N=never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-5

AN: Perceived significance of differences other than price between AN produced in the United

States and in other countries

Country pair

Number of U.S.

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

A F SN A F S N

U.S. vs. Russia 0 0 1 3 1 3 2 1

U.S. vs. other 0 0 2 2 0 2 6 1

Russia vs. other 0 0 2 3 0 1 3 1

Note.–A=always; F=frequently; S=sometimes; N=never.

 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Eight purchasers usually or always make a purchasing decision based on the country of origin of

the AN. Six purchasers sometimes or never make a decision based on the country of origin. These

decisions are usually based on quality and issues of storability. Five purchasers reported that their

customers usually or always make purchasing decisions based on the country of origin of the AN. Eight

reported that their customers sometimes or never make a decision based on the country of origin. Ten of
II-10

13 reporting purchasers said they did not specifically order AN from one country in particular. Two of

the three purchasers who did order from specific countries reported ordering product from the

Netherlands, and one ordered domestic product. 

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison on the same 15 factors (table II-6). 

For the U.S. product compared to the Russian product, the most frequently reported difference in the

factors noted by a majority of responding purchasers was that the U.S. product was superior to the

Russian product with regard to availability (3 firms), delivery terms (3 firms), and reliability of supply (3

firms). Half of the firms (2 of 4) reported that the U.S. product was inferior to the Russian product with

regard to lower price (i.e., the Russian product is lower priced than the domestic product), while the other

half reported that the U.S. product was comparable to the Russian product with regard to lower price. A

majority of responding purchasers reported that the U.S. and Russian products were comparable with

respect to discounts offered, minimum quantity requirements, packaging, quality exceeding industry

specifications, product range, and U.S. transportation network and costs. 

Table II-6

AN: Number of purchasers’ comparisons of U.S. product and subject imports

Factor

U.S. vs Russia

S CI

Number of firms responding 

Availability 3 1 0

Delivery terms 3 1 0

Delivery time 2 2 0

Discounts offered 0 3 1

Lower price1 0 22

Minimum quantity requirements 0 4 0

Packaging 0 3 0

Product consistency 2 2 0

Quality (meeting specifications) 2 2 0

Quality (exceeding specifications ) 0 3 0

Product range 0 4 0

Reliability of supply 3 1 0

Technical support/service 1 2 0

Transportation network 1 3 0

U.S. transportation costs 1 3 0

 1 A rating of “I” on lower price indicates that the U.S. price is higher.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed

country’s product is inferior. Not all companies gave responses for all factors.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 15 Domestic supply response is assumed to be symmetrical for both an increase and a decrease in demand for the

domestic product. Therefore, factors affecting increased quantity supplied to the U.S. market also affect decreased

quantity supplied to the same extent.

II-11

Comparison of Domestic Products and Nonsubject Imports

 Three of six responding importers and three of four responding U.S. producers reported that U.S.-

produced AN and imports from nonsubject sources are at least “frequently” used interchangeably. The

three remaining responding importers and the remaining responding producer indicated that U.S.-

produced and nonsubject-country AN sources are “sometimes” or “never” used interchangeably (table II4). Most responding importers and all responding producers reported that differences other than price

between AN produced in the United States and in all nonsubject countries were at most “sometimes” a

significant factor in their firm’s sales of the products (table II-5). Six of nine responding purchasers

indicated that AN produced in all nonsubject countries is either “always” or “frequently” used in the same

applications as AN produced in the United States (table II-4). 

Comparison of Subject Imports and Nonsubject Imports

 Most responding importers reported that imports from Russia and imports from nonsubject

sources are at most “sometimes” used interchangeably. All three of the responding U.S. producers

indicated that imports from Russia and nonsubject sources are “always” used interchangeably. Four of

five responding importers and all five responding U.S. producers reported that differences in price

between AN imported from Russia and nonsubject countries are at most “sometimes” a significant factor

in their firm’s sales of the products. Most responding purchasers indicated that AN produced in Russia is

“frequently” or “always” used in the same applications as AN from nonsubject sources.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for AN measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by U.S.

producers to a change in the U.S. market price of AN. The elasticity of domestic supply depends on

several factors, including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter capacity,

producers’ ability to shift to the production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the

availability of alternative markets for U.S.-produced AN.15 Analysis of these factors earlier indicates that

the U.S. industry has a moderate-to-large ability to increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market

given a change in price levels. Staff estimates that the supply elasticity is between 4 and 6. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for AN measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded to a

change in the U.S. market price of AN. This estimate depends on factors discussed earlier such as the

existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the component share of

AN in the production of downstream products. Based on available information, the demand elasticity for

AN is likely to be in the range of -0.8 to -1.6. 
 16 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and U.S. domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers

switch from the U.S. product to the subject product (or vice versa) when prices change.

 17 Additionally, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced commercial market AN and nonsubject

imports and between subject imports and nonsubject imports are likely to be in the same range.

II-12

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.16 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., chemistry, surfaces, etc.) and conditions of sale (e.g., service, availability, delivery). Based on this

and other available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced commercial market

AN and subject imported AN is likely to be in the range of 3 to 5.17
 1

 Air Products, Air Products Announces Planned Closure of Converted Products Fertilizer Manufacturing

Operations at Pace, Florida, news release dated December 22, 2005, found at

http://www.airproducts.com/PressRoom/CompanyNews/Archived/2005/22Dec05.htm, retrieved January 24, 2006. 

 2

 Green Markets, PotashCorp axes ag market AN at Augusta, December 20, 2004.

 3

 Agrium, Agrium to switch out of agricultural ammonium nitrate in favor of other nitrogen products, news

release dated June 27, 2005, found at http://www.agrium.com/investor_information/5784_6066.jsp, retrieved

January 25, 2006. 

 4

 Agrium, Agrium to switch out of agricultural ammonium nitrate in favor of other nitrogen products, news

release dated June 27, 2005, found at http://www.agrium.com/investor_information/5784_6066.jsp, retrieved

November 30, 2005.

 5

 Air Products, Air Products Announces Planned Closure of Converted Products Fertilizer Manufacturing

Operations at Pace, Florida, news release dated December 22, 2006, found at 

http://www.airproducts.com/PressRoom/CompanyNews/Archived/2005/22Dec05.htm, retrieved January 24, 2006. 

Air Products has permanently closed the AN operations at Pace, FL (staff telephone interview with ***). 

 6

 Green Markets, El Dorado, Terra to remain in agricultural AN business, August 15, 2005; hearing transcript, p.

37 (Rydlund).

 7

 Green Markets, PotashCorp axes ag market AN at Augusta, December 20, 2004.

III-1

PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

Information on the U.S. industry is based on the questionnaire responses of five firms that

accounted for virtually all known U.S. production of AN during 2004. Questionnaires were sent to 15

possible producers of ammonium nitrate; 5 provided information. *** did not complete the

questionnaire. Nine firms indicated that they did not produce AN.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

During the original investigation, 10 firms, accounting for virtually all U.S. AN production,

responded to the Commission questionnaires. Since the original investigation, two of these firms have

gone out of business (Nitram in 2003 and Wil-Gro in 2000) and their production capacity disappeared. 

Additional capacity closures include the facilities of Coastal Chem which, after being acquired by Dyno

Nobel in 2003, switched to LDAN production; the closure of ***; the permanent closure of the Air

Products facility at the end of December 2005;1

 the cessation of AN production by PCS in 2004;2 and the

cessation of AN production by Agrium in 2005.3

 *** during the original investigation, MCC, was

acquired in 2004 by a new entrant to the AN market, Terra. Additional acquisitions occurred in 2000

when El Dorado acquired LaRoche and Agrium acquired Prodica LLC. 

During the original investigation and in this review, *** reported a tolling arrangement with ***

whereby *** supplies *** with ammonia which *** converts to AN. *** charged *** a fee for this

service. In this review, *** reported a tolling arrangement ***. *** did not complete a producer

questionnaire during the original investigation or in the current review. Therefore, the eventual

commercial shipment value of the converted product could not be obtained. 

In 2005, Agrium announced that it had discontinued AN production.4

 Air Products had planned

to sell its AN business as soon as possible. However, it was unable to find a buyer and planned to

permanently shut down its AN production facility at the end of December 2005.5

 El Dorado shifted

production from AN to UAN at its Cherokee, AL facility and instead is maximizing AN production at the

El Dorado facility.6

 PCS ceased AN production in December 2004 in favor of LDAN7 ***. AN

production declined irregularly during 2000-04 (table III-1). U.S. producers’ capacity exceeded apparent

U.S. consumption of AN during 2000-01, was less than apparent U.S. consumption during 2002-03, and
 8

 ***. 

 9

 Agrium, Agrium to switch out of agricultural ammonium nitrate in favor of other nitrogen products, news

release dated June 27, 2005, found at http://www.agrium.com/investor_information/5784_6066.jsp retrieved

November 30, 2005.

 10 Air Products, Air Products Announces Planned Closure of Converted Products Fertilizer Manufacturing

Operations at Pace, Florida, news release dated December 22, 2005, found at 

http://www.airproducts.com/PressRoom/CompanyNews/Archived/2005/22Dec05.htm, retrieved January 24, 2006. 

 11 El Dorado’s questionnaire response, section II-3a.

 12 PCS’s questionnaire response, section II-3a.

 13 Terra, Terra announces ammonium nitrate supply agreement with Orica, news release dated July 22, 2005,

found at http://www.terraindustries.com/latest/corp_activities/05-07/orica.pdf, retrieved February 7, 2006. 

 14 Terra’s questionnaire response, section II-3a.

III-2

exceeded apparent U.S. consumption in 2004. Even with the industry capacity losses since the original

investigation, except for 2002, capacity utilization during this review is lower than the capacity utilization

at the lowest point during the original investigation. 

Table III-I

AN: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by producer, 2000-04,

January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

In their questionnaire responses, *** producers reported production of other products on the same

machinery and equipment or using the same workers as for production of AN. ***;8

 ***. 

Changes in Character of Operations and Capacity Projections

Agrium announced its decision to end AN production in 2005.9

 Air Products announced its

intentions to sell its AN facility but could not find a buyer and closed the facility at the end of 2005.10 El

Dorado ***.11 PCS “***.”12 In July 2005, Terra announced that it “has entered into a 10-year, renewable

agreement to supply LDAN and ammonium nitrate solution (“ANS”) to Orica USA Inc. (Orica). Orica

will provide technology and other support to Terra as Terra modifies the smaller of its two Yazoo City,

MS, AN towers, which is currently limited to converting ANS to AN, a prilled, dry fertilizer product. 

When modifications are complete, the tower will be equipped to convert ANS to either AN or LDAN.”13

“***.”14

As mentioned earlier in Part I of the report, several production facilities have ended AN

production since the original investigation. Table III-2 presents information on the status of existing AN

production facilities.
III-3

Table III-2

Status of existing AN production facilities, January 2006

Current

owner of

facility

Production

facility

Capacity

(short tons) Capable of producing? Status

Agrium Homestead, NE *** *** Discontinued AN

production and sales midyear 2005. Operating as

distribution terminal for

ammonia and other

nitrogen products. 

Kennewick, WA *** *** Acquired by Agrium in

October 2000. 

Discontinued AN

production and sales midyear 2005. ***.

Air Products Pace, FL *** *** Announced that it was

unable to find a buyer and

permanently shut down its

AN production facility at

the end of December

2005. ***.

Dyno Nobel

ASA

Cheyenne, WY *** in 1999 *** The former Coastal

Chem, Inc.’s facility was

acquired by El Paso

Energy Corp. in January

2001 and then acquired

by Dyno Nobel ASA in

2003. This facility now

produces LDAN.

El Dorado Cherokee, AL *** *** LaRoche (the former

facility owner) filed for

Chapter 11 bankruptcy

protection in May 2000

and sold production

facilities in Cherokee, AL

and Crystal City, MO to

Orica LLC in August

2000. Subsequently,

Orica sold the facilities to

LSB Industries (parent of

El Dorado) in November

2000. Production

suspended in 2005.

El Dorado, AR *** Yes ***. Currently producing.

Table continued on next page.
 15 ***’s producer questionnaire response, section II-10.

III-4

Table III-2--Continued

Status of existing AN production facilities, January 2006

Current

owner of

facility

Production

facility

Capacity

(short tons) Capable of producing? Status

El Dorado Pryor, OK *** *** The former Wil-Gro facility

closed in February 2000

after being idle since

December 1999. LSB

Industries (parent of El

Dorado) acquired facility

in 2001 but did not restart

production. ***. 

PCS August, GA ***1 *** Ceased AN production in

favor of LDAN *** in

December 2004. 

Terra Yazoo City, MS *** Yes MCC filed for Chapter 11

bankruptcy protection in

May 2003. Acquired by

Terra Industries, Inc. in

December 2004. 

Currently producing.

 1 Includes capacity to produce AN and LDAN.

Source: Compiled from the domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exh. 33, Coastal Chem’s questionnaire response from

the original investigation, question II-2, and data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, COMPANY TRANSFERS,

AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments declined irregularly during 2000-04 (table III-3). Three firms,

***, reported transfers of AN to related companies and internal consumption during 2000-05. ***. 

Exports accounted for a small share of production, with only two firms, ***, reporting exports *** during

2000-05.

Table III-3

AN: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ PURCHASES AND IMPORTS OF AN FROM RUSSIA

No producer reported imports of AN from Russia during 2000-05. *** purchased *** tons of AN

from Russia in ***. The reason for *** purchases of AN from Russia was that it “***.”15
III-5

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Inventories declined irregularly during the period examined in this review (table III-4). Only two

producers, ***, had inventories at the end of the January-September 2005 period. ***. 

Table III-4

AN: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and 

January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Employment steadily declined during 2000-04 (table III-5). ***. 

Table III-5

AN: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked, wages paid to such

workers, hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and 

January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year January-September

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Production and related

workers (number)1 329 293 290 287 277 276 170

Hours worked (1,000) 716 658 664 636 604 451 275

Wages paid ($1,000) 15,651 13,898 14,505 13,914 13,870 10,175 6,611

Hourly wages $21.86 $21.12 $21.84 $21.88 $22.96 $22.56 $24.04

Productivity (tons per hour) 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.8

Unit labor costs 

(per short ton) $13.14 $12.28 $11.08 $12.01 $13.54 $13.09 $8.53

 1 ***.

Note.–Agrium did not provide employment data so employment is understated during 2000-05.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

EFFECTS OF HURRICANES 

Two major hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, hit the United States in 2005. Katrina made landfall in

the United States on August 25 and Rita hit the United States about one month later, on September 24. 

Air Products said that Katrina and Rita ***. El Dorado reported that Katrina and Rita “***.” PCS

reported that Katrina and Rita ***. Terra said that ***. 
 16 These firms are: Agrium; Air Products; El Dorado (which reported for itself and separately for Cherokee, the

plant it acquired from LaRoche on November 1, 2000); PCS; and Terra, which reported for Mississippi Chemical

Co. (MCC). ***. Differences between the financial data and the trade data in this report are primarily accounted for

by timing differences. Domestic interested parties stated that the timing differences were exacerbated by wide price

fluctuations over the periods reviewed. Submission by Akin Gump on behalf of *** and ***, December 7, 2005. 

Commission staff verified Terra’s questionnaire response and the results of that verification are incorporated herein

(Verification Report, Memorandum INV-DD-008, January 24, 2006).

 17 Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, pp. 50-51. El Dorado has been unsuccessful in its efforts

to sell the plant. Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exh. 3 (transcript of LSB Industries’ Third Quarter

2005 Conference Call). Reportedly, the Pryor, OK plant ***. Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exh. 2.

 18 LSB Industries’ press releases of September 6, 2000 and November 3, 2000, found at www.lsbokc.com/press_20000906b.html and www.lsb-okc.com/press_20001103.html, retrieved on January 25, 2006.

 19 ***. Reportedly, this plant has ***. Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exh. 2. 

 20 Hearing transcript, p. 37 (Rydlund). Also, ***. Although the AN production line has been idled, El Dorado

has continued to produce other nitrogen fertilizers at its plant in Cherokee, AL, and stated that it could restart AN

production at the plant. Hearing transcript, pp. 37-38 (Rydlund), and domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief,

exh. 2. Company officials have publicly stated they could restart AN production at Cherokee, and continue to

monitor input costs against possible sales values to decide whether to do so. Domestic interested parties’

posthearing brief, exh. 3 (transcript of LSB Industries’ Third Quarter 2005 Conference Call).

 21 Green Markets, “Potash Corp. Axes Ag Market AN at Augusta,” December 20, 2004.

 22 Agrium’s press release, June 27, 2005. Also, see domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exh. 33.

 23 Air Products announced its intention to exit the fertilizer business “at the end of its contractual commitments.” 

See, Air Products 2005 Form 10-K, Notes to the Financial Statements, p. 68. In its press release of December 22,

2005, the firm stated “that it will permanently close its converted products fertilizer operations at Pace, FL by the

(continued...)

III-6

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

The same five firms16 that provided production and shipment data reported usable financial data

on their operations on AN. These data accounted for the vast majority of known U.S. production of AN

in 2004.

The structure of the U.S. AN industry has changed since the last review when data were gathered

from 10 firms. Five firms have discontinued production completely and either shut down or sold their

AN production assets. Several continue to produce other types of nitrogen fertilizers but have ceased

producing AN, and finally, a firm that previous had not produced AN purchased an existing producer that

had gone into bankruptcy. Nitram shut down its plant at Tampa, FL, as noted earlier in this section of the

report. Wil-Gro ceased operations and sold its plant at Pryor, OK to LSB Industries (the parent of El 

Dorado) in 2001, but the plant has been “mothballed” since 1999.17 Prodica (a subsidiary of Unocal) and

LaRoche also exited the market. In 2000, Prodica sold most of its nitrogen fertilizer production assets to

Agrium, and LaRoche sold its nitrogen plants at Crystal City, MO, and Cherokee, AL, to El Dorado.18

***.19 El Dorado suspended AN production at its plant in Cherokee, AL *** in order to maximize

production of AN at its other plant in El Dorado, AR.20 PCS ceased producing AN at its plant in Augusta,

GA by the end of 2004 in favor of producing UAN and industrial grade ammonium nitrate at that plant.21

Agrium discontinued production and sales of AN at both of its facilities (Homestead, NE and Kennewick,

WA) in mid-year 2005 in favor of other nitrogen products.22 Air Products closed its AN production unit

at Pace, FL, exiting the fertilizer business in 2005.23 Last, there was a change of ownership of the
 23 (...continued)

end of December 2005. Air Products has been unsuccessful in finding a buyer to purchase the operation.” ***. It

continues to produce amines at its plant in Pace, FL.

 24 MCC filed for bankruptcy in May 2003 and disposed of its non-nitrogen assets at the same time that Terra’s

purchase of the remaining MCC assets was completed in December 2004. See MCC’s 2004 Form 10-K, p. 4, and

Terra’s 2004 Form 10-K, p. 3. Terra started producing industrial grade ammonium nitrate in 2005 after installing a

production line for that product at its plant in Yazoo City, MS. Hearing transcript, p. 25 (Green).

 25 According to Agrium, “from 2002 to 2004, there were relatively few new nitrogen facilities brought into

production following the cyclical downturn in nitrogen prices that began in 1997. In addition, there was a shift to

sustained higher North American natural gas prices during this period, accompanied by substantially higher gas price

volatility. This forced the permanent closure of a number of U.S. nitrogen {production} facilities.” Agrium’s 2004

Annual Report on Form 40-F, “Management discussion and analysis,” p. 6. *** during December 2000-January

2001 as a result of “unexpected spikes in natural gas prices to unprecedented levels” in those months. ***. A

spokesman for Terra estimated that approximately 30 percent of North American ammonia production capacity was

shut down during 2000-05 because of volatile and rising natural gas costs. Presentation by Joe Giesler, Senior Vice

President, Commercial Operations, Terra Industries, on November 3, 2005 at TFI’s 2006 Fertilizer Outlook and

Technology Conference. 

 26 Presentation by Joe Giesler, Senior Vice President, Commercial Operations, Terra Industries, on November 3,

2005 at TFI’s 2006 Fertilizer Outlook and Technology Conference. Also, see domestic interested parties’

posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 5 (long-term usage decrease).

 27 Reportedly, Agrium’s decision was made as an ongoing process to optimize returns on its business and to

reduce potential exposure related to security concerns. Agrium’s press release, June 27, 2005, cited earlier. 

 28 Air Products stated in its questionnaire response that ***. In the December 22, 2005 press release, cited earlier,

Air Products stated that a changing regulatory environment was a factor that made it difficult for the firm to sustain a

profitable business.

 29 ***.

 30 With regard to logistical constraints, see hearing transcript, pp. 164-166 (Adamchak), and Russian respondents’

posthearing brief, responses to questions of the Commission, pp. 9-13 and exh. 4. Also, see domestic interested

parties’ posthearing brief, pp. 9-10 (logistical constraints), pp. 5-6 (buyers ceasing to purchase AN due to security

concerns), and pp. 29-32 (timeline of security controls).

III-7

production of AN with the bankruptcy of MCC and its purchase in December 2004 by Terra, which

produced nitrogen fertilizers other than ammonium nitrate.24 As a result of these changes, El Dorado (at

El Dorado, AR) and Terra (at Yazoo City, MS) are the only U.S. firms producing AN as of January 2006.

Factors that affect the supply of and demand for ammonium nitrate include the availability and

cost of feedstock natural gas,25 and competition with other forms of nitrogen for industrial and agricultural

use. For example, a spokesman for Terra noted that AN continues to lose market share to other nitrogen

fertilizers, like urea and UAN, and estimated this shift to be on the order of 500,000 tons during 2004-05;

the same spokesman stated that the “market should stabilize near 1 million tons per year, primarily in the

southeastern and south central United States due to local weather and soil conditions.”26

Security and liability concerns also affect the market for AN because of its classification as a hazardous

material (it is an oxidizing agent and has the potential to be used as an explosive). These include

increased U.S. Coast Guard and State safety requirements, rising insurance costs, and the associated

liability related to security concerns on transportation, storage, and sale. These concerns were cited by

certain producers like Agrium,27 Air Products,28 and ***29 as reasons why they discontinued producing

and marketing AN.30
 31 When Terra acquired MCC, it acquired a 50-percent ownership interest in an ammonia plant, Point Lisas

Nitrogen Limited, located in The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Point Lisas Nitrogen purchases its natural gas

under contract with Natural Gas Co. of Trinidad and Tobago, which is considered to be a low-cost producer. Terra’s

2004 Form-10-K, pp. 3-8. Terra can produce AN based on ammonia that it produces either at its plant in Yazoo

City, MS, or that it can bring in from Point Lisas through the firm’s terminal at Donaldsonville, LA; Terra can

purchase ammonia from other suppliers as well to run its AN facility at Yazoo City, MS. Hearing transcript, p. 116

(Green). El Dorado produces AN from purchased ammonia at the plant at El Dorado, AR, but produces AN at its

plant at Cherokee, AL based on purchased natural gas. Hearing transcript, p. 118 (Rydlund). The Cherokee, AL

plant experienced natural gas supply disruptions following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Domestic interested parties’

posthearing brief, exh. 3 (transcript of LSB Industries’ Third Quarter 2005 Conference Call). For a discussion of

the importance of natural gas, see domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exh. 2 (El Dorado) and exh. 5

(Terra).

 32 Terra reportedly uses futures contracts, swaps and options, that reference physical natural gas prices or

appropriate NYMEX futures contract prices. Contract physical prices are frequently based on prices at the Henry

Hub in Louisiana. The contracts are traded in months forward and settlement dates are scheduled to coincide with

gas purchases during that future period but are not perfect hedges because of location differences. Terra’s 2004

(continued...)

III-8

Operations on AN

Results of U.S. firms’ operations on AN are briefly summarized here. Total net sales quantities

decreased irregularly between 2000 and 2004. Total net sales values increased irregularly between 2000

and 2004, attributable primarily to increased average unit sales values. Increases in the cost of raw

materials led to an overall increase in the industry’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”), which increased

commensurate with sales values. The industry recorded an operating loss during 2000-04 (the operating

loss was greatest in 2001, declining thereafter) and January-September 2004. Between JanuarySeptember 2004 and the same period in 2005, sales quantity and value rose. Although the average unit

value (“AUV”) of raw materials increased as did the AUV of total COGS, the AUV of net sales increased

more; thus the industry recorded operating income in January-September 2005. These data for the

industry are shown in table III-6, while table III-7 provides operating data on a firm-by-firm basis.

Table III-6

AN: Results of operations of U.S. firms, fiscal years 2000-04, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table III-7

AN: Results of operations of U.S. firms, by firm, fiscal years 2000-04, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Raw material costs are a significant factor in industry profitability. Nitrogen is taken from the air

and reacted with a hydrogen source, usually natural gas reformed with steam, to produce ammonia, and

ammonia is processed with nitric acid to produce AN. Several of these firms have produced AN based on

ammonia that they produced or purchased.31 Natural gas prices have increased during the periods

investigated, and have exhibited considerable volatility (as shown by data on a monthly basis from the

EIA that are presented in figure V-1). While there is no mechanism to hedge price risk on ammonia,

these firms use several pricing mechanisms to smooth or mitigate the price volatility of natural gas

including swaps, options, “forward pricing contracts,” and hedging using futures contracts.32 Terra’s
 32 (...continued)

Form 10-K, pp. 12, 22, 37, and 58. PCS reported that its strategy is to purchase approximately half of its needs of

natural gas on the spot market or on short-term contracts and to purchase the remainder under fixed-price physical

contracts or forward contracts that fix the price of future deliveries. PCS’ 2002 Form 10-K, p. I-9.

 33 Estimated by staff based on Terra’s 2004 Form 10-K, p. 59. Terra’s cost reduction gained by hedging was

reported as ***. Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exh. 5. MCC also hedged its purchase requirements

of natural gas, resulting in cost decreases and cost increases in different years that represented a small portion of its

total costs of natural gas. See MCC’s 2004 Form 10-K, Note 16 to financial statements.

 34 ***.

III-9

gains and losses from these cost-management activities are estimated to be less than 5 percent of its costs

of natural gas.33

*** provided data on the cost of natural gas used in its production of ammonia; this cost ranged

from *** percent of total ammonia cost in 2000 to *** percent in 2004, and from *** percent to ***

percent between January-September 2004 and the same period in 2005. In turn, *** ratio of ammonia

cost to its total raw materials cost ranged from *** percent to *** percent. (*** identified *** as cost

categories within its direct raw materials, which reduced the cost ratio of ammonia to total raw materials.) 

Two firms, ***, classified natural gas as their direct raw material, and natural gas accounted for ***

percent to *** percent of their total raw material costs during the periods reviewed. For ***, which

provided ammonia costs, the ratio of costs of ammonia to the total costs of raw materials ranged from ***

percent to *** percent. Other items within the category of raw materials are additives, coating products,

and bags. Energy costs are chiefly composed of electricity, steam, and natural gas used as a process gas. 

These costs are usually classified as part of other factory costs, and as a percentage of the category, they

generally rose during the periods reviewed.

*** costs and the average unit values of its sales appear to be higher than that of the remainder of

the industry. Its costs are higher because: ***. Its sales unit values appear to be higher because of its

***.34

Variance Analysis

The variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on U.S. producers’ net sales of

AN, and of costs and volume on their total expenses, is presented in table III-8. The information for this

variance analysis is derived from table III-6, but differs in that only total net sales are shown. The

variance analysis provides an assessment of changes in profitability as related to changes in pricing, cost,

and volume. This analysis is more effective when the product involved is a homogeneous product with

no variation in product mix. In this review, certain producers stated they had sold AN in bags and others

sold on both a retail and wholesale basis, but these differences are not material to the results as a whole. 

Table III-8

AN: Variance analysis on U.S. firms’ operations, fiscal years 2000-04, and January-September

2004-05

* * * * * * *

The variance analysis is summarized at the bottom of the table and shows that the decrease in

operating income from 2000 to 2004 is attributable to the favorable price variance (higher unit prices) that

was lower than the unfavorable net cost/expense variance (higher unit costs). Between JanuarySeptember 2004 and the same period in 2005, the favorable price variance was greater than the

unfavorable net cost/expense variance (higher unit prices outweighed higher unit costs). 
 35 ***.

 36 ***.

 37 See, for example PCS’ 2002 Form 10-K, p. I-18 and Terra’s 2003 Form 10-K, p. 33. Terra stated that its

capital expenditures were for air and water quality control equipment to ensure compliance with environmental,

health, and safety regulations under the Clean Air Act.

III-10

Assets and Return on Investment

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of AN to compute return on investment (“ROI”) for 2000 to 2004 (table III-9). The data for total

net sales and operating losses are from table III-6, ***. Total net sales was divided by total assets,

resulting in the asset turnover ratio. The operating income ratio was then multiplied by the asset turnover

ratio, resulting in ROI; the expanded form of this equation shows how the profit margin and total asset

turnover ratio interact to determine the return on investment. 

Table III-9

AN: Value of assets used in production, warehousing, and sales, and return on investment, fiscal

years 2000-04

* * * * * * *

Although ROI generally followed operating income (discussed earlier in connection with table

III-6), ROI fell more than the industry’s operating losses because of decreases in the industry’s total

assets from 2000 to 2004. Generally, U.S. firms allocated costs, expenses, and assets to AN, which

represents one product out of several types of nitrogen fertilizers produced in their multiproduct plants. 

Hence, the fall in the value of total assets represents an allocation issue in part. Here, the value of ***

category of “all other non-current assets” fell by about $*** between 2002 and 2003, accounting for most

of the decline in total assets between those years.

 Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

U.S. producers’ data on their capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”)

expenses for their operations on AN are shown in table III-10. 

Table III-10

AN: U.S. firms’ capital expenditures and research and development expenses, fiscal years 

2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

*** stated that it ***.35 *** stated that its recent capital expenditures have been ***.36 Likewise,

other firms reportedly are continuing efforts to improve throughput (efficiency in production operations),

conversion ratios of natural gas to ammonia and of ammonia to AN, and/or to reduce environmental

discharges and the related potential liability.37
IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE INDUSTRY IN RUSSIA

U.S. IMPORTS

Adjusted official Commerce statistics were used for the U.S. import data provided in this section

of the report. Although import data were also received in response to Commission questionnaires, the

official Commerce statistics are likely to be more complete. Interested parties have agreed with the use of

official Commerce statistics, which are believed to contain little or no imports of nonsubject product such

as LDAN except for imports from Canada for which appropriate adjustments have been made. During

1997-98, AN imports from Russia accounted for nearly half of all AN imports (table I-1). During 2000-

04, the share of imports accounted for by Russia was less than the share accounted for during 

1997-98 (table IV-1). 

Table IV-1

AN: U.S. imports, by sources, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (short tons)

Russia 288 96,171 114,666 162,449 126,464 52,382 72,293

All other *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)1

Russia 37 11,859 11,085 18,239 21,039 8,511 14,147

All other *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per short ton)

Russia $128.80 $123.31 $96.68 $112.28 $166.37 $162.48 $195.69

All other *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Average *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

Russia *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of value (percent)

Russia *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production (percent)

Russia *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Average *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

 

Source: Compiled from adjusted official Commerce import statistics for imports from Canada and Russia, and official

Commerce import statistics for imports from all other countries. Imports from Canada were adjusted by including

only *** imports obtained from proprietary Customs data. Staff believes that ***’s imports constitute the majority of

AN imports from Canada. Official Commerce import statistics for Russia were adjusted by deducting imports

determined by staff to be misclassified (accounting for 23,998 short tons in quantity and $1,883,176 in value) in 2002

and adding imports of NP 33-3-0 provided for under subheading 3105.51. Staff determined that all imports from

Russia under subheading 3105.51 during 2000-05 were of NP 33-3-0. There are small amounts of imports from

other countries under the same subheading but it is unknown if these imports consist of NP 33-3-0. Therefore, only

imports from Russia under subheading 3105.51 are included. 
 1

 *** importer questionnaire response, question III-B-26 and *** importer questionnaire response, question III-B19. 

 2

 Hearing transcript, p. 197 (Morgan) and p. 198 (Adamchak).

 3

 Staff telephone interview with ***. 

IV-2

The unit value of imports from Russia was higher than the unit value of nonsubject-country imports

in every period except during 2003. This may provide confirmation of statements from importers ***

that the Agreement pricing mechanism increased the price of imports of Russian AN to the United States

to a level higher than AN from Russia can command elsewhere.1

 Other industry sources have stated that

the Agreement pricing mechanism results in prices for AN imported from Russia that do not reflect the

U.S. market.2

Imports from Russia increased during 2000-02 before decreasing slightly in 2003 and decreasing

again in 2004. The two leading sources of nonsubject imports since 2003 are the Netherlands and

Romania. Nonsubject imports rose *** during 2000-01, increased *** in 2002, and increased *** in

2003, before decreasing in 2004. Imports from Russia during January-September 2005 were substantially

greater than those during January-September 2004, and nonsubject imports decreased *** in JanuarySeptember 2005 from the level during January-September 2004. Most of the decrease in nonsubject

imports during the interim periods is accounted for by the substantial decrease in imports from the

Netherlands because the uncertainty over the new AN security regulations dissuaded many purchasers

from buying AN during January-September 2005. Also, several warehouses along the Mississippi River

no longer handle AN and some barge lines will not handle AN.3

No U.S. producer’s questionnaire response reported imports of AN from Russia. 

Only *** reported plans to import AN from Russia after September 1, 2005. ***

arranged for imports of ***.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Inventories of AN from Russia were highest in 2004, and declined somewhat in JanuarySeptember 2005 (table IV-2). Nonsubject AN inventories increased during 2000-03 before decreasing in

2004.

Table IV-2

AN: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN RUSSIA 

Industry sources indicate 13 producers of ammonium nitrate in Russia, which is the same number

of producers as during the original investigation (table IV-3). Five producers responded to the

Commission questionnaires in the original investigation: JSC Acron, JSC Dorogobuzh, JSC Azot

Nevinnomyssk, JSC Novomendeleyevsk Chemical Plant, and JSC Kirovo-Chepetsk Kimichesky

Kombinat. Six producers, accounting for *** percent of total ammonium nitrate capacity in Russia,

responded to the Commission’s questionnaire in this review: JSC Acron (“Acron”), JSC Dorogobuzh

(“Dorogobuzh”), JSC Azot Nevinnomyssk (“Nevinka”), JSC Novomoskovsk (“Novomos”), JSC
 4

 Russian producers and/or exporters Acron, Dorogobuzh, Nevinka, Novomos, and MCC EuroChem are

respondent interested parties in this review, represented by the law firm of White and Case LLP. Sidley Austin

Brown and Wood LLP is co-counsel for Acron.

 5

 ***. 

 6

 ***.

 7

 NP 33-3-0 is covered by HTS subheading 3105.51.

IV-3

Minudobreniya Rossosh (“Minudo”), and Azot Berezhniki (“Berezhniki”).4

 The reporting firms have not

indicated any major capacity changes since 2000.5

 The *** capacity increase of *** tons in 2002 is ***. 

Table IV-3

Ammonium nitrate: Producers in Russia, production capacity, and distance to nearest port,

2005

* * * * * * *

Russia’s Capacity, Production, Capacity Utilization, Domestic Shipments, 

Export Shipments, and Inventories

***.

6

According to proprietary Customs data, four producers accounted for virtually all AN exports

from Russia during 2000-04: ***. *** responded to the Commission’s questionnaire. ***’s exports to

the United States, according to proprietary Customs data, were ***. In 2003, the Department of

Commerce ruled that an imported product--NP 33-3-0 (or “stabilized ammonium nitrate” or “nitric

phosphate”)–is within the scope of the investigation even though it is not covered under the same HTS

subheading as AN.7

 No producers reported exporting NP 33-3-0 to the United States during 2000-05. 

Production was relatively stable during 2000-04 and most production is devoted to export shipments

(table IV-4). Russian producers reported that the suspension agreement has had no effect on their

production capacity, production, home market shipments, or exports. No producer anticipated any

changes in operations or organization or changes to production capacity in the future.
IV-4

Table IV-4

AN: Data for reporting producers in Russia, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (short tons)

Capacity 5,966,750 5,966,750 6,007,535 6,007,535 6,007,535 4,664,822 4,616,814

Production 4,196,844 4,509,497 4,505,559 4,303,428 4,184,824 3,114,269 3,328,537

End-of-period

inventories 41,089 86,161 45,935 46,428 60,300 58,196 43,487

Shipments:

Transfers1 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Home market 1,398,384 1,652,832 1,339,946 1,437,041 1,565,716 1,280,460 1,204,365

Exports to:

United States *** *** 117,394 160,794 137,767 *** 69,832

EU 868,031 1,039,321 694,011 745,377 560,722 432,912 ***

Asia *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All exports 2,791,243 2,707,833 3,131,362 2,747,330 2,456,574 1,715,266 2,030,241

Total 

shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 70.3 75.6 75.0 71.6 69.7 66.8 72.1

Inventories/production 1.0 1.9 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.0

Inventories/shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity of total shipments:

 Transfers1 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Exports to:

 United States *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 EU *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Asia *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All exports *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

Commercial shipments:

 Home market 45,842 73,529 67,339 81,812 141,832 114,821 124,546

 Exports to:

 United States *** *** 8,338 14,216 17,723 *** 10,619

 EU 33,810 45,528 30,344 59,811 56,578 41,477 ***

 Asia *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All exports 108,761 120,809 142,127 186,954 233,159 200,908 248,844

 All 

 shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
 8

 International Fertilizer Industry Association, Global Fertilizers and Raw Material Supply and Supply/Demand

Balances: 2005-2009, June 2005, p. 3.

 9

 EuroChem is the holding company for Nevinka, Novomos, and other fertilizer manufacturers.

IV-5

Table IV-4--Continued

AN: Data for reporting producers in Russia, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

Commercial shipments:

 Home market 32.78 44.49 50.26 56.93 90.59 89.67 103.41

 Exports to:2

 United States *** *** 71.03 88.41 128.65 *** 152.07

 EU 38.95 43.81 43.72 80.24 100.90 95.81 ***

 Asia *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All exports 38.97 44.61 45.39 68.05 94.91 117.13 122.57

 All shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Includes transfers to related firms and internal consumption.

 2

 F.o.b., Russian point of shipment.

 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Acron and Dorogobuzh reported *** while Berezhniki and Minudo reported ***. Nevinka and

Novomos reported ***. 

Reportedly, *** producers *** have been ***.8

Export Markets Developed as a Result of the Agreement

Acron and Dorogobuzh state that “***.” Berezhniki has “***.” Minudo has ***, Nevinka and

Novomos say that “***.”9

 

All exports to the United States were controlled by the suspension agreement during 2000-05

which limits exports to the United States. The Russian government is responsible for allocating the

yearly quota among Russian exporting firms. Table IV-5 presents information on the allocations of

reporting producers. The allocations received by the reporting firms were ***.

Table IV-5

AN: Export allocations to producers in Russia, 2000-05

* * * * * * *
 10 In 2002, Bulgaria instituted a safeguard measure on imports of AN that expired in July 2005. The measure

allocated 25,000 metric tons annually to Romania, 7,000 metric tons to its free trade agreement partners, and 8,960

metric tons to all other countries.

IV-6

TRADE RESTRICTIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Domestic interested parties noted trade restrictions on imports of AN from Russia in Australia,

Brazil, and the European Union. Antidumping orders in effect on AN from Russia are presented in table

IV-6. Respondent interested parties noted restrictions in the same countries as well as in Bulgaria.10

Table IV-6

AN: Antidumping duty orders on imports of AN from Russia

Country imposing order Year imposed Antidumping duties

Australia 2001

Antidumping duty of AUS$32

per metric ton

Brazil 2002

Antidumping duty of 32.1

percent ad valorem1

European Union 1994

Antidumping duty increased to 

47.07 euros per metric ton in

April 2002

 1 ***.

Source: Domestic interested parties’ Response to the Notice of Institution, pp. 15-16, and questionnaire

responses of the respondent interested parties.

THE WORLD MARKET

Data on world production, imports, exports, and apparent consumption of ammonium nitrate for

2000-04 (actual) and 2005-08 (projected) are presented in tables IV-7, IV-8, IV-9, and IV-10. Russia

accounted for *** percent of world production of ammonium nitrate in 2004, up from *** percent in

2000, and accounted for *** percent of world exports in 2004, down from *** percent in 2000. Russia

accounted for *** percent of world consumption in 2004, up from *** percent in 2000.

Table IV-7

AN: World production, actual and projected, by principal sources, 2000-08

* * * * * * *

Table IV-8

AN: World imports, actual and projected, by principal sources, 2000-08

* * * * * * *
 11 ***. 

 12 ***. 

 13 ***.

IV-7

Table IV-9

AN: World exports, actual and projected, by principal sources, 2000-08

* * * * * * *

Table IV-10

AN: World apparent consumption, actual and projected, by principal sources, 2000-08

* * * * * * *

Production of solid AN is said to have accounted for *** of total Russian nitrogen fertilizer

production in 2004.11 ***.12

In 2004, world imports of AN amounted to ***. The largest markets for world exports of

ammonium nitrate were the countries within Western and Central Europe (*** million short tons or ***

percent of the total), the United States (*** million short tons or *** percent of the total), and the former

Soviet Union (FSU) (*** short tons or *** percent).13 The three largest markets in the European

countries were Turkey (*** percent of total European imports), the United Kingdom (*** percent), and

Hungary (*** percent). China was a major importer of AN in 2002 only. 

 1

 Henry Hub Spot natural gas price, downloaded from htttp://tonto.eia.doe.gov/steo_query/app/ngresult.asp on

January 31, 2006. 

 2

 Russian respondents’ posthearing brief, app. 10, p. 7.

 3

 Ibid., app. 11, p. 3.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw materials’ share of the cost of goods sold for domestic producers of AN fluctuated between

2000 and 2004, increasing irregularly from *** percent of the cost of goods sold in 2000 to *** percent

in 2004. Natural gas constitutes a substantial portion of the raw material costs for producing AN. Unit

values for natural gas increased from $2.08 per MMBTU in 1998 to $8.84 per MMBTU in 2005. As seen

in figure V-1, the price of natural gas increased by 422 percent from $2.09 per MMBTU in January 1998

to $10.92 in January 2006. The price of natural gas is forecast to fluctuate between January 2006 and

December 2007, falling by 9 percent overall, but remaining above the average cost of natural gas during

2002-05.1

Figure V-1

Monthly prices of natural gas, historical prices for January 1998-January 2006, and forecast prices

for February 2006-December 2007

Source: Henry Hub Spot natural gas price, downloaded from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/steo_query/app/ngresult.asp on

January 31, 2006.

Russian producers have access to relatively low-priced sources of natural gas. ***. This is an

increase of *** percent from 2000. ***, an increase of *** percent from 2000.2

 ***, an increase of ***

percent from 2000. ***.3

 
V-2

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Based on the c.i.f. value of subject AN imported from Russia in 2004 of $21.0 million and the

customs value of $18.2 million, transportation costs from Russia to the United States were equivalent to

16 percent of the customs value of the product (based on unrounded data). 

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Three of the four responding producers and two of four responding importers indicated that they 

arrange for transportation to the customers’ locations. One responding U.S. producer and two responding

importers indicated that purchasers arrange for transportation. Responding producers and importers

reported that U.S. transportation costs were between 5 and 20 percent of the total delivered cost of AN. 

All responding U.S. producers and importers reported that most of their sales were no more than 1,000

miles from their storage or production facilities.

Exchange Rates

Nominal and real values of the currency of Russia from January 2000 to September 2005 are

presented in figure V-2. Quarterly data reported by the International Monetary Fund indicate that the

nominal value of the Russian ruble depreciated by 0.2 percent relative to the U.S. dollar from the first

quarter of 2000 to the third quarter of 2005. The real value of the ruble depreciated by 18.2 percent

relative to the U.S. dollar between the first quarter of 2000 and the third quarter of 2005.

Figure V-2

AN: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rate of the Russian ruble relative to the U.S. dollar,

by quarters, January 2000-September 2005

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, found at http://ifs.apdi.net, retrieved on

December 12, 2005.
 4

 E-mail to staff from ***.

 5

 Russian respondents’ posthearing brief, app. 10, p. 4.

 6

 Ibid., app. 11, p. 2.

V-3

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

The two responding importers reported making at least *** percent of their sales on a spot basis,

and did not offer discounts. One responding producer made *** of its sales on a spot basis. Two

producers made *** and *** percent of their sales on a spot basis, while *** made *** percent of its sales

with short-term contracts, and the rest on a spot basis. Domestic producers offered a variety of discount

programs, mostly to national accounts; *** gave a *** to most accounts and *** percent to ***. *** also

offered volume rebates to *** on tons shipped to ***. 

Domestic producers reported supplying AN from inventory to varying degrees. *** reported

supplying *** percent of its sales in 2004 from inventory. In contact with the staff, *** described their

policy of ***.4

 *** supplied only *** percent from inventory and the rest was produced to order. ***

supplied *** percent from inventory; *** supplied *** percent. Four of five responding importers

supplied 100 percent from inventory, but *** supplied *** from inventory and produced the balance to

order with a lead time of *** days. 

PRICES IN OTHER MARKETS

Producers and importers were asked to compare prices of AN in U.S. and non-U.S. markets. Two

producers provided comments on price comparisons. *** indicated that the United States is the strongest

market in the world and would be the target of Russian AN without a suspension agreement in place. 

***. ***. ***. ***.

Two importers provided comments on price comparisons. ***. ***. *** did not report any

comparisons in response to the question requesting price comparisons. In its posthearing brief, ***

provided reasons why the prices of Russian exports vary between markets,5

 including ***. ***.6 

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of AN to provide monthly data for the

AN that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market for the period January 2000 to September

2005. Quantity and value of sales were requested for pricing on:

(1) an f.o.b. plant basis (i.e., product that was picked up at the plant), or f.o.b. port for importers;

(2) an f.o.b. other-than-plant shipping point basis (i.e., product that was picked up at a

distribution point other than the production plant(s)), or f.o.b. other-than-port for importers; and

(3) a delivered basis.

For sales that were priced on an f.o.b. other-than-plant, or port, shipping point basis, producers

and importers were requested also to report the freight and other handling costs necessary to transport the

AN from the plant or port to the other-than-plant, or port, shipping point. For sales that were priced on a

delivered basis, producers and importers were requested to report the freight and other handling costs
 7

 ***.

V-4

necessary to transport the AN from the plant, or port, to the customers’ location. The product for which

pricing data was requested was:

Product.--Solid, fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate, sold in bulk, with a bulk density equal

to or greater than 53 pounds per cubic foot.

Four U.S. producers, ***, provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products,

although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all months. Price data reported by these firms

accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ commercial shipments of AN in 2004. Four importers, ***, 

provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for

all months.7

 Price data reported by these firms accounted for approximately *** percent of imports of

AN from Russia in 2004. 

Price Trends

Price data are presented in table V-1 and figure V-3. Prices are presented net of any freight and

other handling costs necessary to transport the AN from the plant or port to the other-than-plant, or port,

shipping point, or to the customers’ location. Average unit values for U.S.-produced AN were $*** per

short ton in January 2000, and increased irregularly to an interim peak of $*** per short ton in March of

2001. Average unit values then fell to slightly more than $*** per short ton by September 2001, and

hovered around the $*** per short ton level before beginning to increase in February of 2003. Average

unit values fluctuated, but stayed around the $*** per short ton level through the middle of 2004. 

Average unit values then began to increase again, and reached their highest level of $*** in the last

reported period of September 2005. Average unit values of Russian AN generally followed a trend

similar to that of domestic average unit values, but data were not reported in all periods. 

Table V-1

AN: Weighted-average prices, net of freight and other handling costs, and quantities of domestic

and imported product, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by month, January 2000-

September 2005

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

AN: Weighted-average net prices of domestic and imported products, by month, January 2000-

September 2005

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

AN imported from Russia was priced lower than domestic AN in 24 of 33 possible price

comparisons, with margins ranging from 0.5 to 21.1 percent. In the remaining 9 instances, AN imported

from Russia was priced above domestic AN, with margins ranging from 0.4 to 9.0 percent. 
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES,

THE COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY, 

AND REFERENCE PRICES PERTAINING TO THE SUSPENSION

AGREEMENT

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices 37759

a ministerial error. We are amending our

continuation notices to correct the

ministerial error.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eun

W. Cho or James Maeder, Office of

Policy for Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Ave., NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–1698 or (202) 482-3330,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 8, 2000, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

published the continuation notices of

antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic

acid from the PRC and India, and the

countervailing duty order on sulfanilic

acid from India (65 FR 36404).

Subsequent to the publication of the

final results, we detected ministerial

errors.

Clerical Error

The case number in reference to the

antidumping order for sulfanilic acid

from India should have been A–533–806

rather than A–533–807, as published.

Similarly, the case number in reference

to the countervailing duty order for

sulfanilic acid from India should have

been A–533–807 rather than A–533–

806, as published. We inadvertently

listed wrong case numbers in our

notices of continuation. Therefore, we

are amending the aforementioned

notices of continuation to correct the

ministerial error.

This amendment is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(h) and 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: June 12, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–15311 Filed 6–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–811]

Suspension of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: Solid Fertilizer Grade

Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian

Federation

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) has suspended the

antidumping duty investigation

involving solid fertilizer grade

ammonium nitrate (‘‘ammonium

nitrate’’) from the Russian Federation

(‘‘Russia’’). The basis for this action is

an agreement between the Department

and the Ministry of Trade of the Russian

Federation (‘‘MOT’’) accounting for

substantially all imports of ammonium

nitrate from Russia, wherein the MOT

has agreed to restrict exports of

ammonium nitrate from all Russian

producers/exporters to the United States

and to ensure that such exports are sold

at or above the agreed reference price.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean

Kemp or Maria Dybczak at (202) 482–

4037 and (202) 482–5811, respectively,

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 12, 1999, the Department

initiated an antidumping duty

investigation under section 732 of the

Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), as

amended, to determine whether imports

of ammonium nitrate from Russia are

being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value. On

September 3, 1999, the United States

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

preliminarily determined that ‘‘there is

a reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially

injured by reason of imports from

Russia of solid fertilizer grade

ammonium nitrate’’ (64 FR 50103,

September 15, 1999). On January 7,

2000, the Department published its

preliminary determination that

ammonium nitrate is being, or is likely

to be, sold in the United States at less

than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in

section 733 of the Act (65 FR 1139).

The Department and MOT initialed a

proposed agreement suspending this

investigation on April 20, 2000, at

which time we invited interested parties

to provide written comments on the

agreement. We received comments from

petitioner (the Committee for Fair

Ammonium Nitrate Trade) and the

Committee for a Competitive AN Market

on May 10, 2000. We have taken these

comments into account in the final

version of the suspension agreement.

The Department and MOT signed the

final suspension agreement on May 19,

2000. Accordingly the Department has

suspended the investigation pursuant to

section 734(f) of the Act. Pursuant to

section 734(g) of the Act, parties have 20

days from the date of publication of this

notice to request a continuation of the

investigation.

Scope of Investigation

For a complete description of the

scope of the investigation, see

Agreement Suspending the

Antidumping Investigation on Solid

Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate

from the Russian Federation, Appendix

III, signed May 19, 2000, attached

hereto.

Suspension of Investigation

The Department consulted with the

parties to the proceeding and has

considered the comments submitted

with respect to the proposed suspension

agreement. Based on our review of these

comments, we made no changes to the

agreement. In accordance with section

734(l) of the Act, we have determined

that the agreement will prevent the

suppression or undercutting of price

levels of domestic products by imports

of the merchandise under investigation

(see Memorandum to Troy H. Cribb from

Joseph A. Spetrini, RE: The Prevention

of Price Suppression or Undercutting of

Price Levels in the Suspension

Agreement On Solid Fertilizer Grade

Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian

Federation). Moreover, in accordance

with section 734(d) of the Act, we have

determined that the agreement is in the

public interest, and that the agreement

can be monitored effectively (see

Memorandum to Troy H. Cribb from

Jeffrey May, Re: Public Interest

Assessment of the Agreement

Suspending the Antidumping Duty

Investigation of Solid Fertilizer Grade

Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian

Federation). We find, therefore, that the

criteria for suspension of an

investigation pursuant to sections

734(d) and (l) of the Act have been met.

The terms and conditions of this

agreement, signed May 19, 2000, are set

forth in Appendix I to this notice.

Pursuant to section 734(f)(2)(A) of the

Act, the suspension of liquidation of all

entries of ammonium nitrate from

Russia entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption, as directed

in our notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade

Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian

Federation (65 FR 1139 (January 7,

2000)), is hereby terminated.

Any cash deposits on entries of

ammonium nitrate from Russia pursuant

to that suspension of liquidation shall

be refunded and any bonds shall be

released.

37760 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices

This notice is published pursuant to

section 734(f)(1)(A) of the Act.

Dated: June 5, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix 1.—Agreement Suspending

the Antidumping Investigation on Solid

Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate

From the Russian Federation

For the purpose of encouraging free and

fair trade in Solid Fertilizer Grade

Ammonium Nitrate (‘‘Ammonium Nitrate’’)

from the Russian Federation (‘‘Russia’’),

establishing more normal market relations,

and preventing the suppression or

undercutting of price levels of the like

product in the United States, the United

States Department of Commerce (‘‘DOC’’) and

the Ministry of Trade of the Russian

Federation (‘‘MOT’’) enter into this

suspension agreement (‘‘the Agreement’’).

MOT will restrict exports of Ammonium

Nitrate from all Russian producers and

exporters to the United States, as provided

below. DOC, pursuant to the U.S.

antidumping law (see Appendix II), on the

Effective Date of this Agreement, will

suspend its antidumping investigation of

Ammonium Nitrate from Russia and instruct

the U.S. Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’)

immediately to terminate the suspension of

liquidation and release any cash deposit or

bond posted for entries of Ammonium

Nitrate covered by this Agreement.

Accordingly, DOC and MOT agree as

follows:

I. Definitions

For purposes of this Agreement, the

following definitions apply:

A. ‘‘Date of License’’ shall be the date on

which MOT issued the Export License.

B. ‘‘Date of Contract’’ means the date on

which price and quantity become firm, e.g.,

the date the contract is signed or the

specification date if the price and quantity

become firm on that date.

C. ‘‘Effective Date’’ of this Agreement

means May 19, 2000.

D. ‘‘Export License’’ is the document

issued by MOT that serves as both an export

limit certificate and as a declaration of the

country of origin.

E. ‘‘Ammonium Nitrate’’ means the solid

fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate from

Russia described in Appendix III.

F. ‘‘Indirect Exports’’ means exports of

Ammonium Nitrate from Russia to the

United States through one or more third

countries, whether or not such exports are

further processed, provided that the further

processing does not result in a substantial

transformation or a change in the country of

origin.

G. ‘‘Party to the Proceeding’’ means any

producer, exporter, or importer of

Ammonium Nitrate, union of workers

engaged in the production of Ammonium

Nitrate, association of such parties, or the

government of any country from which such

merchandise is exported, that actively

participated in the antidumping

investigation, through written submission of

factual information or written argument, as

described in more detail in Appendix II.

H. ‘‘Export Limit Period’’ means one of the

following periods:

Initial Export Limit Period—-The Initial

Export Limit Period shall begin on the

Effective Date of the Agreement, and end

on December 31, 2000

Subsequent Export Limit Periods—-The

Subsequent Export Limit Periods shall

consist of each subsequent one-year period,

the first of which will begin the day after

the Initial Export Limit Period ends and

end one year later

I. ‘‘Reference Price’’ means the minimum

F.O.B. Russian port of export price calculated

weekly by DOC for sales of Ammonium

Nitrate for export to the United States, as

described in Article III.

J. ‘‘Floor Price’’ means the fixed price, as

designated in Article III, below which the

Reference Price may not fall.

K. ‘‘Current Market Price’’ means the U.S.

domestic price calculated weekly by DOC as

described in Article III.

L. ‘‘United States’’ means the customs

territory of the United States of America (the

50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto

Rico) and foreign trade zones located within

the territory of the United States.

M. ‘‘U.S. Purchaser’’ means the first

purchaser in the United States that is not

affiliated with the Russian producer or

exporter and all subsequent purchasers, from

trading companies to consumers.

N. ‘‘Violation’’ means noncompliance with

the terms of this Agreement, whether through

an act or omission, except for noncompliance

that is inconsequential, inadvertent, or does

not substantially frustrate the purposes of

this Agreement.

II. Export Limits

A. No Ammonium Nitrate covered by this

Agreement, whether exported directly or

indirectly from Russia, shall be entered into

the United States unless, when cumulated

with all prior entries of Ammonium Nitrate

exported from Russia during the Export Limit

Period in which that Ammonium Nitrate was

exported, it does not exceed the export limits

set forth below.

1. The export limit for the Initial Export

Limit Period (from the Effective Date of the

Agreement to December 31, 2000) shall be

49,962 metric tons of Ammonium Nitrate, for

the portion of the year 2000 remaining after

the Effective Date of the Agreement.

2. The export limit for each subsequent

Export Limit Period shall be as follows:

January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2001—

100,000 MT

January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002—

110,000 MT

January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2003—

130,000 MT

January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2004 and

any subsequent Export Limit Periods—

150,000 MT

B. When Ammonium Nitrate is imported

into the United States and is subsequently reexported, or re-packaged and re-exported, or

blended and re-exported, the amount reexported shall be deducted from the amounts

of exports that have been counted against the

export limit for the Export Limit Period in

which the re-export takes place. The

deduction will be applied only after DOC has

received, and has had the opportunity to

verify, evidence demonstrating the original

importation, any repackaging or blending,

and subsequent exportation.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of

this Agreement, except Articles II.D.

(regarding combined export limit and carried

over allowance) and IV.B. (pertaining to

volumes licensed but not shipped), up to 15

percent of the export limit for any Export

Limit Period may be carried over to the

Subsequent Export Limit Period and up to 15

percent of the export limit for any Export

Limit Period may be carried back to the last

60 days of the previous Export Limit Period.

Any carried over or carried back allowance

shall be counted against the export limit for

the previous or subsequent Export Limit

Period, respectively.

D. Beginning with the first Subsequent

Export Limit Period (January 1, 2001, to

December 31, 2001), MOT will not issue

Export Licenses authorizing the exportation

to the United States of Ammonium Nitrate

covered by this Agreement in either the first

half (January through June) or the second half

(July through December) of any Export Limit

Period that exceeds 60 percent of the

combined export limit volume for that Export

Limit Period and the carried over volume

from the previous Export Limit Period, as

described in Article II.C.

E. If DOC receives information indicating

that Ammonium Nitrate from Russia may

have entered the United States in excess of

the export limits established in Article II.A

or below the Reference Price as established

in Article III, DOC shall notify MOT of those

entries and provide to MOT all information

concerning those entries that DOC is able to

disclose consistent with U.S. law. MOT shall

respond within 15 days. If the information

continues to indicate that these entries were

in excess of the export limits or below the

Reference Price, DOC shall provide MOT an

opportunity for prompt consultations, which

shall be completed within 60 days after

DOC’s initial notification. Once the

consultations have been completed, unless

DOC concludes that the entries were not in

excess of the export limits or below the

Reference Price, DOC shall count against the

export limit for either the current or

subsequent Export Limit Period, as

appropriate, 125 percent of the volume of the

entries in excess of the export limits or below

the Reference Price. When a Russian

producer or exporter is found responsible for

the entries in excess of the export limits or

below the Reference Price, MOT shall deny

that producer or exporter Export Licenses for

six months following the last date of entry.

When any other entity was involved with the

entries in excess of the export limits or below

the Reference Price, MOT shall, for one year

after the last date of entry, deny Export

Licenses for the distribution of any

Ammonium Nitrate involving that entity. The

provisions of this section do not supersede

the provisions of Article IX of this Agreement

if DOC determines that the entries were in

excess of the export limits or below the

Reference Price.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices 37761

1The validity of an Export License will not be

affected by a subsequent change of an HTS number.

III. Reference Price

A. The Reference Price will be based on a

Current Market Price, adjusted to reflect a

F.O.B. Russian port of export price. In

addition, there will be a Floor Price below

which the Reference Price shall not fall. The

Reference Price will be determined on a

weekly basis. MOT will ensure that

Ammonium Nitrate covered by this

Agreement will not be sold at a price below

the Reference Price in effect on the Date of

Contract.

B. DOC will issue the first weekly

Reference Price under this Agreement on the

first Monday after signature of this

Agreement, utilizing the calculation

methodology in Article III.C below. This first

Reference Price will be applicable to the

week after which the Agreement is signed.

C. On the first business day of each

subsequent week, DOC will calculate the

Reference Price which will be effective

beginning on the next business day and

remain in effect until the next Reference

Price becomes effective. The Reference Price

shall be the higher of: the Current Market

Price set forth in section C.1 less the costs

detailed in section C.2, and the Floor Price

set forth in section C.3.

1. The Current Market Price will be

determined as follows:

a. DOC will calculate an average of the

weekly Fertilizer Markets’ Midwest FOB

price range and Green Markets’ Mid Cornbelt

FOB price range.

b. DOC will calculate a simple average of

the four most recent weekly averages derived

in subsection 1.a, above. This four week

average (converted from a short ton basis to

a metric ton basis) will be the Current Market

Price.

c. After consultations between DOC and

MOT, should they agree that the currently

used sources for the valuation of the Current

Market Price for Ammonium Nitrate are no

longer appropriate, they may agree to select

an alternative source. DOC will give parties

at least 30 days notice before choosing

another source(s) for the purposes of Current

Market Price valuation.

2. To express the Current Market Price on

an F.O.B. Russian port of export basis, an

amount for costs associated with delivering

the merchandise from Russia to the United

States shall be deducted from the Current

Market Price calculated in section C.1. This

amount will be $55 per metric ton. Except

when section C.3 applies, the result of this

calculation shall be the Reference Price. After

consultations between DOC and MOT,

should they agree that the amount for costs

associated with delivering the merchandise

from Russia to the United States are no

longer appropriate, they may revise this

amount. DOC will give parties at least 30

days notice prior to any change becoming

effective.

3. The Floor Price is the price below which

Ammonium Nitrate subject to this Agreement

may not be sold. The Floor Price will be $85

F.O.B. Russian Port. The Reference Price

shall not be less than the Floor Price.

D. Reference Prices are F.O.B. Russian port

of export. If the sale for export is on terms

other than F.O.B. Russian port of export,

MOT shall ensure that the F.O.B. Russian

port of export price is not lower than the

Reference Price by adjusting the relevant

costs to ensure compliance with the

Reference Price requirements.

IV. Implementation

A. The United States shall require

presentation of an original stamped Export

License as a condition for entry into the

United States of Ammonium Nitrate covered

by this Agreement, except where there are

multiple shipments under a single license.

For multiple shipments at multiple ports or

multiple entries at one port, the original

license shall be presented with the first entry

and the volume entered at that time will be

noted on the original license. Customs will

provide the importer with a certified copy for

presentation to Customs with the importer’s

next entry under that license. Subsequent

entries can be made from copies of the

original which reflect all of the deductions

made from the original license.

B. Export Licenses must contain the

quantity in metric tons, specifications (form

(prilled, granular, or other solid form)),

coatings, additives, density, contract (or sales

order) date and contract (or sales order)

number; unit price, and F.O.B. Russian port

of export sales value. If necessary, additional

information may be included on the Export

License or, if necessary, a separate page

attached to the Export License. DOC will

deduct the quantity listed on each Export

License from the export limit for the Export

Limit Period in which the Date of License

falls. However, if the bills of lading for all of

the shipments under an Export License

establish that the actual imports into the

United States under that license were less

than the total volume listed on the license,

DOC will reflect the actual amount as having

been deducted from the volume listed on the

export license, but, notwithstanding the

carry-over and carry-back limitations in

Article II.C, will authorize MOT to issue a

new Export License in the same or

Subsequent Export Licensing Period

authorizing additional exports equal in

volume to the amount by which the volume

on the Export License exceeded the actual

shipment volume. Exports under such

additional licenses will be counted against

the Export Limit for the Export Limit Period

containing the Date of License of the original

shipment. Prior to issuing additional licenses

for the amounts below the actual shipment

volumes, MOT shall notify DOC of the Export

License(s) numbers, the Date of License, and

the volumes recorded of the original

shipments, and provide DOC with no less

than 30 days to confirm the additional

licensed volume. The United States will

prohibit the entry of any Ammonium Nitrate

from Russia not accompanied by an original

stamped Export License, except as provided

in Article IV.A.1

C. MOT will ensure compliance with all of

the provisions of this Agreement. In order to

ensure such compliance, MOT will take at

least the following measures:

1. Ensure that no Ammonium Nitrate

subject to this Agreement is exported from

Russia for entry into the United States during

any Export Limit Period that exceeds the

export limit for that Export Limit Period or

that is priced below the Reference Price in

effect on the Date of Contract.

2. Establish an export limit licensing and

enforcement program for all direct and

indirect exports of Ammonium Nitrate to the

United States no later than August 1, 2000.

3. Require that applications for Export

Licenses be accompanied by a report

containing all of the information listed in

part A of Appendix I (Exports to the United

States).

4. Refuse to issue an Export License to any

applicant that does not permit full

verification and reporting under this

Agreement of all of the information in the

application.

5. Issue Export Licenses sequentially,

endorsed against the export limit for the

relevant Export Limit Period, and reference

any notice of export limit allocation results

for the relevant Export Limit Period. Export

Licenses shall be issued no later than 25 days

after the Date of Contract. Export Licenses

shall remain valid for entry into the United

States for 35 days after the date of issuance

(Date of License). DOC and MOT may agree

to an extension of the validity of the Export

License in extraordinary circumstances.

6. Issue Export Licenses in the English

language and, at the discretion of MOT, also

in the Russian language.

7. Collect all existing information from all

Russian producers, exporters, brokers, if

applicable, traders of Ammonium Nitrate,

and their relevant affiliated parties, as well

as relevant trading companies/resellers

utilized by Russian producers, on the sale of

Ammonium Nitrate, and report such

information pursuant to Article VI of this

Agreement.

8. Permit full verification of all information

related to the administration of this

Agreement on an annual basis or more

frequently, as DOC deems necessary, to

ensure that MOT is in full compliance with

this Agreement and that all Russian

producers and exporters are in compliance

with the requirements that MOT has placed

upon them under this Agreement. This

requirement applies to both Russian State

documents and non-State documents, such as

sales contracts. In the course of verification,

DOC will examine documents that record the

description of the products exported to the

United States, including specifications (form,

coatings, additives, and density). Such

verifications will take place in association

with scheduled consultations whenever

possible.

9. Ensure compliance with all procedures

established in order to effectuate this

Agreement by any official Russian

institution, chamber, or other authorized

Russian entity, and any Russian producer,

exporter, broker, and trader of Ammonium

Nitrate, their relevant affiliated parties, and

any relevant trading company or reseller

utilized by a Russian producer to make sales

to the United States.

10. Impose strict measures, such as

prohibition from participation in the export

limits allowed by the Agreement, in the event

that any Russian entity does not comply in

37762 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices

full with the requirements established by

MOT pursuant to this Agreement.

V. Anticircumvention

A. MOT will take all necessary measures

to prevent circumvention of this Agreement,

including at least the following:

1. Require that all Russian exporters of

Ammonium Nitrate agree, as a condition of

being permitted to export any Ammonium

Nitrate, regardless of destination, not to

engage in any of the following activities:

a. Exporting to the United States

Ammonium Nitrate subject to this Agreement

that is not accompanied by an Export License

issued pursuant to this Agreement.

b. Transshipping Ammonium Nitrate that

is subject to this Agreement to the United

States through third countries

unaccompanied by an Export License.

c. Exchanging (‘‘swapping’’) Ammonium

Nitrate subject to this Agreement for nonsubject Ammonium Nitrate, so as to cause the

non-subject merchandise to be entered into

the United States in place of the subject

Ammonium Nitrate, thereby evading the

export limits under this Agreement. ‘‘Swaps’’

include, but are not limited to:

i. Ownership swaps—involve the exchange

of ownership of Ammonium Nitrate without

physical transfer. These may include

exchange of ownership of Ammonium

Nitrate in different countries, so that the

parties obtain ownership of products located

in different countries, or exchange of

ownership of Ammonium Nitrate produced

in different countries, so that the parties

obtain ownership of products of different

national origin.

ii. Flag swaps—involve the exchange of

indicia of national origin of Ammonium

Nitrate, without any exchange of ownership.

iii. Displacement Swaps—involve the sale

or delivery of Ammonium Nitrate from

Russia to an intermediary country (or

countries) which, regardless of the sequence

of events, results in the ultimate sale or

delivery into the United States of displaced

Ammonium Nitrate, where the Russian

exporter knew or had reason to know that the

export sale would have that result.

2. Require that all Russian exporters of

Ammonium Nitrate agree, as a condition of

being permitted to export any Ammonium

Nitrate, regardless of destination, to require

all of their customers to agree, as part of the

contract for sale:

a. Not to engage in any of the activities

listed in Article V.A.1 of this Agreement.

This requirement does not apply to exports

to the United States that are accompanied by

a valid Export License.

b. To include that same requirement in any

subsequent contracts for the sale or transfer

of such Ammonium Nitrate, and to report to

MOT subsequent arrangements entered into

for the sale, transfer exchange, or loan to the

United States of Ammonium Nitrate covered

by this Agreement.

3. When MOT has received an allegation

that circumvention has occurred, including

an allegation from DOC, MOT shall promptly

initiate an inquiry, normally complete the

inquiry within 45 days and notify DOC of the

results of the inquiry within 15 days after the

conclusion of the inquiry.

4. If MOT determines that a Russian entity

has participated in a transaction

circumventing this Agreement, MOT shall

impose penalties upon such company

including, but not limited to, denial of access

to export certificates for Ammonium Nitrate

under this Agreement.

5. If MOT determines that a Russian entity

has participated in the circumvention of this

Agreement, MOT shall count against the

export limit for the Export Limit Period in

which the circumvention took place an

amount of Ammonium Nitrate equivalent to

the amount involved in such circumvention

and shall immediately notify DOC of the

amount deducted. If sufficient tonnage is not

available in the current Export Limit Period,

then the remaining amount shall be deducted

from the subsequent Export Limit Period or

Periods.

6. If MOT determines that a company from

a third country has circumvented the

Agreement and DOC and MOT agree that no

Russian entity participated in or had

knowledge of such activities, then the Parties

shall hold consultations for the purpose of

sharing information regarding such

circumvention and reaching mutual

agreement on the appropriate measures to be

taken to eliminate such circumvention. If the

Parties are unable to reach mutual agreement

within 45 days, then DOC may take

appropriate measures, such as deducting the

amount of Ammonium Nitrate involved in

such circumvention from the export limit for

the then-current Export Limit Period or a

subsequent Period. Before taking such

measures, DOC will notify MOT of the facts

and reasons constituting the basis for DOC’s

intended action and will afford MOT 15 days

in which to comment.

B. DOC will direct the U.S. Customs

Service to require all importers of

Ammonium Nitrate into the United States,

regardless of the stated country of origin of

those imports, to submit a written statement,

on the last day of every quarter, indicating

that the importer is maintaining a list of all

entries of such merchandise and certifying

that the Ammonium Nitrate imported during

that quarter was not obtained under any

arrangement in circumvention of this

Agreement. Where DOC has reason to believe

that such a certification has been made

falsely, DOC will refer the matter to the U.S.

Customs Service or U.S. Department of

Justice for further action.

C. DOC will investigate any allegations of

circumvention which are brought to its

attention, both by asking MOT to investigate

such allegations and by itself gathering

relevant information. MOT will respond to

requests from DOC for information relating to

the allegations under Article VI.A.4. In

distinguishing normal arrangements, swaps,

or other exchanges in the Ammonium Nitrate

market from arrangements, swaps, or other

exchanges which would result in the

circumvention of the export limits

established by this Agreement, DOC will take

the following factors into account:

1. Existence of any verbal or written

arrangement leading to circumvention of this

Agreement;

2. Existence and function of any

subsidiaries or affiliates of the parties

involved;

3. Existence and function of any historical

and traditional patterns of production and

trade among the parties involved, and any

deviation from such patterns;

4. Existence of any payments unaccounted

for by previous or subsequent deliveries, or

any payments to one party for Ammonium

Nitrate delivered or swapped by another

party;

5. Sequence and timing of the

arrangements; and

6. Any other information relevant to the

transaction or circumstances.

D. In the event that DOC determines that

a Russian entity has participated in

circumvention of this Agreement, DOC and

MOT shall hold consultations for the purpose

of sharing evidence regarding such

circumvention and reaching mutual

agreement on an appropriate resolution of the

problem. If DOC and MOT are unable to

reach mutual agreement within 60 days, DOC

may take appropriate measures, such as

deducting the amount of Ammonium Nitrate

involved in such circumvention from the

export limit for the current Export Limit

Period (or, if necessary, the Subsequent

Export Limit Period) or instructing the U.S.

Customs Service to deny entry to any Russian

Ammonium Nitrate sold by the entity found

to be circumventing the Agreement. Before

taking such measures, DOC will notify MOT

of the basis for DOC’s intended action and

will afford MOT 30 days in which to

comment. DOC will enter its determinations

regarding circumvention into the record of

the Agreement. MOT may request an

extension of up to15 days for any of the

deadlines mentioned in this Article.

VI. Monitoring and Notifications

A. MOT will collect and provide to DOC

such information as is necessary and

appropriate to monitor the implementation

of, and compliance with, this Agreement,

including the following:

1. Thirty days following the allocation of

export rights for any Export Limit Period,

MOT shall notify DOC of each allocation

recipient and the volume granted to each

recipient. MOT also shall inform DOC of any

changes in the volume allocated to

individual quota recipients within 60 days of

the date on which such changes become

effective.

2. MOT shall collect and provide to DOC

information on exports to the United States

in the format in Appendix I to this

Agreement, and on the aggregate quantity

and value of exports of Ammonium Nitrate

to all other countries. This information will

be subject to verification. This information

will be based on semi-annual periods

(January 1 through June 30 and July 1

through December 31) and will be provided

no later than 90 days following the end of

each half-year period, beginning on

September 30, 2000.

3. If DOC has reason to suspect noncompliance with the Agreement, and after

consultations with MOT, and subject to the

provisions of Article VII.A, MOT shall also

collect and provide to DOC, within 45 days

of the request, transaction-specific data for

sales of Ammonium Nitrate within the

Russian home market or to any third country

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices 37763

or countries, in the format provided in

Appendix I.

4. Within 15 days of a request from DOC

for information concerning alleged

circumvention or other violation of this

Agreement, MOT shall share with DOC all

information received or collected by MOT

regarding its inquiries, its analysis of such

information, and the results of such

inquiries.

5. MOT will inform DOC of any violations

of any provisions of this Agreement that

come to its attention and of the measures

taken with respect thereto.

6. MOT and DOC recognize that the

effective monitoring of this Agreement may

require that MOT provide information

additional to that identified above.

Accordingly, after consulting with MOT,

DOC may establish additional reporting

requirements consistent with the U.S.

antidumping law, as appropriate, during the

course of this Agreement. MOT shall also

collect and provide to DOC, within 45 days

of the request, any such additional

information requested by DOC.

B. MOT may request an extension of up to

30 days of any deadline in this Article.

C. DOC may disregard any information

submitted after the deadlines set forth in this

Article or any information which it is unable

to verify to its satisfaction.

D. DOC shall provide MOT with the

following information relating to

implementation and enforcement of this

Agreement.

1. Semi-annual reports indicating the

volume of U.S. imports of Ammonium

Nitrate subject to this Agreement, together

with such additional information as is

necessary and appropriate to monitor

compliance with the export limits. Such

reports and information shall be provided

within 120 days after the end of the last semiannual period.

2. Notice of any violations of any term of

this Agreement.

E. DOC will also monitor the following

information relevant to this Agreement, and

provide such information that is public to

MOT upon request.

1. Publicly available data as well as U.S.

Customs entry summaries and other official

import data from the U.S. Bureau of the

Census, on a monthly basis, to determine

whether there have been imports that are

inconsistent with the provisions of this

Agreement.

2. U.S. Bureau of the Census computerized

records, which include the quantity and

value of each entry. Because these records do

not provide other specific entry information,

such as the identity of the producer/exporter

which may be responsible for such sales,

DOC may request the U.S. Customs Service

to provide such information. DOC may

request other additional documentation from

the U.S. Customs Service.

F. DOC may also request the U.S. Customs

Service to direct ports of entry to forward an

Antidumping Report of Importations for

entries of Ammonium Nitrate during the

period this Agreement is in effect.

VII. Disclosure and Comment

A. DOC shall make available to

representatives of each Party to the

Proceeding, under appropriately-drawn

administrative protective orders consistent

with U.S. laws and regulations, business

proprietary information submitted to DOC

semi-annually or upon request pursuant to

this Agreement, and in any administrative

review of this Agreement.

B. Not later than 45 days after the date of

disclosure under Article VII.A, the Parties to

the Proceeding may submit written

comments to DOC, not to exceed 30 pages.

C. At the end of each Export Limit Period,

each Party to the Proceeding may request a

hearing on issues raised during the preceding

Export Limit Period. If such a hearing is

requested, it will be conducted in accordance

with U.S. laws and regulations.

VIII. Consultations

A. If, in response to a request by MOT at

any time, DOC determines that the

designated Floor Price and/or the calculated

Reference Price under Article III prevents

Russian producers from participating in the

U.S. market, MOT and DOC will promptly

enter into consultations in order to review

the market situation and the appropriateness

of the Floor Price and/or the Reference Price

levels.

B. MOT and DOC shall hold consultations

concerning the implementation, operation

(including the calculation of Reference

Prices) and enforcement of this Agreement

each year during the anniversary month of

this Agreement.

C. Additional consultations on any aspect

of this Agreement shall be held as soon as

possible, but no later than 30 days, after a

request by either MOT or DOC.

D. If DOC receives information indicating

that there has been a violation of this

Agreement, DOC shall promptly request

special consultations with MOT. Such

consultations shall begin no later than 21

days after the day of DOC’s request, and must

be completed within 40 days after

commencement. After completion of the

consultations, DOC will provide MOT 20

days within which to provide comments.

E. Two years after the effective date of this

Agreement, DOC and MOT shall enter into

additional consultations to review the extent

to which this Agreement is accomplishing

the purposes set forth in the preamble and

make any revisions consistent with U.S. law

that are appropriate in light of their mutual

conclusions.

IX. Violations

A. DOC will investigate any information

relating to circumvention or other violations

of this Agreement which is brought to its

attention, both by asking MOT to investigate

such allegations and by itself gathering

relevant information. Prior to making a

determination that a violation has occurred,

DOC will engage in consultations with MOT,

pursuant to Articles V.D or VIII.D. of this

Agreement.

B. DOC will determine whether a violation

has occurred within 30 days after the date for

submission of comments by MOT upon the

allegation under Article VIII.D.

C. If DOC determines that this Agreement

is being or has been violated, DOC will take

such action as it determines is appropriate

under U.S. law and regulations.

X. Duration

A. This Agreement will remain in force

until the underlying antidumping proceeding

is terminated in accordance with U.S.

antidumping law.

B. DOC will, upon receiving a proper

request made by MOT, conduct an

administrative review of this Agreement

under U.S. laws and regulations.

C. MOT or DOC may terminate this

Agreement at any time upon written notice

to the other party. Termination shall be

effective 60 days after such notice is given.

Upon termination of this Agreement, the

provisions of U.S. antidumping law and

regulations shall apply.

XI. Other Provisions

A. DOC finds that this Agreement is in the

public interest, that effective monitoring of

this Agreement by the United States is

practicable, and that this Agreement will

prevent the suppression or undercutting of

price levels of United States domestic

Ammonium Nitrate products by imports of

the Ammonium Nitrate subject to this

Agreement.

B. DOC does not consider any of the

obligations concerning exports of

Ammonium Nitrate to the United States

undertaken by MOT pursuant to this

Agreement relevant to the question of

whether firms in the underlying investigation

would be entitled to separate rates, should

the investigation be resumed for any reason.

C. The English and Russian language

versions of this Agreement shall be authentic,

with the English version being controlling for

purposes of interpreting and implementing

the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

D. All provisions of this Agreement,

including the provisions of the Preamble,

shall have equal force.

E. For all purposes hereunder, the

signatory Parties shall be represented by, and

all communications and notices shall be

given and addressed to:

DOC: Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, International Trade

Administration, Washington, DC 20230.

MOT: Department for State Regulation of

External Economic Activities, Ministry of

Trade of the Russian Federation, 18/1

Ovchinnikovskaya naberezhnaya, Moscow, 1

13324, Russia.

Signed on this 19th day of May, 2000.

For DOC

lllllllllllllllllllll

Robert S. LaRussa, Acting Under Secretary

for International Trade

For MOT

lllllllllllllllllllll

Yuri V. Akhremenko, Trade Representative of

the Russian Federation to the United States,

Minister-Counselor Commercial

Appendix I

In accordance with the established format,

MOT shall collect and provide to DOC all

information necessary to ensure compliance

with this Agreement. This information will

be provided to DOC on a semi-annual basis.

MOT will collect and maintain data on

exports to the United States on a continuous

37764 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 117 / Friday, June 16, 2000 / Notices

basis. Sales data for the home market, and

data for exports to countries other than the

United States, will be reported upon request.

MOT will provide a narrative explanation

to substantiate all data collected in

accordance with the following formats:

A. Exports to the United States

MOT will provide all Export Licenses

issued to Russian entities, which shall

contain the following information with the

exception that information requested in item

#9, date of entry, item #10, importer of

record, item #16, final destination, and item

#17, other, may be omitted if unknown to

MOT and the licensee.

1. Export License/Temporary Document:

Indicate the number(s) relating to each sale

and or entry.

2. Description of Merchandise: Include the

10 digit HTS category, and the specifications

of merchandise.

3. Quantity: Indicate in metric tons.

4. F.O.B. Sales Value: Indicate value and

currency used.

5. Unit Price: Indicate unit price per metric

ton and currency used.

6. Date of Contract: The date all essential

terms of the order (i.e, price and quantity)

become fixed.

7. Sales Order Number(s): Indicate the

number(s) relating to each sale and/or entry.

8. Date of License: Date the Export License/

Temporary Document is Issued.

9. Date of Entry: Date the merchandise

entered the United States or the date book

transfer took place.

10. Importer of Record: Name and address.

11. Trading Company: Name and address

of trading company involved in sale.

12. Customer: Name and address of the

first unaffiliated party purchasing from the

Russian exporter.

13. Customer Relationship: Indicate

whether the customer is affiliated or

unaffiliated to the Russian exporter.

14. Allocation to Exporter: Indicate the

total amount of quota allocated to the

individual exporter during the Relevant

Period.

15. Allocation Remaining: Indicate the

remaining export limit allocation available to

the individual exporter during the export

limit period.

16. Final Destination: The complete name

and address of the U.S. purchaser.

17. Other: The identity of any party(ies) in

the transaction chain between the customer

and the final destination/U.S. purchaser.

B. Exports Other Than to the United States

Pursuant to Article VI.A, MOT will provide

country-specific volume and value

information for exports of Ammonium

Nitrate to third countries, upon request,

regardless of whether MOT licenses exports

of Ammonium Nitrate to such country(ies).

The following information shall be provided

except that information requested in item #6,

date of entry, #7, importer of record, and item

#10, other, may be omitted if unknown to

MOT and the Russian licensee.

1. Export License/Temporary Document:

Indicate the number(s) relating to each sale

and/or entry, if any.

2. Quantity: Indicate in original units of

measure sold and/or entered in metric tons.

3. Date of Contract: The date all essential

terms of the order (i.e., price and quantity)

become fixed.

4. Sales Order Number(s): Indicate the

number(s) relating to each sale and/or entry.

5. Date of License: Date Export License/

Temporary Document is issued, if any.

6. Date of Entry: Date the merchandise

entered the third country or the date a book

transfer took place.

7. Importer of Record: Name and address.

8. Customer: Name and address of the first

unaffiliated party purchasing from the

Russian exporter.

9. Customer Relationship: Indicate whether

the customer is affiliated or unaffiliated.

10. Other: The identity of any party(ies) in

the transaction chain between the customer

and the final destination.

C. Home Market Sales

Pursuant to Article VII.A, the MOT will

provide home market volume and value

information for sales of Ammonium Nitrate,

upon request. The following information

shall be provided with the exception of item

#6, other, if unknown to MOT and the

Russian producer/exporter.

1. Quantity: Indicate in original units of

measure sold and/or entered in metric tons.

2. Date of Contract: The date all essential

terms of order (i.e., price and quantity)

become fixed.

3. Sales Order Number(s): Indicate the

number(s) relating to each sale and/or entry.

4. Customer: Name and address of the first

unaffiliated party purchasing from the

Russian exporter.

5. Customer Relationship: Indicate whether

the customer is affiliated or unaffiliated.

6. Other: The identity of any party(ies) in

the transaction chain between the customer

and the final destination.

Appendix II

Section 734 (1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as

amended, provides, in part, as follows:

(1) SPECIAL RULE FOR NON-MARKET

ECONOMY COUNTRIES.

(I) In General.—The administering

authority may suspend an investigation

under this subtitle upon acceptance of an

agreement with a non-market economy

country to restrict the volume of imports into

the United States of the merchandise under

investigation only if the administering

authority determines that

(A)—such agreement satisfies the

requirements of subsection (d), and

(B)—will prevent the suppression or

undercutting of price levels of domestic

products by imports of the merchandise

under investigation.

(2) Failure of Agreements—If the

administering authority determines that the

agreement accepted under this subsection no

longer prevents the suppression or

undercutting of domestic prices of

merchandise manufactured in the United

States, the provisions of subsection (I) shall

apply.

Section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, provides in part, as follows:

(9) Interested Party—-The term ‘‘interested

party’’ means—

(A) a foreign manufacturer, producer, or

exporter, or the United States importer, of

subject merchandise under this title or a

trade or business association a majority of the

members of which are producers, exporters,

or importers of such merchandise,

(B) the government of a country in which

such merchandise is produced or

manufactured or from which such

merchandise is exported,

(C) a manufacturer, producer, or

wholesaler in the United States of a domestic

like product,

(D) a certified union or recognized union

or group of workers which is representative

of an industry engaged in the manufacture,

production, or wholesale in the United States

of a domestic like product,

(E) a trade or business association a

majority of whose members manufacture,

produce, or wholesale a domestic like

product in the United States,

(F) an association, a majority of whose

members is composed of interested parties

described in subparagraph (C), (D), or (E)

with respect to a domestic like product.

* * * * *

Appendix III

For purposes of this Agreement,

Ammonium Nitrate is defined as the

following:

Solid, fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate

products, whether prilled, granular or in

other solid form, with or without additives or

coating, and with a bulk density equal to or

greater than 53 pounds per cubic foot.

Specifically excluded from this scope is solid

ammonium nitrate with a bulk density less

than 53 pounds per cubic foot (commonly

referred to as industrial or explosive grade

ammonium nitrate).

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading 3102.30.00.00.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

[FR Doc. 00–15312 Filed 6–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Ocean Service

[I.D. 061200LE]

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

The Department of Commerce has

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for clearance the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

Agency: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Title: Tortugas Access Permits.

Form Number(s): None.

OMB Approval Number: None.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 162 / Monday, August 21, 2000 / Notices 50719

1The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR 207.2(f)).

2Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman not

participating.

3The Committee for Fair Ammonium Nitrate

Trade consisted of the following companies: Air

Products & Chemicals, Inc., Allentown, PA; El

Dorado Chemical Co., Oklahoma City, OK; LaRoche

Industries, Inc., Atlanta, GA; Mississippi Chemical

Corp., Yazoo City, MS; Nitram, Inc., Tampa, FL; and

Wil-Gro Fertilizer, Inc., Celina, TX.

4Notice of the scheduling of the Commission’s

investigation and of a public hearing to be held in

connection therewith was given by posting copies

of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, Washington, DC,

and by publishing notice in the Federal Register of

January 18, 2000 (65 FR 2643).

Montgomery County

Stafford’s Wells Hotel, MS 1, Winona,

00001059

Tippah County

US Post Office, Old—Ripley,

(Mississippi Post Offices 1931–1941

TR) 301 N. Main St., Ripley, 00001056

Tishomingo County

Bear Creek Fishweir #1, Tishomingo

State Park, Tishomingo, 00001057

Bear Creek Fishweir #2, Tishomingo

State Park, Tishomingo, 00001058

Warren County

Carr Junior High School, (Vicksburg

MPS) 1805 Cherry St., Vicksburg,

00001055

Missouri

Lafayette County

Old Neighborhoods Historic District

(Boundary Decrease), 1312, 1401,

1406, 1413, 1415, 1417, 1500, 1501,

and 1502 Lafayette St., Lexington,

00001060

New Jersey

Essex County

Four Corners Historic District, Roughly

bounded by Raymond Blvd., Mulberry

St., Hill St. and Washington St.,

Newark, 00001061

New York

Westchester County

Washington Irving Memorial, Broadway

and Sunnyside Ln., Irvington,

00001062

Ohio

Cuyahoga County

New England Building, 617–637 Euclid

Ave., 614–626 Vincent Ave.,

Cleveland, 00001065

Montgomery County

Red Oak—Sherman, William C., House,

1231 Hook Estates Dr., Dayton,

00001064

Warren County

Decker, Henry, Farmstead, 2595 W.

Lower Springboro Rd., Springboro,

00001063

Utah

Cache County

Whittier School, 280 North 400 East,

Logan, 00001066

Sanpete County

Centerfield School and Meetinghouse,

(Mormon Church Buildings in Utah

MPS) 140 S. Main St., Centerfield,

00001068

Wisconsin

Manitowoc County

Central Park Historic District, Roughly

bounded by 19th St., Adams St., 16th

St. and Jefferson St., Two Rivers,

00001069

Ozaukee County

Port Washington Downtown Historic

District, Roughly along N. Franklin

St., from E Jackson St. to E Grand

Ave., Port Washington, 00001070

A Request of for Removal has been

made for the following resources:

Iowa

Louisa County

Springer, Judge Francis, House, S of

Columbus City, Columbus City

vicinity, 83000388

Minnesota

Nicollet County

St. Peter Central School, 300 S. 5th St.,

St. Peter, 80002092

[FR Doc. 00–21233 Filed 8–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731–TA–856 (Final)]

Certain Ammonium Nitrate From

Russia

Determination

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject investigation, the United

States International Trade Commission

determines,2 pursuant to section 735(b)

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in

the United States is materially injured

by reason of imports from Russia of

certain ammonium nitrate, provided for

in subheading 3102.30.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States, that have been found by

the Department of Commerce to be sold

in the United States at less than fair

value (LTFV). The Commission further

determines that critical circumstances

do not exist with respect to the subject

imports.

Background

The Commission instituted this

investigation effective July 23, 1999,

following receipt of a petition filed with

the Commission and the Department of

Commerce by the ad hoc Committee for

Fair Ammonium Nitrate Trade.3 The

final phase of the investigation was

scheduled 4 by the Commission

following notification of a preliminary

determination by the Department of

Commerce that imports of certain

ammonium nitrate from Russia were

being sold at LTFV within the meaning

of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1673b(b)). On May 19, 2000, Commerce

entered into a suspension agreement

with Russia; subsequently both

Commerce and the Commission

suspended their investigations. On June

29, 2000, the petitioner requested a

continuation of the investigation and

both Commerce and the Commission

resumed their investigations. Notice of

the scheduling of the Commission’s

continuation of the investigation and of

a public hearing to be held in

connection therewith was given by

posting copies of the notice in the Office

of the Secretary, U.S. International

Trade Commission, Washington, DC,

and by publishing the notice in the

Federal Register of July 5, 2000 (65 FR

41489). The hearing was held in

Washington, DC, on July 11, 2000, and

all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in

person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determination in this investigation to

the Secretary of Commerce on August

14, 2000. The views of the Commission

are contained in USITC Publication

3338 (August 2000), entitled Certain

Ammonium Nitrate from Russia:

Investigation No. 731–TA–856 (Final).

Issued: August 15, 2000.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–21232 Filed 8–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P


Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 61 / Thursday, March 31, 2005 / Notices 16517

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 05–5–117, 

expiration date June 30, 2005. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 10 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Imperial Sand Dunes RAMP was 

developed with broad public 

participation through a multi-year 

collaborative planning process. This 

RAMP addresses management on 

approximately 158,072 acres of public 

land in the planning areas. The Imperial 

Sand Dunes RAMP is designed to 

achieve or maintain desired future 

conditions developed through the 

planning process. It includes a series of 

management actions to meet the desired 

resource conditions for native plant 

populations, wildlife habitats, cultural 

and visual resources, and recreation. 

The approved Imperial Sand Dunes 

RAMP is essentially the same as 

Alternative 2 in the Proposed Imperial 

Sand Dunes RAMP and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(PRAMP/FEIS), published in May 2003. 

BLM received eleven protest(s) to the 

Proposed RAMP/FEIS. No 

inconsistencies with State or local 

plans, policies, or programs were 

identified during the Governor’s 

consistency review of the Proposed 

RAMP/FEIS. As a result, only minor 

editorial modifications were made in 

preparing the final RAMP/ROD. These 

modifications corrected errors that were 

noted during review of the Proposed 

RAMP/FEIS and provide further 

clarification for some of the decisions. 

An errata sheet is included with the 

RAMP/Record of Decision that 

identifies the location of the corrections 

to the Proposed RAMP/FEIS.

Dated: February 7, 2005. 

Larry Caffey, 

Acting Field Manager.

[FR Doc. 05–6334 Filed 3–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 

[CA–310–0777–XG] 

Notice of Public Meeting: Northwest 

California Resource Advisory Council 

and Northeast California Resource 

Advisory Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act of 1972 

(FACA), the U. S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) Northwest California Resource 

Advisory Council and Northeast 

California Resource Advisory Council 

will meet in joint session, and then 

convene in individual business breakout 

sessions.

DATES: The meeting will be held 

Wednesday and Thursday, May 11–12, 

2005, in the Conference Center of the 

Red Lion Hotel, 1830 Hilltop Dr., 

Redding, Calif. On May 11, the councils 

will convene in joint session at 10 a.m. 

On May 12, the groups will convene 

individual business sessions beginning 

at 8 a.m. Time for public comment has 

been set aside for 1 p.m. both days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich 

Burns, Manager, BLM Ukiah Field 

Office, (707) 468–4000; Tim Burke, 

Manager, Alturas Field Office, (530) 

233–4666; or BLM Public Affairs Officer 

Joseph J. Fontana, (530) 252–5332.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Resource Advisory Councils advise the 

Secretary of the Interior, through the 

BLM, on a variety of planning and 

management issues associated with 

public land management in Northern 

California and parts of Northwest 

Nevada. At the joint session, agenda 

topics will include use of recreation 

user fees, orientation matters, a review 

of council charters and a forum with 

BLM California State Director Mike 

Pool. At its business meeting May 12, 

the Northwest Council will discuss BLM 

wilderness management, status of the 

Salmon Creek Resources proposed land 

exchange, the process for establishment 

of a National Conservation Area in the 

Sacramento River Bend area, 

designations under the BLM’s National 

Landscape Conservation System, and a 

status report on the Ukiah Field Office 

Resource Management Plan. Also on 

May 12, the Northeast RAC will discuss 

land acquisitions, WSA in-holdings, rail 

banking, status of the sagebrush steppe 

ecosystem management project and the 

status of Resource Management Plan 

development for the Alturas, Eagle Lake 

and Surprise field offices. All meetings 

are open to the public. Members of the 

public may present written comments to 

the council. Each formal council 

meeting will have time allocated for 

public comments. Depending on the 

number of persons wishing to speak, 

and the time available, the time for 

individual comments may be limited. 

Members of the public are welcome on 

field tours, but they must provide their 

own transportation and lunch. 

Individuals who plan to attend and 

need special assistance, such as sign 

language interpretation and other 

reasonable accommodations, should 

contact the BLM as provided above.

Dated: March 23, 2005. 

Joseph J. Fontana, 

Public Affairs Officer.

[FR Doc. 05–6324 Filed 3–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–856 (Review)] 

Ammonium Nitrate From Russia

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the suspended investigation 

on ammonium nitrate from Russia. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether termination of the 

suspended investigation on ammonium 

nitrate from Russia would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury. Pursuant to section 

751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties 

are requested to respond to this notice 

by submitting the information specified 

below to the Commission; 1 to be 

assured of consideration, the deadline 

for responses is May 23, 2005. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

June 14, 2005. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207).

DATES: Effective Date: March 31, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

16518 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 61 / Thursday, March 31, 2005 / Notices 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.—On May 19, 2000, the 

Department of Commerce suspended an 

antidumping duty investigation on 

imports of ammonium nitrate from 

Russia (65 FR 37759, June 16, 2000). 

The Commission is conducting a review 

to determine whether termination of the 

suspended investigation would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to the domestic industry 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. It 

will assess the adequacy of interested 

party responses to this notice of 

institution to determine whether to 

conduct a full review or an expedited 

review. The Commission’s 

determination in any expedited review 

will be based on the facts available, 

which may include information 

provided in response to this notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is Russia. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination, the Commission defined 

the Domestic Like Product 

coextensively with the subject 

merchandise: fertilizer grade 

ammonium nitrate products with a bulk 

density equal to or greater than 53 

pounds per cubic foot. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all domestic producers of 

high density ammonium nitrate.

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

investigation was suspended. In this 

review, the Order Date is May 19, 2000. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are reminded that they 

are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, 

to seek Commission approval if the 

matter in which they are seeking to 

appear was pending in any manner or 

form during their Commission 

employment. The Commission’s 

designated agency ethics official has 

advised that a five-year review is the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 19 CFR 201.15 and 18 

U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute 

for Federal employees. Former 

employees may seek informal advice 

from Commission ethics officials with 

respect to this and the related issue of 

whether the employee’s participation 

was ‘‘personal and substantial.’’

However, any informal consultation will 

not relieve former employees of the 

obligation to seek approval to appear 

from the Commission under its rule 

201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol 

McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics 

Official, at 202–205–3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is May 23, 2005. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is June 14, 

2005. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 and 

207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing of submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means, except 

to the extent permitted by section 201.8 

of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 

67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, 

in accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 61 / Thursday, March 31, 2005 / Notices 16519

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response To This Notice of Institution:

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the termination of the suspended 

investigation on the Domestic Industry 

in general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2004 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2004 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2004 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions.

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: March 23, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05–6401 Filed 3–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 701–TA–269 and 270 

and 731–TA–311–314, 317 and 379 (Second 

Review)] 

Brass Sheet and Strip From Brazil, 

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and 

Japan

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the countervailing duty 

orders on brass sheet and strip from 

Brazil and France and the antidumping 

duty orders on brass sheet and strip 


41426 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 19, 2005 / Notices 

reserved mineral interests from 

settlement, sale, location, and entry 

under the general land laws, including 

the mining laws, to protect the 

recreational and scenic values of the 

Lower Salmon River. This notice gives 

the public an opportunity to comment 

on the proposed action and gives notice 

for scheduled public meetings in 

connection with the proposed 

withdrawal extensions.

DATES: Public meetings will be held on 

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 in Lewiston, 

Idaho at the Community Center located 

at 1424 Main Street; and Thursday, 

October 20, 2005 in Riggins, Idaho at the 

Best Western Salmon Rapids Lodge 

located at 1010 South Main Street. Both 

meetings will be held from 7:30 p.m. to 

9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: All persons who wish to 

submit comments in connection with 

the proposed withdrawal extensions 

should do so in writing. Comments 

must be addressed to the Idaho State 

Director (933), BLM, Idaho State Office, 

1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 

83709, and, to be considered, must be 

received by BLM on or before November 

21, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jackie Simmons, BLM, Idaho State 

Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, 

Idaho 83709, 208–373–3867 or Ron 

Grant, BLM, Cottonwood Field Office, 

House 1, Butte Drive Route 3, Box 181, 

Cottonwood, Idaho 83522, 208–962–

3680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

withdrawals created by Public Land 

Order Nos. 6629 (51 FR 41104–41105) 

and 6670 (53 FR 10535–10536) will 

expire on November 12, 2006 and 

March 31, 2008, respectively, unless 

extended. The Bureau of Land 

Management has filed an application to 

extend these withdrawals for additional 

20-year terms to protect the remote, 

undeveloped character and outstanding 

scenic and recreational values of the 

Lower Salmon River Canyon. The 

withdrawals in total comprise 

approximately 18,531.69 acres of public 

lands and 8,062.12 acres of reserved 

mineral interests in private lands 

located in Lewis and Nez Perce 

Counties. Complete legal descriptions 

can be found in the published public 

land orders and, if requested, copies 

will be provided by the BLM Idaho State 

Office or the BLM Cottonwood Field 

Office at the addresses shown above. 

As extended, the withdrawal would 

not alter the applicability of those 

public land laws governing the use of 

the lands under lease, license, or permit, 

or governing the disposal of their 

mineral or vegetative resources other 

than under the mining laws. 

The use of a right-of-way, or a 

cooperative agreement would not 

provide the needed protection. 

There are no suitable alternative sites 

as the described lands contain the 

resource values in need of preservation 

and protection. The withdrawals would 

not displace any existing uses. 

Water rights will not be needed to 

fulfill the purpose of the requested 

withdrawal. 

All persons who wish to submit 

comments in connection with the 

proposed withdrawal extensions may 

present their views in writing at the 

public meetings or to the Idaho State 

Director of the Bureau of Land 

Management at the address above. To be 

considered, comments must be received 

by BLM on or before November 21, 

2005. Comments, including names and 

street addresses of respondents, will be 

available for public review during 

regular business hours at the BLM Idaho 

State Office. Individual respondents 

may request confidentiality. If you wish 

to withhold your name or address from 

public review or from disclosure under 

the Freedom of Information Act, you 

must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comments. Such 

requests will be honored to the extent 

allowed by law. All submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public inspection in 

their entirety. 

The withdrawal extensions will be 

processed in accordance with the 

regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2310.4.

(Authority: 43 CFR 2310.3–1(b)(1).

Dated: June 28, 2005. 

Jimmie Buxton, 

Branch Chief for Lands, Minerals, & Water 

Rights.

[FR Doc. 05–14185 Filed 7–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 

[ES–960–1420–BJ–TRST] ES–053573, 

Group No. 164, Minnesota 

Eastern States: Filing of Plat of Survey

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plat of 

Survey; Minnesota. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–856 (Review)] 

Ammonium Nitrate From Russia

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct a full five-year 

review concerning the suspended 

investigation on ammonium nitrate from 

Russia. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

termination of the suspended 

investigation on ammonium nitrate from 

Russia would be likely to lead to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 19, 2005 / Notices 41427

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the review will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207).

DATES: Effective Date: July 5, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 5, 

2005, the Commission determined that 

it should proceed to a full review in the 

subject five-year review pursuant to 

section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The 

Commission found that both the 

domestic and respondent interested 

party group responses to its notice of 

institution (70 FR 16517, March 31, 

2005) were adequate. A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site.

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: July 14, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05–14136 Filed 7–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–269 and 270 

and 731–TA–311–314, 317, and 379 (Second 

Review)] 

Brass Sheet and Strip From Brazil, 

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and 

Japan

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty orders on brass sheet and strip 

from Brazil and France and the 

antidumping duty orders on brass sheet 

and strip from Brazil, Canada, France, 

Germany, Italy, and Japan. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–825 and 826 

(Review)] 

Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea and

Taiwan

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on polyester staple fiber 

from Korea and Taiwan. 
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices 53687 

comments. One or more workshops, 

open houses or similar meetings may be 

conducted during preparation of the 

EIS. Because there was a well attended 

public meeting during scoping for the 

EA, no additional public meetings are 

planned as part of the EIS scoping 

process. 

For questions regarding the proposed 

action, contact Utah Museum of Natural 

History, Sarah George, Director, 1390 E. 

Presidents Circle, University of Utah, 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84112–0050. For 

questions regarding NEPA compliance, 

contact National Park Service, Cordell 

Roy, Utah State Coordinator, 324 South 

State Street, Suite 200, Box 30, Salt Lake 

City, UT 84111. 

DATES: Comments from the public will 

be accepted through October 11, 2005. 

Any comments received during that 

time will be reviewed and, if 

appropriate, a supplemental scoping 

brochure will be prepared. Comments 

received after the close of formal 

scoping will continue to be accepted 

and considered. It is anticipated that a 

Draft EIS will be available for public 

review in early 2006 and the Final EIS 

will be completed in the summer 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ralph Becker, Bear West, 145 South 400 

East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801–

355–8816), or e-mail to 

rbecker@bearwest.com. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you 

wish to comment on the scoping 

brochure or on any other issues 

associated with the proposed project, 

you may submit your comments by mail 

to UMNH EIS, c/o Bear West, 145 South 

400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 or 

via the internet to bcall@bearwest.com. 

Please include in any internet 

comments your name and return 

address for the project mailing list. If 

you do not receive a confirmation of 

receipt of your email message, contact 

Bear West directly at (801) 355–8816. 

Comments, including names and home 

addresses of respondents will be 

available for public review. Individual 

respondents may request that we 

withhold their home address from the 

record, which will be honored to the 

maximum extent allowable by law. 

There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

record a respondent’s identity, as 

allowable by law. If you wish to have 

your address withheld, you must state 

this prominently at the beginning of 

your comment. All submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public inspection in 

their entirety. 

Dated: August 2, 2005. 

Kate Cannon, 

Acting Deputy Director, Intermountain 

Region, National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–17853 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–856 (Review)] 

Ammonium Nitrate From Russia 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of a full five-year 

review concerning the suspended 

investigation on ammonium nitrate from 

Russia. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of a full review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

termination of the suspended 

investigation on ammonium nitrate from 

Russia would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 2, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Nesbitt (202–205–3355), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On July 5, 2005, the 

Commission determined that responses 

to its notice of institution of the subject 

five-year review were such that a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act should proceed (70 FR 41426, 

July 19, 2005). A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in this review as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not file 

an additional notice of appearance. The 

Secretary will maintain a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the review. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list. Pursuant to section 

207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the 

Secretary will make BPI gathered in this 

review available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

review, provided that the application is 

made by 45 days after publication of 

this notice. Authorized applicants must 

represent interested parties, as defined 

by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to 

the review. A party granted access to 

BPI following publication of the 

Commission’s notice of institution of 

the review need not reapply for such 

access. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Staff report. The prehearing staff 

report in the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on December 21, 

2005, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.64 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing. The Commission will hold a 

hearing in connection with the review 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. on January 19, 

2006, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before January 9, 

2006. A nonparty who has testimony 

that may aid the Commission’s 

deliberations may request permission to 

present a short statement at the hearing. 

All parties and nonparties desiring to 

53688 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices 

appear at the hearing and make oral 

presentations should attend a 

prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 

a.m. on January 12, 2006, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Oral testimony and written 

materials to be submitted at the public 

hearing are governed by sections 

201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 

207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions. Each party to the 

review may submit a prehearing brief to 

the Commission. Prehearing briefs must 

conform with the provisions of section 

207.65 of the Commission’s rules; the 

deadline for filing is January 9, 2006. 

Parties may also file written testimony 

in connection with their presentation at 

the hearing, as provided in section 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and 

posthearing briefs, which must conform 

with the provisions of section 207.67 of 

the Commission’s rules. The deadline 

for filing posthearing briefs is January 

30, 2006; witness testimony must be 

filed no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the review may submit a written 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the review on or before 

January 30, 2006. On March 3, 2006, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before March 7, 2006, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.68 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in 

II(c) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: September 2, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–17885 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–269 and 270 

and 731–TA–311–314, 317, and 379 (Second 

Review)] 

Brass Sheet and Strip From Brazil, 

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and 

Japan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty orders on brass sheet and strip 

from Brazil and France and the 

antidumping duty orders on brass sheet 

and strip from Brazil, Canada, France, 

Germany, Italy, and Japan. 
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 2006 / Notices 11177 

have the opportunity to address the 

committee at those sessions. 

Dated: February 27, 2006. 

Janet Flanagan, 

Acting Designated Federal Official. 

[FR Doc. 06–2071 Filed 3–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Notice of New Fee Sites on the 

Angeles National Forest 

AGENCY: USDA, Forest Service. 

ACTION: Notice of new fee site—Big 

Pines Clubhouse Historic Site. 

SUMMARY: The Angeles National Forest 

will begin charging a fee for the rental 

of the Big Pines Clubhouse Historic Site. 

The fee will be $65.00 per hour not to 

exceed $510.00 per day, with a 

discounted rate of $45.00 per hour for 

interpretive programs. Rentals of this 

type are unusual on Federal lands but 

public involvement has indicated that 

visitors appreciate and enjoy the 

availability of this kind of historic rental 

facility. Funds from the rental will be 

used for the continued operation and 

maintenance of the Big Pines Clubhouse 

Historic Site. 

DATES: The Bit Pines Clubhouse Historic 

Site will become available for rent 

August 7, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Raina Fulton, Public Services Staff 

Officer, USDA Forest Service, Angeles 

National Forest, 701 North Santa Anita 

Ave., Arcadia, CA 91006. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement 

Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108–447) directs 

the Secretary of Agriculture to publish 

a six month advance notice in the 

Federal Register whenever new 

recreation fee areas are established. The 

intent of this notice is to inform publics 

of a new fee site. 

The Angeles National Forest currently 

has no other rental facility similar to the 

Big Pines Clubhouse Historic Site, this 

is a unique opportunity. A business 

analysis of the Big Pines Clubhouse 

Historic Site has shown that people 

desire having this sort of recreation 

experience on the Angeles National 

Forest. A market analysis indicates that 

the fee of $65.00 per hour not to exceed 

$510.00 per day, with a discounted rate 

of $45.00 per hour for interpretive 

programs is both reasonable and 

acceptable for this sort of unique 

recreation experience. 

People wanting to rent the Big Pines 

Clubhouse Historic Site will need to do 

so through the National Recreation 

Reservation Service, at http:// 

www.reserveusa.com or by calling 1–

877–444–6777. The National Recreation 

Reservation Service charges a $9 fee for 

reservations. 

Dated: February 3, 2006. 

Valerie Guardia, 

Deputy Director Recreation, Wilderness and 

Heritage Resources. 

[FR Doc. 06–2025 Filed 3–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting 

of the South Dakota Advisory 

Committee 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 

the provisions of the rules and 

regulations of the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights, that a meeting of the South 

Dakota State Advisory Committee will 

convene at 1 p.m. (MST) and adjourn at 

4 p.m. (MST), Wednesday, March 22, 

2006, at the Holiday Inn, 100 West 8th 

Street, Sioux Falls. The purpose of the 

meeting is to provide an overview of the 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 

including recent Commission activities; 

discuss continuing impacts of the South 

Dakota SAC’s report, Native Americans 

in South Dakota: An Erosion of 

Confidence in the Justice System (March 

2000); discuss requested report on 

elementary and secondary school 

desegregation; and planning through 

December 2006. 

Persons desiring additional 

information, or planning a presentation 

to the Committee, should contact John 

F. Dulles, Director of the Rocky 

Mountain Regional Office, (303) 866–

1040 (TDD 303–866–1049). Hearingimpaired persons who will attend the 

meeting and require the services of a 

sign language interpreter should contact 

the Regional Office at least ten (10) 

working days before the scheduled date 

of the meeting. 

The meeting will be conducted 

pursuant to the provisions of the rules 

and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, February 24, 

2006. 

Ivy L. Davis, 

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. 

[FR Doc. E6–3119 Filed 3–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–821–811 

Final Results of Five-year Sunset 

Review of Suspended Antidumping 

Duty Investigation on Ammonium 

Nitrate from the Russian Federation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On April 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on ammonium nitrate from 

the Russian Federation (‘‘Russia’’) 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

See Notice of Initiation of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 16800 (April 

1, 2005) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On the 

basis of notices of intent to participate 

filed on behalf of domestic interested 

parties and adequate substantive 

comments filed on behalf of domestic 

and respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted a full (240-day) 

review. As a result of this review, the 

Department finds that termination of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on ammonium nitrate from 

Russia would likely lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the levels 

indicated in the Final Results of Review 

section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Judith Wey Rudman or Aishe Allen, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0192, or 

482–0172, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Scope of the Review 

The products covered by the sunset 

review of the suspended antidumping 

duty investigation on ammonium nitrate 

from Russia include solid, fertilizer 

grade ammonium nitrate products, 

whether prilled, granular or in other 

solid form, with or without additives or 

coating, and with a bulk density equal 

to or greater than 53 pounds per cubic 

foot. Specifically excluded from this 

scope is solid ammonium nitrate with a 

bulk density less than 53 pounds per 

cubic foot (commonly referred to as 

industrial or explosive grade 

ammonium nitrate). The merchandise 

subject to this review is classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
11178 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 2006 / Notices 

3102.30.00.00. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

within the scope of this sunset review 

is dispositive. 

History of the Suspension Agreement 

On August 12, 1999, the Department 

initiated an antidumping duty 

investigation under section 732 of the 

Act on ammonium nitrate from Russia. 

See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Solid Fertilizer Grade 

Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian 

Federation, 64 FR 45236 (August 19, 

1999). On January 7, 2000, the 

Department preliminarily determined 

that ammonium nitrate from Russia is 

being, or is likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. See 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid 

Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate 

From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 

1139 (January 7, 2000). The Department 

suspended the antidumping duty 

investigation on ammonium nitrate from 

Russia effective May 19, 2000. The basis 

for this action was an agreement 

between the Department and the 

Ministry of Trade of the Russian 

Federation (‘‘MOT’’) accounting for 

substantially all imports of ammonium 

nitrate from Russia, wherein the MOT 

has agreed to restrict exports of 

ammonium nitrate from all Russian 

producers/exporters to the United States 

and to ensure that such exports are sold 

at or above the agreed reference price. 

See Suspension of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Solid Fertilizer Grade 

Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian 

Federation, 65 FR 37759 (June 16, 2000) 

(‘‘Suspension Agreement’’). Thereafter, 

pursuant to a request by the petitioner, 

the Committee for Fair Ammonium 

Nitrate Trade (‘‘COFANT’’), the 

Department completed its investigation 

and published in the Federal Register 

its final determination of sales at less 

that fair value. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer Grade 

Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian 

Federation, 65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000) 

(‘‘Final Determination’’). In the Final 

Determination, the Department 

calculated weighted–average dumping 

margins of 253.98 percent for 

Nevinnomyssky Azot, a respondent 

company in the investigation, and for 

the Russia–wide entity. The Suspension 

Agreement remains in effect for all 

manufacturers, producers, and exporters 

of ammonium nitrate from Russia. 

Background 

On April 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on ammonium nitrate from 

Russia, pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Act. See Notice of Initiation of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 16800 (April 

1, 2005). On October 24, 2005, the 

Department published the preliminary 

results of the full sunset review of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on ammonium nitrate from 

Russia. See Preliminary Results of Fiveyear Sunset Review of Suspended 

Antidumping Duty investigation on 

Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian 

Federation, 70 FR 61431 (October 24, 

2005) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’) and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Results of the Full Five-year Sunset 

Review of the Suspended Antidumping 

Duty Investigation on Ammonium 

Nitrate from the Russian Federation 

(‘‘Preliminary Results Decision 

Memorandum’’). In the Preliminary 

Results, the Department preliminarily 

found that the termination of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation would likely lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

(for a full discussion of the 

Department’s preliminary finding see 

the Preliminary Results and the 

Preliminary Results Decision 

Memorandum). 

On December 7, 2005, the Department 

received a case brief from the petitioner 

in this proceeding, the Committee for 

Fair Ammonium Nitrate Trade 

(‘‘COFANT’’). No other case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs were received. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised by parties to this 

sunset review are addressed in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Results of the of the Full Fiveyear Sunset Review of the Suspended 

Antidumping Duty Investigation on 

Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian 

Federation (‘‘Final Results Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Joseph A. 

Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Policy and Negotiations, to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated February 27, 

2006, which is adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Final 

Results Decision Memorandum include 

the likelihood of continuation or 

recurrence of dumping and the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail were the suspended 

antidumping duty investigation to be 

terminated. Parties may find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in this 

review and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room B–099, of 

the main Department of Commerce 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the Final Results Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Final Results Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that termination of the 

suspended antidumping duty 

investigation on ammonium nitrate from 

Russia would likely lead to a 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following percentage weighted–

average margin: 

Exporter/manufacturer Weighted–average 

margin (percent) 

JSC Azot 

Nevinnomyssky ......... 253.98 

Russia–Wide ................. 253.98 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. 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. 

This sunset review and notice are in 

accordance with sections 751(c), 752, 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 27, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–3086 Filed 3–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–475–826] 

Certain Cut–To-Length Carbon–Quality 

Steel Plate Products From Italy: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request by 

Nucor Corporation (Nucor), the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Certain Ammonium Nitrate From Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Review)

On July 5, 2005, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in the subject

five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1675(c)(3)(B). 

The Commission determined that the domestic producer responses, filed by the Committee for

Fair Ammonium Nitrate Trade on behalf of three domestic producers of ammonium nitrate, Air Products

and Chemicals, Inc., El Dorado Chemical Co., and Terra Industries, Inc., and filed separately by a fourth

domestic producer, Agrium US, Inc., were individually adequate. Because these four producers account

for the vast majority of domestic production of ammonium nitrate, the Commission further determined

that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission also received responses to its notice of initiation in a joint filing by six Russian

producers and exporters of the subject merchandise, JSC Nevinnomysskiy Azot, JSC Novomoskovsk

Azot, JSC Minudobreniya, JSC Acron, JSC Dorogobuzh, and MCC EuroChem. The Commission

determined that the responses were individually adequate, and further that they constituted an adequate

respondent interested party group response because these firms account for a significant share of the

production of ammonium nitrate in Russia and nearly all exports of subject merchandise from Russia to

the United States. Accordingly, the Commission determined to proceed to a full review in Certain

Ammonium Nitrate From Russia.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the

Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).
xxx
Solid Fertilizer Grade 

Ammonium Nitrate from 

Russia Case number: A-821-811 

 Beginning Date Price Per Metric Ton

 09/22/2000 $93.81

 10/02/2000 $93.12

 10/09/2000 $92.43

 10/16/2000 $91.70

 10/23/2000 $91.40

 10/30/2000 $91.74

 11/06/2000 $91.74

 11/13/2000 $91.74

 11/20/2000 $91.40

 11/27/2000 $91.05

 12/04/2000 $91.05

 12/11/2001 $91.05

 12/18/2001 $92.78

 01/03/2001 $94.84

 01/08/2001 $111.72

 01/16/2001 $130.67

 01/22/2001 $149.61

 01/29/2001 $167.53

 02/05/2001 $169.59

 02/12/2001 $170.97

 02/20/2001 $171.32

 02/26/2001 $171.32

 03/05/2001 $171.32

 03/12/2001 $170.97

 03/19/2001 $170.97

 03/26/2001 $170.63

 04/02/2001 $170.28

 04/09/2001 $167.53

 04/16/2001 $165.46

 04/23/2001 $163.05

 04/30/2001 $160.29

 05/07/2001 $157.54

 05/14/2001 $155.47

 05/21/2001 $152.71

 05/29/2001 $146.17

 06/04/2001 $141.35

 06/11/2001 $136.18

 06/18/2001 $128.60

 06/25/2001 $123.43

 07/02/2001 $118.27

 07/09/2001 $112.76

 07/16/2001 $110.35

Reference Prices Pertaining to Suspension Agreement

 W e e k l y R e f e r e n c e P r i c e ( FOB Russian port of Export )
 07/23/2001 $108.62

