U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4249 August 2011

Washington, DC 20436

Ammonium Nitrate from Russia

Investigation No. 731-TA-856 (Second Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Amy Sherman, Investigator 

Raymond Cantrell, Industry Analyst 

Michael Haldenstein, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4249 August 2011

Ammonium Nitrate from Russia

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

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Information obtained in the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The original investigation and subsequent five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Termination of suspension agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Commerce’s final result of expedited five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds to affected domestic 

producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Related party issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

The subject industry in Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

The global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Appendix

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-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 

 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION 

 Investigation No. 731-TA-856 (Second 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)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order 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 1, 2011 (76 FR 11273) and determined on June 6, 2011 

that it would conduct an expedited review (76 FR 34749, June 14, 2011). 

 

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

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 revocation of the antidumping duty order on ammonium nitrate

from Russia is 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

 The Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) made a final affirmative dumping

determination.2

 It did not, however, 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, limited exports of ammonium nitrate to the United States from all Russian producers or

exporters and required that such exports be sold at or above the agreed reference price.3

In March 2005, the Commission instituted its first 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

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 Industries).5

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

the notice 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

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

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

(“Original Determination”). 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 has also conducted an investigation and a subsequent review of ammonium nitrate from

Ukraine. See Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine, Inv. No. 731-TA-894 (Review) USITC Pub. 3924 (June

2007).

 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).

 4

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

 5

 In the original investigation in 1999-2000, COFANT consisted of six members: Air Products, El Dorado,

Mississippi Chemical Corp. (Mississippi Chemical), LaRoche Industries, Inc. (LaRoche), Nitram, Inc. (Nitram), and

Wilgro Fertilizer, Inc. (Wilgro). Nitram and Wilgro have since ceased ammonium nitrate operations (Air Products

also announced in December 2005 its intention to close fertilizer operations), LaRoche’s ammonium nitrate

production was acquired by El Dorado, and Mississippi Chemical was acquired by Terra Industries. At the time of

the first review in 2005-2006, COFANT’s membership consisted of Air Products, El Dorado, and Terra Industries. 

In the current review, COFANT consists of two companies, CF Industries, Inc. (which acquired Terra Industries in

2010) and El Dorado. Confidential Staff Report, INV-JJ-067 (June 30, 2011) (“CR”) at I-13 to I-14; Public Staff

Report (“PR”) at I-10.

3
merchandise (collectively, the “Russian Respondents”)6

 jointly filed a response. The Commission found

that both the domestic interested party group response and the respondent interested party group response

were adequate. The Commission therefore determined to conduct a full review.7

After conducting a full review in the first five-year review, the Commission determined in March

2006 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.8

On March 1, 2011, the Commission instituted this second five-year review 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.9

 On March 3, 2011, Commerce received a letter from the

Russian Federation dated February 22, 2011, notifying Commerce of its withdrawal from the suspension

agreement. In response, Commerce terminated the suspension agreement effective May 2, 2011, and

issued an antidumping duty order on ammonium nitrate from Russia.10 Commerce continued its sunset

review on an expedited basis and published the final results of its review on July 7, 2011.11

The Commission received only one response to its notice of institution of this review. On March

31, 2011, the Commission received a substantive response from COFANT on behalf of its two current

members, domestic ammonium nitrate producers CF Industries, Inc. (CF Industries) and El Dorado. No

respondent interested party submitted a response to the notice of institution.

On June 6, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to

its notice of institution was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was

inadequate. In the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response or other factors

warranting a full review, the Commission determined to conduct an expedited review pursuant to section

751(c)(3) of the Act.12 COFANT filed comments, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(d), arguing that

revocation of the antidumping duty order on ammonium nitrate from Russia would likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable

time.13 No respondent interested party has provided any information or argument to the Commission.

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Act, the Commission defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”14 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

 6 The Russian Respondents in the first review were JSC Azot Nevinnomyssk Azot, JSC Novomoskovsk, JSC

Minudobreniya, JSC Acron, JSC Dorogobuzh, and MCC EuroChem.

 7

 70 Fed. Reg. 41426 (Apr. 18, 2005).

 8

 Ammonium Nitrate From Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Review) USITC Pub. 3844 (March 2006) at 3. The

citations to the opinion in the first review are to the confidential version (“First Review”).

 9

76 Fed. Reg. 11273 (March 1, 2011).

 10 Termination of the Suspension Agreement on Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian

Federation and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 23569 (April 27, 2011).

 11 Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation; Final Results of the Expedited Review

of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 39847 (July 7, 2011).

 12 See CR/PR at Appendix B (Commission Statement on Adequacy).

 13 See generally COFANT Final Comments (July 6, 2011) (“Final Comments”).

 14 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

4
an investigation under this subtitle.”15 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the

like product definition from the original determination and any previous reviews, and consider whether

the record indicates any reason to revisit that definition.16

In this five-year review, Commerce has defined the scope of the antidumping duty order as

follows: 

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.17

Commerce’s scope does not include liquid ammonium nitrate and specifically excludes industrial or

explosive grade ammonium nitrate, which have a bulk density of less than 53 pounds per cubic foot.18

Subject ammonium nitrate is a dry, solid agricultural fertilizer that contains approximately 34

percent plant-available nitrogen by weight.19 It is used to fertilize certain row crops (corn and tobacco)

and for “no-till” farming (on acreage that is not plowed, such as hay, pasture, turf grasses and orchards).20

The production of ammonium nitrate relies upon natural gas to produce ammonia, which is in turn reacted

with nitric acid to produce ammonium nitrate.21 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

ammonium nitrate product.22

1. Original Investigation

In the original investigation, the Commission found a single domestic like product that was coextensive with the subject merchandise (fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate products with a bulk density

equal to or greater than 53 pounds per cubic foot).23 The Commission considered in the preliminary

phase of the investigation whether low density ammonium nitrate, ammonium nitrate with a bulk density

less than 53 pounds per cubic foot, should be included in the domestic like product. The Commission

found that any similarities between the two types of products were outweighed by the differences,

 15 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).

 16 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan and the United

Kingdom, Inv. No. 701-TA-380-382 and 731-TA-797-804 (Review), USITC Pub. 3788 (July 2005) at 6; Crawfish

Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 (July 2003) at 4; Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 (Feb. 2003) at 4.

 17 See 76 Fed. Reg. 39848 (July 7, 2011).

 18 The scope remains unchanged from the original investigation, with one modification. On March 11, 2004,

Commerce ruled that NP 33-3-0 (also referred to as “stabilized ammonium nitrate” or “nitric phosphate”), is

included 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-8 n.25, PR at I-6 n.25.

 19 CR at I-9 to I-10, PR at I-7 to I-8.

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

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

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

 23 Original Determination at 6.

5
particularly with respect to physical characteristics and uses, interchangeability, producer and customer

perceptions, and distribution channels. It therefore did not expand the like product definition beyond the

scope of Commerce’s investigation.24 The Commission did not revisit this issue in the final phase of the

original investigation and again defined a single domestic like product that was co-extensive with the

subject merchandise.25

2. First Five-Year Review

In the first five-year review, no party challenged the Commission’s domestic like product

definition from the original investigation, and the Commission found that nothing in the record warranted

a change in that definition. Accordingly, the Commission continued to define a single domestic like

product consisting of all ammonium nitrate that corresponded to the scope of the review.26

3. Current Five-Year Review

The information available in this review regarding the nature of fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate

is unchanged from that which was available in the Commission’s first five-year review.27 No new

information suggests a reason for departing from the Commission’s prior definition of the domestic like

product, and no party has argued for a different definition. We therefore continue to define the domestic

like product as all ammonium nitrate corresponding to Commerce’s scope.

B. Domestic Industry

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.”28

Section 771(4)(B) of the Act,19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B), allows the Commission, if appropriate

circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or

importer of subject merchandise, or which are themselves importers.29 In its original investigation and in

 24 Certain Ammonium Nitrate From Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3232 (Sept. 1999) at 3-

7.

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

 26 First Review at 5.

 27 CR at I-8 to I-9, PR at I-7.

 28 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).

 29 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude a related party include the following:

(1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer;

(2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether the

firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to

continue production and compete in the U.S. market; and

(3) the position of the related producer vis-a-vis the rest of the industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion

of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry.

See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d

(continued...)

6
the previous five-year review, the Commission defined the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of the

domestic like product. No producer was excluded from the domestic industry.30

The record in this review indicates that the members of COFANT, CF Industries and El Dorado,

are the only current domestic producers of the domestic like product.31 COFANT notes that CF Industries

has held a 50 percent interest in Keytrade AG, ***, since September 2007.32 Thus, under the statute, CF

Industries would be a related party if it directly or indirectly controls Keytrade AG.33

COFANT urges the Commission to define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of

ammonium nitrate. It states that, despite the ownership interest, CF Industries does not have a controlling

interest in Keytrade AG because CF Industries is not legally or operationally in a position to restrain or

direct Keytrade AG.34 Thus, according to COFANT, CF Industries is not a related party within the

meaning of the statute. Given COFANT’s statement that CF Industries does not control Keytrade AG and

the lack of any contrary information, we find that CF Industries is not a related party. We therefore

define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of the domestic like product.

III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

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 unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or subsidization is likely to

continue or recur, and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping duty 

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

foreseeable time.”35 The SAA 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

 29(...continued)

809 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

The Commission has also concluded that a domestic producer that does not itself import subject

merchandise, or does not share a corporate affiliation with an importer, may nonetheless be deemed a related party if

it controls large volumes of imports. The Commission has found such control to exist where the domestic producer

was responsible for a predominant proportion of an importer’s purchases and the importer’s purchases were

substantial. See, e.g., Foundry Coke from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-891 (Final), USITC Pub. 3449 (Sept 2001) at 8-

9.

 30 In the original investigation, the Commission examined whether domestic producers LaRoche and El Dorado

should be excluded from the domestic industry due to their purchases of subject imports during the period examined. 

LaRoche had purchased, from various sources, a total of *** short tons of subject merchandise in 1997, *** short

tons in 1998, and *** short tons in 1999. El Dorado had purchased *** short tons in 1997, *** short tons in 1998,

and *** short tons in 1999 ***. The Commission concluded that the circumstances did not warrant the exclusion of

either firm. Original Determination at 7-8.

 31 CR at I-14, PR at I-10.

 32 Response to the Notice of Institution at 29 n.76.

 33 See 19 U.S.C. 16 77 § (4)(B)(ii)(I).

 34 Response to the Notice of Institution at 29 n.76 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(b)).

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

7
its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”36 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.37 The U.S. 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.38 39 40

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.”41 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 original investigations.”42

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

antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides

that 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.”43 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 orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is

 36 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, 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. 

 37 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

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.

 38 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 mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (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, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 39 For a complete statement of Chairman Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see 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 to 710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 40 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 these reviews and all

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

addresses this issue.

 41 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 42 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.

 43 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

8
terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §

1675(a)(4).44

No respondent interested parties participated in this expedited review. The record, therefore,

contains limited new information with respect to the ammonium nitrate industry in Russia. Moreover,

there is limited information regarding the U.S. ammonium nitrate market during the period of review. 

Accordingly, for our determination, we rely as appropriate on the facts available from the original

investigation and prior review, and on the limited new information in the record for this review.45 46

B. Conditions of Competition

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.”47

1. Original Investigation

In the original investigation, the Commission found that demand for fertilizers was mature. U.S.

producers and importers characterized the demand for ammonium nitrate as “steady to falling,” while

purchasers characterized it as stable. From 1997 to 1999, apparent U.S. consumption rose only slightly

from 2.4 million to 2.6 million short tons.48 49 The Commission found that price played an important role

in purchasing decisions.50

 44 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings by Commerce with respect to the order

under review. CR at I- 6. 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.

 45 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or other person

withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time, form, or manner

requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section

782(I) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(I) are applicable only to

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(I). See Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2001) (“[T]he ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification

procedures for the evidence before it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a

Commission investigation.”).

 46 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 47 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 48 Original Determination at 9-10.

 49 Original Determination at 11-12 & n.49.

 50 Original Determination at 11-12. 

9
The Commission found that domestically produced ammonium nitrate and subject imports were

relatively substitutable. U.S. producers, purchasers, and importers indicated that domestically produced

ammonium nitrate was interchangeable with subject as well as non-subject imports. The Commission

also noted that ammonium nitrate was one of several nitrogen-based fertilizers, along with anhydrous

ammonia, urea, UAN solutions, ammonium sulfate, calcium ammonium nitrate, and sodium nitrate, but

further noted that ammonium nitrate was different from these other fertilizers because of its fast action,

good solubility, and low volatility at ambient temperatures.

