13358 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 

2See Letter from Petitioners, Multilayered Wood 

Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: 

Request of Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination, dated March 3, 2011. 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and 

Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Persulfates from the People’s 

Republic of China, 62 FR 36259 (July 7, 1997) 

(‘‘Persulfates Order and Amended Final’’), amended 

by Notice of Amended Antidumping Duty Order: 

Persulfates From the People’s Republic of China, 62 

FR 39212 (July 22, 1997) (‘‘Persulfates Amended 

Order’’). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 38074 

(July 1, 2010). 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 60076 

(September 29, 2010) (‘‘September 29 Initiation 

Notice’’). In the initiation notice that published on 

August 31, 2010, the Department incorrectly 

initiated an administrative review of the company 

FMC Corporation, the domestic producer of 

persulfates, for the instant administrative review of 

persulfates from the PRC. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Initiation of 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 53274 (August 31, 

2010). However, in the initiation notice that 

published on September 29, 2010, the Department 

retracted its initiation of an administrative review 

of FMC Corporation. See September 29 Initiation 

Notice, 75 FR at 60081–82, n.9. 

4See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 

(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 

Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 

60632 (October 25, 2007). 

preliminary determination, in order to 

allow additional time for the review of 

questionnaire responses.2 Because there 

are no compelling reasons to deny the 

request, in accordance with section 

733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department 

is postponing the deadline for the 

preliminary determination by 50 days to 

no later than May 19, 2011. The 

deadline for the final determination will 

continue to be 75 days after the date of 

the preliminary determination, unless 

postponed. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). 

Dated: March 7, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5686 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–847] 

Persulfates From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of the 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

an interested party, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

persulfates from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the period 

July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. 

This administrative review covers one 

producer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise, i.e., United Initiators 

(Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (‘‘United 

Initiators’’). 

We preliminarily determine that 

United Initiators does not qualify for a 

separate rate because it did not respond 

to the Department’s request for 

information; thus, as adverse facts 

available, we are assigning to United 

Initiators, as part of the PRC-wide 

entity, the PRC-wide rate. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of this review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise exported 

by United Initiators during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’). We invite interested 

parties to comment on these preliminary 

results. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brandon Petelin or Charles Riggle, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–8173 or (202) 482– 

0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 7, 1997, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on persulfates 

from the PRC.1 On July 1, 2010, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on persulfates from the PRC.2 In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), 

on July 30, 2010, FMC Corporation, a 

domestic producer of persulfates, 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of United 

Initiators’ exports to the United States 

for the POR July 1, 2009, through June 

30, 2010. Pursuant to this request, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

persulfates from the PRC.3

On October 5, 2010, the Department 

issued an antidumping duty 

questionnaire to United Initiators. On 

October 8, 2010, we confirmed that 

United Initiators signed for and received 

our mailing of the antidumping duty 

questionnaire. United Initiators did not 

respond to the Department’s 

antidumping duty questionnaire. On 

January 3, 2011, the Department placed 

on the record of this administrative 

review the UPS International Air 

Waybill receipt and delivery 

confirmation for the questionnaire 

issued to United Initiators to confirm 

that we mailed, and United Initiators 

received and signed for, the 

questionnaire. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this review 

are persulfates, including ammonium, 

potassium, and sodium persulfates. The 

chemical formula for these persulfates 

are, respectively, (NH4)2S2O8, K2S2O8, 

and Na2S2O8. Potassium persulfates are 

currently classifiable under subheading 

2833.40.10 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Sodium persulfates are 

classifiable under HTSUS subheading 

2833.40.20. Ammonium and other 

persulfates are classifiable under 

HTSUS subheadings 2833.40.50 and 

2833.40.60. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

review is dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country.4 In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. Because no 

interested party in this case has 

contested such treatment, the 

Department continues to treat the PRC 

as an NME country. 

PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts 

Available 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 13359 

5See, e.g., Honey from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

74764, 74765 (December 16, 2005), unchanged in 

Honey from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 71 FR 

34893 (June 16, 2006). 

6See Statement of Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) 

accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H. Doc. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). 

7See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled 

Carbon Quality Steel Products From The People’s 

Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

8See SAA at 870. 

9See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

10See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates From the People’s 

Republic of China, 62 FR 27222, 27224 (May 19, 

1997), amended by Persulfates Order and Amended 

Final, 62 FR at 36260 (identifying 119.02 percent 

as the PRC-wide rate); see also Persulfates 

Amended Order, 62 FR at 39212 (confirming that 

119.02 percent is the PRC-wide rate). 

11See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 

41304, 41308 (July 11, 2003) (where the Department 

relied on the corroboration memorandum from the 

LTFV investigation to assess the reliability of the 

petition rate as the basis for an adverse facts 

available rate in the administrative review). 

12See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 

1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (ruling that the 

Department cannot use a margin that has been 

judicially invalidated). 

13See, e.g., Persulfates from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 6712 (February 10, 

2003). 

exporters of subject merchandise, 

subject to review in an NME country, a 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent of government control to 

be entitled to a separate rate.5 We have 

determined that United Initiators does 

not qualify for a separate rate and is 

instead subject to the PRC-wide rate. 

In relevant part, section 776(a) of the 

Act provides that the Department shall 

apply ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if ‘‘(1) 

necessary information is not on the 

record, or (2) an interested party or any 

other person (A) withholds information 

that has been requested,’’ or ‘‘(B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act.’’ 

Further, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that the Department may make 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

‘‘has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information.’’ Adverse 

inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure 

that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ 6

Finally, according to section 776(b) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1), such 

an adverse inference may include 

reliance on information derived from 

the petition, the final determination, a 

previous administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Because United Initiators did not 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire, it has not demonstrated 

its eligibility for a separate rate. United 

Initiators has not rebutted the 

Department’s presumption of 

government control and is, therefore, 

presumed to be part of the PRC-wide 

entity. Further, in accordance with 

sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, 

because the PRC-wide entity (including 

United Initiators) failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability by not responding 

to our questionnaire, we find it 

appropriate to use adverse facts 

available. As a result, in accordance 

with the Department’s practice,7 we 

have preliminarily assigned to the PRCwide entity (including United Initiators) 

a rate of 119.02 percent, the highest rate 

determined in the current, or any 

previous, segment of this proceeding. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than 

information obtained in the course of a 

review, it must, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

its disposal. According to the SAA, 

secondary information is defined as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning subject merchandise, or any 

previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’ 8

To ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information has probative 

value. The Department will, to the 

extent practicable, examine the 

reliability and relevance of the 

secondary information used.9 Further, 

independent sources used to corroborate 

information may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. 

In the instant review, we are applying 

to the PRC-wide entity (which includes 

United Initiators) the PRC-wide rate that 

was corroborated in the underlying 

investigation of sales at less than fair 

value (‘‘LTFV’’).10 No evidence has been 

presented in the current review that 

calls into question the reliability of this 

information.11 Thus, the Department 

finds that the rate information is 

reliable. 

Additionally, regarding relevance, the 

Department will consider information 

reasonably at its disposal to determine 

whether a margin continues to have 

relevance. Where circumstances 

indicate that the selected margin is not 

appropriate, the Department will 

disregard the margin and establish an 

appropriate margin. Similarly, the 

Department does not apply a margin 

that has been discredited.12 No unusual 

circumstances are present here. Since 

the LTFV investigation, no new 

information has indicated that this rate 

is invalid or uncharacteristic of the 

persulfates industry. Further, this rate 

has been used as the PRC-wide rate in 

other segments of this proceeding.13

Therefore, we find that this rate has 

probative value. 

As the PRC-wide entity rate from the 

LTFV investigation is both reliable and 

relevant, we preliminarily determine 

that using this rate, the highest rate from 

any segment of this administrative 

proceeding (i.e., the rate of 119.02 

percent), is in accord with section 

776(c) of the Act, which requires that 

secondary information be corroborated. 

Thus, the Department finds that the 

LTFV investigation rate is corroborated 

for the purposes of this administrative 

review and may reasonably be applied 

to the PRC-wide entity based on the 

failure of the PRC-wide entity, which 

includes United Initiators, to cooperate 

to the best of its ability. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily find that the 

following weighted-average dumping 

margin exists for the July 1, 2009, 

through June 30, 2010, POR: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin 

(percent) 

PRC–Wide Entity* ...................... 119.02 

* The PRC-wide entity includes United 

Initiators. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
13360 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results and 

may submit case briefs and/or written 

comments within ten days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals 

to written comments, limited to issues 

raised in such briefs or comments, may 

be filed no later than five days after the 

time limit for filing the case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department 

requests that parties submitting written 

comments provide an executive 

summary and a table of authorities as 

well as an additional copy of those 

comments electronically. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within ten days of publication 

of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Hearing requests should contain the 

following information: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. If a request for a 

hearing is made, parties will be notified 

of the time and date for the hearing to 

be held at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include its analysis of any 

written comments, no later than 120 

days after the publication date of these 

preliminary results. See section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h). 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this review. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results, the Department shall 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the PRCwide entity (which includes United 

Initiators), the cash deposit rate will be 

the PRC-wide rate established in the 

final results of review; (2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the exporter-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

for all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise that have not been found 

to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 

deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of review 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: March 7, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5687 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA283 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) and its 

advisory committees will hold public 

meetings in Anchorage, AK. 

DATES: The meetings will be held March 

28 through April 5, 2011. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific 

dates and times of the meetings. All 

meetings are open to the public, except 

executive sessions. 

ADDRESSES: Hilton Hotel, 500 West 3rd 

Avenue, Anchorage, AK. 

Council address: North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 

4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 

99501–2252. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Witherell, Council staff, Phone: 

907–271–2809. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Council will begin its plenary session at 

8 a.m. on Wednesday, March 30 

continuing through Tuesday, April 5. 

The Council’s Advisory Panel (AP) will 

begin at 8 a.m., Monday, March 28 and 

continue through Friday, April 1. The 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, 

March 28 and continue through 

Wednesday, March 31, 2011. The 

Enforcement Committee will meet 

Tuesday, March 29 from 1 p.m. to 5 

p.m. The Ecosystem Committee will 

meet Tuesday, March 29 from 1 p.m. to 

5 p.m. 

Council Plenary Session: The agenda 

for the Council’s plenary session will 

include the following issues. The 

Council may take appropriate action on 

any of the issues identified. 

Reports 

1. Executive Director’s Report 

NMFS Management Report (including 

status report on charter trip definition, 

and 3-mile line status). 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game 

Report. 

United States Coast Guard Report. 

United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

Report. 

Protected Species Report. 

2. Cooperative (Coop) reports: Review 

American Fisheries Act (AFA) 

Cooperative reports; review Amendment 

80 Cooperative reports; Review Central 

Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperative 

reports (T). 

3. Halibut/Sablefish: Final action on 

Halibut/sablefish hired skipper 

restrictions. 

4. Salmon Issues: Preliminary Review 

of Salmon Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) changes (T); Initial Review of 

Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Chinook Salmon 

Bycatch control measures. 

5. Bering Sea Aleutian Island (BSAI) 

Crab Management Issues: Final Action 

on Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs)/ 

Individual Processing Quota (IPQ) 

Deadline; review alternatives economic 

data collection (EDR); Final Action on 

Pribilof Bristol King Crab rebuilding 

plan; finalize alternatives for Bering Sea 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES