Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 19325 

1See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic 

Acid from India and the People’s Republic of 

China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 19197 

(April 28, 2009) (‘‘Order’’). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 16426 

(April 1, 2010). 

3See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of 

Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1- 

Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from The People’s 

Republic of China (PRC): Request for 

Administrative Review’’ (April 30, 2010). 

4See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 

29976 (May 28, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

5 Id., 75 FR at 29976–77. 

6See, e.g., Letter from Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu 

Jianghai, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic 

Acid from the People’s Republic of China: 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., Ltd.’’ (June 7, 

2010) (‘‘antidumping questionnaire’’). 

7See Letter from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary 

of Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1- 

Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India and 

the People’s Republic of China; A–570–934; Copy 

of Certification of No Shipments by Jiangsu Jianghai 

Chemical Group Co., Ltd.’’ (July 13, 2010); Letter 

from Wujin Fine to the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1- 

Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from 

the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of 

China; A–570–934; Notification by Changzhou 

Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd.’’ (June 28, 

2010). 

8See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to Interested Parties, ‘‘2009– 

2010 Administrative Review of 1- 

Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from 

the People’s Republic of China; Placing CBP Data 

and Entry Documents on the Record’’ (August 13, 

2010); Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to Interested Parties, ‘‘2009– 

2010 Administrative Review of 1- 

Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from 

the People’s Republic of China; Placing CBP Data 

and Entry Documents on the Record’’ (September 

24, 2010) (‘‘CBP Data and Entry Documents’’). 

9See Letter from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary 

of Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethyidene-1, 1- 

Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India and 

the People’s Republic of China; A–570–934; 

Comments on Customs and Border Protection Data 

by Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., Ltd.’’ 

(August 19, 2010); Letter from Wujin Fine to the 

Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethyidene-1, 1- 

Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India and 

the People’s Republic of China; A–570–934; 

Comments on Customs and Border Protection Data 

by Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., 

Ltd.’’ (August 19, 2010); Letter from Jiangsu Jianghai 

to the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1- 

Hydroxyethyidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from 

the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of 

China; A–570–934; Comments on Customs and 

Border Protection Data by Jiangsu Jianghai 

Chemical Group Co., Ltd.’’ (October 4, 2010); Letter 

from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1- 

Hydroxyethidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (October 4, 2010). 

disclosed under the APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

These new shipper reviews and notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.214. 

Dated: March 31, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8323 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–934] 

1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1- 

Diphosphonic Acid From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Intent To Rescind Review 

in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a timely 

request from Compass Chemical 

International LLC (‘‘Petitioner’’), the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on 1- 

hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic 

acid (‘‘HEDP’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) is April 23, 2009, 

through March 31, 2010. This 

administrative review covers two 

exporters of the subject merchandise 

that are being individually examined as 

mandatory respondents. 

The Department has preliminarily 

determined that one mandatory 

respondent, Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical 

Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiangsu Jianghai’’), did 

not demonstrate that it is entitled to a 

separate rate. Therefore, the Department 

has treated Jiangsu Jianghai as part of 

the PRC-wide entity. The other 

mandatory respondent, Changzhou 

Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Wujin Fine’’), reported that it did not 

ship subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. Because record 

evidence does not contradict Wujin 

Fine’s no-shipment claim, the 

Department intends to rescind the 

administrative review with respect to 

this company. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in the final results 

of review, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR for which the importer-specific 

assessment rates are above de minimis. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties that submit comments are 

requested to submit with each argument 

a statement of the issue and a brief 

summary of the argument. The 

Department intends to issue the final 

results of this review no later than 120 

days from the date of publication of this 

notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shawn Higgins, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0679. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 28, 2009, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on HEDP from the PRC in the Federal 

Register.1 On April 1, 2010, the 

Department notified interested parties of 

their opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on HEDP from 

the PRC.2 On April 30, 2010, Petitioner 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of Jiangsu 

Jianghai and Wujin Fine.3 On May 28, 

2010, the Department published a notice 

initiating an antidumping duty 

administrative review of the Order 

covering Jiangsu Jianghai and Wujin 

Fine during the period April 23, 2009, 

through March 31, 2010.4

The Initiation Notice notified parties 

that they must submit timely separate 

rate applications or separate rate 

certifications in order to qualify for a 

separate rate.5 The Department did not 

receive any separate rate applications or 

separate rate certifications. 

On June 7, 2010, the Department 

issued antidumping questionnaires to 

Jiangsu Jianghai and Wujin Fine.6 In 

June and July 2010, Jiangsu Jianghai and 

Wujin Fine submitted letters certifying 

that they did not ship subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR.7 From July through September 

2010, the Department requested and 

received import data and entry 

documentation from CBP. The 

Department placed this information on 

the record of this review and solicited 

comments from interested parties.8

Petitioner, Jiangsu Jianghai, and Wujin 

Fine submitted comments on this 

import data and entry documentation in 

August and October 2010.9 On October 

25, 2010, the Department informed 

Jiangsu Jianghai that record CBP data 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19326 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 

10See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu 

Jianghai, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic 

Acid from the People’s Republic of China: 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., Ltd.’’ (October 

25, 2010) (‘‘Shipment Letter’’) at 2. 

11 Id. 

12See Memorandum from Jiangsu Jianghai to the 

Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1- 

Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India and 

the People’s Republic of China; A–570–934; Section 

A Response’’ (November 19, 2010) (‘‘Section A 

Response’’); Memorandum from Jiangsu Jianghai to 

the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India 

and the People’s Republic of China; A–570–934; 

Section C Response’’ (December 1, 2010); 

Memorandum from Jiangsu Jianghai to the Secretary 

of Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1- 

Diphosphonic Acid from the Republic of India and 

the People’s Republic of China; A–570–934; Section 

D Response of Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., 

Ltd.’’ (December 9, 2010). 

13See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Jiangsu 

Jianghai, ‘‘Sections A & C Supplemental 

Questionnaire’’ (December 9, 2010) (‘‘Sections A & 

C Supplemental’’); Letter from Robert Bolling, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to 

Jiangsu Jianghai, ‘‘Section D Supplemental 

Questionnaire’’ (December 17, 2010). 

14See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 1- 

Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from 

the People’s Republic of China: Telephone 

Conversation With Counsel for Jiangsu Jianghai 

Chemical Group Co., Ltd.’’ (January 3, 2011) 

(‘‘Telephone Conversation Memo’’). 

15See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to All 

Interested Parties, ‘‘Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on 1-Hydroxyethylidene1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic 

of China: Request for Comments on Selection of 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values’’ 

(November 12, 2010). 

16See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of 

Commerce, ‘‘1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1- 

Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of 

China’’ (November 30, 2010); Letter from Petitioner 

to the Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘1- 

Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from 

the People’s Republic of China’’ (December 16, 

2010). 

17See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic 

Acid From the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary 

Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 74684 (December 1, 2010). 

18C2H8O7P2 or C(CH3)(OH)(PO3H2)2. 

19See Shipment Letter at 2. 

20See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 

1401, 1405–06 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

21 Id., 117 F.3d at 1405. 

22See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) 

(‘‘Sparklers’’); Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 710 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1355–56 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2010) (‘‘Qingdao Taifa’’) (citing Coal. for 

the Pres. of Am. Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket 

Mfrs. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 229, 242 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 1999) (‘‘Brake Drum’’)). 

and entry documentation indicated that 

Jiangsu Jianghai had a shipment of 

subject merchandise that entered the 

United States during the POR.10 Further, 

the Department explained that it is 

necessary for Jiangsu Jianghai to provide 

the information requested by the 

Department in the antidumping 

questionnaire because the entry date of 

Jiangsu Jianghai’s shipment was within 

the POR and there is no record evidence 

in this review of circumstances that 

compel the Department to employ an 

atypical methodology to determine the 

universe of sales to be examined during 

this review.11

In November and December 2010, 

Jiangsu Jianghai submitted timely 

responses to Sections A, C, and D of the 

antidumping questionnaire.12 The 

Department issued a supplementary 

Sections A and C questionnaire and a 

supplementary Section D questionnaire 

to Jiangsu Jianghai on December 9, 2010, 

and December 17, 2010, respectively.13

Jiangsu Jianghai neither responded to 

these supplementary questionnaires nor 

asked for extensions of time to 

respond.14

In response to the Department’s 

November 12, 2010, letter providing all 

interested parties with an opportunity to 

submit comments regarding surrogate 

country and surrogate value selection,15

Petitioner filed surrogate country and 

surrogate value comments in November 

and December 2010.16

On December 1, 2010, the Department 

extended the time period for completing 

the preliminary results of this 

administrative review until March 31, 

2011.17

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

includes all grades of aqueous, acidic 

(non-neutralized) concentrations of 1- 

hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic 

acid,18 also referred to as 

hydroxethlylidenediphosphonic acid, 

hydroxyethanediphosphonic acid, 

acetodiphosphonic acid, and etidronic 

acid. The CAS (Chemical Abstract 

Service) registry number for HEDP is 

2809–21–4. The merchandise subject to 

the order is currently classified in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading 

2931.00.9043. It may also enter under 

HTSUS subheading 2811.19.6090. 

While HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes 

only, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Intent To Partially Rescind the 

Administrative Review 

As stated above, Jiangsu Jianghai and 

Wujin Fine submitted letters certifying 

that they did not ship subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. To test these claims, the 

Department ran a CBP data query, 

issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP 

requesting that it provide any 

information that contradicted these noshipment claims, and obtained entry 

documentation from CBP. After 

examining this information, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that Jiangsu Jianghai had a 

shipment of subject merchandise that 

entered the United States during the 

POR.19 However, because the evidence 

on the record does not contradict Wujin 

Fine’s no-shipment claim, the 

Department intends to rescind this 

administrative review with respect to 

Wujin Fine, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3). 

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. In 

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

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

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

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. None of the 

parties to this proceeding have 

contested NME treatment. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department maintains a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control.20 In 

accordance with this presumption, all 

exporters of subject merchandise in an 

NME country are assigned a single rate 

unless an exporter can affirmatively 

demonstrate its entitlement to a 

separate, company-specific margin by 

showing an absence of government 

control, both in law and in fact, with 

respect to export activities.21 To 

determine whether de jure government 

control exists, the Department examines 

evidence of: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with an 

individual exporter’s business and 

export license; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; or (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.22

Evidence supporting de facto absence of 

government control includes: (1) 

Whether each exporter sets its own 

export prices independently of the 

government; (2) whether each exporter 

has the authority to negotiate and sign 

contracts and other agreements; (3) 

whether each exporter has autonomy 

from the government in making 

decisions regarding the selection of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 19327 

23See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586– 

87 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide,’’); Qingdao 

Taifa, 710 F. Supp. 2d at 1356 (citing Brake Drum, 

44 F. Supp. 2d at 243). 

24See Section A Response. 

25See Sections A & C Supplemental at Enclosure 

1–3. 

26See Telephone Conversation Memo. 

27See antidumping questionnaire at G–1 (‘‘[A]s a 

respondent, your company must wholly and fully 

participate in this administrative review. * * * a 

respondent must respond to all information that has 

been requested by the Department’’); Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 

74 FR 41374 (August 17, 2009) (‘‘Furniture’’) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 32. 

28See antidumping questionnaire at G–1. 

29See Furniture, and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 32; see also 

antidumping questionnaire at G–1. 

management; and (4) whether each 

exporter can retain the proceeds from its 

export sales and make independent 

decisions regarding disposition of 

profits or financing of losses.23

On November 19, 2010, Jiangsu 

Jianghai submitted its response to 

Section A of the antidumping 

questionnaire.24 Jiangsu Jianghai’s 

submission was incomplete and 

contained information insufficient to 

overcome the presumption that Jiangsu 

Jianghai’s export activities are 

controlled, in law and in fact, by the 

PRC government. On December 9, 2010, 

the Department issued Jiangsu Jianghai 

a supplementary questionnaire that 

requested Jiangsu Jianghai to correct 

these deficiencies and provide 

additional information necessary to 

determine whether it qualified for a 

separate rate.25 On January 3, 2011, the 

Department received confirmation that 

Jiangsu Jianghai would not provide the 

Department with the information 

requested in the December 9, 2010 

supplementary questionnaire.26

Therefore, by submitting incomplete 

and unverifiable responses to questions 

regarding government control of its 

export activities and not responding to 

the Department’s supplementary 

questionnaire, Jiangsu Jianghai has 

prevented the Department from further 

investigating the facts related to the 

question of government control and 

failed to demonstrate an absence of de 

jure and de facto government control 

under the criteria identified in Sparklers 

and Silicon Carbide. 

Moreover, by submitting incomplete 

and unverifiable responses to the 

antidumping questionnaire and not 

responding to either the Department’s 

December 9, 2010, supplementary 

Sections A and C questionnaire or its 

December 17, 2010, supplementary 

Section D questionnaire, Jiangsu 

Jianghai did not meet its requirement to 

fully participate in this administrative 

review by responding to all information 

that has been requested by the 

Department.27 The Department does not 

permit respondents to selectively 

choose which requests to respond to or 

which information to submit.28 Jiangsu 

Jianghai cannot qualify for separate rate 

status by participating in only limited 

aspects of this review while 

simultaneously failing to provide 

complete and verifiable data with 

respect to other required elements.29

Therefore, the Department has 

preliminarily determined that Jiangsu 

Jianghai does not qualify for a separate 

rate because it has failed to demonstrate 

an absence of de jure and de facto 

government control under the criteria 

identified in Sparklers and Silicon 

Carbide and did not fully participate in 

this administrative review. Accordingly, 

the Department is treating Jiangsu 

Jianghai as part of the PRC-wide entity. 

Moreover, because Jiangsu Jianghai’s 

responses to the antidumping 

questionnaire cannot be verified and 

Jiangsu Jianghai did not remedy the 

deficiencies noted in the Department’s 

supplementary questionnaires, the 

Department has, in accordance with 

sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, 

preliminarily determined to disregard 

all of Jiangsu Jianghai’s responses to the 

antidumping questionnaire. 

Use of Facts Available and Adverse 

Facts Available (‘‘AFA’’) 

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, (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, (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding, or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

Further, Section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that the Department may use 

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. 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. 

Application of Total AFA to the PRCWide Entity 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that if one of the 

companies for which this review was 

initiated ‘‘does not qualify for a separate 

rate, all other exporters of {HEDP from 

the PRC} that have not qualified for a 

separate rate are deemed to be covered 

by this review as part of the single PRC 

entity. * * * ’’ As noted above, Jiangsu 

Jianghai, one of the companies for 

which this review was initiated, has not 

qualified for a separate rate. Therefore, 

the PRC-wide entity is now under 

review. 

As explained above, Jiangsu Jianghai, 

as part of the PRC-wide entity, 

submitted incomplete and unverifiable 

responses to the antidumping 

questionnaire and did not respond to 

either the Department’s December 9, 

2010, supplementary Sections A and C 

questionnaire or its December 17, 2010 

supplementary Section D questionnaire. 

For these reasons, the Department has 

preliminarily determined that the PRCwide entity (1) withheld information 

that was requested, (2) failed to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established and in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, (3) 

significantly impeded this proceeding, 

and (4) provided information that 

cannot be verified. Therefore, in 

accordance with subsections 

776(a)(2)(A) through (D) of the Act, the 

Department has preliminarily based the 

dumping margin of the PRC-wide entity 

on the facts otherwise available. 

Further, because the PRC-wide entity 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability to comply with the 

Department’s requests for information, 

the Department has preliminarily 

determined, pursuant to section 776(b) 

of the Act, to use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide 

entity in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available. 

Selection of the AFA Rate 

Section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.308(c)(1) provide that the 

Department’s adverse inference ‘‘may 

include reliance on information derived 

from (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any other information placed on 

the record.’’ In selecting a rate for use as 

AFA, the Department selects a rate that 

is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate 

the purpose of the facts available rule to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19328 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 

30See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8932 (February 23, 1998). 