 07/30/2001 $106.90

 08/06/2001 $105.87

 08/13/2001 $104.83

 08/20/2001 $103.80

 08/27/2001 $103.11

 09/04/2001 $102.08

 09/10/2001 $100.36

 09/17/2001 $99.67

 09/24/2001 $98.63

 10/01/2001 $98.29

 10/09/2001 $96.22

 10/15/2001 $94.15

 10/22/2001 $92.09

 10/29/2001 $89.68

 11/05/2001 $89.68

 11/13/2001 $88.99

 11/19/2001 $88.30

 11/26/2001 $87.61

 12/03/2001 $86.09

 12/10/2001 $85.27

 12/18/2001 $85.00

 01/07/2002 $85.00

 01/15/2002 $85.75

 01/23/2002 $86.58

 01/29/2002 $86.92

 02/05/2002 $86.92

 02/11/2002 $86.92

 02/20/2002 $86.92

 03/05/2002 $86.92

 03/12/2002 $85.89

 03/19/2002 $85.00

 03/26/2002 $85.00

 04/02/2002 $85.00

 04/09/2002 $85.00

 04/16/2002 $85.00

 04/23/2002 $85.00

 04/30/2002 $85.00

 05/07/2002 $85.00

 05/14/2002 $85.00

 05/21/2002 $85.00

 05/29/2002 $85.00

 06/03/2002 $85.00

 06/18/2002 $85.00

 06/25/2002 $85.00

 07/02/2002 $85.00

 07/10/2002 $85.00

 07/16/2002 $85.00

 07/23/2002 $85.00

 07/30/2002 $85.00

 08/06/2002 $85.00

 08/13/2002 $85.00
 08/20/2002 $85.00

 08/27/2002 $85.00

 09/04/2002 $85.00

 09/10/2002 $85.00

 09/17/2002 $85.00

 09/24/2002 $85.00

 10/01/2002 $85.00

 10/07/2002 $85.00

 10/15/2002 $85.00

 10/21/2002 $85.00

 10/28/2002 $85.00

 11/04/2002 $85.00

 11/12/2002 $85.00

 11/18/2002 $85.00

 11/25/2002 $85.00

 12/02/2002 $85.00

 12/09/2002 $85.00

 12/16/2002 $85.00

 12/23/2002 $85.00

 01/01/2003 $85.00

 01/13/2003 $85.00

 01/21/2003 $85.00

 01/28/2003 $85.89

 02/04/2003 $89.68

 02/11/2003 $93.12

 02/20/2003 $96.22

 02/24/2003 $98.98

 03/03/2003 $105.52

 03/11/2003 $118.96

 03/18/2003 $133.42

 03/24/2003 $146.86

 04/01/2003 $154.44

 04/08/2003 $155.13

 04/15/2003 $154.44

 04/22/2003 $154.09

 04/29/2003 $153.40

 05/06/2003 $152.71

 05/13/2003 $151.34

 05/20/2003 $150.30

 05/28/2003 $149.61

 06/03/2003 $148.93

 06/10/2003 $148.24

 06/17/2003 $147.55

 06/24/2003 $146.86

 07/01/2003 $146.17

 07/08/2003 $144.79

 07/14/2003 $143.41

 07/22/2003 $142.04

 07/29/2003 $140.66

 08/05/2003 $137.21

 08/12/2003 $133.77

 08/19/2003 $130.32
 08/25/2003 $127.91

 09/03/2003 $128.95

 09/09/2003 $133.08

 09/16/2003 $137.56

 09/23/2003 $141.00

 09/30/2003 $143.07

 10/07/2003 $144.45

 10/15/2003 $145.48

 10/21/2003 $146.17

 10/28/2003 $147.20

 11/04/2003 $148.58

 11/11/2003 $149.55

 11/18/2003 $149.89

 11/25/2003 $150.58

 12/02/2003 $150.58

 12/09/2003 $150.30

 12/16/2003 $150.99

 12/23/2003 $152.03

 12/30/2003 $153.06

 01/06/2004 $154.09

 01/13/2004 $154.44

 01/21/2004 $154.09

 01/27/2004 $153.89

 02/03/2004 $154.37

 02/10/2004 $155.06

 02/17/2004 $155.95

 03/02/2004 $156.78

 03/09/2004 $155.75

 03/16/2004 $154.85

 03/23/2004 $154.30

 03/30/2004 $153.40

 04/06/2004 $153.40

 04/13/2004 $153.40

 04/20/2004 $153.06

 04/27/2004 $153.06

 05/04/2004 $153.06

 05/11/2004 $152.58

 05/18/2004 $151.06

 05/25/2004 $149.55

 06/03/2004 $148.17

 06/08/2004 $147.62

 06/15/2004 $147.62

 06/22/2004 $147.62

 06/29/2004 $147.48

 07/07/2004 $146.31

 07/12/2004 $145.96

 07/19/2004 $145.62

 07/26/2004 $145.62

 08/02/2004 $146.31

 08/10/2004 $146.65

 08/16/2004 $147.00

 08/24/2004 $147.69
 08/31/2004 $149.89

 09/08/2004 $153.47

 09/14/2004 $157.40

 09/21/2004 $160.64

 09/28/2004 $162.36

 10/04/2004 $162.36

 10/13/2004 $163.19

 10/19/2004 $163.88

 10/26/2004 $165.60 *

 11/02/2004 $167.66

 11/09/2004 $169.25

 11/16/2004 $170.63

 11/23/2004 $170.63

 11/29/2004 $170.28

 12/07/2004 $169.94

 12/14/2004 $169.94

 12/21/2004 $170.28

 12/28/2004 $170.63

 01/04/2005 $170.97

 01/11/2005 $171.66

 01/19/2005 $172.35

 01/25/2005 $173.38

 02/01/2005 $174.07

 02/08/2005 $174.07

 02/15/2005 $173.73

 02/23/2005 $173.38

 03/01/2005 $173.38

 03/08/2005 $174.07

 03/15/2005 $175.11

 03/22/2005 $176.14

 03/29/2005 $178.00

 04/05/2005 $179.38

 04/12/2005 $181.10

 04/19/2005 $182.48

 04/26/2005 $183.17

 05/03/2005 $183.51

 05/10/2005 $183.51

 05/17/2005 $183.51

 05/24/2005 $184.54

 06/01/2005 $185.71

 06/07/2005 $186.89

 06/14/2005 $188.61

 06/21/2005 $189.16

 06/28/2005 $189.71

 07/06/2005 $190.26

 07/12/2005 $190.26

 07/18/2005 $190.26

 07/26/2005 $190.26

 08/09/2005 $190.26

 08/16/2005 $190.26

 08/23/2005 $193.71

 08/30/2005 $197.15
 09/07/2005 $204.04

 09/13/2005 $210.93

 09/27/2005 $219.54

 10/04/2005 $222.03

 10/12/2005 $225.40

 10/17/2005 $227.81

 10/25/2005 $229.88

 10/31/2005 $230.56

 11/08/2005 $231.25

 11/15/2005 $231.60

 11/22/2005 $233.66

 11/29/2005 $235.39

 12/06/2005 $236.77

 12/13/2005 $238.49

 12/20/2005 $238.49

 12/28/2005 $238.49

 01/04/2006 $238.49

 01/10/2006 $238.49

 01/18/2006 $238.83

 01/24/2006 $238.83

 01/31/2006 $238.83

 * revised
B-1

APPENDIX B

LIST OF WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Ammonium Nitrate from Russia

Inv. No.: 731-TA-856 (Review)

Date and Time: January 19, 2006 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with this investigation in the Main Hearing Room, 500 E

Street (room 101), SW, Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order: Valerie A. Slater,

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

In Opposition to Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order: Frank H. Morgan,

White & Case LLP

In Support of Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order:

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

The Committee for Fair Ammonium Nitrate Trade (“COFANT”)

Matt Green, Director, Agricultural Sales, Terra Industries, Inc. 

Gary Elliott, Consultant to Terra Industries, Inc.

Paul Rydlund, President, El Dorado Chemical Co.

Phil Gough, Senior Vice President, El Dorado Chemical Co.

Daniel W. Klett, Senior Economist, Capital Trade, Inc.

Andrew Szamosszegi, Economist, Capital Trade, Inc.

Valerie A. Slater – OF COUNSEL

Anne K. Cusick

Carrie A. Rhoads
B-4

In Opposition to Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order:

White & Case LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

MCC EuroChem

JSC Azot Nevinnomyssk

JSC Novomoskovsk

JSC Minudobreniya

JSC Dorogobuzh

JSC Acron

Nicholas Adamchak, Managing Director, Ameropa North America

Mike Ward, Regional Sales Manager, Ameropa North America

Frank H. Morgan – OF COUNSEL

Jay C. Campbell

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order: Valerie A. Slater,

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 

In Opposition to Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order: Frank H. Morgan,

White & Case LLP
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY TABLES

Table C-1

AN: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 2000-04 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

 Russia:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 96,171 114,666 162,449 126,464 52,382 72,293 (2) (2) 19.2 41.7 -22.2 38.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 11,859 11,085 18,239 21,039 8,511 14,147 (2) (2) -6.5 64.5 15.4 66.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $128.80 $123.31 $96.68 $112.28 $166.37 $162.48 $195.69 29.2 -4.3 -21.6 16.1 48.2 20.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 329 293 290 287 277 276 170 -15.8 -10.9 -1.0 -1.0 -3.5 -38.4

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 716 658 664 636 604 451 275 -15.6 -8.1 0.9 -4.2 -5.0 -39.0

 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . . . 15,651 13,898 14,505 13,914 13,870 10,175 6,611 -11.4 -11.2 4.4 -4.1 -0.3 -35.0

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21.86 $21.12 $21.84 $21.88 $22.96 $22.56 $24.04 5.1 -3.4 3.4 0.1 5.0 6.6

 Productivity (tons/hour) . . . . . . 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.8 1.9 3.4 14.6 -7.6 -6.9 62.8

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.14 $12.28 $11.08 $12.01 $13.54 $13.09 $8.57 3.0 -6.6 -9.8 8.4 12.8 -34.6

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Increase greater than 1,000 percent.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-3
C-4

Table C-2

AN: Summary data concerning remaining U.S. producers El Dorado and Terra, 2000-04, January

2004, and January 2005

* * * * * * *
D-1

APPENDIX D

RESPONSES OF U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, PURCHASERS, AND

FOREIGN PRODUCERS CONCERNING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

EXISTING AGREEMENT SUSPENDING THE ANTIDUMPING

INVESTIGATION AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF TERMINATION 

D-3

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AGREEMENT

SUSPENDING THE ANTIDUMPING INVESTIGATION AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF

TERMINATION

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in their operations

or organization relating to the production of AN in the future if the suspended antidumping

investigation were to be terminated (Question II-4).

Air Products

***.

El Dorado

***.

***

***.

Terra

***.

***.

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the existing suspension

agreement covering imports of AN from Russia in terms of its effect on their firm’s production

capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits,

cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values (Question

II-14).

Air Products

***.

***. 

El Dorado

***.

***. 

***

***.
D-4

Terra

***.

***.

***.

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any changes in their production capacity,

production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow,

capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, or asset values relating to the

production of AN in the future if the suspended investigation on ammonium nitrate from Russia

were to be terminated (Question II-15).

Air Products

***.

El Dorado

***.

***

***.

Terra

***.

 

***.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SUSPENSION AGREEMENT AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF THE TERMINATION OF THE SUSPENSION AGREEMENT

The Commission asked importers if they anticipated any changes in their operations or

organization relating to the importation of AN if the suspended investigation on ammonium nitrate

from Russia were to be terminated (Question II-4).

***

(Unanswered).

***

No.

***

No.
D-5

***

No.

***

No.

The Commission requested importers to describe the significance of the existing suspension

agreement covering imports of AN from Russia in terms of its effect on their firm’s imports, U.S.

shipments of imports, and inventories (Question II-8). 

***

Because the existing suspension agreement grossly distorts the open market value for

Russian AN, it is very difficult to make any long term plans to distribute and sell this

material. The transportation costs that were initially used to develop the formula for the

Agreement “reference price” are now significantly under valued. As a result, the f.o.b.

value in Russian {AN} is over valued and is often uncompetitive in the United States’

market. In addition, the restrictions on supply seem counterintuitive since at least four (4)

production facilities have discontinued the production of AN since the Agreement went

into effect in September 2000. 

***

The suspension agreement limited the tons available to the U.S. Prices from domestic

suppliers increased while availability was limited. Additional plant closures occurred and

reduced tonnage available even more.

***

***.

***

***.

Our imports since the imposition of the agreement have been limited by the quota provisions.

***

Level of imports will remain the same for ***.
D-6

The Commission asked importers if they anticipated changes in their imports, U.S. shipments of

imports, or inventories of AN in the future if the suspended investigation on ammonium nitrate

from Russia were to be terminated (Question II-9a and II-9b).

***

With presumably more consistently and competitively available product, we would have a greater

ability to plan and guarantee customers a reliable supply of AN. The termination of the

Agreement would greatly assist in our forward planning; specifically sales, storage, and

transportation.

We would certainly anticipate an overall increase in our company’s total imports. In addition, we

feel that the Russian product is of superior quality and this coupled with the logistical capability

would lead us to expect that Russian AN would also replace some portion of non-Russian imports

in the market overall. 

***

No. We are handling less AN now due to the reduction of consumption and the increased

handling restrictions.

***

No.

***

Russian AN is selling at approx. $80/MT less in the world market than in the U.S. based on the

pricing mechanism imposed by the AN suspension agreement. It is likely that additional Russian

product will come to the U.S.

It is difficult to predict the impact that such a change would have on our import volume.

***

It would create more supply possibilities. Potentially prices could go down due to more supply

options.
D-7

U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF THE

TERMINATION OF THE SUSPENSION AGREEMENT

The Commission asked the purchasers to comment on the likely effects of terminating the

suspended investigation on imports of AN from Russia and asked to discuss any potential effects of

terminating the investigation in terms of (1) its future activities and (2) the U.S. market as a whole

(Question III-38).

***

(1) Suspending the investigation will have a favorable impact on availability and price.

(2) The same.

***

(1) Eliminate U.S. producers and reduce supply.

(2) The same.

***

***.

***.

***

(1) Will force us to purchase more imported nitrate since its price and availability will

drive the market.

(2) Will be difficult for U.S. producers to compete with price and higher U.S. natural gas

values.

***

(1) Need to remove the Agreement with Russia. This would stop, or at least reduce the

off spec material such as NK 21-0-21 that flooded the market to avoid the tariff.

(2) Unknown.

***

(1) No impact on us as far as terminal supply. We might consider imports for trading.

(2) Barge sales to other distributors. No doubt companies such as *** would increase imports.

***

(1) Opportunity for more supply.

(2) Allow more AN in the U.S. market, AN would be more closely balanced in terms of

units of nitrogen (price wise).
D-8

***

(1) Due to higher production cost more closures of domestic producers forcing us to buy

from importers.

(2) More imported product below production cost of domestic producers forcing plant

closures.

***

(1) If ammonium nitrate does not stay at a feasible price range for agriculture, we will discontinue

purchase and use.

(2) None.

***

(1) It will allow additional AN tons to enter the U.S. market which could result in lower

selling prices.

(2) It will allow additional AN tons to enter the U.S. market which could result in lower

selling prices, yet provide additional tons in a market that U.S. production continues to

decline.

***

(1) Will be more competition on our business since we compete ***.

(2) Could be beneficial for consumers allowing more low cost product to enter the market,

but negatively impact domestic producers.

The Commission asked purchasers to explain whether, and if so how, termination of the suspended

investigation on AN from Russia would affect their firm’s purchasing patterns. (Question IV-10). 

 

***

We are concerned about domestic producers ability to meet demand.

***

Pressure on U.S. production.

***

Would most likely purchase more Russian origin production.

***

We will continue to purchase from suppliers who import. Market will not be flooded with

off specification material to avoid paying tariff.
D-9

***

***.

***

I don't know.

***

More imports will enter U.S. at lower cost of production of domestic producer forcing

plant closures, thus forcing us to buy imported products.

***

With the U.S.A. net short on Nitrate supply what other choice do we have than to use the

Russian’s product.

***

It would probably not affect our purchasing pattern.

***

Will not affect.

***

***.

***

Unsure.

***

No change.

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF THE

TERMINATION OF THE SUSPENSION AGREEMENT

The Commission requested foreign producers to indicate whether they anticipated any changes in

their operations or organization relating to the production of production of AN in the future if the

suspended investigation on AN from Russia were to be terminated (Question II-3).

Acron and Dorogobuzh

***.

Berezhniki
D-10

***.

Minudo

***.

Nevinka and Novomos

***.

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe the significance of the antidumping

investigation on imports of AN from Russia in terms of its effect on their firm’s production

capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, and

inventories. (Question II-14).

Acron and Dorogobuzh

***.

Berezhniki

***.

Minudo

***.

Nevinka and Novomos

***.

The Commission requested foreign producers to indicate whether they anticipated any changes in their

firm’s production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other

markets, or inventories relating to the production of AN in the future if the suspended antidumping

investigation on AN from Russia were to be terminated (Question II-15).

Acron and Dorogobuzh

***.

Berezhniki

***.

Minudo

***.

Nevinka and Novomos

***.
D-11

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe how easily their firms can shift their sales

of AN between the U.S. market and alternative country markets. (Question III-8).

Acron and Dorogobuzh

***.

Berezhniki

***

Minudo

***.

Nevinka and Novomos

***.

E-1

APPENDIX E

PRICE DATA INCLUDING SALES

BY ***

E-3

Table E-1

AN: Weighted-average U.S. producers’ prices, net of freight and other handling costs; weightedaverage prices of imports from Russia (including data from ***), and margins of underselling/

(overselling), by month, January 2000- September 2005

* * * * * * *

Figure E-1

AN: Weighted-average net prices of domestic and imported products (including data from ***), by

month, January 2000-September 2005

* * * * * * *