2. First Five-Year Review

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that demand for ammonium nitrate declined

after 2003 and would likely continue to decrease in the reasonably foreseeable future.51 Between 2000

and 2003, apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** short tons to *** short tons. In 2004, however,

it declined *** percent to *** short tons. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent lower in interim

2005 (*** short tons) than in interim 2004 (*** short tons).52 The Commission noted that this trend of

decreasing apparent U.S. consumption since 2003 contrasted with the 9.9 percent increase in the original

investigation.53 It also observed that the declining demand was consistent with data regarding ammonium

nitrate’s decreasing share of the broader nitrogen fertilizer market.54

The Commission also found that the U.S. market for ammonium nitrate was supplied by domestic

production as well as by subject and nonsubject imports. It noted that both Russian and nonsubject

imports to the United States were usually, if not predominantly, arranged and transported by global

trading companies. The domestic industry, however, remained the largest supplier of ammonium nitrate to

the U.S. market, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2004.55 The domestic

industry had consolidated and restructured since the original investigation, when there were ten U.S.

producers with a total capacity of 2.7 million short tons.56 The Commission reviewed the numerous

changes in the structure of the industry and noted that there were only two remaining U.S. producers of

ammonium nitrate, Terra Industries and El Dorado.57

The Commission found that new federal security regulations had been imposed on the

transportation of ammonium nitrate since the period of the original investigation. Ammonium nitrate

transported by truck or rail had long been regulated by the Department of Transportation. However, after

the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995, in which ammonium nitrate was used as an explosive, and the

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, federal and state governments began promulgating increased

regulations for the sale and transportation of ammonium nitrate. In August 2004, the Coast Guard added

ammonium nitrate to its “certain dangerous cargo” list, making ammonium nitrate subject to the Maritime

Transportation Security Act of 2002’s security measures for certain facilities in U.S. ports. These new

federal security regulations applied to ammonium nitrate transported on the water, not ammonium nitrate

transported by rail or truck, and primarily affected barge companies and distributors of ammonium nitrate

with river terminals.58 The Commission, however, found that relatively few river terminals had ceased

 51 First Review at 10.

 52 First Review at 9.

 53 First Review at 9.

 54 First Review at 10.

 55 First Review at 10.

 56 First Review at 11.

 57 First Review at 12.

 58 First Review at 15.

10
handling ammonium nitrate and that some additional terminals had even begun handling ammonium

nitrate after the security regulations came into effect.

The Commission found that domestically produced ammonium nitrate and ammonium nitrate

imported from Russian and other import sources were at least moderately substitutable.59 It noted that

ammonium nitrate is a commodity product lacking readily identified variations or grades. Responding

domestic producers indicated that ammonium nitrate produced in the United States was “always”

interchangeable with imports from Russia, and five of eight responding importers as well as seven of nine

responding purchasers, all indicated that the two were “always” or “frequently” interchangeable.60

Finally, the Commission observed that price remained an important factor in purchasing this commodity

product. 

3. Current Five-Year Review

The conditions of competition relied upon by the Commission in making its determination in the

first five-year review generally continued in the current period. Demand in the U.S. market for

ammonium nitrate has continued to decline. Apparent U.S. consumption of ammonium nitrate in 2010

was *** short tons, which was less than *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in the last full year of

the original investigation (1999) and just over *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in the last full

year of the first five-year review (2004).61 The decline in apparent U.S. consumption of ammonium

nitrate is largely due to increasing security requirements and dealers’ unwillingness to continue to handle

ammonium nitrate.62 Industry participants are well aware that additional requirements for secure handling

of ammonium nitrate will eventually be adopted and, as a result, many retailers and distributors have

chosen not to distribute and sell ammonium nitrate.63

Despite the domestic industry’s various structural changes, it has increased its share of apparent

U.S. consumption. Since the industry consolidation described in the first five-year review, CF Industries

has acquired Terra Industries, leaving CF Industries and El Dorado as the only remaining domestic

producers of ammonium nitrate.64 The domestic industry consisting of these two producers achieved a

*** percent share of the U.S. market in 2010, but accounted for only a *** percent share in 2003 and a

*** percent share in 2004.65

Nonsubject imports’ share of the U.S. market has decreased since the previous five-year review

from *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2004 to *** percent in 2010.66 Nonsubject imports

totaled 230,793 short tons in 2008, 104,122 short tons in 2009, and 222,665 short tons in 2010.67 The top

four sources of nonsubject imports of ammonium nitrate in 2010 - Georgia, the Netherlands, Tunisia and

Bulgaria - accounted for 88.8 percent of the volume of nonsubject imports that year.68 Global trading

 59 First Review at 16.

 60 First Review at 16.

 61 Apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2003, but then declined

to *** short tons in 2004. CR/PR at Table I-3.

 62 Response to Notice of Institution at 10 (citing Certain Ammonium Nitrate From Ukraine, Inv. No. 731-TA-894

(Review), USITC Pub. 3924 (June 2007) at 8).

 63 Response to Notice of Institution at 12.

 64 CR at I-13 to I-14, PR at I-10.

 65 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 66 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 67 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 68 CR/PR at Table I-2.

11
companies continue to deal in ammonium nitrate, and seek to maximize their sales volumes and

profitability by minimizing their per-unit transportation costs.69

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary on the record of this review, we adopt our findings

from the prior five-year review; the domestic like product, subject imports, and nonsubject imports are at

least moderately substitutable and price is an important factor in purchasing decisions for ammonium

nitrate.70

Natural gas is a primary raw material and represents a variable cost in the production of

ammonium nitrate.71 During the period of review, natural gas prices spiked several times to high levels,

but prices have declined since 2005 and stabilized since 2008.72

Based on the limited record evidence, we find that the conditions of competition in the

ammonium nitrate market are not likely to change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future. We

find that these conditions of competition provide us with a reasonable basis on which to assess the likely

effects of revocation of the antidumping duty order.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if an antidumping duty order is

revoked, 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.73 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.74

1. Original Investigation

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports was

significant and that these imports were taking market share from the domestic ammonium nitrate industry. 

The volume of subject imports increased from 1997 to 1999, with the quantity increasing *** percent and

the market penetration increasing from *** percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1999. Moreover, the

volume of subject imports increased at a faster rate than did the volume of domestic shipments. While the

market penetration of subject imports was rising, the domestic producers’ share of apparent U.S.

consumption declined from 84.1 percent in 1997 to 80.7 percent in 1998, and remained relatively stable at

80.8 percent in 1999.75 The Commission found that subject import volume declined appreciably after the

filing of the petition in July 1999 and that subject imports essentially disappeared from the market shortly

thereafter.

 69 Response to Notice of Institution at 25; First Review at 13.

 70 First Review at 16.

 71 Response to Notice of Institution at 14 (citing First Review at 16).

 72 Response to Notice of Institution at 14 and Exhibit 6; CR/PR at Fig. C-1.

 73 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 74 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 75 Original Determination at 12-13.

12
2. First Five-Year Review

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that the likely volume of subject imports,

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

significant. 

The Commission found that, under the discipline of the suspension agreement, subject import

volume declined significantly. It noted, however, that the Russian government was responsible for

allocating the yearly quota among Russian exporting firms and that the Russian producers responding to

the Commission questionnaire collectively and consistently ***, indicating continued interest in

exporting to the United States.76

The Commission observed that Russia was the largest producer and exporter of ammonium

nitrate in the world. In 2004, Russia accounted for *** percent of world production and *** percent of

world exports of ammonium nitrate.77 It further found that the Russian industry was export oriented and

was leading the world in ammonium nitrate exports.78

The Commission also found that the United States was an attractive market for foreign producers

and exporters because of its size and the prices it commanded. It noted that the Russian Respondents

conceded that, due to the attractiveness of the U.S. market, Russian exports to the United States would

increase if the suspension agreement were terminated.79

The Commission concluded that the likely volume of subject imports would be significant based

upon the continued presence of Russian ammonium nitrate in the U.S. market during the period of review,

the demonstrated ability of the Russian ammonium nitrate 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 ammonium nitrate, the Russian industry’s

reliance on export markets, and the incentives to increase imports into the United States in the absence of

the suspension agreement.80

3. Current Five-Year Review

During the current period of review, subject import volume fluctuated and was only checked by

the volume and pricing discipline of Commerce’s suspension agreement with the Ministry of Trade of the

Russian Federation. Subject imports totaled 27,368 short tons in 2006, 88,131 short tons in 2007, 56,476

short tons in 2008, zero short tons in 2009, and 22,218 short tons in 2010.81 The relatively modest level

in 2009 and 2010 (equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2010)82 is due to the

suspension agreement, which, according to the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, prevented 

subject imports from being sold at competitive prices in the United States.83 The suspension agreement

was terminated by the Russian Government and was replaced by Commerce with an antidumping duty

 76 First Review at 18.

 77 First Review at 19.

 78 First Review at 19.

 79 First Review at 19.

 80 First Review at 22.

 81 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 82 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 83 Response to Notice of Institution at 18-19 and Exhibit 5 (Russian Ministry of Economic Development letter of

February 22, 2011 to Commerce). 

13
order on May 2, 2011. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds that Russian producers are

willing and able to direct significant volumes of subject imports to the U.S. market if the antidumping

duty order is revoked.

First, as was the case in the prior five-year review, the Russian ammonium nitrate industry is

large and has significant excess capacity relative to the U.S. market.84 The Russian ammonium nitrate

industry consists of 12 known producers.85 According to FERTECON, Ltd., a widely cited provider of

market information and analysis on fertilizers, Russia’s capacity for production of ammonium nitrate has

increased from *** metric tons in 2005 to *** metric tons in 2010.86 The Russian industry’s excess

capacity was estimated to total *** metric tons in 2010, an amount that exceeded total apparent U.S.

consumption that year.87

Second, although there is a market for ammonium nitrate in Russia, the Russian industry remains

export oriented.88 It continues to be the largest exporter of ammonium nitrate in the world.89 Based on

Global Trade Atlas data, its exports totaled 3.8 million short tons in 2010, far exceeding the volume of

exports from the second-largest exporter of ammonium nitrate, Ukraine, which totaled just over 600,000

short tons in 2010.90 Moreover, the Russian industry exports roughly half of its production.

Third, the United States remains an attractive market for foreign producers and exporters of

ammonium nitrate because of the U.S. market’s size and prevailing prices. The United States is the third

largest importer of ammonium nitrate in the world.91 The f.o.b. Russian port prices for U.S. shipments

have consistently been higher than the corresponding f.o.b.. prices to all other Russian export markets,

including the Russian producers’ largest export markets, Turkey and Brazil.92 Moreover, the Chinese

market continues to be closed to imports of ammonium nitrate, and antidumping measures remain in place

in Australia and the European Union on ammonium nitrate from Russia.93 These limitations on the

availability of third-country markets would further increase the U.S. market’s attractiveness to Russian

exporters if the antidumping duty order were to be revoked.

Lastly, we note that Russian producers have demonstrated their intention to increase shipments of

subject ammonium nitrate to the U.S. market. They have sought to avoid the price and quantity

restrictions of the suspension agreement by adding small amounts of phosphate to their ammonium nitrate

and then trying to ship these altered products to the United States outside the terms of the suspension

agreement.94

Given the Russian ammonium nitrate industry’s large size, unused capacity, export orientation,

and continued attempts to increase exports to the U.S. market, along with the attractiveness of the U.S.

market and import restrictions in third-country markets, we find that the likely volume of subject imports,

both in absolute terms and as a share of the U.S. market, would be significant if the order is revoked.

 84 See CR/PR at Tables I-4 and I-5; Response to Notice of Institution at Exhibit 9.

 85 CR at I-23, PR at I-19.

 86 CR at I-23 to I-24, PR at I-19; Response to Notice of Institution at Exhibit 9.

 87 CR/PR at Table I-3; Response to Notice of Institution at Exhibit 9.

 88 Response to Notice of Institution at Exhibit 9.

 89 See CR/PR at Table I-5.

 90 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 91 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 92 See Response to Notice of Institution at 19-20 and Exhibit 10.

 93 CR at I-23, PR at I-19. We also note that Russian exports of ammonium nitrate to Brazil more than doubled in

2009 from their level in 2008 following the lifting of antidumping duty measures. CR at I-23 n.55, PR at I-6 n.55;

CR/PR at Table I-4.

 94 CR at I-8 n.25, PR at I-6 n.25; Response to Notice of Institution at 22.

14
D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty order is revoked,

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.95

1. Original Investigation

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 ammonium nitrate and subject imports and the

importance of price in purchasing decisions, the Commission determined that the underselling by subject

imports was significant. The Commission further found that prices for both subject imports and the

domestic like product declined sharply between 1997 and 1999.96

Based on the sharp declines in prices, as well as witness testimony that the domestic industry was

forced to cut prices to retain market share, the Commission concluded that the significant volumes of

subject imports that entered the U.S. market significantly depressed and suppressed prices for the

domestic like product.97 

2. First Five-Year Review

The record in the first five-year review continued to show that price was an important factor in

purchasing decisions, and that domestically produced ammonium nitrate and subject imports from Russia

remained substitutable products. The Commission noted that subject import prices throughout the period

of review were regulated by the reference price in the suspension agreement, but that the subject imports

still undersold domestically produced ammonium nitrate.98 Ammonium nitrate imported from Russia was

priced lower than domestic ammonium nitrate in 24 of 33 possible comparisons, with margins ranging

from 0.5 percent to 21.1 percent.99 The Commission concluded that, absent the discipline of the reference

price, subject import prices would continue to undersell the U.S. product and depress and suppress U.S.

prices to a significant degree.

The Commission also found that differences in the cost of natural gas paid by U.S. producers and

that paid by Russian producers enabled the Russian ammonium nitrate industry to undersell the U.S.

product. The Commission noted that natural gas was the most important cost component in the

production of ammonium nitrate. During the period of review, natural gas prices in the United States

increased and exhibited considerable volatility. Russian producers, on the other hand, had access to

natural gas that was priced below the gas available in the U.S. market.100 Global trading companies,

which drive the flow of ammonium nitrate imports, have a financial incentive to maximize volume as

 95 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.

 96 Original Determination at 14.

 97 Original Determination at 14. 

 98 First Review at 23.

 99 First Review at 25.

 100 First Review at 24.

15
long as their selling prices cover their costs.101 Low Russian natural gas costs enabled these global

trading companies to drive down prices and thus increased the likelihood that adverse price effects would

occur upon termination of the suspended investigation.102

Given the likely significant volume of imports, the importance of price in the ammonium nitrate

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 investigation, the underselling by

subject imports during the period of review, and the incentive that existed for subject imports to enter the

U.S. market, the Commission found it likely that there would be significant negative price effects from

the subject imports if the suspended investigation were to be terminated.103

3. Current Five-Year Review

There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record in this expedited review. As

the Commission found in the first five-year review, ammonium nitrate is a commodity product, and the

domestic like product and imports from all sources are generally substitutable.104 In the current period of

review, price continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions. Ammonium nitrate is sold on

the basis of price in a price competitive market.105

COFANT states that global trading companies also continue to play an important role in the

international trade of ammonium nitrate. These trading companies have an incentive to maximize sales

volume to increase their profits and will sell at low prices so long as the selling price is sufficient to

recover their costs.106 The record indicates that, with the suspension agreement in place, Russian

ammonium nitrate was sold at much higher prices for shipment to the United States than for shipment to

Russia’s two largest export markets, Brazil and Turkey.107 Given this price differential, if the

antidumping duty order were revoked, Russian exporters and trading companies would likely lower their

prices and importers would likely undersell in the United States to maximize sales volume and profits.

Thus, we find that subject foreign producers and international trading companies handling

Russian ammonium nitrate likely would undersell the domestic like product if the order were revoked to

increase their share of the price competitive ammonium nitrate market. In response, domestic producers

would have to either reduce their prices or relinquish market share. Accordingly, we find that, if the order

were revoked, the subject imports would likely undersell the domestic like product and enter the United

States at prices that would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic

like product.

 101 First Review at 25.

 102 First Review at 25.

 103 First Review at 23-24.

 104 Response to Notice of Institution at 25; First Review at 23.

 105 Response to Notice of Institution at 25; First Review at 23..

 106 Response to Notice of Institution at 25.

 107 Response to Notice of Institution at 26 and Exhibit 10. During 2010, the price premium was $82.25 per short

ton of ammonium nitrate for Brazil and $96.09 per short ton for Turkey. Id.

16
E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports108

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty orders

under review were revoked, 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 the

following: (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.109 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.110 As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the

state of the domestic industry is related to the orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to

material injury if the orders were revoked.

1. Original Investigation

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 $*** in 1997 to

$*** in 1999. The Commission attributed this decline to the sharp drop in domestic prices, which

outpaced any declines in costs during this period.111

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

consumption, the domestic industry’s operating income declined from $*** in 1997 to $*** in 1998. The 

industry reported an operating loss of $*** in 1999, a year in which six *** producers reported operating

losses. One producer ceased production in this period, and another filed for bankruptcy. Employment

declined industry-wide, and capital expenditures also declined.112

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 dumped imports from

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

industry.113

 108 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.” 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. In the final results of its expedited review of the antidumping duty order

on ammonium nitrate from Russia, Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at a margin of 235.98 percent by JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot

and all other Russian producers. 76 Fed. Reg. at 39848.

 109 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 110 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 111 Original Determination at 17-18.

 112 Original Determination at 18-19.

 113 Original Determination at 19.

17
2. First Five-Year Review

The Commission noted that during the period of review, the structure of the U.S. industry had 

changed significantly. Five firms discontinued production completely and either shut down or sold their

production assets.114 Several continued to produce other types of nitrogen fertilizers, but had ceased

producing ammonium nitrate, and a new firm entered the market by purchasing an existing producer that

had gone into bankruptcy. The Commission found that the industry, which then consisted of El Dorado

and Terra Industries, was vulnerable to material injury from subject imports, particularly given the

elevated price of natural gas and declining demand trends.115

The Commission found that if the suspended investigation were terminated, the subject imports

would have a severe impact on the production, shipments, sales values, employment, and market share of

the domestic industry and would therefore have a direct adverse impact on the industry's profitability,

ability to raise capital and make necessary capital investments. Accordingly, the Commission found that

unfairly traded imports of Russian ammonium nitrate would have a significant adverse impact on a

vulnerable domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the suspended investigation were to

be terminated.116

3. Current Five-Year Review

In this expedited review, the record information on the domestic industry’s condition is based on

data for 2010 provided in response to the notice of institution. We collected 2010 industry data for

several performance indicators, but no new data for other periods. The limited record is insufficient for

us to make a finding on whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of

material injury in the event of revocation of the order.117

The data show that, since the period examined in the last five-year review, the domestic industry

has reduced its capacity, reflecting the declining U.S. ammonium nitrate market. In 2010, the domestic

industry’s capacity was *** short tons, its production was *** short tons, and its rate of capacity

utilization was *** percent.118 In 2004, the domestic industry’s capacity was *** short tons, its

production was *** short tons, and its rate of capacity utilization was *** percent.119 The domestic

industry’s U.S. shipments were *** short tons in 2010, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption, while in 2004 its U.S. shipments were *** short tons and its market share was ***

percent.120

Despite its smaller size, the domestic industry has managed to regain its ***.121 In 2004, the

domestic industry reported an operating *** and an operating margin of *** percent.122 In 2010, the

 114 First Review at 29.

 115 First Review at 29.

 116 First Review at 29-30.

 117 Commissioner Pinkert finds that, although it is a close issue based on the record evidence in this proceeding,

the domestic industry does not appear to be vulnerable to material injury in the event of revocation. Although the

industry’s U.S. shipments and net sales generally declined by 2010 from the levels attained in the periods examined

in the original investigation and first five-year review, its operating income (***) and operating income margin (***

percent) were significantly greater in 2010 than in those prior periods. CR/PR at Table I-1.

 118 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 119 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 120 CR/PR at Tables I-2 and I-3.

 121 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 122 CR/PR at Table I-1.

18
industry earned an operating income of *** and reported an operating margin of *** percent.123 The

limited record does not indicate what accounts for the industry’s return to profitability, but COFANT

suggests that it is in part due to a recovery in domestic ammonium nitrate prices.124

Based on the record of this review, we find that, should the order be revoked, the likely adverse

volume and price effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. Declines in these

indicators of industry performance would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and

employment, as well as its ability to raise capital, to make and maintain capital investments, and to fund

research and development.

We also have considered the role of factors other than subject imports, including declining

demand and the presence of nonsubject imports, so as not to attribute injury from other factors to the

subject imports. While the suspension agreement was in place, the domestic industry became *** despite

the decline in apparent U.S. consumption. If the antidumping duty order now in place were revoked, the

smaller size of the U.S. market would only magnify the adverse effects of the subject imports. The share

of the U.S. market held by nonsubject imports has also fallen since the last review; it was *** percent in

2004 and *** percent in 2010.125 We note that ***.126 In the absence of contrary evidence, we find that

nonsubject imports would remain at these, or lower, levels.

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order were revoked, subject imports

would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably

foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order 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.

 123 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 124 See CR/PR at Table C-1; Final Comments at 25.

 125 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 126 CR at I-18, PR at I-14.

19

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

I-1

INTRODUCTION

On March 1, 2011, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the

Act”),1

 the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave notice that it had

instituted a review to determine whether termination of the suspended investigation on ammonium nitrate

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

foreseeable time.2 3

 On June 6, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party

group response to its notice of institution was adequate4

 and that the respondent interested party group

response was inadequate.5

 In the absence of respondent interested party responses and any other

circumstances that would warrant the conduct of a full review, the Commission determined to conduct an

expedited review of the antidumping duty order pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §

1675(c)(3)).6

 The Commission voted on this review on July 20, 2011, and notified Commerce of its

determination on July 29, 2011. The following tabulation presents selected information relating to the

schedule of this five-year review.7

Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

March 1, 2011 Commission’s institution of five-year review

76 FR 11273

March 1, 2011

March 1, 2011 Commerce’s initiation of five-year review

76 FR 11202

March 1, 2011

June 6, 2011 Commission’s determination to conduct an expedited five-year review

76 FR 34749

June 14, 2011

July 7, 2011 Commerce’s final determination in its expedited five-year review

76 FR 39847

July 5, 2011

July 20, 2011 Commission’s vote Not applicable

July 29, 2011 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce Not applicable

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 Ammonium Nitrate From Russia, 76 FR 11273, March 1, 2011. All interested parties were requested to respond

to this notice by submitting the information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s notice of institution is

presented in app. A.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of a five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 76 FR 11202, March 1, 2011.

 4

 The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution in the subject review. It was

filed on behalf of the Committee for Fair Ammonium Nitrate Trade (“COFANT”), consisting of two member

companies, CF Industries, Inc. and El Dorado Chemical Company (collectively referred to herein as “domestic

interested party”). The domestic interested party reported that it accounted for all total U.S. production of

ammonium nitrate in 2010. Response of domestic interested party, March 31, 2011, p. 33.

 5

 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties to its notice of institution.

 6 Ammonium Nitrate From Russia; Scheduling of an expedited five-year review concerning the antidumping duty

order on ammonium nitrate from Russia, 76 FR 34749, June 14, 2011. The Commission’s notice of an expedited

review appears in app. A. The Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

 7

 Cited Federal Register notices are presented in app. A.

I-3
The Original Investigation and Subsequent Five-Year Review

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 less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of

ammonium nitrate from Russia.8

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

in the original final investigation, Commerce entered into a suspension agreement with Russia and

suspended the antidumping investigation.9

 The basis for that action was an agreement between

Commerce and the Ministry of Trade of the Russian Federation (“Russian Federation”) accounting for

substantially all imports of ammonium nitrate from Russia, wherein the Ministry 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.”10 On June 29, 2000, the 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, but found that critical circumstances did not exist

with respect to subject imports. Commerce did not issue an antidumping duty order because of the

suspension agreement that was in effect at that time.

On March 31, 2005, the Commission instituted its first five-year review 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.11 On July 5, 2005, the Commission determined that it

would conduct a full review.12 On March 6, 2006, Commerce published its determination that termination

of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on ammonium nitrate from Russia would likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping at a rate of 253.98 percent.13 The Commission determined that

material injury would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time, and published

its determination on March 30, 2006.14 Commerce issued a continuation of this suspended antidumping

duty investigation on April 5, 2006.15

 8 The petition was filed by COFANT, including member companies 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. Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia: Investigation No. 731-TA-856

(Final), USITC Pub. 3338, August 2000, p. I-1.

 9 Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 37759 (June 16, 2000).

 10 The Russian government allocated the amount to be exported among the Russian producers. In order for a

Russian producer to export ammonium nitrate to the United States, the producer was required to obtain permission

from the Russian government and was issued an export license.

 11 Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, 70 FR 16517, March 31, 2005.

 12 Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, 70 FR 41426, July 19, 2005.

 13 Final Results of Five-year Sunset Review of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation on Ammonium Nitrate

from the Russian Federation, 71 FR 11177, March 6, 2006.

 14 Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, 71 FR 16177, March 30, 2006.

 15 Continuation of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation: Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian Federation,

71 FR 17080, April 5, 2006.

I-4
Termination of Suspension Agreement

On February 22, 2011, Commerce received a letter from the Russian Federation notifying

Commerce of its withdrawal from the suspension agreement.16 Effective May 2, 2011, Commerce

terminated the suspension agreement and imposed an antidumping duty order on solid fertilizer grade

ammonium nitrate from Russia.17 

Commerce’s Final Result of Expedited Five-Year Review

On July 7, 2011, Commerce found that termination of the antidumping duty order on ammonium

nitrate from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.18 The weightedaverage dumping margins (in percent ad valorem), as reported by Commerce, that would occur if the

antidumping duty order were to be revoked, are 253.98 percent for Nevinka and for Russia-wide.

Commerce’s Administrative Reviews

Commerce has not conducted any administrative reviews or issued any duty absorption rulings. 

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Funds to Affected Domestic Producers

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.19 No antidumping duties were paid during 2006-10,

therefore, there were no distributions of CDSOA funds. 

Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

On April 27, 1998, in response to a request from the Committee on Finance of the United States

Senate, the Commission instituted investigation No. 332-393 under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)). The results, contained in USITC Publication 3135 (October 1998): 

 16 The agreement suspending the antidumping investigation was signed on May 19, 2000. In the agreement,

Commerce set limits on exports of ammonium nitrate from Russia to the United States and established weekly

“reference prices.” The Russian government allocated the amount to be exported among the Russian producers. In

order for a Russian producer to export ammonium nitrate to the United States, the producer had to obtain permission

from the Russian government and was issued an export license. The export limits set in the agreement could be

adjusted annually. Fifteen percent of each annual export limit could be carried over to the next year or carried back

to the last 60 days of the previous export period. These carryovers and carrybacks had to be requested by the

Russian government in advance. No more than 60 percent of the annual export limit could be exported in the

January-June and July-December periods. A list of reference prices established during 2005-11 appear in app. C.

 17 Commerce also provided notice that it would direct Customs and Border Protection to assess, beginning on

May 2, 2011, an antidumping duty equal to the weighted-average margin rates found in its July 11, 2000, final

determination. Termination of the Suspension Agreement on Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the

Russian Federation and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 23569, April 27, 2011.

 18 Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset

Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 39847, July 7, 2011.

 19 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

repealed the CDSOA with respect to duties on entries of goods made and filed on or after October 1, 2007. See Pub.

L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, 154 (2006).

I-5
Ammonium Nitrate: A Comparative Analysis of Factors Affecting Global Trade, provide an analysis of

factors affecting global trade in ammonium nitrate.

On October 13, 2000, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of

dumped imports of certain ammonium nitrate from Ukraine. On July 25, 2001, Commerce made a final

affirmative dumping determination, with weighted-average margins as follows: J.S.C. “Concern” Stirol,

156.29 percent; and all others, 156.29 percent.20 The Commission made its final affirmative injury

determination in August 200121 and Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on September 12,

2001.22

On August 1, 2006, the Commission gave notice that it had instituted a review to determine

whether termination of the antidumping duty order on certain ammonium nitrate from Ukraine would

likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. In June 2007, the

Commission determined that termination of the antidumping duty order on ammonium nitrate from

Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry

within a reasonably foreseeable time.23 Effective July 9, 2007, Commerce ordered the continuation of the

antidumping duty order on solid agricultural grade ammonium nitrate from Ukraine.24

THE PRODUCT

Scope

In its most recent Federal Register notice, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows:

The products covered by the order 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).25

 20 Notice of Final Determination of Sales At Less Than Fair Value: Solid Agricultural Grade Ammonium Nitrate

From Ukraine, 66 FR 38632, July 25, 2001.

 21 Certain Ammonium Nitrate From Ukraine, 66 FR 46466, September 5, 2001.

 22 Antidumping Duty Order: Solid Agricultural Grade Ammonium Nitrate From Ukraine, 66 FR 47451,

September 12, 2001.

 23 Certain Ammonium Nitrate From Ukraine, 72 FR 35260, June 27, 2007.

 24 Solid Agricultural Grade Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order, 72 FR

37195, July 9, 2007.

 25 Termination of the Suspension Agreement on Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian

Federation and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 23569, April 27, 2011. Commerce issued one scope

ruling on March 11, 2004 in which 33-3-0 fertilizer (containing 33 percent nitrogen and 3 percent phosphorus) is

included within the suspension agreement. See Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 41374, July 19, 2005. In December

2007, Commerce also initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether NP-27-5 was a product within the scope of the

suspended investigation. Commerce has preliminarily concluded that NP-27-5 is within the scope, but has not yet

issued a final ruling. 

I-6
U.S. Tariff Treatment

Ammonium nitrate is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(“HTS”) under subheading 3102.30.00.26 Imports of ammonium nitrate from Russia enter under a general

rate of duty of “free”.

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

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. The domestic

industry is the collection of 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 and its full first five-year review determination

concerning ammonium nitrate from Russia, the Commission found a single domestic like product

coextensive with the with the scope definition, consisting of fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate products

with a bulk density equal to or greater than 53 pounds per cubic foot. It also defined the domestic

industry as all domestic producers of high density ammonium nitrate.27 In this second five-year review,

the domestic interested party agrees with the Commission’s earlier domestic like product and domestic

industry determinations.28

Physical Characteristics and Uses29

The subject product consists of solid high-density ammonium nitrate with a density of 53 pounds

or more per cubic foot,30 primarily used as an agricultural 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, and liquid ammonium nitrate,

also known as ammonium nitrate liquor, used mainly as an intermediate in the production of solid

ammonium nitrate and LDAN or, when added to urea, in the production of urea-ammonium nitrate

(“UAN”) solution fertilizers.31

Ammonium nitrate is a crystalline product having the chemical composition NH4NO3, which

assays at about 34.0 percent minimum plant-available nitrogen (N) by weight.32 It is typically produced

either in prills (spherical shapes about 1.5 to 2.5 millimeters in diameter) or granules (slightly larger,

 26 The written description provided above is dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage. The HTS

classification is provided for convenience and for Customs purposes only. This HTS category may also contain

unspecified quantities of nonsubject low density ammonium nitrate industrial grade product, and may contain small

quantities of aqueous ammonium nitrate liquor.

 27 Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Final), USITC Pub. 3338, August 2000, pp. 4-5;

Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Review), USITC Pub. 3844, March 2006, pp. 4-5.

 28 Response of domestic interested party, March 31, 2011, p. 38.

 29 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Certain

Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Final), USITC Pub. 3338, August 2000, p. I-3; and Certain

Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Review), USITC Pub. 3844, March 2006, pp. I-9-10.

 30 Most ammonium nitrate has a density of between 55 and 62 pounds per cubic foot.

 31 In response to Commission purchaser surveys, all three responding purchasers, *** indicated that there have

not been any changes in the end uses and applications of ammonium nitrate in the U.S. market or in the Russian

market since 2005, nor do they anticipate any changes within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 32 Whereas pure ammonium nitrate is typically 35 percent nitrogen by weight, the amount declines to almost 34

percent when additives are used to prevent moisture absorption and expansion and contraction of the particles.

I-7
more irregularly shaped particles). Ammonium nitrate 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 ammonium nitrate generally is 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 ammonium nitrate is immediately available

to plants as nitrate (NO3) nitrogen. The combination of this rapid availability with good solubility and low

volatility at ambient temperatures has enhanced ammonium nitrate’s competitiveness as a direct

application fertilizer in a specialty niche market, particularly in warm climate zones where early-fall and

spring temperatures do not fall below 50°F for extended periods. Moreover, as a “no-till” fertilizer,

ammonium nitrate can be applied on hay, pasture, turf grasses, corn, tobacco, and citrus, all crops that use

no-till fertilizer application.33

Manufacturing Process34

The ammonium nitrate 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, is then, in turn, reacted with the remaining ammonia in a neutralization chamber

to form an aqueous ammonium nitrate solution (otherwise known as liquid ammonium nitrate or

ammonium nitrate liquor).35 The ammonium nitrate solution is then heated and evaporated to a molten

concentration, or melt, of 99 percent ammonium nitrate or greater.

Producers then either produce granules from the molten ammonium nitrate by layering the

material onto seed particles in a rotary pan, or drum granulator, or prills by spraying molten ammonium

nitrate 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. Stabilizers, typically clay for granules and

magnesium oxide (MgO) for prills, are added to the ammonium nitrate 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 ammonium nitrate granules

and prills may be coated with a liquid surface-active agent,fine powders, or other anticaking agents.36

 33 In response to Commission purchaser surveys, all three responding purchasers, *** indicated that there have

not been any changes in the existence and availability of substitute products for ammonium nitrate in the U.S. market

or in the Russian market since 2005, nor do they anticipate any changes within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 34 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Certain

Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Final), USITC Pub. 3338, August 2000, pp. I-4-5; and

Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Review), USITC Pub. 3844, March 2006, pp. I-10-11.

 35 The aqueous ammonium nitrate solution can either be further processed into ammonium nitrate or mixed with

urea to form UAN liquid fertilizers.

 36 In response to Commission purchaser surveys, all three responding purchasers, *** indicated that there have

not been any changes in technology, production methods, or development efforts to produce ammonium nitrate that

affected the availability of ammonium nitrate in the U.S. market or Russian market since 2005, nor do they anticipate

any changes within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I-8
Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

In the original investigation, all responding U.S. producers, purchasers, and importers indicated

that the domestic like product and the subject imports can be used interchangeably.37 In the full first fiveyear review, responding domestic producers indicated that U.S.-produced ammonium nitrate and imports

of ammonium nitrate 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. 

The Commission found that domestically produced ammonium nitrate and ammonium nitrate imported

from Russia and other import sources are at least moderately substitutable. Most responding purchasers

reported that U.S. product and subject imports were comparable in terms of quality. Subject and

nonsubject imports were also viewed as 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. The quality of nonsubject imports was deemed to be generally comparable

to the quality of ammonium nitrate available from Russia. Ammonium nitrate was characterized as a bulk

commodity product produced worldwide which generallymeets similar specifications and exhibits similar

physical and chemical characteristics.38 In the current review, COFANT identifies ammonium nitrate as a

commodity product, the purchase of which is driven by price.39

Channels of Distribution

As reported during the final phase of the original investigation, both domestic producers and

importers sold nearly all of their shipments of ammonium nitrate to distributors and retailers.40 Farmers

purchase ammonium nitrate from retailers who may also provide blending and/or application services. 

Retailers may purchase ammonium nitrate directly from U.S. producers. Some U.S. producers, as well as

importers, own or lease distribution warehouses to which ammonium nitrate is moved after production or

import. The Mississippi River system serves as an important means for distributing ammonium nitrate,

particularly the imported product, and many distribution facilities are along the river system. Retailers

also purchase ammonium nitrate from wholesale distributors, who also operate distribution facilities. 

Wholesale distributors purchase ammonium nitrate from domestic and imported sources.

Pricing41

Nitrogen fertilizers are large-volume bulk commodities whose prices tend to rise and fall in

tandem, at least in part as a result of changes in supply and market demand. Prices for all major nitrogen

fertilizers have usually trended up and down in tandem. This trend is typical of the large-volume nitrogen

fertilizer commodity industry where price fluctuations are commonly dependent on the relative changes

between supply capability and market demand. 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. For the first five-year

 37 Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Final), USITC Pub. 3338, August 2000, p. 8.

 38 Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Review), USITC Pub. 3844, March 2006, pp.

11-12 and I-9.

 39 Response of domestic interested party, March 31, 2011, pp. 3-4.

 40 Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Final), USITC Pub. 3338, August 2000, p. II-1.

 41 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Certain

Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Final), USITC Pub. 3338, August 2000, pp. I-5-6; and

Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Review), USITC Pub. 3844, March 2006, pp. 15-17.

I-9
review, ammonium nitrate imported from Russia was priced lower than domestic ammonium nitrate in 24

of 33 possible comparisons, with margins ranging from 0.5 percent to 21.1 percent. In the remaining 9

instances, ammonium nitrate imported from Russia was priced above domestic ammonium nitrate, with

margins ranging from 0.4 to 9.0 percent.

As in the final phase of the original investigation, the Commission found in the first five-year

review that ammonium nitrate is a commodity product for which price is an important factor in

purchasing decisions, and that domestically produced ammonium nitrate and subject imports from Russia

remain substitutable products. In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the current

review, COFANT states that ammonium nitrate remains a commodity product, the purchase of which is

driven by price.42 Appendix C presents price data for natural gas, which constitutes a substantial portion

of the raw material costs for producing ammonium nitrate. Also presented in appendix C are U.S. farm

prices of selected fertilizers and historical pricing for ammonium nitrate.

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

The original antidumping duty investigation resulted from a petition filed on July 23, 1999, on

behalf of COFANT and its six individual members, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. (“Air Products”); El

Dorado; LaRoche Industries, Inc. (“LaRoche”); Mississippi Chemical Corp. (“Mississippi Chemical”);

Nitram, Inc. (“Nitram”); and Wil-Gro Fertilizer, Inc. (“Wil-Gro”). Ten firms accounted for virtually all

ammonium nitrate production during the period examined in the original investigation. By the time of the

Commissions’ first full five-year review of the suspension agreement, completed in March 2006, the

domestic industry had contracted to two producers, consisting of Terra and El Dorado.43 In April 2010,

CF Industries acquired Terra.44 In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this second

five-year review, COFANT reported that CF Industries and El Dorado remain as the two domestic

producers of solid fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate.45

 42 Response of domestic interested party, March 31, 2011, pp. 3-4.

 43 Coastal Chem was acquired by Dyno Nobel in 2003, after which it switched to low density ammonium nitrate

production. LaRoche filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on May 3, 2000, and was

subsequently acquired by El Dorado. Mississippi Chemical, *** during the original investigation, was acquired in

2004 by Terra, a new entrant to the market at that time. Nitram closed its Tampa, FL, plant in 2003. Prodica was

acquired by Agrium in 2000. Wil-Gro ceased production in December 1999 and the facilities were purchased by El

Dorado in 2002. Agrium discontinued the production and sales of ammonium nitrate midyear 2005, Air Products

permanently closed its ammonium nitrate facility at the end of 2005, and PCS ceased production of ammonium

nitrate at the end of 2004. Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Review), USITC Pub.

3844, March 2006, pp. I-13-14.

 44 CF Industries, CF Industries Completes Exchange Offer for Terra Industries, April 15, 2010.

 45 Response of domestic interested party, March 31, 2011, p. 29.

I-10
U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Data reported by U.S. producers of ammonium nitrate in the Commission’s original investigation,

first full five-year review, and in response to the second five-year review’s institution notice are presented

in table I-1. The industry’s operating income was *** in 2010, compared to *** in 2004. In its response

to the Commission’s notice of institution in the current review, COFANT indicated that ***.46 47

Related Party Issues

The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in this second five-year review that they are not aware of any U.S. producer being related to an

exporter or importer of the subject merchandise.48

 46 Response of domestic interested party, March 31, 2011, pp. 28-29.

 47 In response to Commission purchaser surveys, all three responding purchasers, *** indicated that there have

not been any changes in the ability to increase production of ammonium nitrate (including the shift of production

facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production) that affected the

availability of ammonium nitrate in the U.S. market or in the Russian market since 2005, nor do they anticipate any

changes within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 48 The domestic interested parties indicated in their response that domestic producer CF Industries has held a 50-

percent interest in Keytrade AG, a global fertilizer trader, since September 2007. The company explained that

Keytrade offers Russian ammonium nitrate in non-U.S. markets. However, because CF Industries does not own a

controlling interest in Keytrade, the domestic interested parties stated that CF Industries does not “directly or

indirectly control” Keytrade and is not “legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over”

Keytrade. Therefore, the domestic interested parties stated that CF Industries is not related to Keytrade within the

meaning of the statute.

I-11
I-12

Table I-1Ammonium nitrate: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 1997-99, 2000-04, Jan-Sept 2004, Jan-Sept 2005, an

(Quantity=1,000 short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, are per short ton)

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan - Se

2004

Capacity 2,532 2,648 2,736 *** *** *** *** *** *Production 2,111 2,174 2,005 *** *** *** *** *** *Capacity utilization (percent) 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 $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*Export shipments: Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *

 Unit value *** *** *** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*Production and relatedworkers (PRWs) (number) 499 450 449 329 293 290 287 277 27Hours worked (1,000 hours) 1,102 997 989 716 658 664 636 604 45Total compensation paid($1,000) 22,241 20,872 21,047 15,651 13,898 14,505 13,914 13,870 10,17Hourly wages $20.18 $20.94 $21.28 $21.86 $21.12 $21.84 $21.88 $22.96 $22.5Productivity (tons per hour) 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.7 1Unit labor costs $10.53 $9.60 $10.50 $13.14 $12.28 $11.08 $12.01 $13.54 $13.0

Table continued on next page.
I-13

Table I-1--ContinuedAmmonium nitrate: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 1997-99, 2000-04, Jan-Sept 2004, Jan-Sept 2005, an

Item

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan - Se

2004

Net sales *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *Cost of goods sold (COGS) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *Gross profit *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *SG&A *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *Operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *COGS/sales (percent) 78.5 85.5 98.6 *** *** *** *** *** *

Operating income or(loss)/sales (percent) 13.7 5.9 (6.3) *** *** *** *** *** *

1 ***.2 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data presented in the original staff report, first five-year review, and COFANT’s response to the Commission's notice of institution 
U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports

During the original investigation and first five-year review of the suspension agreement, two

importers, *** accounted for the *** imports from Russia. *** was the largest importer during 2000-04. 

COFANT, in its response to the Commission's notice of institution in this second five-year review,

identified *** firms as U.S. importers of ammonium nitrate from Russia: ***. 

Import data for the final phase of the original investigation were based on official import

statistics, which were adjusted by Commission staff to account for misclassified Russian imports in 1998,

to remove industrial grade ammonium nitrate and misclassified product from Canada, and to correct for

misclassification of Polish material. During the first five-year review, import data were compiled from

adjusted official Commerce import statistics for imports from Canada and Russia, and official Commerce

statistics for imports from all other countries. Imports from Canada were adjusted by including only ***

imports obtained from proprietary Customs data, and imports from Russia were adjusted to account for

misclassified imports. In response to this second five-year review, COFANT noted that official import

statistics from 2007 to 2010 should exclude imports from Canada,49 which consist of nonsubject lowdensity ammonium nitrate.50 Staff notes that ***.51

Imports from Russia entering the United States amounted to 22,218 short tons ($6.4 million

landed, duty-paid) in 2010. U.S. imports of ammonium nitrate from Russia declined by 71.2 percent

overall from 2005 to 2010, despite experiencing an increase in 2007. During that same time period, the

presence of nonsubject sources of imports decreased by 27.1 percent. Russia accounted for 9.1 percent of

U.S. imports in 2010, compared with 20.2 percent in 2005, based on quantity. Data on U.S. imports of

ammonium nitrate from Russia, during 2005-10 are presented in table I-2.

Ratio of Imports to U.S. Production

Imports of ammonium nitrate from Russia were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. production in

2010, compared to *** percent in 2004, and *** percent in 1999. The ratio of imports of ammonium

nitrate from nonsubject countries to domestic production was *** percent in 2010, compared to ***

percent in 2004, and *** percent in 1999. The ratio of total imports to U.S. production was *** percent

in 2010, *** percent in 2004, and *** percent in 1999.

 49 According to official Commerce statistics, imports of ammonium nitrate from Canada totaled 390,504 short

tons ($81.9 million) in 2010.

 50 Response of domestic interested party, March 31, 2011, exh. 7. 

 51 ***.

I-14
Table I-2

Ammonium nitrate: U.S. imports, by source, 2005-10

Source 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

Russia 77,144 27,368 86,131 56,476 0 22,218

Nonsubject1 305,504 602,230 635,734 230,793 104,122 222,665

 Total imports 382,649 629,598 721,865 287,269 104,122 244,883

Value ($1,000)2 

Russia 15,502 6,933 20,724 19,053 0 6,366

Nonsubject1 60,413 130,338 146,109 89,013 22,774 63,063

 Total imports 75,915 137,271 166,833 108,065 22,774 69,429

Unit value (per short ton)

Russia $200.95 $253.34 $240.61 $337.36 (3

) $286.54

Nonsubject1 197.75 216.42 229.83 385.68 $218.73 283.22

 Average 198.39 218.03 231.11 376.18 218.73 283.52

Share of quantity (percent)

Russia 20.2 4.3 11.9 19.7 0.0 9.1

Nonsubject1 79.8 95.7 88.1 80.3 100.0 90.9

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Russia 20.4 5.1 12.4 17.6 0.0 9.2

Nonsubject1 79.6 94.9 87.6 82.4 100.0 90.8

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Nonsubject imports exclude imports from Canada, which consist primarily of nonsubject low-density ammonium nitrate. The

main sources of nonsubject imports are Georgia, representing 35.0 percent of total imports during 2010; Netherlands, 30.9

percent; Tunisia, 12.3 percent; and Bulgaria, 10.6 percent.

 2

 Landed, duty-paid.

 3

 Not applicable.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 3102.30.0000. This HTS category may also contain

unspecified quantities of nonsubject low density ammonium nitrate industrial grade product, and may contain small quantities of

aqueous ammonium nitrate liquor.

I-15
Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption of ammonium nitrate and market shares are presented in table I-3.

Apparent consumption, based upon U.S. shipments and imports, in 2010 was *** short tons (valued at

$***). Domestic production accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity,

while imports from Russia accounted for *** percent. Since 2004, apparent U.S. consumption of

ammonium nitrate decreased by *** percent. The share of apparent U.S. consumption held by domestic

producers increased, from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2010. The share held by imports from

Russia fell, from *** percent to *** percent, while the share held by imports from nonsubject sources

also fell slightly from *** percent to *** percent. COFANT explained in its response to the

Commission’s notice of institution that apparent U.S. consumption of ammonium nitrate has continued to

decline since 2004 due to enhanced security and handing requirements that have caused many distributors

and retailers to stop handing and offering ammonium nitrate.52 53

 52 Response of domestic interested party, March 31, 2011, p. 12.

 53 In response to Commission purchaser surveys, all three responding purchasers, *** indicated that there have

not been any changes in the business cycle for ammonium nitrate in the U.S. market or the Russian market since

2005, nor do they anticipate any changes within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I-16
I-17

Table I-3Ammonium nitrate: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 1997-99, 2000-04, Jan-Sep

and 2010

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan-Se

2004

Quantity (1,000 short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 1,985 2,055 2,095 *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from-- Russia 187 230 *** 0.29 96 115 162 126  Other sources 189 262 *** *** *** *** *** *** 

 Total imports 377 493 499 *** *** *** *** *** Apparent U.S. consumption 2,362 2,547 2,595 *** *** *** *** *** 

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 278,386 245,534 213,344 *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from-- Russia 23,131 26,531 *** 37 11,859 11,085 18,239 21,039 8,5 Other sources 25,968 26,932 *** *** *** *** *** ***  Total imports 49,099 53,463 45,326 *** *** *** *** *** Apparent U.S. consumption 327,485 298,997 258,670 *** *** *** *** *** 

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 84.1 80.7 80.8 *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from-- Russia 7.9 9.0 *** (2) *** *** *** *** 

 Other sources 8.0 10.3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 

 Total imports 15.9 19.3 19.2 *** *** *** *** *** Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100Table continued on next page.
I-18

Table I-3--ContinuedAmmonium nitrate: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 1997-99, 2000-04, Jan-Sep

and 2010

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan-Se

2004

Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 85.0 82.1 82.5 *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from-- Russia 7.1 8.9 *** (2) *** *** *** *** 

 Other sources 7.9 9.0 *** *** *** *** *** *** 

 Total imports 15.0 17.9 17.5 *** *** *** *** *** Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

1 Official import statistics for other sources in 2010 exclude imports from Canada, which are comprised primarily of nonsubject low-density ammonium 2 ***.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.Source: Data for 1997-99 compiled from the original staff report, table C-1. Data for 2000-04 compiled from the first five-year review staff report, table C

compiled from official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 3102.30.0000; and COFANT’s response to the Commission's notice of inst
ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Antidumping duty orders on imports of ammonium nitrate from Russia are currently in effect in

the European Union and Australia. The European Union imposed antidumping measures to imports of

ammonium nitrate from Russia in 1994. In July 2008, the antidumping duty rates for certain producers

were lowered and the current rates range from 28.88 to 47.07 euros per metric ton.54 Australia imposed

antidumping duties on imports of ammonium nitrate from Russia in 2001, at a rate of AUS$32 per metric

ton. Australia’s antidumping duty measures were continued in May 2011 for an additional five years.55 

THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN RUSSIA

In both the original investigation and the first five-year review, the Commission identified 13

producers of ammonium nitrate in Russia. Five producers responded to the Commission questionnaires in

the original investigation, and six producers, accounting for *** percent of total ammonium nitrate

capacity in Russia, responded to the Commission’s questionnaires in the first review.56 

In its response to the notice of institution in this second five-year review, COFANT identified 12

known producers57 of solid fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate in Russia. COFANT states that Russian

ammonium nitrate production capacity has increased since the last review period, from nearly *** metric

tons in 2005 to an estimated *** metric tons in 2010.58 Table I-4 presents data on Russian exports of

ammonium nitrate from 2005 to 2010. 

 54 At the same time, the European Union permitted four Russian producers of ammonium nitrate to enter into

“undertakings” whereby they could import a certain volume of ammonium nitrate without paying antidumping duties

so long as the imports were priced above a certain market-tied price. Response of domestic interested party, March

31, 2011, p. 20.

 55 Additionally, Brazil imposed antidumping duty measures on ammonium nitrate from Russia in 2002, which

were lifted in 2008. Ukraine also imposed antidumping duty measures in 2008, which were lifted in January 2011. 

Response of domestic interested party, March 31, 2011, pp. 20-21; Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No.

731-TA-856 (Review), USITC Pub. 3844, March 2006, p. IV-6; and NOTICE On Nullification of the Antidumping

Measures Applied to the Import to Ukraine of Ammonium Nitrate (Ammonium Saltpeter) originating in Russia.

http://www.antidumpingpublishing.com/uploaded/documents/2010/Ukraine%20-%20ammonium%20nitrate

%20%28susp%20eng%29.pdf.

 56 The five producers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire in the original investigation were: JCS

Acron (“Acron”), JCS Dorogobuzh (“Dorogobuzh”), JCS Azot Nevinnomyssk (“Nevinka”), JCS

Novomendeleyevsk Chemical Plant (“Novomos”), and JCS Kirovo-Chepetsk Kimichesky Kombinat. The six

producers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire in the first five-year review were: Acron, Dorogobuzh,

Nevinka, Novomos, JCS Minudobreniya Rossosh (“Minudo”), and Azot Berezhniki (“Berezhniki”).

 57 The 12 producers identified by the domestic interested parties are: JCS Angarsk Petrochemical Co.; JCS Azot

(Kemerovo); JCS Azot (Phosagro); Nevinka; Acron; JCS Azot (Novomoskovsk); Minudo; JCS Medeleyevskazot;

JCS Kuybyshevazot; JCS Dorogobuzh; JCS Azot (Berezniki); and JCS Kirovo-Chepetsk Chemical Group.

 58 Response of domestic interested party, March 31, 2011, p. 17.

I-19
Table I-4

Ammonium nitrate: Russian exports, by market, 2005-10

Market 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

Brazil 60,641 393,058 425,265 596,724 1,618,634 1,152,334

Turkey 603,626 378,638 289,849 244,055 462,980 560,704

Ukraine 91,812 370,066 304,260 230,159 293,955 464,699

India 152,085 4,508 26,879 212,833 183,472 242,525

Colombia 57,002 134,956 92,422 98,072 94,304 152,339

Peru 57,076 109,666 76,354 125,942 45,462 114,244

Malaysia 138,625 36,890 9,216 11,652 95,907 109,145

Latvia 197,709 39,197 17,948 43,238 57,882 101,144

Belize 0 0 0 0 89,310 99,532

United States 95,910 2,755,6051 110,621 48,755 70,534 83,384

All other 2,096,144 1,867,793 1,643,205 1,516,606 1,469,632 698,866

 Total 3,550,630 6,090,3791 2,996,019 3,128,037 4,482,070 3,778,918

Value (1,000 dollars)

Brazil 7,167 42,913 66,873 160,263 207,214 186,082

Turkey 53,699 38,035 41,297 61,643 61,653 88,387

Ukraine 10,386 43,055 43,065 58,040 37,366 69,057

India 16,622 463 3,628 53,755 26,208 47,213

Colombia 6,606 17,511 14,529 29,507 15,437 30,900

Peru 6,040 13,075 12,718 43,320 7,778 19,818

Malaysia 14,194 3,946 1,247 3,474 12,646 19,011

Latvia 21,738 4,811 2,731 13,371 8,920 24,104

Belize 0 0 0 010,985 16,525

United States 14,941 5,850 23,160 14,635 10,145 20,343

All other 214,647 194,110 247,243 444,704 211,196 135,572

 Total 366,041 363,769 456,490 882,713 609,547 657,011

 1 Data provided by Global Trade Atlas for 2006 appear to be overstated.

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas data, HTS 310230 (Ammonium Nitrate, Whether Or Not In Aqueous Solution In

Packaging Weighing > 10 Kg).

I-20
THE GLOBAL MARKET

Table 1-5 presents data on world exports of ammonium nitrate from 2005 to 2010.

Table I-5

Ammonium nitrate: World exports, 2005-10

Market 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

Russia 3,550,630 6,090,3791 2,996,019 3,128,037 4,482,070 3,778,918

Ukraine 1,079,026 1,055,489 1,043,840 881,329 384,348 600,602

Lithuania 669,439 444,437 518,565 463,867 447,026 532,923

Canada 594,937 595,058 499,614 689,053 430,094 410,286

United States 0 0 0 228,241 376,772 395,297

Sweden 176,137 191,524 234,727 363,455 326,302 319,183

Belgium 286,896 263,348 247,051 224,842 244,506 311,406

Romania 0 439 310,123 322,193 231,113 310,614

France 344,681 283,749 335,045 337,379 284,388 309,306

China 246,577 252,024 283,385 186,988 231,866 283,366

All other 1,447,617 1,445,485 1,420,598 1,536,717 1,241,336 1,787,094

 Total 8,395,939 10,621,932 7,888,966 8,362,101 8,679,821 9,038,995

Value (1,000 dollars)

Russia 366,041 363,769 456,490 882,713 609,547 657,011

Ukraine 120,382 128,053 162,561 235,279 61,316 111,151

Lithuania 105,019 78,486 105,054 190,002 95,763 122,607

Canada 113,440 125,116 111,713 149,328 90,755 84,944

United States 0 0 0 82,965 89,042 99,781

Sweden 43,752 51,465 64,761 141,519 107,156 109,744

Belgium 47,311 46,068 50,834 78,657 54,268 77,947

Romania 41,058 67,059 68,643 105,859 46,328 66,852

France 74,755 74,283 97,049 141,113 102,647 96,742

China 57,364 56,571 66,198 58,642 71,493 89,029

All other 284,982 311,391 348,098 573,258 360,281 506,661

 Total 1,254,103 1,302,262 1,531,400 2,639,336 1,688,595 2,022,470

 1 Data provided by Global Trade Atlas for 2006 appear to be overstated.

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas data, HTS 310230 (Ammonium Nitrate, Whether Or Not In Aqueous Solution In

Packaging Weighing > 10 Kg).

I-21
Table 1-6 presents data on world imports of ammonium nitrate from 2005 to 2010.

Table I-6

Ammonium nitrate: World imports, 2005-10

Market 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

Brazil 269,074 373,720 850,078 847,711 1,038,293 1,142,100

Turkey 961,485 1,143,511 789,468 665,956 1,054,596 724,970

United States 974,944 1,260,136 1,220,597 779,168 496,770 635,431

Indonesia 269,025 325,487 298,128 375,452 400,099 458,709

United Kingdom 397,941 274,159 288,704 480,121 331,145 452,809

France 504,951 496,138 456,258 596,908 288,013 423,149

Ukraine 112,813 422,652 370,906 271,024 389,507 396,192

Morocco 225,073 294,923 256,910 341,103 267,362 327,901

Peru 243,034 242,681 338,337 369,752 235,326 304,816

Canada 71,778 77,618 181,742 195,466 178,940 285,936

All other 3,764,755 3,177,118 3,365,342 3,619,080 3,666,926 3,210,980

 Total 7,794,872 8,088,142 8,416,469 8,541,743 8,346,977 8,362,992

Value (1,000 dollars)

Brazil 44,056 61,942 187,657 324,389 170,517 221,434

Turkey 141,709 177,435 150,707 214,923 192,081 167,504

United States 172,458 245,695 249,476 212,130 94,532 145,391

Indonesia 77,102 109,124 93,796 191,413 203,649 233,347

United Kingdom 76,115 64,517 64,991 196,493 75,102 117,269

France 96,481 93,836 91,013 222,524 57,354 93,676

Ukraine 12,894 47,330 57,628 71,009 49,335 67,119

Morocco 40,705 54,826 58,784 119,016 57,414 83,841

Peru 64,484 63,303 96,292 175,306 74,002 104,174

Canada 14,690 14,666 34,268 64,493 35,219 60,623

All other 697,067 649,748 1,064,207 1,441,236 945,073 894,640

 Total 1,437,760 1,582,422 2,148,818 3,232,934 1,954,278 2,189,018

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas data, HTS 310230 (Ammonium Nitrate, Whether Or Not In Aqueous Solution In

Packaging Weighing > 10 Kg).

I-22
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 11273 

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. 11–5–239, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

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. 

written submissions on the issues 

identified in this notice. Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. Such 

submissions should address the 

recommended determination by the ALJ 

on remedy and bonding. Complainant 

and the Commission investigative 

attorney are also requested to submit 

proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainant is also requested to state 

the date that the patent expires and the 

HTSUS numbers under which the 

accused products are imported. The 

written submissions and proposed 

remedial orders must be filed no later 

than close of business on March 9, 2011. 

Reply submissions must be filed no later 

than the close of business on March 18, 

2011. The written submissions must be 

no longer than 100 pages and the reply 

submissions must be no longer than 50 

pages. No further submissions on these 

issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document and 12 

true copies thereof on or before the 

deadlines stated above with the Office 

of the Secretary. Any person desiring to 

submit a document to the Commission 

in confidence must request confidential 

treatment unless the information has 

already been granted such treatment 

during the proceedings. All such 

requests should be directed to the 

Secretary of the Commission and must 

include a full statement of the reasons 

why the Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All non-confidential 

written submissions will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Secretary. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and 

210.50). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 23, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4452 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–856 (Second 

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 March 31, 2011. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

May 16, 2011. 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), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 1, 2011. 

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: 

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). 

Following five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective April 5, 2006, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the suspended 

investigation on imports of ammonium 

nitrate from Russia (71 FR 17080). The 

Commission is now conducting a 

second 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 and its full first five-year 

review 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 

and its full first five-year review 

determination, the Commission defined 

the Domestic Industry as all domestic 

producers of high density ammonium 

nitrate. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
11274 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 

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 advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

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 March 31, 2011. 

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 May 16, 

2011. 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 

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) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail 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 after 

2004. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 11275 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) 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 2010, except as noted 

(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) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) the value of (i) Net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) 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 2010 (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. 

(11) 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 2010 

(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) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) 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. 

(12) 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 after 2004, 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. 

(13) (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: February 23, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4445 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–692] 

In the Matter of Certain Ceramic 

Capacitors and Products Containing 

Same; Notice of Commission 

Determination To Review in Part A 

Final Initial Determination Finding No 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Filing Written Submissions on the 

Issues Under Review and on Remedy, 

the Public Interest and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

in part the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

December 22, 2010, finding no violation 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3042. Copies of non-confidential


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
11202 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

February 23, 2011. 

Gregory Campbell, 

Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement 

Office. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4517 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty orders and 

suspended investigation listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-Year Review which 

covers the same orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

For information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 

13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 

62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

Sunset Reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3 

—Policies Regarding the Conduct of 

Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders: Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 

(April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty orders and suspended 

investigation: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–427–602 ........... 731–TA–313 ...... France ................ Brass Sheet & Strip (3rd Review) .................. David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

A–428–602 ........... 731–TA–317 ...... Germany ............ Brass Sheet & Strip (3rd Review) .................. David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

A–475–601 ........... 731–TA–314 ...... Italy .................... Brass Sheet & Strip (3rd Review) .................. David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

A–588–704 ........... 731–TA–379 ...... Japan ................. Brass Sheet & Strip (3rd Review) .................. David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

A–580–839 ........... 731–TA–825 ...... South Korea ....... Polyester Staple Fiber (2nd Review) .............. Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–583–833 ........... 731–TA–826 ...... Taiwan ............... Polyester Staple Fiber (2nd Review) .............. Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–821–811 ........... 731–TA–856 ...... Russia ................ Ammonium Nitrate (2nd Review) .................... Sally Gannon (202) 482–0162. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statue and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103 (d), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices 11203 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). 

Date: February 18, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4520 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–886] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) initiated an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) with respect to Dongguan Nozawa 

Plastics Products Co., Ltd., and United 

Power Packaging, Ltd. (collectively 

Nozawa). The period of review is 

August 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010. 

The Department is rescinding the 

administrative review. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1757 or (202) 482– 

1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 9, 2004, we published in 

the Federal Register an antidumping 

duty order on PRCBs from the PRC. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 48201 (August 

9, 2004). On August 2, 2010, we 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on PRCBs from 

the PRC. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 75 

FR 45094 (August 2, 2010). On August 

31, 2010, pursuant to section 751(a) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 

petitioner, the Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bag Committee and its 

individual members, Hilex Poly Co., 

LLC, and Superbag Corporation, 

requested an administrative review of 

the order with respect to Nozawa, an 

exporter of PRCBs from the PRC. On 

September 29, 2010, in accordance with 

section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice 

of initiation of an administrative review 

of the order. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 60076 

(September 29, 2010). 

Rescission of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1), the Department will 

rescind an administrative review, ‘‘in 

whole or in part, if a party that 

requested a review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of notice of initiation of the 

requested review.’’ We received a notice 

of withdrawal from the petitioner with 

respect to the review requested of 

Nozawa within the 90-day time limit. 

See letter from the petitioner dated 

December 22, 2010. Because we 

received no other requests for review of 

Nozawa and no other requests for the 

review of the order on PRCBs from the 

PRC with respect to other companies 

subject to the order, we are rescinding 

the administrative review of the order in 

full. This rescission is in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions to 

CBP 15 days after publication of this 

notice. 

Notification to Importer 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: February 17, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4508 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Water Technology Trade Mission to 

India 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Mission Description 

The United States Department of 

Commerce, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. and Foreign 

Commercial Service (CS), is organizing 

a Water Technology Trade Mission to 

India from February 28 to March 4, 

2011. The purpose of the mission is to 

expose U.S. firms to India’s rapidly 

expanding water and waste water 

market and to assist U.S. companies to 

seize export opportunities in this sector. 

The trade mission participants will be 

comprised of representatives from 

leading U.S. companies that provide 

state-of-the-art water and waste water 

technologies ranging from hydropower 

and desalination plants to appliances 

and purification systems. The mission 

will visit two cities: Bangalore and 

Mumbai, where participants will receive 

market briefings and meet with key 

government decisions makers and 

prospective private sector partners on a 

one-on-one basis. During the Mumbai 

portion of the mission delegates will use 

Aquatech India 2011, a leading 

international water technology show, as 

a platform for business meetings and 

networking with the option to exhibit 

either on their own or in a shared CS 

exhibition area that will be offered 

separately as a supplemental service to 

Trade Mission participants. 

Commercial Setting 

India faces a critical shortage of 

reliable, safe water for personal 

consumption and for industrial use. In 

recent years rapid industrialization and 

a growing population have placed 

increasing demands on the country’s 

limited water resources. Although India 

receives substantial amounts of annual 

rainfall, the monsoon season is 

unpredictable and much of the rainfall 

is not captured. Furthermore, most of 

India’s water resources are allocated to 

the agricultural sector, leaving little or


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices 34749 

1A 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. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by the Committee for Fair Ammonium 

Nitrate Trade (‘‘COFANT’’) and its individual 

members, CF Industries, Inc. and El Dorado 

Chemical Co. to be individually adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: May 16, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14605 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLAZ956000.L14200000.BJ0000.241A] 

Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; AZ 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of filing of plats of 

survey; Arizona. 

SUMMARY: The plat of survey as 

described below is scheduled to be 

officially filed in the Arizona State 

Office, Bureau of Land Management, 

Phoenix, Arizona, thirty (30) days after 

the date of publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

plat will be available for inspection in 

the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land 

Management, One North Central 

Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 

85004–4427; phone 602–417–9200. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the 

above individual during normal 

business hours. The FIRS is available 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a 

message or question with the above 

individual. You will receive a reply 

during normal business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Gila and Salt River Meridian, 

Arizona: The plat representing the 

dependent resurvey of portions of 

Mineral Survey No. 1785, in sections 32 

and 33, Township 12 1⁄2 North, Range 1 

West, accepted May 24, 2011, for Group 

1071, Arizona. 

This plat was prepared at the request 

of the United States Forest Service. 

A person or party who wishes to 

protest against any of these surveys 

must file a written protest with the 

Arizona State Director, Bureau of Land 

Management, stating that they wish to 

protest. 

A statement of reasons for a protest 

may be filed with the notice of protest 

to the State Director, or the statement of 

reasons must be filed with the State 

Director within thirty (30) days after the 

protest is filed. 

Danny A. West, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Arizona. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14635 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–32–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–856 (Second 

Review)] 

Ammonium Nitrate From Russia; 

Scheduling of an expedited five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on ammonium nitrate From 

Russia 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order 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). 

DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Sherman (202–205–3289), 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: 

Background. On June 6, 2011, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (76 

FR 11273, March 1, 2011) of the subject 

five-year review was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on June 30, 2011, 

and made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for this review. A public version 

will be issued thereafter, pursuant to 

section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before July 6, 

2011 and may not contain new factual 

information. Any person that is neither 

a party to the five-year review nor an 

interested party may submit a brief 

written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the review by July 6, 2011. 

However, should the Department of 

Commerce extend the time limit for its 

completion of the final results of its 

review, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
34750 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices 

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). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the 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: June 8, 2011. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14582 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

JOINT BOARD FOR THE 

ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES 

Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment 

of Actuaries. 

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Executive Director of the 

Joint Board for the Enrollment of 

Actuaries gives notice of a meeting of 

the Advisory Committee on Actuarial 

Examinations (a portion of which will 

be open to the public) in Washington, 

DC at the Office of Professional 

Responsibility on July 7 and July 8, 

2011. 

DATES: Thursday, July 7, 2011, from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m., and Friday, July 8, 2011, 

from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Internal Revenue Service Building, 

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick W. McDonough, Executive 

Director of the Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries, 202–622–8225. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that the Advisory 

Committee on Actuarial Examinations 

will meet in at the Internal Revenue 

Service Building, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC on 

Thursday, July 7, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 

5 p.m., and Friday, July 8, 2011, from 

8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

The purpose of the meeting is to 

discuss topics and questions which may 

be recommended for inclusion on future 

Joint Board examinations in actuarial 

mathematics and methodology referred 

to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B) and to 

review the May 2011 Basic (EA–1) and 

Pension (EA–2B) Joint Board 

Examinations in order to make 

recommendations relative thereto, 

including the minimum acceptable pass 

score. Topics for inclusion on the 

syllabus for the Joint Board’s 

examination program for the November 

2011 Pension (EA–2A) Examination will 

be discussed. 

A determination has been made as 

required by section 10(d) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., 

that the portions of the meeting dealing 

with the discussion of questions that 

may appear on the Joint Board’s 

examinations and the review of the May 

2011 Joint Board examinations fall 

within the exceptions to the open 

meeting requirement set forth in 5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public 

interest requires that such portions be 

closed to public participation. 

The portion of the meeting dealing 

with the discussion of the other topics 

will commence at 1 p.m. on July 8 and 

will continue for as long as necessary to 

complete the discussion, but not beyond 

3 p.m. Time permitting, after the close 

of this discussion by Committee 

members, interested persons may make 

statements germane to this subject. 

Persons wishing to make oral statements 

must notify the Executive Director in 

writing prior to the meeting in order to 

aid in scheduling the time available and 

must submit the written text, or at a 

minimum, an outline of comments they 

propose to make orally. Such comments 

will be limited to 10 minutes in length. 

All other persons planning to attend the 

public session must also notify the 

Executive Director in writing to obtain 

building entry. Notifications of intent to 

make an oral statement or to attend 

must be faxed, no later than June 30, 

2011, to 202–622–8300, Attn: Executive 

Director. Any interested person also 

may file a written statement for 

consideration by the Joint Board and the 

Committee by sending it to the 

Executive Director: Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries, c/o Internal 

Revenue Service, Attn: Executive 

Director SE:OPR, Room 7238, 1111 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20224. 

Dated: June 8, 2011. 

Patrick W. McDonough, 

Executive Director. Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14619 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States et al. v. Comcast Corp., 

et al.; Public Comments and Response 

on Proposed Final Judgment 

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures 

and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), 

the United States hereby publishes 

below the comments received on the 

proposed Final Judgment in United 

States et al. v. Comcast Corp. et al., 

Civil Action No. 1:11–CV–00106–RJL, 

which were filed in the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia on June 6, 2011, together with 

the response of the United States to the 

comments. 

Copies of the comments and the 

response are available for inspection at 

the Department of Justice Antitrust 

Division, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 

1010, Washington, DC 20530 

(telephone: 202–514–2481), on the 

Department of Justice’s Web site at 

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the 

Office of the Clerk of the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20001. Copies of 

any of these materials may be obtained 

upon request and payment of a copying 

fee. 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

STATE OF FLORIDA, STATE OF MISSOURI, 

STATE OF TEXAS, and STATE OF 

WASHINGTON, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COMCAST CORP., GENERAL ELECTRIC 

CO., and NBC UNIVERSAL, INC., 

Defendants. 

CASE: 1:11–cv–00106 

JUDGE: Leon, Richard J. 

PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES’S RESPONSE 

TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Pursuant to the requirements of the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 16(b)–(h) (‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney 

Act’’), the United States hereby files the 

public comments concerning the proposed 

Final Judgment in this case and the United 

States’s response to those comments. After 

careful consideration of the comments, the 

United States continues to believe that the 

proposed Final Judgment will provide an 

effective and appropriate remedy for the 

antitrust violations alleged in the Complaint. 

The United States will move the Court, 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)–(h), to enter the 

proposed Final Judgment after the public 

comments and this Response have been 

published in the Federal Register pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. § 16(d).


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Notices 39847 

1See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 76 

FR 11202 (March 1, 2011) (‘‘Notice of Initiation’’). 

business information will be deemed to 

be nonconfidential. 

An original and five (5) copies, plus 

two (2) copies of the nonconfidential 

version, should be submitted no later 

than 20 days after the date of this notice 

to: Export Trading Company Affairs, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

7021–X, Washington, DC 20230. 

Information submitted by any person 

is exempt from disclosure under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). However, nonconfidential versions 

of the comments will be made available 

to the applicant if necessary for 

determining whether or not to issue the 

Certificate. Comments should refer to 

this application as ‘‘Export Trade 

Certificate of Review, application 

number 10–1A001.’’ 

The Alaska Longline Cod 

Commission’s (‘‘ALCC’’) original 

Certificate was issued on May 13, 2010 

(75 FR 29514, May 26, 2010). A 

summary of the current application for 

an amendment follows. 

Summary of the Application 

Applicant: Alaska Longline Cod 

Commission (‘‘ALCC’’), 271 Wyatt Way 

NE, Suite 106, Bainbridge Island, WA 

98110. 

Contact: Duncan R. McIntosh, 

Attorney, Telephone: (206) 624–5950. 

Application No.: 10–1A001. 

Date Deemed Submitted: June 23, 

2011. 

Proposed Amendment: ALCC seeks to 

amend its Certificate to: 

1. Add the following companies as 

new Members of the Certificate within 

the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the 

Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)): Gulf Mist, 

Inc. (Everett, WA), Shelford’s Boat, Ltd. 

(Mill Creek, WA), and Alaska 

Corporation (Anchorage, AK). 

2. Delete the following company as a 

Member of WMMA’s Certificate: Glacier 

Bay Fisheries LLC (Seattle, WA). 

Dated: July 1, 2011. 

Joseph E. Flynn, 

Director, Office of Competition and Economic 

Analysis. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17083 Filed 7–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–821–811] 

Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium 

Nitrate From the Russian Federation; 

Final Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Review of Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 1, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a second sunset 

review of the suspended antidumping 

duty investigation on solid fertilizer 

grade ammonium nitrate (‘‘ammonium 

nitrate’’) from the Russian Federation 

(‘‘Russia’’).1 Effective May 2, 2011, the 

Department terminated the agreement 

suspending the antidumping duty 

investigation and issued an 

antidumping duty order on ammonium 

nitrate from Russia. On the basis of the 

notice of intent to participate, an 

adequate substantive response 

submitted on behalf of the domestic 

interested parties, and no participation 

from respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’) and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C). 

As a result of this sunset review, the 

Department determined that termination 

of the antidumping duty order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the levels 

listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

H. Santoboni or Judith Wey Rudman, 

Office of Policy, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202– 

482–3063 or 202–482–0192, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History of the Suspension Agreement 

and Order 

On August 12, 1999, the Department 

initiated an antidumping duty 

investigation on ammonium nitrate from 

Russia under section 732 of the Act. 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 was 

being, or was 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’’) (the predecessor to the current 

Ministry of Economic Development 

(‘‘MED’’)) accounting for substantially 

all imports of ammonium nitrate from 

Russia, wherein the MOT agreed to 

restrict exports of ammonium nitrate 

from all Russian producers/exporters to 

the United States and to ensure that 

such exports were 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 than 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 JSC 

Nevinnomyssky Azot, a respondent 

company in the investigation, and for 

the Russia-wide entity. 

On March 31 and April 1, 2005, 

respectively, the International Trade 

Commission (‘‘ITC’’) instituted, and the 

Department initiated, a five-year sunset 

review of the suspended antidumping 

investigation on ammonium nitrate from 

Russia. The Department concluded that 

termination of the suspended 

antidumping investigation would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping and the ITC 

concluded that termination of the 

suspended investigation would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to an industry in the 

United States within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. See Final Results of 

Five-year Sunset Review of Suspended 

Antidumping Duty Investigation on 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
39848 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Notices 

2The substantive response was filed prior to the 

termination of the suspension agreement and thus 

references the suspension agreement, rather than 

the order. 

Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian 

Federation 71 FR 11177 (March 6, 2006) 

and Ammonium Nitrate From Russia, 

Investigation No. 731–TA–856 (Review), 

71 FR 16177 (March 30, 2006), 

respectively. 

On March 1, 2011, the Department 

initiated and the ITC instituted a second 

sunset review of the ammonium nitrate 

suspended investigation. See Notice of 

Initiation and Ammonium Nitrate from 

Russia, Investigation No. 731–TA–856 

(Second Review), 76 FR 11273 (March 1, 

2011). 

On March 3, 2011, the Department 

received a letter from the MED dated 

February 22, 2011, that had been sent to 

the United States Embassy in Moscow 

for transmittal to the Department 

concerning the Suspension Agreement. 

In that letter, the MED stated that it was 

withdrawing from the Suspension 

Agreement, effective 60 days after notice 

of termination. Effective May 2, 2011, 

the Department terminated the 

suspension agreement and issued an 

antidumping duty order. See 

Termination of the Suspension 

Agreement on Solid Fertilizer Grade 

Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian 

Federation and Notice of Antidumping 

Duty Order, 76 FR 23569 (April 27, 

2011). 

Background 

Section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the 

Department’s regulations provides 

domestic interested parties the 

opportunity to file a notice of intent to 

participate in a sunset review within 15 

days of initiation of review. The 

Department received a notice of intent 

to participate within the applicable 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i) from COFANT (‘‘the 

domestic interested party’’). The 

domestic interested party claims 

interested-party status as a coalition of 

producers of subject merchandise in the 

United States as defined by section 

771(9)(C) of the Act. In addition, the 

domestic interested party asserts that its 

members are not related to a foreign 

producer/exporter and are not importers 

of the subject merchandise. CF 

Industries, one of the members of 

COFANT, holds a 50 percent interest in 

Keytrade AG, a global fertilizer trader. 

The domestic interested party asserts 

that Keytrade AG does not sell Russian 

ammonium nitrate to the United States, 

nor does CF Industries own a 

controlling interest in Keytrade AG, 

within the meaning of section 771(4)(B) 

of the Act. 

The Department’s regulations at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i) state that all 

interested parties participating in a 

sunset review must submit a complete 

substantive response within 30 days of 

initiation of the sunset review. On 

March 31, 2011, the Department 

received a complete substantive 

response from the domestic interested 

party within the 30-day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).2

After examining the substantive 

response from the domestic interested 

party, on April 12, 2011, the Department 

determined that the response was 

adequate, consistent with the 

requirements of 19 CFR 351.218(e). See 

Memorandum from Julie H. Santoboni, 

Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Policy, 

Import Administration to Judith Wey 

Rudman, Director for Bilateral 

Agreements, Office of Policy, Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Second 

Sunset Review of the Suspended 

Investigation of Ammonium Nitrate 

from the Russian Federation: Adequacy 

Determination’’ (April 12, 2011). See 

also Letter from James Maeder, Director, 

Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, to Ms. Catherine 

DeFilippo, Director, Office of 

Investigations, International Trade 

Commission (April 18, 2011). 

The Department did not receive any 

substantive responses from respondent 

interested parties to this proceeding. On 

May 10, 2011, COFANT filed a letter on 

the record of this proceeding, asserting 

that an expedited review is warranted 

and supported by the statute, the 

Statement of Administrative Action, and 

the Department’s regulations. Pursuant 

to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department conducted an expedited 

(120-day), sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order 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 the order 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 

within the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this sunset review 

are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results of the Expedited Sunset Review 

of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium 

Nitrate from the Russian Federation’’ 

from Paul Piquado, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, 

Import Administration, to Ronald 

Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, dated June 

29, 2011 (‘‘Decision Memo’’), which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision Memo 

include both the likely effects of 

termination of the suspension 

agreement and underlying investigation 

and the magnitude of the margin likely 

to prevail if the suspended investigation 

were terminated. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this sunset review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memo, which is on file in room 

7046 of the main Commerce Building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

termination of the antidumping duty 

order on ammonium nitrate from Russia 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the 

following weighted-average margins: 

Manufacturers/producers/exporters 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot .......... 253.98 

Russia-Wide Rate ....................... 253.98 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility 

concerning the return or destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.305. Timely notification of the 

return or destruction of APO materials 

or conversion to judicial protective 

order is requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Notices 39849 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: June 29, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17072 Filed 7–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–427–602; A–475–601; A–588–704] 

Brass Sheet and Strip From France, 

Italy, and Japan: Final Results of the 

Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2011. 

SUMMARY: On March 1, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published in the 

Federal Register the notice of initiation 

of the third Sunset review of the 

antidumping duty orders on brass sheet 

and strip from France, Italy, and Japan, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

The Department has conducted 

expedited Sunset reviews of these 

orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of the 

Sunset reviews, the Department finds 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the margins identified in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mahnaz Khan or Yasmin Nair, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0914 and (202) 

482–3813, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The antidumping duty orders on brass 

sheet and strip from France and Italy 

were published in the Federal Register 

on March 6, 1987. See Antidumping 

Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From 

France, 52 FR 6995 (March 6, 1987); 

Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet 

and Strip From Italy, 52 FR 6997 (March 

6, 1987), amended at Amendment to 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Amendment of 

Antidumping Duty Order in Accordance 

with Decision Upon Remand: Brass 

Sheet and Strip from Italy, 56 FR 23272 

(May 21, 1991). On August 12, 1988, the 

Department issued an antidumping duty 

order on imports of brass sheet and strip 

from Japan. See Antidumping Duty 

Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 

Brass Sheet and Strip From Japan, 53 

FR 30454 (August 12, 1988). 

On March 1, 2011, the Department 

initiated the third Sunset reviews of 

these orders, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act. See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 76 FR 11202 (March 

1, 2011). The Department received a 

notice of intent to participate from 

domestic interested parties GBC Metals, 

LLC of Global Brass and Copper, Inc., 

doing business as Olin Brass; Heyco 

Metals, Inc.; Luvata North America, Inc. 

(previously Outokumpu American 

Brass); PMX Industries, Inc.; Revere 

Copper Products, Inc.; International 

Association of Machinists and 

Aerospace Workers; United Auto 

Workers (Local 2367 and Local 1024); 

and United Steelworkers AFL–CIO CLC 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’), within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). Petitioners claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act as a manufacturer, 

producer, or wholesaler in the United 

States of a domestic like product, or 

under 771(9)(D) of the Act as a certified 

union or recognized union or group of 

workers representative of an industry 

engaged in the manufacture, production, 

or wholesale in the United States of a 

domestic like product. 

On March 31, 2011, the Department 

received a substantive response from 

Petitioners. In addition to meeting the 

other requirements of 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3), Petitioners provided 

information on the volume and value of 

exports of brass sheet and strip from 

France, Italy, and Japan. On May 5, 

2011, the Department received 

Petitioners’ comments regarding the 

adequacy of responses and the 

appropriateness of an expedited review. 

The Department received no responses 

from respondent interested parties to 

these proceedings. As a result, pursuant 

to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department conducted expedited (120- 

day) Sunset reviews of the antidumping 

duty orders on brass sheet and strip 

from France, Italy, and Japan. 

Scope of the Orders 

The product covered by the orders is 

brass sheet and strip, other than leaded 

and tinned brass sheet and strip, from 

France, Italy, and Japan. The chemical 

composition of the covered product is 

currently defined in the Copper 

Development Association (‘‘C.D.A.’’) 

200 Series or the Unified Numbering 

System (‘‘U.N.S.’’) C2000. The orders do 

not cover products the chemical 

compositions of which are defined by 

other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. In 

physical dimensions, the product 

covered by the orders has a solid 

rectangular cross section over 0.006 

inches (0.15 millimeters) through 0.188 

inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished 

thickness or gauge, regardless of width. 

Coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse 

wound), and cut-to-length products are 

included. The merchandise is currently 

classified under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 7409.21.00 

and 7409.29.00. 

Although the HTSUS item numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of the orders 

remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Paul Piquado, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated June 29, 2011, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the orders were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these reviews and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit in room 

7046 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) 

of the Act, we determine that revocation 

of the antidumping duty orders on brass 

sheet and strip from France, Italy and 

Japan would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted-average 

percentage margins: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Contains Business Proprietary Information

B-1

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in 

Ammonium Nitrate from Russia

 Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Second Review)

On June 6, 2011, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited

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 received one response to the notice of institution. The submission was

on behalf of the Committee for Fair Ammonium Nitrate Trade, and its two individual members,

CF Industries, Inc. and El Dorado Chemical Company, domestic producers of ammonium nitrate. 

The Commission found the individual responses to be adequate, and determined that because the

two responding producers accounted for a substantial percentage of U.S. production, the

domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission received no response from any respondent interested party, and

therefore determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. In the

absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response or any other circumstances

warranting a full review, the Commission determined to conduct an expedited review.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and

the Commission’s web site (www.usitc.gov).

APPENDIX C

PRICE DATA

C-1

 Beginning Date Price Per Metric Ton

 04/25/2011 $349.06

 04/19/2011 $346.65

 04/12/2011 $347.00

 04/05/2011 $347.34

 03/29/2011 $343.55

 03/22/2011 $339.07

 03/15/2011 $334.94

 03/08/2011 $330.81

 03/01/2011 $330.81

 02/22/2011 $330.81

 02/15/2011 $330.81

 02/08/2011 $330.81

 02/01/2011 $330.46

 01/25/2011 $330.12

 01/19/2011 $329.08

 01/11/2011 $328.05

 01/04/2011 $327.36

 12/28/2010 $327.70

 12/21/2010 $326.33

 12/14/2010 $325.29

 12/07/2010 $323.57

 11/30/2010 $318.06

 11/23/2010 $312.20

 11/16/2010 $306.00

 11/09/2010 $300.49

 11/02/2010 $295.67

 10/26/2010 $293.26

 10/19/2010 $287.40

 10/13/2010 $280.86

 10/05/2010 $275.69

 09/27/2010 $270.87

 09/21/2010 $269.49

 09/14/2010 $268.80

 09/08/2010 $273.62

 08/31/2010 $278.45

 08/24/2010 $283.27

 08/17/2010 $288.09

 08/10/2010 $290.50

 08/03/2010 $292.57

 07/27/2010 $294.64

 07/20/2010 $296.70

 07/13/2010 $296.36

 07/06/2010 $296.36

updated: April 27, 2011

Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate from Russia

Case number: A-821-811 

 2 0 1 0

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 )

 2 0 1 1

( Suspension Agreement Terminated 76 FR 23569, April 27, 2011 )

C-3
 06/29/2010 $296.36

 06/22/2010 $291.88

 06/15/2010 $284.65

 06/08/2010 $277.41

 06/01/2010 $270.18

 05/25/2010 $265.36

 05/18/2010 $262.26

 05/11/2010 $258.47

 05/04/2010 $254.68

 04/27/2010 $252.96

 04/20/2010 $252.27

 04/13/2010 $252.27

 04/06/2010 $252.27

 03/30/2010 $252.27

 03/23/2010 $252.27

 03/16/2010 $252.27

 03/10/2010 $251.92

 03/02/2010 $251.58

 02/23/2010 $251.23

 02/17/2010 $250.89

 02/09/2010 $249.85

 02/02/2010 $248.68

 01/26/2010 $247.96

 01/19/2010 $244.55

 01/12/2010 $243.17

 01/05/2010 $241.59

 12/29/2009 $240.55

 12/22/2009 $239.18

 12/15/2009 $237.80

 12/08/2009 $236.77

 12/01/2009 $235.73

 11/24/2009 $235.73

 11/17/2009 $235.73

 11/10/2009 $236.08

 11/03/2009 $236.42

 10/27/2009 $236.77

 10/20/2009 $237.11

 10/13/2009 $237.11

 10/06/2009 $237.11

 09/29/2009 $237.11

 09/23/2009 $236.21

 09/15/2009 $235.32

 09/08/2009 $236.35

 09/01/2009 $237.39

 08/25/2009 $239.31

 08/18/2009 $241.24

 08/11/2009 $241.24

 08/04/2009 $241.24

 07/28/2009 $241.24

 07/21/2009 $241.24

 07/14/2009 $241.24

 07/07/2009 $241.24

 2 0 0 9

C-4
 06/30/2009 $241.24

 06/23/2009 $240.90

 06/16/2009 $240.55

 06/09/2009 $240.21

 06/02/2009 $240.21

 05/26/2009 $240.90

 05/19/2009 $241.59

 05/12/2009 $242.28

 05/05/2009 $242.62

 04/28/2009 $242.97

 04/21/2009 $243.31

 04/14/2009 $244.34

 04/07/2009 $247.44

 03/31/2009 $250.20

 03/17/2009 $253.99

 03/10/2009 $252.96

 03/03/2009 $250.20

 02/24/2009 $248.82

 02/18/2009 $247.10

 02/10/2009 $274.66

 02/03/2009 $303.94

 01/27/2009 $331.84

 01/22/2009 $366.63

 01/13/2009 $372.14

 01/06/2009 $385.92

 12/30/2008 $410.03

 12/23/2008 $432.77

 12/16/2008 $455.50

 12/09/2008 $469.97

 12/02/2008 $483.03

 11/25/2008 $491.67

 11/17/2008 $503.04

 11/11/2008 $517.85

 11/04/2008 $527.15

 10/28/2008 $536.45

 10/21/2008 $544.03

 10/15/2008 $548.16

 10/07/2008 $549.20

 09/30/2008 $548.51

 09/23/2008 $549.54

 09/16/2008 $550.58

 09/09/2008 $550.58

 09/02/2008 $550.58

 08/27/2008 $548.85

 08/19/2008 $542.31

 08/12/2008 $522.33

 08/05/2008 $491.33

 07/29/2008 $455.50

 07/22/2008 $420.02

 07/15/2008 $399.35

 07/08/2008 $389.36

 07/01/2008 $384.54

 2 0 0 8

C-5
 06/24/2008 $384.20

 06/17/2008 $384.54

 06/10/2008 $384.20

 06/03/2008 $383.51

 05/27/2008 $382.82

 05/20/2008 $380.75

 05/13/2008 $378.69

 05/06/2008 $376.62

 04/29/2008 $374.55

 04/22/2008 $372.83

 04/15/2008 $372.14

 04/08/2008 $371.45

 04/01/2008 $370.76

 03/25/2008 $371.11

 03/18/2008 $371.45

 03/11/2008 $372.14

 03/04/2008 $372.83

 02/26/2008 $373.17

 02/19/2008 $373.52

 02/12/2008 $372.49

 02/05/2008 $371.45

 01/29/2008 $369.73

 01/22/2008 $367.55

 01/15/2008 $366.63

 01/08/2008 $362.97

 01/01/2008 $357.90

 12/26/2007 $352.85

 12/18/2007 $350.44

 12/11/2007 $339.07

 12/04/2007 $328.05

 11/27/2007 $315.65

 11/20/2007 $304.97

 11/13/2007 $302.56

 11/05/2007 $300.15

 10/29/2007 $299.11

 10/23/2007 $298.42

 10/16/2007 $297.74

 10/09/2007 $297.74

 10/02/2007 $297.74

 09/25/2007 $297.39

 09/18/2007 $296.70

 09/11/2007 $296.01

 09/04/2007 $295.32

 08/28/2007 $294.98

 08/21/2007 $294.98

 08/14/2007 $294.98

 08/07/2007 $294.98

 07/31/2007 $294.98

 07/24/2007 $295.67

 07/17/2007 $296.36

 07/09/2007 $296.36

 07/03/2007 $296.70

 2 0 0 7

C-6
 06/26/2007 $296.36

 06/19/2007 $296.01

 06/12/2007 $296.01

 06/05/2007 $295.76

 05/29/2007 $295.32

 05/22/2007 $296.01

 05/15/2007 $297.74

 05/08/2007 $299.46

 05/01/2007 $299.11

 04/24/2007 $292.57

 04/17/2007 $285.34

 04/10/2007 $277.07

 04/03/2007 $270.52

 03/27/2007 $269.83

 03/20/2007 $266.04

 03/13/2007 $262.26

 03/06/2007 $258.81

 02/27/2007 $251.92

 02/21/2007 $243.65

 02/13/2007 $248.13

 02/06/2007 $237.80

 01/30/2007 $233.66

 01/23/2007 $229.19

 01/17/2007 $226.43

 01/09/2007 $224.71

 01/04/2007 $223.68

 12/27/2006 $222.99

 12/19/2006 $221.26

 12/12/2006 $214.17

 12/05/2006 $218.85

 11/28/2006 $217.82

 11/21/2006 $217.82

 11/14/2006 $217.82

 11/07/2006 $217.82

 10/31/2006 $217.82

 10/24/2006 $217.82

 10/17/2006 $217.82

 10/11/2006 $217.82

 10/03/2006 $217.82

 09/26/2006 $218.16

 09/12/2006 $222.64

 09/06/2006 $225.40

 08/29/2006 $227.81

 08/21/2006 $228.84

 08/15/2006 $228.84

 08/07/2006 $228.84

 08/01/2006 $228.84

 07/25/2006 $228.84

 07/17/2006 $228.84

 07/11/2006 $228.84

 07/04/2006 $229.53

 06/20/2006 $232.63

 2 0 0 6

C-7
 06/13/2006 $234.70

 06/06/2006 $236.42

 05/30/2006 $237.45

 05/23/2006 $238.14

 05/16/2006 $238.83

 05/09/2006 $239.18

 05/02/2006 $239.52

 04/25/2006 $239.87

 04/18/2006 $239.87

 04/11/2006 $239.87

 04/04/2006 $239.87

 03/28/2006 $239.87

 03/21/2006 $239.87

 03/14/2006 $239.52

 03/07/2006 $239.18

 02/28/2006 $238.83

 02/22/2006 $238.49

 02/14/2006 $238.49

 02/07/2006 $238.83

 01/31/2006 $238.83

 01/24/2006 $238.83

 01/18/2006 $238.83

 01/10/2006 $238.49

 01/04/2006 $238.49

 12/28/2005 $238.49

 12/20/2005 $238.49

 12/13/2005 $238.49

 12/06/2005 $236.77

 11/29/2005 $235.39

 11/22/2005 $233.66

 11/15/2005 $231.60

 11/08/2005 $231.25

 10/31/2005 $230.56

 10/25/2005 $229.88

 10/17/2005 $227.81

 10/12/2005 $225.40

 10/04/2005 $222.03

 09/27/2005 $219.54

 09/20/2005 $215.06

 09/13/2005 $210.93

 09/07/2005 $204.04

 08/30/2005 $197.15

 08/23/2005 $193.71

 08/16/2005 $190.26

 08/09/2005 $190.26

 07/26/2005 $190.26

 07/18/2005 $190.26

 07/12/2005 $190.26

 07/06/2005 $190.26

 06/28/2005 $189.71

 06/21/2005 $189.16

 06/14/2005 $188.61

 2 0 0 5

C-8
 06/07/2005 $186.89

 06/01/2005 $185.71

 05/24/2005 $184.54

 05/17/2005 $183.51

 05/10/2005 $183.51

 05/03/2005 $183.51

 04/26/2005 $183.17

 04/19/2005 $182.48

 04/12/2005 $181.10

 04/05/2005 $179.38

 03/29/2005 $178.00

 03/22/2005 $176.14

 03/15/2005 $175.11

 03/08/2005 $174.07

 03/01/2005 $173.38

 02/23/2005 $173.38

 02/15/2005 $173.73

 02/08/2005 $174.07

 02/01/2005 $174.07

 01/25/2005 $173.38

 01/19/2005 $172.35

 01/11/2005 $171.66

 01/04/2005 $170.97

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/reference-price/refprice-a821811.html

C-9
Figure C-1

Natural gas: Yearly historical prices, 1997-2010

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

C-10
Table C-1

Average U.S. farm prices of selected fertilizers, 1997-2011 

Year

Anhydrous

ammonia

Nitrogen

solutions (30%)

Urea 44-46%

nitrogen

Ammonium

nitrate

Price (dollars per short ton)

1997 $303 $160 $257 $227

1998 253 134 195 193

1999 211 128 176 181

2000 227 131 200 194

2001 399 189 280 260

2002 250 127 191 195

2003 373 161 261 243

2004 379 178 276 263

2005 416 215 332 292

2006 521 232 362 366

2007 523 277 453 382

2008 755 401 552 509

2009 680 320 486 438

2010 499 283 448 398

2011 749 351 526 479

Source: Agricultural Prices, National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, May 2011. 

C-11
Figure C-2

Ammonium nitrate: U.S. gulf NOLA barge monthly historical prices, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

C-12