31See Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 

(1994) (‘‘SAA’’); Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; 

Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 

70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005). 

32See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

39940, 39942 (July 11, 2008). 

33See Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

2009). 

34See SAA at 870. 

35 Id. 

36See 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). 

37See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High 

Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 

68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic 

Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560 

(November 5, 2003); Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From 

Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183–84 (March 11, 2005). 

38See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic 

Acid from the Republic of India and the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 73 FR 20023, 20025–26 (April 14, 

2008) (‘‘Investigation Initiation’’); 1- 

Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545, 

10547 (March 11, 2009) (‘‘Final Determination’’). 

39See Investigation Initiation, 73 FR at 20025–26; 

Final Determination, 74 FR at 10547. 

40See Final Determination, 74 FR at 10547. 

41See CBP Data and Entry Documents at 

Attachment 1. 

42See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘1- 

Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from 

the People’s Republic of China: Corroboration 

Memorandum for Preliminary Results of 

Administrative Review’’ (March 31, 2011). 

43 Jiangsu Jianghai is part of the PRC-wide entity. 

44See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 

45See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

46See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

47See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

information in a timely manner.’’ 30

Furthermore, it is the Department’s 

practice to ensure ‘‘that the party does 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully’’ 31 and to select ‘‘the 

highest rate on the record of the 

proceeding’’ 32 that can be corroborated, 

to the extent practicable.33 Therefore, as 

AFA, the Department has preliminarily 

assigned the PRC-wide entity a dumping 

margin of 72.42 percent, which was the 

margin calculated in the petition, as 

adjusted by the Department for 

initiation, and is the highest dumping 

margin on the record of this proceeding. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

of the Act concerning the subject 

merchandise.34 ‘‘Corroborate’’ means 

that the Department will satisfy itself 

that the secondary information to be 

used has probative value.35 To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information to be 

used.36 Independent sources used to 

corroborate such information may 

include, for example, published price 

lists, official import statistics and 

customs data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation or review.37

To corroborate the 72.42 percent 

petition rate, the Department first 

revisited its pre-initiation analysis of the 

information in the petition. During the 

initiation of the antidumping 

investigation of HEDP from the PRC, the 

Department examined evidence 

supporting the calculations in the 

petition and the supplemental 

information provided by Petitioner to 

determine the probative value of the 

margins alleged in the petition.38 During 

the Department’s pre-initiation analysis, 

it examined the information used as the 

basis of export price (‘‘EP’’) and normal 

value (‘‘NV’’) in the petition, and the 

calculations used to derive the alleged 

margins.39 Also during its pre-initiation 

analysis, the Department examined 

information from various independent 

sources provided either in the petition 

or in supplements to the petition, which 

corroborated key elements of the EP and 

NV calculations.40

To further corroborate the 72.42 

percent petition rate, the Department 

examined the information on the record 

of this administrative review. Because 

the Department has, in accordance with 

section 782(d) of the Act, disregarded all 

of Jiangsu Jianghai’s responses to the 

antidumping questionnaire, the 

Department preliminarily determined 

that the only information on the record 

of this administrative review that can be 

used for purposes of corroboration are 

the entry documents provided by CBP.41

These entry documents—particularly 

the commercial invoice for Jiangsu 

Jianghai’s single entry of subject 

merchandise during the POR—establish 

that Jiangsu Jianghai’s U.S. price 

approximates the U.S. price in the 

petition.42 Therefore, the Department 

has preliminarily determined that the 

U.S. price in the petition reflects 

commercial reality. 

For these reasons, the Department has 

preliminarily determined that the 72.42 

percent petition rate has probative value 

and, therefore, is corroborated to the 

extent practicable, in accordance with 

section 776(c) of the Act. Moreover, 

because the information on the record of 

this administrative review that can be 

used for purposes of corroboration 

approximate the information used as a 

basis for the petition rate, the 

Department is satisfied that the 72.42 

percent petition rate reflects commercial 

reality. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department has preliminarily 

determined that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist for the 

period April 23, 2009, through March 

31, 2010: 

Exporter Antidumping duty 

percent margin 

PRC-Wide Entity 43 ....... 72.42 

Comments 

Interested parties may submit written 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review.44 Rebuttal comments 

must be limited to the issues raised in 

the written comments and may be filed 

no later than 35 days after the date of 

publication.45 Parties submitting written 

comments or rebuttal comments are 

requested to provide the Department 

with an additional copy of those 

comments on CD–ROM. Any interested 

party may request a hearing within 30 

days of publication of these preliminary 

results.46 Any hearing, if requested, 

ordinarily will be held two days after 

the scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs.47 Parties should confirm 

by telephone the date, time, and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 19329 

location of the hearing two days before 

the scheduled date. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in the briefs, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(h)(1), unless the time 

limit is extended. 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

final results of this review. The 

Department intends to instruct CBP to 

liquidate entries containing subject 

merchandise exported by the PRC-wide 

entity at the PRC-wide rate the 

Department determines in the final 

results of this review. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

this review. 

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 from the PRC 

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 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC 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; (2) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate established in the 

final results of this review; and (3) 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 non-PRC 

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) 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 presuming that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and, subsequently, the 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

The Department is issuing and 

publishing these preliminary results of 

administrative review in accordance 

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

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

Dated: March 31, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8347 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA358 

New England Fishery Management 

Council (NEFMC); Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

hold a 3-day meeting on Tuesday 

through Thursday, April 26–28, 2011, to 

consider actions affecting New England 

fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 through 

Thursday, April 28, 2011. The meeting 

will begin at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April 

26th and at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, 

April 27th and Thursday, April 28th. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Mystic Hilton Hotel, 20 Coogan 

Boulevard, Mystic, CT 06355; 

telephone: (860) 572–0731; fax: (860) 

572–0238. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 

Following introductions and any 

announcements, the Council will 

receive brief reports from its Chairman 

and Executive Director, the NOAA 

Fisheries Regional Administrator 

(Northeast Region), Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center and Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council liaisons, 

NOAA General Counsel, representatives 

of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission, as 

well as staff from the Vessel Monitoring 

Systems Operations and Law 

Enforcement offices. There also will be 

a review of any experimental fishery 

permit applications that have been 

made available for review since the 

January Council meeting. The Council 

will then receive a presentation and 

discuss one of its 2011 priorities, a 

proposed NEFMC-sponsored catch 

shares workshop. The discussion will 

include consideration and possible 

approval of a workshop goal and 

objectives. Prior to a break, Mr. Eric 

Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for 

NOAA Fisheries, will address the 

Council about the agency’s management 

review of fisheries in the Northeast. The 

focus will be on the relationships among 

the NEFMC, the Northeast Regional 

Office, and the Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center and factors that affect 

the effectiveness of the three entities to 

carry out their responsibilities under 

fisheries law. Following a break, an 

open public period is scheduled for any 

interested party who wishes to provide 

brief comments on issues relevant to 

Council business but not otherwise 

listed on the meeting agenda. A 

representative of the Department of the 

Interior will summarize that agency’s 

offshore wind initiative, including the 

Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island 

Task Force efforts to date. The day will 

conclude on Tuesday with a report from 

the Council’s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSC). Items for review and 

discussion, along with SSC 

recommendations, include the 

following: (1) A review of the 

Massachusetts Fisheries Institute report 

Economic and Scientific Conditions in 

the Mass. Multispecies Groundfishery; 

(2) recommendations for a FSV Bigelow 

survey calibration method that would be 

used to determine skate Allowable 

Biological Catch (ABC) and the status of 

the skate complex resource; (3) guidance 

to the Whiting Plan Development Team 

on options and methods for determining 

ABCs for silver, red and offshore hake; 

and (4) a report on conclusions from a 

peer review panel that evaluated the 

NEFMC Habitat Plan Development 

Team’s swept area seabed impact (SASI) 

model. 

Wednesday, April 27, 2011 

The second session will begin with a 

report from the Council’s Research 

Steering Committee about several final 

cooperative research project reports, 

including the University of Rhode 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES