10466 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 

1The 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. 

withdraw a review request in the instant 

review was November 23, 2009, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary may extend the 90-day time 

limit if it is reasonable to do so. We 

determine it is reasonable to do so in 

this case because we have not expended 

significant resources conducting this 

review with respect to Fasolino/Euro– 

American Foods, having only issued to 

and received from interested parties 

several letters. Therefore, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and 

consistent with our practice, we are also 

rescinding this review, in part, with 

respect to Fasolino/Euro–American 

Foods. This administrative review will 

continue with respect to Garofalo and 

Granoro. See, e.g., Carbon Steel Butt– 

Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand: 

Notice of Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 7218 

(February 13, 2009). 

Assessment 

The Department will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. For the companies 

for which this review is rescinded, 

antidumping duties shall be assessed at 

rates equal to the cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties required 

at the time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, during the 

period July 1, 2008, through June 30, 

2009, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i). 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of this notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

importers of their responsibility under 

19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping and/or countervailing 

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 and/or 

countervailing duties occurred and the 

subsequent assessment of doubled 

antidumping duties. 

Notification Regarding APOs 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 

751(a)(3)(A) , and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 

and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: February 26, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4856 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 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 K4P2O7. 

The CAS registry number for TKPP is 

7320–34–5. TKPP is typically 18.7% 

phosphorus and 47.3% potassium. It is 

generally greater than or equal to 43.0% 

P2O5 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 

KH2PO4. The CAS registry number for 

MKP is 7778–77–0. MKP is typically 

22.7% phosphorus, 28.7% potassium 

and 52% P2O5. 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 K2HPO4. The CAS 

registry number for DKP is 7758–11–4. 

DKP is typically 17.8% phosphorus, 

44.8% potassium and 40% P2O5

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
10468 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 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 New–Technology Enterprises ........................................................... 33.00% 

GOC Tax Credit Programs.

6. Preferential Tax Policies for Research and Development by FIEs .................................................................... 1.51% 

7. Income Tax Credit on Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment ........................................................... 1.51% 

GOC Grant Programs.

8. Subsidies to Loss–Making State–Owned Enterprises (SOEs) by the GOCat the National Level ..................... 13.36% 

9. Grants Pursuant to the State Key Technology Renovation Project Fund .......................................................... 13.36% 

10. Grants Pursuant to the ‘‘Famous Brands’’ Program ......................................................................................... 13.36% 

Provincial Grant Program.

11. Subsidies to Loss–Making SOEs by the GOC at the Provincial Level ............................................................ 13.36% 

Indirect Tax Exemption/Reduction Programs.

12. Reduction in or Exemption from the Fixed Assets Investment Orientation Tax ............................................... 1.51% 

13. Value Added Tax (VAT) Refund for FIEs Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment .............................. 1.51% 

VAT and Tariff Exemption on Imported Equipment.

14. VAT and Tariff Exemptions on Imported Equipment ........................................................................................ 1.51% 

Preferential Export Lending.

15. Discounted Loans for Export Oriented Industries (Honorable Industries) ........................................................ 1.76% 

Export Restraints.

16. Export Restraints on Yellow Phosphorus .......................................................................................................... 13.36% 

Summarizing these rates yields a total 

CVD subsidy rate of 109.11% 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 Industry Co. Ltd. ....................................................................................... 109.11 percent ad valorem 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
10470 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XT75 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Hearings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Monkfish Fishery Management 

Plan Amendment 5; reschedule of 

public hearings. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) has 

rescheduled two public hearings to 

solicit comments on proposals to be 

included in the Draft Amendment 5 to 

the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before 5 p.m. e.s.t., 

March 9, 2010. The public hearings will 

be held on March 8, 2010 and March 9, 

2010. For specific dates and times, see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: The Council will take 

comments at public meetings in 

Riverhead, NY and Lakewood, NJ. For 

specific locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. Written comments should 

be sent to Patricia Kurkul, Regional 

Administrator, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic 

Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Comments may also be sent via fax to 

(978) 281–9135 or submitted via e-mail 

to monkamendment5@noaa.gov with 

‘‘Monkfish Amendment 5 Public 

Hearing Comments’’ in the subject line. 

Requests for copies of the public hearing 

document and other information should 

be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive 

Director, 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: The New 

England Fishery Management Council’s 

Monkfish Committee is holding public 

hearings for Amendment 5 to the 

Monkfish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP). The primary purpose of this 

amendment is to address the new 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act that the Council 

adopt Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and 

Accountability Measures (AMs) and 

manage the fishery at long-term 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES