66966 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Notices

producer if that producer also exports

merchandise from other suppliers)

which were produced in more than one

country of origin and each country of

origin is subject to a separate order, then

the interested party must state

specifically, on an order-by-order basis,

which exporter(s) the request is

intended to cover.

Six copies of the request should be

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street &

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. The

Department also asks parties to serve a

copy of their requests to the Office of

Antidumping/Countervailing

Enforcement, Attention: Sheila Forbes,

in room 3065 of the main Commerce

Building. Further, in accordance with

section 351.303(f)(l)(i) of the

regulations, a copy of each request must

be served on every party on the

Department’s service list.

The Department will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation

of Administrative Review of

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty

Order, Finding, or Suspended

Investigation’’ for requests received by

the last day of November 2000. If the

Department does not receive, by the last

day of November 2000, a request for

review of entries covered by an order,

finding, or suspended investigation

listed in this notice and for the period

identified above, the Department will

instruct the Customs Service to assess

antidumping or countervailing duties on

those entries at a rate equal to the cash

deposit of (or bond for) estimated

antidumping or countervailing duties

required on those entries at the time of

entry, or withdrawal from warehouse,

for consumption and to continue to

collect the cash deposit previously

ordered.

This notice is not required by statute

but is published as a service to the

international trading community.

November 2, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Group II

for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28682 Filed 11–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–823–810]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: Solid Agricultural Grade

Ammonium Nitrate From Ukraine

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melani Miller or Jarrod Goldfeder,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0116

and (202) 482–0189, respectively.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s regulations

are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1999).

The Petition

On October 13, 2000, the Department

of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

received a petition filed in proper form

by the Committee for Fair Ammonium

Nitrate Trade (‘‘the petitioner’’), whose

members are domestic producers of

solid agricultural grade ammonium

nitrate. The Department received

supplemental information to the

petition on October 27, 2000.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioner alleges that

imports of solid agricultural (or

fertilizer) grade ammonium nitrate from

Ukraine 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 an industry in the

United States.

The Department finds that the

petitioner filed this petition on behalf of

the domestic industry because it is an

interested party as defined in section

771(9)(C) of the Act and it has

demonstrated sufficient industry

support with respect to the antidumping

investigation that it is requesting the

Department initiate (see Determination

of Industry Support for the Petition

section below).

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are solid, fertilizer

grade ammonium nitrate products,

whether prilled, granular or in other

solid form, with or without additives or

coating, and with a bulk density equal

to or greater than 53 pounds per cubic

foot. Specifically excluded from this

scope is solid ammonium nitrate with a

bulk density less than 53 pounds per

cubic foot (commonly referred to as

industrial or explosive grade

ammonium nitrate). The merchandise

subject to this investigation is classified

in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at

subheading 3102.30.00.00. Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and for purposes of the

U.S. Customs Service, the written

description of the merchandise under

investigation is dispositive.

This scope is identical to the scope

used in the Department’s investigation

of solid fertilizer grade ammonium

nitrate from the Russian Federation. 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) (‘‘Ammonium Nitrate from

Russia’’). Nevertheless, during our

review of the petition, we discussed the

scope with the petitioner 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 (62 FR 27296, 27323), we are

setting aside a period for parties to raise

issues regarding product coverage. The

Department encourages all parties to

submit such comments within 20 days

of publication of this notice. Comments

should be addressed to Import

Administration’s Central Records Unit

(‘‘CRU’’) at 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

parties prior to the issuance of our

preliminary determination.

Period of Investigation

Section 351.204(b) of the

Department’s regulations states that, in

the case of a nonmarket economy

country, in an investigation, the

Department normally will examine

merchandise sold during the two most

recently completed fiscal quarters as of

the month preceding the month in

which the petition was filed. The

regulations further state that the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Notices 66967

1See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass Therefore from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and

Partial Dismissal of Petitions, 56 FR 32376, 32380–

81 (July 16, 1991).

Department may examine merchandise

sold during any additional or alternate

period it concludes is appropriate.

Following the above noted guidelines

from section 351.204(b) of the

Department’s regulations, the two most

recently completed fiscal quarters as of

the month preceding the month in

which the petition was filed would be

the second and third fiscal quarters of

2000, April through September 2000.

For this investigation, the petitioner

has requested that the Department either

modify or expand the period of

investigation (‘‘POI’’) to include the first

fiscal quarter of 2000, January through

March 2000. The petitioner argues that

the ammonium nitrate industry is

highly seasonal and that the volume of

ammonium nitrate shipments is directly

linked to agricultural cycles;

specifically, demand and imports are

higher during the spring planting season

which runs from February through June.

The petitioner notes that the

Department has recognized the

seasonality of the ammonium nitrate

market in Ammonium Nitrate from

Russia. Moreover, the petitioner points

out that calendar year 2000 import data

for Ukraine supports the conclusion that

the first quarter 2000 should be

included in the POI. According to the

petitioner, the data shows that imports

of ammonium nitrate from Ukraine have

increased dramatically in the first two

quarters of 2000 as compared to prior

years. If only the second and third

quarters were examined, the petitioner

alleges that the Department would have

a much more limited number of sales on

which to make its determination.

The Department is considering the

petitioner’s arguments on this matter

and will make a determination on

whether to expand the normal POI as

established by section 351.204(b) of the

Department’s regulations, April 1

through September 30, 2000, as the

investigation proceeds.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

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

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) 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.

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

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the Act

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who account for

production of 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 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 domestic like product,

such differences do not render the

decision of either agency contrary to the

law.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the

domestic like product as ‘‘a product that

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 in ‘‘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.

The domestic like product referred to

in the petition is the single domestic

like product defined in the Scope of

Investigation section above. The

Department has no basis on the record

to find this definition of the domestic

like product to be inaccurate. The

Department, therefore, has adopted this

dometsic like product definition.

The Department has determined that

the petition contains adequate evidence

of industry support; therefore, polling is

unnecessary. See Initiation Checklist at

Industry Support. To the best of the

Department’s knowledge, the producers

who support the petition account for

more than 50 percent of the production

of the domestic like product.

Additionally, no interested party

pursuant to section 771(b)(A), (C), (D),

(E) or (F) of the Act has expressed

opposition on the record to the petition.

Accordingly, the Department

determines that this petition is filed on

behalf of the domestic industry within

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

Act.

Export Price and Normal Value

The following is a description of the

allegation of sales at less than fair value

upon which our decision to initiate this

investigation is based. Should the need

arise to use any of this information in

our preliminary or final determination

for purposes of facts available under

section 776 of the Act, we may reexamine the information and revise the

margin calculations, if appropriate.

The petitioner identified four

potential Ukrainian exporters and

producers of solid agricultural grade

ammonium nitrate. The petitioner based

export price on official U.S. import

statistics for the period January through

June 2000. From these starting prices,

the petitioner deducted foreign inland

freight and foreign brokerage and

handling. The petitioner based foreign

inland freight on Indian rail rates as

referenced by the Department at its

online Document Library (Index of

Factor Values). The foreign brokerage

and handling charges were also based

on the Department’s Index of Factor

Values. Both the inland freight and

brokerage and handling rates were

adjusted for inflation using the Indian

Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as

published in the International Financial

Statistics of the International Monetary

Fund.

The petitioner asserts that the

Department considers Ukraine to be a

nonmarket economy country (‘‘NME’’)

and, therefore, constructed normal value

based on the factors of production

(‘‘FOP’’) methodology pursuant to

section 773(c) of the Act. In previous

cases, the Department has determined

that Ukraine is an NME. See, e.g.,

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from Ukraine, 62 FR 61754 (November

19 1997) and Steel Concrete Reinforcing

Bars from Austria, Belarus, Indonesia,

Japan, Latvia, Moldova, the People’s

Republic of China, Poland, the Republic

of Korea, the Russian Federation,

Ukraine, and Venezuela, 65 FR 45754

(July 25, 2000). In accordance with

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

NME status remains in effect until

revoked by the Department. As of the

date of initiation of this proceeding, the

NME status of Ukraine has not been

revoked by the Department and,

therefore, remains in effect.

Accordingly, the normal value of the

product appropriately is based on FOP

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

66968 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Notices

opportunity to provide relevant

information related to the issues of

Ukraine’s NME status and the granting

of separate rates to individual exporters.

For the factors of production, the

petitioner used publicly available factor

information from a Russian ammonium

nitrate producer taken from Ammonium

Nitrate from Russia. The petitioner

stated that it was unable to gain access

to any specific information regarding

the factors of production for any

Ukrainian ammonium nitrate producer

and was, thus, unable to furnish

information on Ukrainian FOP.

According to the petitioner, the use of

the Russian producer’s public factors

provides a sound basis for estimation of

Ukrainian factors because (1) both the

Ukrainian and Russian ammonium

nitrate plants use the same type of

production process, and (2) Ukrainian

and Russian ammonium nitrate plants

use the same types of production

technology. Thus, the petitioner has

taken the position that, for purposes of

the petition, the producers in Ukraine

use the same inputs in the same

quantities as do producers in Russia.

Because data regarding the quantities of

inputs used by Ukrainian producers was

not reasonably available to the

petitioner, and because the petitioner

has provided information showing that

the Russian and Ukrainian ammonium

nitrate industries are substantially

similar, we have accepted the use of the

Russian factor information.

The petitioner selected India as the

most appropriate surrogate market

economy. In accordance with section

773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner

valued factors of production, where

possible, using Indian data. Labor was

valued using the regression-based wage

rate for Ukraine provided by the

Department in accordance with section

351.408(c)(3) of the Department’s

regulations. Natural gas and electricity

were valued using values from a 1998–

1999 public annual report of an Indian

producer of merchandise similar to the

subject merchandise. Pursuant to the

Department’s past practice, the

petitioner valued synthetic gas, purge

gas, and hydrogen using ‘‘natural gas

equivalents’’ (see Ammonium Nitrate

from Russia) Catalysts and other

auxiliary materials were valued using

United Nations import data for India.

One auxiliary material, lilamine, for

which the petitioner could not find a

public Indian surrogate value was

valued using information from a

domestic ammonium nitrate producer.

For factory overhead, selling, general

and administrative expenses, and profit,

the petitioner applied ratios derived

from information gathered from the

same 1998–1999 public annual report

that it used to value natural gas and

electricity. Where no contemporaneous

values could be found, the noncontemporaneous values used were

adjusted to the comparison period to

take inflation into account.

Based on a comparison of export price

to normal value, as adjusted by the

Department, the information in the

petition and other information

reasonably available to the Department

indicates weighted-average dumping

margins of between 222 and 285

percent. A description of the

adjustments which the Department

made to petitioner’s calculations are

contained in the Initiation Checklist.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioner, there is reason to believe that

imports of solid agricultural grade

ammonium nitrate from Ukraine are

being, or are likely to be, sold at less

than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petition alleges that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, and

is threatened with material injury, by

reason of the imports of the subject

merchandise sold at less than normal

value. The allegations of injury and

causation are supported by relevant

evidence including U.S. Customs import

data, ITC data and information gathered

during Ammonium Nitrate from Russia,

lost sales, and pricing information. The

Department assessed the allegations and

supporting evidence regarding material

injury and causation and determined

that these allegations are supported by

accurate and adequate evidence and

meet the statutory requirements for

initiation. See Initiation Checklist at 4

and 5.

Allegation of Critical Circumstances

The petitioner has alleged that critical

circumstances exist with regard to

imports of solid, agricultural grade

ammonium nitrate from Ukraine. To

support its allegation, the petitioner

provided evidence in the petition

showing, among other things, a trend of

increased imports of the subject

merchandise during the period January

to June 2000. Specifically, the petitioner

contends that ammonium nitrate

imports from Ukraine surged from no

imports in 1999 to 155,398 short tons

during the time period from January

through June 2000.

The petitioner also provided evidence

suggesting a history of dumping, and,

alternatively, that the person by whom,

or for whose account, the merchandise

was imported knew, or should have

known, that the merchandise was being

sold at less than fair value and that there

was likely to be material injury as a

result. The petitioner contends that,

though there is not currently an existing

antidumping order on Ukrainian

ammonium nitrate, the European Union

has made a preliminary determination

that dumping is taking place in the

European Union of ammonium nitrate

from Ukraine. This, in the petitioner’s

view, provides evidence of a history of

dumping.

Additionally, consistent with the

Department’s practice of reviewing the

margins supported in the petition as

evidence of importer knowledge, the

petitioner notes that the petition margin

of 285% is well above the standard 25%

threshold. Finally, the petitioner argues

that the timing of Ukraine’s entrance

into the U.S. ammonium nitrate market

(immediately following the

Department’s January 7, 2000,

preliminary determination that Russian

ammonium nitrate was sold in the

United States at less than normal value

and the rapid decline of imports of

ammonium nitrate from Russia), along

with the significant increase in volume

of imports and the adverse pricing

effects these imports had, provides

evidence that importers knew, or should

have known, that Ukrainian ammonium

nitrate imports were likely to cause

injury to the domestic industry.

Based on these allegations, we will

investigate this matter further and will

make a preliminary critical

circumstances determination based on

available information at the appropriate

time in accordance with section 351.206

of the Department’s regulations. See

Initiation Checklist at 9.

Request for an Expedited Preliminary

Determination

The petitioner has requested that, in

accordance with the Department’s June

8, 2000, policy bulletin regarding

expedited antidumping duty

investigations, the Department issue an

expedited preliminary determination in

this investigation. See Department

Policy Bulletin No. 00.1 ‘‘Expedited

Antidumping Duty Allegations’’

( ‘‘policy bulletin’’, which can be found

on the Department’s web page at http:/

/ia.ita.doc.gov. The policy bulletin lays

out specific criteria that the Department

will consider in deciding whether to

expedite an investigation, including

evidence of an extraordinary surge in

imports prior to the filing of the

petition, evidence of significant import

penetration, evidence of an unusually

high dumping margin or recent declines

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Notices 66969

in import prices, whether there are prior

determinations of dumping against the

same product (or class of product) from

the subject country in the United States

or in other countries, and whether the

Department’s resources permit it to

expedite the preliminary determination.

The petitioner alleges that there has

been a surge of ‘‘unfairly traded

imports’’ of ammonium nitrate from

Ukraine at ‘‘unprecedented levels’’ and

that Ukrainian producers have captured

U.S. market share through ‘‘aggressive

and persistent underselling.’’ The

petitioner further alleges that, after the

U.S. industry received relief in June

2000 via a suspension agreement in

Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, U.S.

importers simply made Ukraine a

‘‘replacement’’ source for Russian

ammonium nitrate. The petitioner

claims that the product is highly

seasonal and that early relief is needed

to avoid losing sales during the critical

spring 2001 growing season.

We are setting aside a period for

parties to comment on the petitioner’s

request for an expedited preliminary

determination. The Department

encourages all parties to submit such

comments no later than November 13,

2000. Comments should be addressed to

the Import Administration’s Central

Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230. We intend to

make a determination on the petitioner’s

request for an expedited preliminary

determination by November 16, 2000.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation

Based on our examination of the

petition, we have found that the petition

meets the requirements of section 732 of

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an

antidumping duty investigation to

determine whether imports of solid

agricultural grade ammonium nitrate

from Ukraine are being, or are likely to

be, sold in the United States at less than

fair value. Unless this deadline is

extended, we will make our preliminary

determination no later than 140 days

after the date of this initiation.

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 representatives of the

government of Ukraine.

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 determine by November

27, 2000, whether there is a reasonable

indication that an industry in the

United States is materially injured, or is

threatened with material injury, by

reason of imports of solid fertilizer

grade ammonium nitrate from Ukraine.

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 published in

accordance with section 777(i) of the

Act.

Dated: November 3, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28683 Filed 11–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 110200E]

Survey to Measure Effectiveness of

Community-Oriented Policing for ESA

Enforcement

AGENCY: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

ACTION: Proposed information

collection; comment request.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on

proposed and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before January 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Madeleine Clayton, Departmental

Forms Clearance Officer, Department of

Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington

DC 20230 (or via Internet at

MClayton@doc.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection

instrument(s) and instructions should

be directed to Dayna Matthews,

National Marine Fisheries Service, 510

Desmond Drive S.E., Suite 103, Lacey,

WA 98503 (360-753-4409).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

The objective of the survey is to

evaluate the success of the NMFS Office

for Law Enforcement communityoriented policing program for

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

enforcement for anadromous species in

the Pacific Northwest.

II. Method of Collection

The information will be gathered

through both voluntary selfadministered surveys and in-depth

interviews.

III. Data

OMB Number: None.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households; Federal government; State,

local, or tribal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

880.

Estimated Time Per Response: 20

minutes for a survey, 80 minutes for an

interview.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 375.

Annual Cost to Public: $700.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden

(including hours and cost) of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval of this information collection;

they also will become a matter of public

record.

Dated: November 1, 2000.

Gwellnar Banks,

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–28680 Filed 11–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S