16836 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices 

Dated: April 6, 2009. 

Christopher Cassel, 

Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement 

Office. 

[FR Doc. E9–8396 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

California Association for Research in 

Astronomy dba W.M. Keck 

Observatory, Notice of Decision on 

Applications for Duty–Free Entry of 

Scientific Instruments 

This is a decision pursuant to Section 

6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and 

Cultural Materials Importation Act of 

1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by 

Pub. .106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 

301). Related records can be viewed 

between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in 

Room 3705, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave, 

NW, Washington, D.C. 

Comments: None received. Decision: 

Approved. We know of no instruments 

of equivalent scientific value to the 

foreign instruments described below, for 

such purposes as this is intended to be 

used, that was being manufactured in 

the United States at the time of its order. 

Docket Number: 08–061. Applicant: 

California Association for Research in 

Astronomy dba W.M. Keck Observatory, 

Kamuela, HI 96743. Instrument: Laser 

Launch Telescope Assembly (LTA). 

Manufacturer: Galileo Avionica, Italy. 

Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 9219, 

March 3, 2009. 

Reasons: This laser launch telescope 

assembly (LTA) has stringent technical 

requirements in regard to optical 

qualities, size, weight, and laser power 

capabilities than standard telescope 

designs that are used for viewing versus 

projection of a laser beam. Unique 

features of this LTA include: 1)it is able 

to handle the laser power of 20 watts of 

589 nanometer light and throughput 

requirements, 2) it has a temperature 

range of -10 degrees C to 10 degrees C, 

and 3) it is able to meet those 

requirements while the unit is moved 

from 0 to 70 degrees zenith angle. 

Dated: April 7, 2009. 

Christopher Cassel, 

Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement 

Office, Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–8389 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–570–938) 

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

citric acid and certain citrate salts 

(‘‘citric acid’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). For 

information on the estimated 

countervailing duty rates, please see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section, 

below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Neubacher, Shelly Atkinson or 

Damian Felton, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–5823, (202) 482–0116 or (202) 482– 

0133, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Petitioners 

The petitioners in this investigation 

are Archer Daniels Midland Company, 

Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle 

America, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’). 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, or period of 

investigation, is January 1, 2007, 

through December 31, 2007. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the announcement of the 

preliminary determination, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 19, 2008. See Citric Acid and 

Certain Citrate 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, 

73 FR 54367 (September 19, 2008) 

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

The Department issued several 

supplemental questionnaires to the 

Government of the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘GOC’’), TTCA Co., Ltd. 

(formerly Shandong TTCA Biochemical 

Co., Ltd.) (‘‘TTCA’’) and Yixing Union 

Biochemical Co. Ltd. (‘‘Yixing Union’’) 

and its cross–owned affiliate Yixing 

Union Cogeneration Co., Ltd., and 

received responses in September and 

October 2008. 

Public versions of the questionnaires 

and responses, as well as the various 

memoranda cited below are available at 

the Department’s Central Records Unit 

(Room 1117 in the HCHB Building) 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘CRU’’). 

On September 12, 2008, the 

Department determined to investigate 

certain subsidies alleged by Petitioners 

in their submission of August 8, 2008. 

See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, 

Senior Director, Office 1, entitled 

‘‘Analysis of Petitioners’ New Subsidy 

Allegations’’ (September 12, 2008). On 

October 1, 2008, the Department issued 

questionnaires to the GOC, TTCA and 

Yixing Union regarding these new 

subsidy allegations. We received 

responses to these questionnaires as 

well as to supplemental questionnaires 

regarding the newly alleged submissions 

in October 2008. 

On October 20, 2008, the Department 

initiated an investigation of TTCA’s 

creditworthiness for the years 2004, 

2006 and 2007, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(6). See Memorandum to 

Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Director, 

Office 1, entitled ‘‘Uncreditworthy 

Allegation for TTCA’’ (October 20, 

2008). On February 25, 2009, we issued 

our preliminary determination that 

TTCA was uncreditworthy for the years 

investigated. See Memorandum to 

Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

entitled ‘‘Preliminary Creditworthiness 

Determination for TTCA Co., Ltd.’’ 

(February 25, 2009). 

From November 1 through November 

20, 2008, we conducted verification of 

the questionnaire responses submitted 

by the GOC, TTCA and Yixing Union. 

On March 4, 2009, we issued our 

post–preliminary determination 

regarding the new subsidy allegations 

and certain other programs discovered 

in the course of the investigation. See 

Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, entitled ‘‘Post– 

Preliminary Findings for the New 

Subsidy Allegations’’ (March 4, 2009). 

We received case briefs from the GOC 

and Yixing Union on March 12, 2009, 

and from Petitioners and TTCA on 

March 13, 2009. The same parties 

submitted rebuttal briefs on March 18 

and 19, 2009, respectively. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices 16837 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

includes all grades and granulation sizes 

of citric acid, sodium citrate, and 

potassium citrate in their unblended 

forms, whether dry or in solution, and 

regardless of packaging type. The scope 

also includes blends of citric acid, 

sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as 

well as blends with other ingredients, 

such as sugar, where the unblended 

form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate, 

and potassium citrate constitute 40 

percent or more, by weight, of the blend. 

The scope of this investigation also 

includes all forms of crude calcium 

citrate, including dicalcium citrate 

monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate 

tetrahydrate, which are intermediate 

products in the production of citric 

acid, sodium citrate, and potassium 

citrate. The scope of this investigation 

does not include calcium citrate that 

satisfies the standards set forth in the 

United States Pharmacopeia and has 

been mixed with a functional excipient, 

such as dextrose or starch, where the 

excipient constitutes at least 2 percent, 

by weight, of the product. The scope of 

this investigation includes the hydrous 

and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the 

dihydrate and anhydrous forms of 

sodium citrate, otherwise known as 

citric acid sodium salt, and the 

monohydrate and monopotassium forms 

of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also 

includes both trisodium citrate and 

monosodium citrate, which are also 

known as citric acid trisodium salt and 

citric acid monosodium salt, 

respectively. Citric acid and sodium 

citrate are classifiable under 

2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), respectively. 

Potassium citrate and crude calcium 

citrate are classifiable under 

2918.15.5000 and 3824.90.9290 of the 

HTSUS, respectively. Blends that 

include citric acid, sodium citrate, and 

potassium citrate are classifiable under 

3824.90.9290 of the HTSUS. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to a U.S. industry. On June 11, 

2008, the ITC published its preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury by 

reason of imports from China of citric 

acid. See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate 

Salts From Canada and China; 

Determinations, 73 FR 33115 (June 11, 

2008). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

Memorandum from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, entitled ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Citric Acid and 

Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (April 6, 2009) 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Decision 

Memorandum), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. Attached to this 

notice as an Appendix is a list of the 

issues that parties have raised and to 

which we have responded in the 

Decision Memorandum. Parties can find 

this public memorandum in the 

Department’s CRU. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

frn/. The paper copy and electronic 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

For purposes of this final 

determination, we have continued to 

rely on facts available and have again 

used adverse inferences in accordance 

with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act 

to determine the countervailable 

subsidy rates for Anhui BBCA 

Biochemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Anhui BBCA’’), 

which is one of the three companies 

selected to respond to our 

questionnaires. A full discussion of our 

decision to apply adverse facts available 

is presented in the Decision 

Memorandum in the section ‘‘Use of 

Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse 

Facts Available.’’ 

In a departure from the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department now 

finds that the use of ‘‘facts otherwise 

available’’ is warranted with regard to 

policy lending because TTCA provided 

information that could not be verified. 

See Decision Memorandum, at 

Comment 19. Moreover, TTCA failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability in this investigation. 

Accordingly, we find that an adverse 

inference is warranted, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, to ensure that 

TTCA does not obtain a more favorable 

result than had it fully complied with 

our request for information. See 

Decision Memorandum, at Comment 19. 

For reasons explained in the 

‘‘Analysis of Programs’’ section I.A 

(Programs Determined to Be 

Countervailable: Energy and Water 

Savings Grant) in the Decision 

Memorandum, we find the use of ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ is warranted, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (D) 

of the Act, with regard to the specificity 

determination for the Energy and Water 

Savings Grant program because the GOC 

would not provide requested 

information and did not provide 

verifiable program usage data. Because 

the GOC refused to provide information 

that would allow for a de facto 

specificity analysis using accurate and 

verifiable data and failed to act to the 

best of its ability, we have employed an 

adverse inference in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(b) 

of the Act, we find that this program is 

de facto specific within the meaning of 

section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 

calculated an individual rate for the 

companies under investigation, Anhui 

BBCA, TTCA and Yixing Union. Section 

705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for 

companies not investigated, we will 

determine an all–others rate equal to the 

weighted average countervailable 

subsidy rates established for exporters 

and producers individually 

investigated, excluding any zero and de 

minimis countervailable subsidy rates, 

and any rates determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. As Anhui 

BBCA’s rate was calculated under 

section 776 of the Act, it is not included 

in the all–others rate. 

Notwithstanding the language of 

section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we 

have not calculated the all–others rate 

by weight averaging the rates of TTCA 

and Yixing Union because doing so 

risks disclosure of proprietary 

information. Therefore, we have 

calculated a simple average of the two 

responding firms’ rates. Finally, because 

TTCA’s rate includes export subsidies, 

the all–others rate also includes export 

subsidies. 

16838 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices 

Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate 

TTCA Co., Ltd. (a.k.a. 

Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co., Ltd.) ... 12.68 

Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd.; 

and Yixing Union Cogeneration Co., Ltd. .. 3.60 

Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd. ..... 118.95 

All–Others ..................... 8.14 

In accordance with section 703(d) of 

the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection to discontinue the 

suspension of liquidation for 

countervailing duty purposes for subject 

merchandise entered on or after January 

17, 2009, but to continue the suspension 

of liquidation of entries made from 

September 19, 2008, through January 16, 

2009. 

We will issue a countervailing duty 

order and reinstate the suspension of 

liquidation under section 706(a) of the 

Act if the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, and will require a 

cash deposit of estimated countervailing 

duties for such entries of merchandise 

in the amounts indicated above. If the 

ITC determines that material injury, or 

threat of material injury, does not exist, 

this proceeding will be terminated and 

all estimated duties deposited or 

securities posted as a result of the 

suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) 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 related 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 APO, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: April 6, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX 

List of Comments and Issues in the 

Decision Memorandum 

General Issues 

Comment 1 Application of CVD Law to 

a Country the Department treats as an 

NME in a Parallel AD Investigation 

Comment 2 Double Counting/ 

Overlapping Remedies 

Comment 3 Requirement to Provide 

Evidence of Lower Prices 

Comment 4 Proposed Cutoff Date for 

Identifying Subsidies 

Program Specific Issues 

Comment 5 Policy Lending Whether 

Policy Lending Program Exists 

Comment 6 Policy Lending Whether CIB 

is a Government Authority 

Comment 7 Benchmark - Whether the 

Department is Required to Use a 

Chinese Benchmark 

Comment 8 Benchmark - Whether 

Department Should Make an Inflation 

Adjustment to Its Regression–based 

Benchmark Rate 

Comment 9 Benchmark - Whether the 

Department has a Basis for Treating 

‘‘Medium–term’’ as Having Terms of 

Two Years or Less 

Comment 10 Benchmark - Whether to 

Remove Certain Countries from the IMF 

Data 

Comment 11 Benchmark - Whether 

Negative Inflation-adjusted Interest 

Rates Should be Excluded from the 

Regressions 

Comment 12 Benchmark - Whether the 

Regression is Statistically Invalid 

Comment 13 Benchmark - Whether the 

Difference Between Long- and Shortterm Interest Rates Cannot be Based on 

BB–grade 

Comment 14 Benchmark - Whether the 

Adjustment for Long-term Rates should 

be Additive or Multiplicative 

Comment 15 Benchmark - Whether the 

Discount Rate Computation is Flawed 

Comment 16 FIE Tax Programs - 

Whether FIE Tax Programs are Specific 

Comment 17 FIE Tax ProgramsWhether They Have Been Terminated 

TTCA Specific Issues 

Comment 18 Whether the Application 

of Total AFA is Warranted 

Comment 19 Whether the Application 

of Partial AFA is Warranted 

Comment 20 Provision of Plant and 

Equipment for LTAR Whether the 

Department is Required to Issue a 

Finding 

Comment 21 Provision of Plant and 

Equipment for LTAR Proposed 

Methodology for Measuring the Benefit 

Comment 22 Provision of Land for 

LTAR Whether Land is a Good or a 

Service 

Comment 23 Provision of Land for 

LTAR Whether the Use of an External 

Benchmark is Appropriate 

Comment 24 Provision of Land for 

LTAR Whether Benchmark is New 

Factual Information 

Comment 25 Whether the Appropriate 

Benchmark Interest Rate for Floating 

Loan 

Comment 26 Whether To Correct a 

Clerical Error in TTCA’s Subsidy 

Calculation 

Yixing Union Specific Issues 

Comment 27 Attribution of Yixing 

Union and Cogeneration Based on 

Cross–Ownership 

Comment 28 Whether to Apply AFA for 

Land in the YEDZ for LTAR Program 

Comment 29 How to Treat the Transfer 

of Allocated to Granted Land-use Rights 

from HPP to Cogeneration 

Comment 30 Whether the Department’s 

Finding Regarding Land–use Rights in 

Yixing City Violates Due Process 

Comment 31 Whether the Department’s 

Finding Regarding the Torch Program 

Violates Due Process 

[FR Doc. E9–8358 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–937] 

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Affirmative Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 13, 2009. 

SUMMARY: We invited interested parties 

to comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. The 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) has determined that citric 

acid and certain citrate salts (‘‘citric 

acid’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) is being, or is likely to 

be, sold in the United States at LTFV as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

estimated margins of sales at less than