Skip to Content

Notice

Calcium Hypochlorite From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

AGENCY:

Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

DATES:

Effective Date: January 14, 2014.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kabir Archuletta, Office V, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2593.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

On December 18, 2013, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) received an antidumping duty (“AD”) petition concerning imports of calcium hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), filed in proper form on behalf of Arch Chemicals, Inc. (“Petitioner”), a domestic producer of calcium hypochlorite.[1] The AD Petition Start Printed Page 2411was accompanied by a countervailing duty (“CVD”) petition concerning imports of calcium hypochlorite from the PRC. On December 19, 2013, and December 24, 2013, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition, and on December 23, 2013, and December 30, 2013, Petitioner filed a response to each request.[2]

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), Petitioner alleges that imports of calcium hypochlorite 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, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner in support of its allegations.

The Department finds that Petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that Petitioner is requesting.[3]

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2013, through September 30, 2013, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of the Investigation

The product covered by this investigation is calcium hypochlorite from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, please see the “Scope of Investigation” in the appendix to this notice.

Comments on the Scope of the Investigation

During our review of the Petition, we solicited information from Petitioner to ensure that the proposed scope language is an accurate reflection of the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,[4] we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by January 27, 2014, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. All comments must be filed on the record of the AD investigation, as well as the concurrent CVD investigation.

Comments on the Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaire

The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of calcium hypochlorite to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe calcium hypochlorite, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, we must receive comments on product characteristics no later than January 27, 2014. Rebuttal comments must be received no later than February 3, 2014. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”).

Filing Requirements

All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with the Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the deadline established by the Department.[5]

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: (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 to poll the industry.

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 Start Printed Page 2412producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. 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,[6] 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.[7]

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, Petitioner does 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 calcium hypochlorite, as defined in the scope of the investigation, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.[8]

In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of Investigation” section above. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its production of the domestic like product in 2012, and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.[9] Petitioner estimated total 2012 production of the domestic like product using its own production data and knowledge of the industry.[10] We have relied upon data Petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support.[11]

Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental submission, and other information readily available to the Department, we determine that Petitioner has met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.[12] Based on information provided in the Petition, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 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. 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.[13]

The Department finds that Petitioner filed the 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 duty investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate.[14]

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (“NV”). In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.[15]

Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; reduced production and capacity utilization; decline in employment variables; and decline in financial performance.[16] We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.[17]

Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department has based its decision to initiate investigations of imports of calcium hypochlorite from the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the AD Initiation Checklist.

Export Price

Petitioner based export price (“EP”) on the POI average unit values (“AUVs”) of U.S. imports of calcium hypochlorite from the PRC, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheading 2828.10.0000.[18] From the POI AUV, Petitioner deducted an amount for foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC and foreign inland freight from the manufacturing plant to the port of exportation.[19] Petitioner made no other adjustments.[20]

Normal Value

Petitioner states that the Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”) country in every proceeding in which the PRC has been involved.[21] The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, in accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Start Printed Page 2413Accordingly, the NV of the product for the investigation 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 granting of separate rates to individual exporters.

Petitioner contends that the Philippines is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because: (1) It is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; and (2) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.[22] Based on the information provided by Petitioner, we conclude that it is appropriate to use the Philippines as a surrogate country for initiation purposes.[23] After initiation of this investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors of production (“FOPs”) within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.[24]

Petitioner calculated NV using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner based its NV on two different production methods.[25] For a non-integrated production process, which Petitioner believes to be comparable to calcium hypochlorite producers in the PRC, Petitioner based NV on its own U.S production experience during the time period January-September 2013.[26] For the production process of an integrated producer of calcium hypochlorite, Petitioner based NV on a 2009 feasibility study conducted by Petitioner that analyzed the costs associated with setting up a fully integrated facility.[27] This study was supported by an affidavit from the individual who assisted with the calculation of expected per-kg factors of production (“FOPs”).[28] Petitioner also submitted information indicating that at least one major PRC producer employs an integrated production process.[29]

Petitioner valued the factors of production using reasonably available, public surrogate country data, specifically, Philippine import data from the Global Trade Atlas (“GTA”) for the most recent six-month period for which data was available (i.e., March 2013 through August 2013).[30] Petitioner excluded from these GTA import statistics imports from NME countries, countries that maintain broadly available export subsidies, and any imports from “unspecified” countries.[31] Further, Petitioner made currency conversions, where applicable, based on the POI-average Philippine Peso/U.S. dollar exchange rates.[32] The Department determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, are acceptable for purposes of initiation.

Petitioner determined direct materials costs from Philippine import data from the GTA.[33] Petitioner applied certain conversion factors to align the units of measure with its own FOPs.[34] Petitioner calculated financial ratios (i.e., factory overhead expenses, selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit) on the financial statements of Mabuhay Vinyl Corporation (“Mabuhay Vinyl”), a Philippine manufacturer of sodium hypochlorite (a product that Petitioner claims is comparable to calcium hypochlorite), for the year ending December 31, 2012.[35]

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of calcium hypochlorite from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV for both integrated and non-integrated production processes in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, Petitioner calculated the estimated dumping margins to be 182.51-210.52 percent with respect to imports of calcium hypochlorite from the PRC.[36]

Initiation of AD Investigation

Based on our examination of the Petition on calcium hypochlorite from the PRC, the Department finds that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of calcium hypochlorite from the PRC are being, or likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will issue our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the publication date of this initiation. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, see the AD Initiation Checklist which accompanies this notice.

Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value Questionnaire

In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in AD investigations involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value questionnaires to each potential respondent, and will base respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site (http://www.trade.gov/​enforcement/​news.asp). Exporters and producers of calcium hypochlorite from the PRC that do not receive quantity and value questionnaires via mail may still submit a quantity and value response, and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. The quantity and value questionnaire must be submitted by all PRC exporters/producers no later than January 21, 2014. All quantity and value questionnaires must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS.

Separate Rates

In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME AD investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application.[37] The specific requirements for submitting the separate rate application in the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available on the Department's Web site at http://trade.gov/​enforcement/​ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. The separate rate application will be due 60 days after the publication of this initiation notice. For exporters and producers who submit a separate rate status application and have been selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and Start Printed Page 2414producers will no longer be eligible for consideration for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that the PRC respondents submit a response to the separate rate application by the deadline referenced above in order to receive consideration for separate rate status.

Use of Combination Rates

The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME 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.[38]

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been provided to the Government of the PRC. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters to be satisfied by the provision of the public version of the Petition to the Government of the PRC, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC 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 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of calcium hypochlorite from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.[39] A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.[40] Otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

Submission of Factual Information

On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: 1) The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and 2) the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to this investigation. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/​frn/​2013/​1304frn/​2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information for this investigation.

Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD proceedings. The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under section 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under section 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning CBP data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov/​fdsys/​pkg/​FR-2013-09-20/​html/​2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

Certification Requirements

Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.[41] Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in all AD or CVD investigations or proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, Start Printed Page 2415including this investigation.[42] The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

Notification to Interested Parties

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/​apo/​index.html.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

Start Signature

Dated: January 7, 2014.

Paul Piquado,

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

End Signature

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

The product covered by this investigation is calcium hypochlorite, regardless of form (e.g., powder, tablet (compressed), crystalline (granular), or in liquid solution), whether or not blended with other materials, containing at least 10% available chlorine measured by actual weight. The scope also includes bleaching powder and hemibasic calcium hypochlorite.

Calcium hypochlorite has the general chemical formulation Ca(OCl)2, but may also be sold in a more dilute form as bleaching powder with the chemical formulation, Ca(OCl)2.CaCl2.Ca(OH)2.2H2 O or hemibasic calcium hypochlorite with the chemical formula of 2Ca(OCl)2.Ca(OH)2 or Ca(OCl)2.0.5Ca(OH)2. Calcium hypochlorite has a Chemical Abstract Service (“CAS”) registry number of 7778-54-3, and a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA) Pesticide Code (“PC”) Number of 014701. The subject calcium hypochlorite has an International Maritime Dangerous Goods (“IMDG”) code of Class 5.1 UN 1748, 2880, or 2208 or Class 5.1/8 UN 3485, 3486, or 3487.

Calcium hypochlorite is currently classifiable under the subheading 2828.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The subheading covers commercial calcium hypochlorite and other calcium hypochlorite. When tableted or blended with other materials, calcium hypochlorite may be entered under other tariff classifications, such as 3808.94.5000 and 3808.99.9500, which cover disinfectants and similar products. While the HTSUS subheadings, the CAS registry number, the U.S. EPA PC number, and the IMDG codes are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

End Supplemental Information

Footnotes

1.  See “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China,” dated December 18, 2013 (hereafter referred to as the “Petition”).

Back to Citation

2.  See Petitioner's December 23, 2013, filing titled, “Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China: Response to Supplemental Questions” (“PRC AD Supplement”); see also Petitioner's December 30, 2013, filing titled, “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China: Response to General Supplemental Questions”.

Back to Citation

3.  See “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, below.

Back to Citation

4.  See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

Back to Citation

6.  See section 771(10) of the Act.

Back to Citation

7.  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 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

Back to Citation

8.  See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China (“AD Initiation Checklist”), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China (“Attachment II”). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to documents filed via IA ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building.

Back to Citation

9.  See Volume I of the Petition, at 3-4 and Exhibit GEN-2.

Back to Citation

11.  See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

Back to Citation

15.  See Volume I of the Petition, at 18.

Back to Citation

16.  See Volume I of the Petition, at 17-30 and Exhibits INJ-1 through INJ-8.

Back to Citation

17.  See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Petitions Covering Calcium Hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China.

Back to Citation

18.  See AD Initiation Checklist at 5-6; see also Volume II of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibits AD-4, AD-5 and AD-14; and PRC AD Supplement, at 2-4 and revised Exhibit AD-14.

Back to Citation

19.  See AD Initiation Checklist at 5-6; see also Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibits AD-6 through AD-14; and PRC AD Supplement, at 2-4 and revised Exhibits AD-9, AD-11, and AD-14, and Exhibits AD-28 and AD-29.

Back to Citation

21.  See Volume II of the Petition, at 1-2.

Back to Citation

22.  Id., at 2-4 and Exhibits AD-2 and AD-3.

Back to Citation

23.  See AD Initiation Checklist.

Back to Citation

24.  See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i). Note that this is the revised regulation published on April 10, 2013. See http://enforcement.trade.gov/​frn/​2013/​1304frn/​2013-08227.txt.

Back to Citation

25.  See Volume II of the Petition, at 5-6.

Back to Citation

26.  Id., at 5-6 and Exhibits AD-17 and AD-19.

Back to Citation

27.  Id., at 6 and Exhibits AD-16, AD-17 and AD-19.

Back to Citation

28.  Id., at Exhibit AD-18.

Back to Citation

29.  Id., at 5 and Exhibit AD-15.

Back to Citation

30.  Id., at Exhibit AD-20.

Back to Citation

31.  Id., at 6.

Back to Citation

32.  Id., at Exhibit AD-13.

Back to Citation

33.  Id., at 6-7 and Exhibit AD-20.

Back to Citation

34.  Id., at Exhibit AD-17.

Back to Citation

35.  Id., at 8 and Exhibit AD-26.

Back to Citation

36.  See PRC AD Supplement, at 3-4 and Exhibit AD-27.

Back to Citation

37.  See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin), available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/​policy/​).

Back to Citation

38.  See Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin at 6 (emphasis added).

Back to Citation

39.  See section 733(a) of the Act.

Back to Citation

41.  See section 782(b) of the Act.

Back to Citation

42.  See Certifications of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”).

Back to Citation

[FR Doc. 2014-00522 Filed 1-13-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P