[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 44 (Monday, March 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10466-10470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4870]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-963]


Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to 
producers and exporters of certain potassium phosphate salts from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC).\1\ For information on the estimated 
subsidy rates, see the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this 
notice. See the ``Disclosure and Public Comment'' section, below, for 
procedures on filing comments regarding this preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The name of this investigation was changed from ``Certain 
Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of 
China'' to ``Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's 
Republic of China'' as a result of the U.S. International Trade 
Commission's (ITC) preliminary determination of no material injury 
or threat of material injury with regard to imports of sodium 
tripolyphosphate from the PRC. See the section ``Case History,'' 
below; see also Memorandum to the File, ``Certain Potassium 
Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China,'' dated 
November 20, 2009, a public document on file in the Department's 
Central Records Unit (CRU) in Room 1117 of the main Commerce 
building. Public versions of all memoranda cited in this notice are 
on file in the CRU.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: March 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Huston or Gene Calvert, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4261 and (202) 482-3586, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    On October 14, 2009, the Department initiated a countervailing duty 
(CVD) investigation of Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts 
from the PRC. See Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts From the 
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigation, 74 FR 54778 (October 23, 2009) (Initiation Notice). On 
November 9, 2009, the Department selected Hubei Xingfa Chemicals Group 
Co., Ltd. (Xingfa), and Jiangsu Chengxing Phosph-Chemicals Co., Ltd. 
(Jiangyin Chengxing) as mandatory company respondents. See Memorandum 
to Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Operations, ``Selection of Respondents for the 
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Sodium and Potassium 
Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China,'' dated November 
9, 2009. On November 10, 2009 the Department issued a CVD questionnaire 
to the Government of the People's Republic of China (GOC), requesting 
that the GOC forward the company sections of the questionnaire to 
Xingfa and to Jiangyin Chengxing.
    In its initiation, the Department determined that there was a 
single class or kind of merchandise. See Countervailing Duty Initiation 
Checklist: Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts, dated October 
19, 2009 (Initiation Checklist). On November 21, 2009, the ITC issued 
its preliminary determination and found that there were four domestic 
like products: Sodium Triployphosphate (STPP), Monopotassium Phosphate 
(MKP), Dipotassium Phosphate (DKP) and Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate 
(TKPP). See Investigations Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173 
(Preliminary), Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from China, 
74 FR 61173 (November 23, 2009) (ITC Salts Preliminary). The ITC 
determined that the industry producing MKP is materially injured or 
threatened with material injury, and that industries producing DKP and 
TKPP are threatened with material injury. The ITC made a negative 
determination regarding STPP, finding no reasonable indication that the 
industry producing

[[Page 10467]]

STPP is materially injured or threatened with material injury.
    As a result of the ITC's negative determination for STPP, and 
comments received from Xingfa and Jiangyin Chengxing, the Department 
rescinded its selection of Xingfa and Jiangyin Chengxing as mandatory 
company respondents because these companies produced and exported only, 
or mostly, STPP. See Memorandum to John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 
``Re-selection of Respondents in the Countervailing Duty Investigation 
of Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of 
China,'' dated December 3, 2009 (Re-selection Memorandum). The 
Department also changed the name of this investigation to ``Certain 
Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China.'' See 
Memorandum to the File, ``Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated November 20, 2009. In the Re-
selection Memorandum, based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
data for potassium phosphate salts, the Department then selected 
Lianyungang Mupro Import Export Co., Ltd. (Mupro), Mianyang Aostar 
Phosphate Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (Aostar), and Shifang Anda 
Chemicals Co., Ltd. (Anda), the largest (by volume) publicly 
identifiable Chinese producers/exporters of subject merchandise during 
the period of investigation (POI), as the new mandatory company 
respondents in this investigation. See Re-selection Memorandum. The 
Department informed the GOC of its decision on December 3, 2009, and 
issued CVD questionnaires to Mupro, Aostar, and Anda (hereinafter, 
mandatory company respondents) on December 4, 2009, confirming receipt 
thereof through FedEx. See Memorandum to the File, ``Certain Potassium 
Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China-Respondent 
Questionnaire Proof of Delivery,'' dated December 15, 2009. Neither the 
GOC, nor the three mandatory company respondents, submitted any 
responses to the Department's questionnaires.
    At the request of ICL Performance Products LP and Prayon, Inc. 
(Petitioners), on November 25, 2009, we postponed the preliminary 
determination in this investigation until February 21, 2010, in 
accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act). See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts From the 
People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination 
in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 63722 (December 4, 
2009). On February 12, 2010, the Department exercised its discretion to 
toll Import Administration deadlines for the duration of the closure of 
the Federal Government from February 5 through February 12, 2010. Thus, 
all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 
seven days. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of 
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During 
the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated February 12, 2010.'' Based on this 
memorandum, the revised deadline for the preliminary determination of 
this investigation is now February 28, 2010. However, since this date 
falls on a weekend, the date of signature for this preliminary 
determination is March 1, 2010.
    On February 18, 2010, Petitioners requested that the final 
determination of this CVD investigation be aligned with the final 
determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation, in 
accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act.

Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the ITC is required to determine 
whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially 
injure, or threaten material injury to, a United States industry. On 
November 9, 2009 the ITC transmitted its preliminary determination to 
the Department. On November 23, 2009, the ITC published its preliminary 
determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States producing MKP is materially injured or threatened 
with material injury, and industries in the United States producing DKP 
and TKPP are threatened with material injury by reason of allegedly 
subsidized imports from the PRC of subject merchandise. See ITC Salts 
Preliminary. As noted above, the ITC found that there is no reasonable 
indication that an industry producing STPP is materially injured by 
reason of imports alleged to be subsidized by the PRC. See ITC Salts 
Preliminary.

Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination

    In addition to this CVD investigation, there is a companion AD 
investigation. See Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts From 
the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation, 74 FR 54024 (October 21, 2009). The CVD investigation 
and the AD investigation have the same scope with regard to the 
merchandise covered. As noted above, on February 18, 2010, the 
Petitioners submitted a letter requesting alignment of the final CVD 
determination with the final determination in the companion AD 
investigation of Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's 
Republic of China, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, and 
19 CFR 351.210(b)(4). Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the due date for 
the final CVD determination with the due date for the final AD 
determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than 
May 24, 2010.

Scope of the Investigation

    The phosphate salts covered by this investigation include anhydrous 
MKP, anhydrous DKP and TKPP, whether anhydrous or in solution 
(collectively ``phosphate salts'').
    TKPP, also known as normal potassium pyrophosphate, diphosphoric 
acid or tetrapotassium salt, is a potassium salt with the formula 
K<INF>4</INF>P<INF>2</INF>O<INF>7</INF>. The CAS registry number for 
TKPP is 7320-34-5. TKPP is typically 18.7[percnt] phosphorus and 
47.3[percnt] potassium. It is generally greater than or equal to 
43.0[percnt] P<INF>2</INF>O<INF>5</INF> content. TKPP is classified 
under heading 2835.39.1000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS).
    MKP, also known as potassium dihydrogen phosphate, KDP, or 
monobasic potassium phosphate, is a potassium salt with the formula 
KH<INF>2</INF>PO<INF>4</INF>. The CAS registry number for MKP is 7778-
77-0. MKP is typically 22.7[percnt] phosphorus, 28.7[percnt] potassium 
and 52[percnt] P<INF>2</INF>O<INF>5</INF>. MKP is classified under 
heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS.
    DKP, also known as dipotassium salt, dipotassium hydrogen 
orthophosphate or potassium phosphate, dibasic, has a chemical formula 
of K<INF>2</INF>HPO<INF>4</INF>. The CAS registry number for DKP is 
7758-11-4. DKP is typically 17.8[percnt] phosphorus, 44.8[percnt] 
potassium and 40[percnt] P<INF>2</INF>O<INF>5</INF> content. DKP is 
classified under heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS.
    The products covered by this investigation include the foregoing 
phosphate salts in all grades, whether food grade or technical grade. 
The products covered by this investigation include anhydrous MKP and 
DKP without regard to the physical form, whether crushed, granule, 
powder or fines. Also covered are all forms of TKPP, whether crushed, 
granule, powder, fines or solution.

[[Page 10468]]

    For purposes of the investigation, the narrative description is 
dispositive, not the tariff heading, American Chemical Society, CAS 
registry number or CAS name, or the specific percentage chemical 
composition identified above.

Scope Comments

    As explained in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
set aside a period of time in the Initiation Notice for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to 
submit comments within 21 calendar days of publication of that notice. 
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997); and Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 54779. No such 
comments were filed on the record of either this investigation or the 
companion antidumping duty investigation.

Period of Investigation

    The period covered by this investigation (i.e., the POI) is 
calendar year 2008 (January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008).

Application of Facts Otherwise Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or 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 a 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. In the instant case, the GOC did not respond 
to the Department's November 10, 2009 CVD investigation questionnaire 
and the three mandatory company respondents, Mupro, Aostar, and Anda, 
did not respond to the Department's December 04, 2009 CVD investigation 
questionnaire. As a result, the GOC and the three mandatory company 
respondents did not provide the requested information that is necessary 
for the Department to determine whether the mandatory company 
respondents benefitted from countervailable subsidies and to calculate 
a CVD rate for this preliminary determination. Therefore, in reaching 
this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the 
Act, the Department has based the CVD rates for Mupro, Aostar, and Anda 
on facts otherwise available.

Application of an Adverse Inference

    Section 776(b) of the Act further 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. Because the GOC and 
the mandatory company respondents chose not to respond to the 
Department's CVD investigation questionnaire, the Department 
preliminarily determines that the GOC, Mupro, Aostar, and Anda did not 
cooperate to the best of their ability in this investigation and that, 
in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is 
warranted (i.e., adverse facts available (AFA)), pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act.

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c) authorize the Department to rely 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 this case, no appropriate 
information was placed on the record of this investigation from which 
to select appropriate AFA rates for any of the subject programs, and, 
because this is an investigation, we have no previous segments of this 
proceeding from which to draw potential AFA rates. Therefore, we are 
applying the policy developed in prior CVD investigations of the PRC. 
See, e.g., Sodium Nitrite From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 38981 (July 8, 
2008) (Sodium Nitrite from the PRC) to the 16 programs under 
investigation.
    Specifically, with regard to income tax reduction or exemption 
programs, information from the petition indicates that during the POI, 
the standard income tax for corporations in China was 30 percent; there 
was an additional local income tax rate of three percent. See the 
September 24, 2009 Letter to the Secretary of Commerce, ``Petition for 
the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of 
China,'' Volume 4, Exhibit CVD-1. To determine the program rate for the 
five alleged income tax programs under which companies received either 
a reduction of the income tax rate, or an exemption from income tax, we 
have applied an adverse inference that Mupro, Aostar, and Anda each 
paid no income taxes during the POI. Therefore, the highest possible 
countervailable subsidy rate for the five national, provincial, and 
local income tax programs subject to this investigation combine to 
total 33 percent. Thus, we are applying a countervailable rate of 33 
percent on an overall basis for the 5 income tax programs (i.e., the 
five income tax programs combined provided a countervailable benefit of 
33 percent). This 33 percent AFA rate does not apply to other types of 
tax programs.
    For programs other than those involving income tax exemptions and 
reductions, we applied the highest non-de minimis rate calculated for 
the same or similar program in another PRC CVD investigation. Absent an 
above-de minimis subsidy rate calculated for the same or similar 
program, we applied the highest calculated subsidy rate for any program 
otherwise listed that could conceivably be used by the mandatory 
company respondents. See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination, 74 FR 37012, 37013 (July 27, 2009); see also Sodium 
Nitrite from the PRC.
    For a discussion of the application of the individual AFA rates for 
programs preliminarily determined to be countervailable, see Memorandum 
to the File, ``Application of Adverse Facts Available Rates for 
Preliminary Determination,'' dated concurrently with this notice (PRC 
Salts Calculation Memorandum). Attachment II of this memorandum 
contains relevant sections of China CFS Final; Laminated Woven Sacks 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination, in Part, of 
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 35639 (June 24, 2008) and accompanying 
``Issues and Decision Memorandum;'' and Circular Welded Carbon Quality 
Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 70961 (November 24, 2008) and 
accompanying ``Issues and Decision Memorandum,'' which contain the 
public information concerning subsidy programs, including the subsidy 
rates, upon which we are relying as AFA.

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

[[Page 10469]]

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 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to 
``corroborate'' secondary information, the Department will satisfy 
itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. 
See SAA at 870. The Department will, to the extent practicable, examine 
the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA 
emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the 
selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA 
at 869-870.
    With regard to the reliability aspect of corroboration, unlike 
other types of information, such as publicly available data on the 
national inflation rate of a given country or national average interest 
rates, there typically are no independent sources for data on company-
specific benefits resulting from countervailable subsidy programs. With 
respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will 
consider information reasonably at its disposal in considering the 
relevance of information used to calculate a countervailable subsidy 
benefit. The Department will not use information where circumstances 
indicate that the information is not appropriate as adverse facts 
available. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). 
In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained that 
contradicts the relevance of the information relied upon in a prior 
China CVD investigation. Therefore, in the instant case, the Department 
preliminarily finds that the information used has been corroborated to 
the extent practicable.

Programs Preliminarily Determined to be Countervailable

    As discussed above, as adverse facts available, we are making the 
adverse inference that Mupro, Aostar, and Anda each received 
countervailable subsidies under the 16 subsidy programs that the 
Department included in its initiation. For a description of these 16 
programs, see the Initiation Checklist. For the identification of the 
source of each program's AFA rate for this countervailing duty 
investigation, see PRC Salts Calculation Memorandum at Attachment II.
Listed below are the AFA rates applicable to each program.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Subsidy Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income Tax Rate Exemption/Reduction
 Programs................................
1. Two Free, Three Half Tax Exemption for
 Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIEs).....
2. Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs based on
 Geographic Location.....................
3. Income Tax Exemption Programs for
 Export Oriented FIEs....................
4. Local Income Tax Exemptions or
 Reduction Programs for ``Productive''
 FIEs....................................
5. Reduced Income Tax Rate for High- and                   33.00[percnt]
 New-Technology Enterprises..............
GOC Tax Credit Programs..................
6. Preferential Tax Policies for Research                   1.51[percnt]
 and Development by FIEs.................
7. Income Tax Credit on Purchases of                        1.51[percnt]
 Domestically Produced Equipment.........
GOC Grant Programs.......................
8. Subsidies to Loss-Making State-Owned                    13.36[percnt]
 Enterprises (SOEs) by the GOCat the
 National Level..........................
9. Grants Pursuant to the State Key                        13.36[percnt]
 Technology Renovation Project Fund......
10. Grants Pursuant to the ``Famous                        13.36[percnt]
 Brands'' Program........................
Provincial Grant Program.................
11. Subsidies to Loss-Making SOEs by the                   13.36[percnt]
 GOC at the Provincial Level.............
Indirect Tax Exemption/Reduction Programs
12. Reduction in or Exemption from the                      1.51[percnt]
 Fixed Assets Investment Orientation Tax.
13. Value Added Tax (VAT) Refund for FIEs                   1.51[percnt]
 Purchasing Domestically Produced
 Equipment...............................
VAT and Tariff Exemption on Imported
 Equipment...............................
14. VAT and Tariff Exemptions on Imported                   1.51[percnt]
 Equipment...............................
Preferential Export Lending..............
15. Discounted Loans for Export Oriented                    1.76[percnt]
 Industries (Honorable Industries).......
Export Restraints........................
16. Export Restraints on Yellow                            13.36[percnt]
 Phosphorus..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summarizing these rates yields a total CVD subsidy rate of 
109.11[percnt] ad valorem.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have 
assigned a subsidy rate to each of the three producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise that were selected as mandatory company respondents 
in this CVD investigation. We preliminarily determine the total 
countervailable subsidy to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Producer/Exporter               Countervailable Subsidy Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lianyungang Mupro Import Export Co Ltd...      109.11 percent ad valorem
Mianyang Aostar Phosphate Chemical             109.11 percent ad valorem
 Industry Co. Ltd........................
Shifang Anda Chemicals Co. Ltd...........      109.11 percent ad valorem
All-Others...............................      109.11 percent ad valorem
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the all-others rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of 
the Act provides that if the countervailable subsidy rates established 
for all exporters and producers individually investigated are 
determined entirely in accordance with section 776 of the Act, the 
Department may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others 
rate

[[Page 10470]]

for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this 
case, the rate calculated for the three investigated companies is based 
entirely on facts available under section 776 of the Act. There is no 
other information on the record upon which to determine an all-others 
rate. As a result, we have used the AFA rate assigned for Mupro, 
Aostar, and Anda as the all-others rate. This method is consistent with 
the Department's past practice. See, e.g., Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From Argentina, 66 FR 37007, 37008 (July 16, 2001); see also 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Prestressed 
Concrete Steel Wire Strand From India, 68 FR 68356 (December 8, 2003); 
see also Sodium Nitrite from the PRC.
    In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are 
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of 
all entries of the subject merchandise from the PRC, which are entered 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require 
a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for such entries of the 
merchandise in the amounts indicated above. This suspension will remain 
in effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent 
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    In accordance with section 705(b)(2)(B) of the Act, if our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination 
within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

Disclosure and Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
to the parties the information on which it relied to determine the 
subsidy rates for this preliminary determination within five days of 
its announcement. No party has submitted a notice of appearance on 
behalf of the GOC or the mandatory company respondents, and 
questionnaire responses were not submitted in this investigation by 
either the GOC or the three mandatory company respondents. Thus, the 
Department does not intend to conduct verification proceedings in this 
countervailing duty investigation. For these reasons, the due date for 
interested parties to submit case briefs will be 50 days from the date 
of publication of the preliminary determination. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(i). As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages, and a 
table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(2). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised 
in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case 
briefs are filed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c), we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on this preliminary determination. Individuals who wish to 
request a hearing must submit a written request, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c), within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register, to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), parties will 
be notified of the schedule for the hearing and parties should confirm 
by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before 
the scheduled time. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) 
party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants and; (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of 
the arguments to be raised at the hearing.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: March 1, 2010.
Carole A. Showers,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-4870 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S