9926 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Notices 

Dated: February 27, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Issues 

1. Adjustments to Husteel’s G&A 

Expense Ratio 

2. Husteel’s Profit and Selling Expense 

Ratios for Constructed Value 

3. Husteel’s CEP Profit 

4. Treatment of Inventory Carrying Costs 

Incurred in Korea for U.S. Sales 

5. CEP Offset to SeAH 

6. Interest Expenses Associated with 

U.S. Selling Operations 

7. G&A Expense for Further 

Manufacturing 

8. Interest Expense for Further 

Manufacturing 

9. Further Manufacturing Freight 

Expenses 

10. Calculation Issues 

[FR Doc. E7–3893 Filed 3–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–905] 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Riker or Erin Begnal, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3441 or (202) 482–

1442, respectively. 

Initiation of Investigation 

The Petition 

On February 8, 2007, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

petition on imports of sodium 

hexametaphosphate (‘‘SHMP’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

filed in proper form by ICL Performance 

Products, LP and Innophos, Inc. 

(‘‘Petitioners’’). The period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’) is July 1, 2006, 

through December 31, 2006. 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), Petitioners alleged that imports of 

SHMP from the PRC are being, or are 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value within the meaning 

of section 731 of the Act, and that such 

imports are materially injuring and 

threaten to materially injure an industry 

in the United States. The Department 

issued supplemental questions to 

Petitioners on February 12, 2007, and 

February 21, 2007. Petitioners filed their 

responses on February 16, 2007, and 

February 23, 2007. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is Sodium 

hexametaphosphate (‘‘SHMP’’). SHMP 

is a water-soluble polyphosphate glass 

that consists of a distribution of 

polyphosphate chain lengths. It is a 

collection of sodium polyphosphate 

polymers built on repeating NaPO 3

units. SHMP has a P 2O 5 content from 

60 to 71 percent. Alternate names for 

SHMP include the following: Calgon; 

Calgon S; Glassy Sodium Phosphate; 

Sodium Polyphosphate, Glassy; 

Metaphosphoric Acid; Sodium Salt; 

Sodium Acid Metaphosphate; Graham’s 

Salt; Sodium Hex; Polyphosphoric Acid, 

Sodium Salt; Glass H; Hexaphos; 

Sodaphos; Vitrafos; and BAC-N-FOS. 

SHMP is typically sold as a white 

powder or granule (crushed) and may 

also be sold in the form of sheets (glass) 

or as a liquid solution. It is imported 

under heading 2835.39.5000, HTSUS. It 

may also be imported as a blend or 

mixture under heading 3823.90.3900, 

HTSUS. The American Chemical 

Society, Chemical Abstract Service 

(‘‘CAS’’) has assigned the name 

‘‘Polyphosphoric Acid, Sodium Salt’’ to 

SHMP. The CAS registry number is 

68915–31–1. However, SHMP is 

commonly identified by CAS No. 

10124–56–8 in the market. For purposes 

of the investigation, the narrative 

description is dispositive, not the tariff 

heading, CAS registry number or CAS 

name. 

The product covered by this 

investigation includes SHMP in all 

grades, whether food grade or technical 

grade. The product covered by this 

investigation includes SHMP without 

regard to chain length i.e., whether 

regular or long chain. The product 

covered by this investigation includes 

SHMP without regard to physical form, 

whether glass, sheet, crushed, granule, 

powder, fines, or other form. 

However, the product covered by this 

investigation does not include SHMP 

when imported in a blend with other 

materials in which the SHMP accounts 

for less than 50 percent by volume of 

the finished product. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioners to 

ensure that it accurately reflects the 

product for which the domestic industry 

is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed 

in the preamble to the Department’s 

regulations, we are setting aside a 

period for interested parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19, 1997). The Department 

encourages all interested parties to 

submit such comments within 20 

calendar days of publication of this 

initiation notice. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

Central Records Unit in Room 1870, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and consult with interested parties prior 

to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed by an interested 

party described in subparagraph (C), (D), 

(E), (F) or (G) of section 771(9) of the 

Act, by or on behalf of the domestic 

industry. In order to determine whether 

a petition has been filed by or on behalf 

of the domestic industry, the 

Department, pursuant to section 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, determines 

whether a minimum percentage of the 

relevant industry supports the petition. 

A petition meets this requirement if the 

domestic producers or workers who 

support the petition account for: (i) At 

least 25 percent of the total production 

of the domestic like product; and (ii) 

more than 50 percent of the production 

of the domestic like product produced 

by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the petition. Moreover, section 

732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if 

the petition does not establish support 

of domestic producers or workers 

accounting for more than 50 percent of 

the total production of the domestic like 

product, the Department shall: (i) Poll 

the industry or rely on other 

information in order to determine if 

there is support for the petition, as 

required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) if 

there is a large number of producers in 

the industry the Department may 

determine industry support using a 

statistically valid sampling method. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Notices 9927 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 

2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. 

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 

(1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

‘‘domestic like product’’ as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that SHMP 

constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product. For a discussion of the 

domestic like product analysis in this 

case, see Antidumping Investigation 

Initiation Checklist: Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) at 

Attachment I (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’), on 

file in the Central Records Unit, Room 

B–099 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support representing at least 25 percent 

of the total production of the domestic 

like product, and more than 50 percent 

of the production of the domestic like 

product produced by that portion of the 

industry expressing support for or 

opposition to the petition, requiring no 

further action by the Department 

pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(D) of the 

Act. Therefore, the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product, and the requirements of section 

732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. 

Furthermore, the domestic producers 

who support the petition account for 

more than 50 percent of the production 

of the domestic like product produced 

by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the petition. Thus, the requirements of 

section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also 

are met. Accordingly, the Department 

determines that the petition was filed on 

behalf of the domestic industry within 

the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the 

Act. See Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment I (Industry Support). 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are an 

interested party as defined in sections 

771(9)(C) of the Act and they have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

investigation that they are requesting 

the Department initiate. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment I (Industry 

Support). 

Export Price 

Petitioners provided numerous U.S. 

price quotes for SHMP manufactured in 

the PRC and offered for sale in the 

United States. However, the Department 

notes that a number of these prices, as 

quoted, were prior to the POI. Therefore, 

the Department has only examined 

prices within the POI or more 

contemporaneous. These prices were for 

SHMP within the scope of this Petition, 

for delivery to the U.S. customer within 

the POI. Petitioners deducted the costs 

associated with exporting and 

delivering the product, including ocean 

freight and insurance charges, foreign 

inland freight costs, and foreign 

brokerage and handling from the prices. 

See Initiation Checklist at 6–7. 

In addition, while Petitioners also 

calculated margins using a U.S. price 

based on the average unit values 

(‘‘AUVs’’) of imports during the POI 

available from the International Trade 

Commission for HTSUS subheading 

2835.39.5000, because adequate pricing 

information is available using the abovedetailed price quotations, the 

Department need not address the AUV 

margin calculations for this initiation, 

consistent with the Department’s prior 

practice. See Notice of Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation: 

Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the 

People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 42686 

(July 18, 2003). However, should the 

need arise to use any of this information 

as facts available under section 776 of 

the Act in our preliminary or final 

determinations, we may re-examine the 

information and revise the margin 

calculations, if appropriate. 

Normal Value 

Petitioners stated that the PRC is a 

non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) and no 

determination to the contrary has been 

made by the Department to date. 

Recently, the Department examined the 

PRC’s market status and determined that 

NME status should continue for the 

PRC. See Memorandum from the Office 

of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

regarding The People’s Republic of 

China Status as a Non-Market Economy 

(May 15, 2006). In addition, in a recent 

antidumping duty investigation, the 

Department also determined that the 

PRC is a NME. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Final Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 

22, 2006). 

In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 

presumption of NME status remains in 

effect until revoked by the Department. 

The presumption of NME status for the 

PRC has not been revoked by the 

Department and remains in effect for 

purposes of the initiation of this 

investigation. Accordingly, the normal 

value of the product is appropriately 

based on factors of production valued in 

a surrogate market economy country in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act. In the course of this investigation, 

all parties will have the opportunity to 

provide relevant information related to 

the issues of the PRC’s NME status and 

the granting of separate rates to 

individual exporters. 

Petitioners selected India as the 

surrogate country. Petitioners argued 

that, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, India is an appropriate surrogate 

because it is a market-economy country 

that is at a comparable level of 

economic development to the PRC and 

is a significant producer of SHMP. 

Based on the information provided by 

Petitioners, we believe that its use of 

India as a surrogate country is 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
9928 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Notices 

1For a description of the comparable 

merchandise, as described by Petitioners, see 

Petition at 23–24. 

appropriate for purposes of initiating 

this investigation. After the initiation of 

the investigation, we will solicit 

comments regarding surrogate country 

selection. Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties will 

be provided an opportunity to submit 

publicly available information to value 

factors of production within 40 days 

after the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination. 

Petitioners provided dumping margin 

calculations using the Department’s 

NME methodology as required by 19 

CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 

351.408. Petitioners calculated normal 

values based on consumption rates for 

producing SHMP experienced by U.S. 

producers for producing SHMP in an 

integrated facility and a non-integrated 

facility. See Initiation Checklist. In 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, Petitioners valued factors of 

production, where possible, on 

reasonably available, public surrogate 

country data. To value certain factors of 

production, Petitioners used official 

Indian government import statistics, 

excluding those values from countries 

previously determined by the 

Department to be NME countries and 

excluding imports into India from 

Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and 

Thailand, because the Department has 

previously excluded prices from these 

countries because they maintain 

broadly-available, non-industry specific 

export subsidies. See, e.g., Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 1999–2000 Administrative 

Review, Partial Rescission of Review, 

and Determination Not to Revoke Order 

in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 

2001), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

For valuing other factors of production, 

Petitioners used the same sources, 

where appropriate, recently used in the 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 77373 (December 26, 

2006), and inflated these values to be 

contemporaneous with the POI where 

necessary. 

For inputs valued in Indian rupees 

and not contemporaneous with the POI, 

Petitioners used information from the 

wholesale price indices (‘‘WPI’’) in 

India as published by the Reserve Bank 

of India (‘‘RBI’’) for input prices during 

the period preceding the POI. In 

addition, Petitioners made currency 

conversions, where necessary, based on 

the average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange 

rate for the POI, as reported on the 

Department’s Web site. See http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. 

For the normal value calculations, 

Petitioners derived the figures for 

factory overhead, selling, general and 

administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and 

profit from the financial ratios of two 

Indian producers of SHMP or 

comparable merchandise.1 Petitioners 

derived these financial ratios from 

Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. for 

the integrated production process and 

from the Aditya Birla Group for the nonintegrated production process. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of SHMP from the PRC are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. 

Based upon comparisons of supported 

export prices to the two normal values, 

calculated in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act, the estimated 

calculated dumping margins for SHMP 

from the PRC range from 76.69 percent 

to 103.62 percent. See Initiation 

Checklist at 9–10 for these calculations. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the individual and cumulated 

imports of the subject merchandise sold 

at less than NV. Petitioners contend that 

the industry’s injured condition is 

illustrated by the decline in customer 

base, market share, domestic shipments, 

prices and financial performance. We 

have assessed the allegations and 

supporting evidence regarding material 

injury and causation, and we have 

determined that these allegations are 

properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

Separate Rates Application 

The Department recently modified the 

process by which exporters and 

producers may obtain separate-rate 

status in NME investigations. See Policy 

Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice 

and Application of Combination Rates 

in Antidumping Investigations 

involving Non-Market Economy 

Countries (Separate Rates and 

Combination Rates Bulletin), (April 5, 

2005), available on the Department’s 

Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/ 

bull05–1.pdf (‘‘Separate Rates and 

Combination Rates Bulletin’’). The 

process requires the submission of a 

separate-rate status application. Based 

on our experience in processing the 

separate rates applications in, for 

example, the antidumping duty 

investigations of Certain Lined Paper 

products from India, Indonesia, and the 

People’s Republic of China and 

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

the Republic of Korea, we have 

modified the application for this 

investigation to make it more 

administrable and easier for applicants 

to complete. See Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations: 

Certain Lined Paper Products from 

India, Indonesia, and the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 58374, 58379 

(October 6, 2005) (‘‘Lined Paper 

Initiation’’), Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigations: Diamond 

Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China and the 

Republic of Korea, 70 FR 35625, 35629 

(June 21, 2005) (‘‘Sawblades Initiation’’), 

and Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 

FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005) 

(‘‘Artist Canvas Initiation’’). The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate-rates application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, which will be 

available on the Department’s Web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlightsand-news.html on the date of 

publication of this initiation notice in 

the Federal Register. The separate rates 

application is due no later than May 4, 

2007. 

NME Respondent Selection and 

Quantity and Value Questionnaire 

For NME investigations, it is the 

Department’s practice to request 

quantity and value information from all 

known exporters identified in the 

petition. Although many NME exporters 

respond to the quantity and value 

information request, at times some 

exporters may not have received the 

quantity and value questionnaire or may 

not have received it in time to respond 

by the specified deadline. Therefore, in 

addition, the Department typically 

requests the assistance of the NME 

government in transmitting the 

Department’s quantity and value 

questionnaire to all companies who 

manufacture and export subject 

merchandise to the United States, as 

well as to manufacturers who produce 

the subject merchandise for companies 

who were engaged in exporting subject 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Notices 9929 

merchandise to the United States during 

the period of investigation. The quantity 

and value data received from NME 

exporters is used as the basis to select 

the mandatory respondents. 

The Department requires that the 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate-rates application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

Appendix I of this notice contains the 

quantity and value questionnaire that 

must be submitted by all NME exporters 

no later than April 4, 2007. In addition, 

the Department will post the quantity 

and value questionnaire along with the 

filing instructions on the Import 

Administration’s Web site, http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html. The Department will also 

send the quantity and value 

questionnaire to those exporters 

identified in Exhibit AD–3 of the 

petition and the NME government. 

Use of Combination Rates in an NME 

Investigation 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

Separate Rates and Combination Rates 

Bulletin, states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its NME investigations will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. 

Note, however, that one rate is calculated for 

the exporter and all of the producers which 

supplied subject merchandise to it during the 

period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination 

rates’’ because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation. 

See Separate Rates and Combination 

Rates Bulletin, at page 6. 

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon our examination of the 

petition on SHMP from the PRC, we 

find that this petition meets the 

requirements of section 732 of the Act. 

Therefore, we are initiating an 

antidumping duty investigation to 

determine whether imports of SHMP 

from the PRC are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value. Unless postponed, we will 

make our preliminary determinations no 

later than 140 days after the date of 

these initiations. See section 

733(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 

public version of the petition has been 

provided to the government of the PRC. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 25 days after the date on which 

it receives notice of this initiation, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of SHMP from the PRC are 

causing material injury, or threatening 

to cause material injury, to a U.S. 

industry. See section 733(a)(2)(A)(i) of 

the Act. A negative ITC determination 

will result in the investigation being 

terminated; otherwise, this investigation 

will proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Where it is not practicable to examine all 

known producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise because of the large number of 

exporters or producers included in the 

investigation, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (as amended) permits us to 

investigate (1) a sample of exporters, 

producers, or types of products that is 

statistically valid based on the information 

available at the time of selection, or (2) 

exporters and producers accounting for the 

largest volume and value of the subject 

merchandise that can reasonably be 

examined. 

In the chart below, please provide the total 

quantity and total value of all your sales of 

merchandise covered by the scope of this 

investigation (see scope section of this 

notice), produced in the PRC, and exported/ 

shipped to the United States during the 

period July 1, 2006, through December 31, 

2006. 

Market Total quantity Terms of sale Total value 

United States 

1. Export Price Sales 

2. 

a. Exporter name 

b. Address 

c. Contact 

d. Phone No. 

e. Fax No. 

3. Constructed Export Price Sales 

4. Further Manufactured 

Total Sales 

Total Quantity: 

• Please report quantity on a metric ton 

basis. If any conversions were used, please 

provide the conversion formula and source. 

Terms of Sales: 

• Please report all sales on the same terms 

(e.g., free on board). 

Total Value: 

• All sales values should be reported in 

U.S. dollars. Please indicate any exchange 

rates used and their respective dates and 

sources. 

Export Price Sales: 

• Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an 

export price sale when the first sale to an 

unaffiliated person occurs before importation 

into the United States. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company directly to the United States. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company to a third-country market 

economy reseller where you had knowledge 

that the merchandise was destined to be 

resold to the United States. 

• If you are a producer of subject 

merchandise, please include any sales 

manufactured by your company that were 

subsequently exported by an affiliated 

exporter to the United States. 

• Please do not include any sales of 

merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in 

your figures. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
9930 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Notices 

Constructed Export Price Sales: 

• Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a 

constructed export price sale when the first 

sale to an unaffiliated person occurs after 

importation. However, if the first sale to the 

unaffiliated person is made by a person in 

the United States affiliated with the foreign 

exporter, constructed export price applies 

even if the sale occurs prior to importation. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company directly to the United States. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company to a third-country market 

economy reseller where you had knowledge 

that the merchandise was destined to be 

resold to the United States. 

• If you are a producer of subject 

merchandise, please include any sales 

manufactured by your company that were 

subsequently exported by an affiliated 

exporter to the United States. 

• Please do not include any sales of 

merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in 

your figures. 

Further Manufactured: 

• Further manufacture or assembly costs 

include amounts incurred for direct 

materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts 

for general and administrative expense, 

interest expense, and additional packing 

expense incurred in the country of further 

manufacture, as well as all costs involved in 

moving the product from the U.S. port of 

entry to the further manufacturer. 

[FR Doc. E7–3890 Filed 3–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–821–801] 

Solid Urea from Russia: Notice of 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty New–

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2007. 

SUMMARY: On January 25, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce received a 

request to conduct a new–shipper 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on solid urea from Russia. In accordance 

with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 

351.214(d) (2005), we are initiating an 

antidumping duty new–shipper review. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Schauer or Minoo Hatten at 

(202) 482–0410 and (202) 482–1690, 

respectively, Office 5, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 26, 1987, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published 

its final determination in the 

investigation of solid urea from the 

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

(Soviet Union), finding dumping 

margins of 68.26 percent for 

Soyuzpromexport, 53.23 percent for 

Phillip Brothers, and 68.26 as the 

country–wide rate (52 FR 19557). On 

July 14, 1987, following an affirmative 

injury determination by the 

International Trade Commission, the 

Department issued an antidumping duty 

order on solid urea from the Soviet 

Union. Following the break–up of the 

Soviet Union, the antidumping duty 

order on solid urea from the Soviet 

Union was transferred to the individual 

members of the Commonwealth of 

Independent States. See Solid Urea from 

the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 

Transfer of the AD Order on Solid Urea 

from the Union of Soviet Socialist 

Republics to the Commonwealth of 

Independent States and the Baltic States 

and Opportunity to Comment, 57 FR 

28828 (June 29, 1992). The rates 

established in the most recently 

completed administrative review for the 

Soviet Union (which, because there 

were no shipments of urea during the 

review period, remained the same as 

those found in the investigation) were 

applied to each new independent state, 

including Russia. On September 3, 

1999, the Department published the 

final results of the first sunset review of 

solid urea from Russia finding 

likelihood of continued or recurring 

dumping at the rates established in the 

original investigation. See Final Results 

of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Solid Urea 

from Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, 

Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, Tajikistan, 

Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, 64 FR 

48357 (September 3, 1999). On January 

5, 2006, the Department published the 

final results of the second sunset review 

of solid urea from Russia finding 

likelihood of continued or recurring 

dumping at the rates established in the 

original investigation. See Notice of 

Continuation of Antidumping Duty 

Orders: Solid Urea from the Russian 

Federation and Ukraine, 71 FR 581 

(January 5, 2006). There have been no 

administrative reviews since the 

issuance of the antidumping duty order. 

On January 25, 2007, the Department 

received a timely request for a new–

shipper review of the antidumping duty 

order on solid urea from Russia from 

MCC EuroChem (EuroChem). On 

January 31, 2007, EuroChem submitted 

additional certifications to supplement 

its request for a new–shipper review in 

response to our telephone call of the 

same. See memorandum to file dated 

January 31, 2007. EuroChem certified 

that it is both the producer and exporter 

of the subject merchandise upon which 

the request for a new–shipper review is 

based. 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), 

EuroChem certified that it did not 

export solid urea to the United States 

during the period of investigation (POI). 

In addition, pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), EuroChem certified 

that, since the initiation of the 

investigation, it has never been affiliated 

with any Russian exporter or producer 

who exported solid urea to the United 

States during the POI, including those 

not individually examined during the 

investigation. 

In addition to the certifications 

described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv), EuroChem submitted 

documentation establishing the date on 

which EuroChem first shipped solid 

urea for export to the United States and 

the date on which the solid urea was 

first entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption, the 

volume of its first shipment, and the 

date of its first sale to an unaffiliated 

customer in the United States. 

The Department conducted a query of 

the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) database to confirm that 

EuroChem’s shipment of subject 

merchandise had entered the United 

States for consumption and had been 

suspended for antidumping duties. The 

Department also corroborated 

EuroChem’s assertion that it made no 

subsequent shipments to the United 

States by reviewing CBP data. 

On February 16, 2007, the Ad Hoc 

Committee of Domestic Nitrogen 

Producers (the petitioner) submitted a 

letter arguing that the respondent was 

not eligible for a new–shipper review 

because the producer of the subject 

merchandise to be reviewed, OJSC 

Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinka), was 

affiliated with the exporter and 

producers during the POI. The 

petitioner also argued that the request 

was incomplete because EuroChem did 

not also file a certification from Nevinka 

certifying that it never shipped subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI. 

Initiation of Review 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the 

Department finds that EuroChem’s 

request meets the threshold 

requirements for initiation of a new–


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES