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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices 16839 

1See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the 

2004–2005 Semi–Annual New Shipper Reviews, 71 

FR 70739 (December 6, 2006) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 5; 

and Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

76234, 76238 (December 23, 2005). 

fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) are shown in the 

‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section 

of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit 

Astvatsatrian or Andrea Staebler Berton, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6412 or (202) 482– 

4037, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on November 20, 2008. See Citric 

Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 73 FR 70328 (November 

20, 2008) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). The period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’) is October 1, 2007, 

to March 31, 2008. 

Between January 7 and 20, 2009, the 

Department conducted verifications of 

TTCA Co., Ltd. (aka Shandong TTCA 

Biochemistry Co., Ltd.) (‘‘TTCA’’) and 

Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Yixing Union’’) (‘‘respondents’’). See 

the ‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary 

Determination. On February 25, 2009, 

Archer Daniels Midland Company, 

Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle 

Americas, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’), TTCA, and Yixing Union 

filed case briefs. On March 2, 2009, 

Petitioners, TTCA, and Yixing Union 

filed rebuttal briefs. The Department 

held a hearing on March 12, 2009. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by TTCA and Yixing Union 

for use in our final determination. See 

the Department’s verification reports on 

the record of this investigation in the 

Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 

1117 of the main Department building, 

with respect to these entities. For all 

verified companies, we used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by 

respondents. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs, and at the hearing, by 

parties to this investigation are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Investigation of 

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated concurrently with this notice and 

which is hereby adopted by this notice 

(‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’). 

A list of the issues which parties raised 

and to which we respond in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is attached 

to this notice as an Appendix. The 

Issues and Decision Memorandum is a 

public document and is on file in the 

CRU, and is accessible on the Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of information 

on the record of this investigation, we 

have made changes to the margin 

calculations for the final determination 

for all mandatory respondents. 

General Issues 

• We have updated the Indonesian 

and Indian inflator information for the 

wholesale price index (‘‘WPI’’) as 

published in the International Financial 

Statistics of the International Monetary 

Fund. See Final Determination of the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate Value Memorandum, dated 

April 6, 2009 (‘‘Final SV Memo’’), at 2. 

All inflated or deflated surrogate values 

were revised as a result of the updated 

inflators. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at Comment 6. 

• For the final determination, we 

deflated the surrogate values for marine 

insurance and truck freight. See Final 

SV Memo, at 2, and Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at Comment 4. 

• We have revised the surrogate value 

for sodium lignosulphonate. See Final 

SV Memo, at 3, and Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at Comment 11B. 

• We have revised the surrogate 

financial ratios by including interest 

expenses in the SG&A calculation. See 

Final SV Memo, at 3, and Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at Comment 3. 

• Consistent with our practice,1 we 

have excluded beginning and ending 

finished goods inventories from the 

calculation of surrogate financial ratios 

for the final determination. See Final SV 

Memo, at 3. 

• Based on the surrogate financial 

company’s treatment of certain 

depreciation and warehouse expenses as 

selling expenses, and depreciation and 

repairs and maintenance as general and 

administrative expenses, we have 

reclassified these expenses from the 

surrogate factory overhead ratio to the 

surrogate selling, general, and 

administrative ratio calculation for the 

final determination. See Final SV 

Memo, at 3–4. 

• We were unable to segregate and, 

therefore, were unable to exclude energy 

costs from the calculation of the 

surrogate financial ratios. Accordingly, 

we have disregarded the respondents’ 

energy inputs (coal and steam byproduct offsets for TTCA, electricity and 

steam for Yixing Union) in the 

calculation of normal value for purposes 

of the final determination, in order to 

avoid double-counting energy costs 

which have necessarily been captured 

in the surrogate financial ratios. See 

Investigation of Citric Acid and Certain 

Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic 

of China: Analysis of the Final 

Determination Margin Calculation for 

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

Biochemistry Co., Ltd.), dated April 6, 

2009 (‘‘TTCA Final Analysis Memo’’), at 

2; see also Investigation of Citric Acid 

and Certain Citrate Salts from the 

People’s Republic of China: Analysis of 

the Final Determination Margin 

Calculation for Yixing Union 

Biochemical Co., Ltd., dated April 6, 

2009 (‘‘Yixing Union Final Analysis 

Memo’’), at 1–2; and Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

Company-Specific Changes Since the 

Preliminary Determination 

TTCA 

• For the final determination, we 

have adjusted TTCA’s indirect labor. 

See TTCA Final Analysis Memo at 1–2 

and Issues and Decision Memorandum, 

at Comment 10. 

• For the final determination, we 

have added TTCA’s billing adjustment 

expense to the gross unit price. See 

TTCA Final Analysis Memo, at 2 and 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, at 

Comment 11A. 

• We have included TTCA’s low 

protein scrap by-product in the 

calculation of the normal value. See 

TTCA Final Analysis Memo, at 2–3 and 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, at 

Comment 15. 

• We have adjusted TTCA’s reported 

consumption of calcium carbonate to 

account for the under-reported usage 

16840 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices 

rate. See TTCA Final Analysis Memo, at 

3. 

Yixing Union 

• We have valued Yixing Union’s 

ocean freight using the reported 

international freight. See Yixing Union 

Final Analysis Memo. 

Scope of 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%, 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. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected Indonesia as 

the appropriate surrogate country to use 

in this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) it is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a similar level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC; and (3) 

we have reliable data from Indonesia 

that we can use to value the factors of 

production. See Preliminary 

Determination. For the final 

determination, we continue to use 

Indonesia as the primary surrogate 

country. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, at Comment 1. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 

as amplified by Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 

19 CFR 351.107(d). 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that TTCA, Yixing Union and 11 

separate rate applicants demonstrated 

their eligibility for separate rate status. 

For the final determination, we continue 

to find that the evidence placed on the 

record of this investigation by TTCA, 

Yixing Union, and the separate rate 

applicants demonstrate both a de jure 

and de facto absence of government 

control, with respect to their respective 

exports of the merchandise under 

investigation, and, thus continue to find 

that they are eligible for separate rate 

status. 

Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides 

that, if an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified, the Department 

shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from (the 

Department) for information, notifies 

(the Department) that such party is 

unable to submit the information 

requested in the requested form and 

manner, together with a full explanation 

and suggested alternative forms in 

which such party is able to submit the 

information,’’ the Department may 

modify the requirements to avoid 

imposing an unreasonable burden on 

that party. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e), disregard all or part of 

the original and subsequent responses, 

as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the Department ‘‘finds that 

an interested party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information from the administering 

authority or the Commission, the 

administering authority or the 

Commission * * *, in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title, may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’ See also 

Statement of Administrative Action 

(SAA) accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. 

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

For this final determination, in 

accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A), 

(B) and (D) and 776(b) of the Act, we 

have determined that the use of adverse 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices 16841 

facts available (‘‘AFA’’) is warranted for 

the PRC-wide entity, as discussed 

below. 

The PRC-Wide Rate 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

an NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate—the 

PRC-wide rate—to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. See, 

e.g., Synthetic Indigo from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). 

The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries 

of subject merchandise except for 

entries from the respondents identified 

as receiving a separate rate in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that the PRC-wide 

entity did not respond to our requests 

for information because record evidence 

indicates there were more exporters of 

citric acid from the PRC during the POI 

than those that were found to be eligible 

for a separate rate and responded to the 

Q&V questionnaire or the full 

antidumping questionnaire. Therefore, 

in the Preliminary Determination we 

treated these PRC exporters as part of 

the PRC-wide entity because they did 

not demonstrate that they operate free of 

government control over their export 

activities. No additional information 

was placed on the record with respect 

to these entities after the Preliminary 

Determination. In addition, because the 

PRC-wide entity has not provided the 

Department with the requested 

information, pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the 

Department continues to find that the 

use of facts available is appropriate to 

determine the PRC-wide rate. Section 

776(b) of the Act provides that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products from the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). 

See also SAA at 870. We have 

determined that, because the PRC-wide 

entity did not respond to our request for 

information, it has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability. Therefore, the 

Department finds that, in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, an 

adverse inference is warranted. 

In the Preliminary Determination, as 

facts available, we assigned to the PRCwide entity the margin alleged in the 

petition, i.e., 156.87 percent. See 

Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

70332. For the final determination, we 

have continued to assign to the PRCwide entity the rate of 156.87 percent. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information in using the facts 

otherwise available, it must, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. We 

have interpreted ‘‘corroborate’’ to mean 

that we will, to the extent practicable, 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information submitted. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 

Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products from Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5568 

(February 4, 2000); see, e.g., 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). The Department’s 

reliance on the petition rate to 

determine an AFA rate is subject to the 

requirement to corroborate secondary 

information. 

At the Preliminary Determination, in 

accordance with section 776(c) of the 

Act, we corroborated our AFA margin 

by comparing the U.S. prices and 

normal values from the petition to the 

U.S. prices and normal values for the 

mandatory respondents. Similarly, for 

the final determination, we have also 

compared the U.S. prices and normal 

values from the petition (that were used 

to derive the margin for our initiation of 

this proceeding) to the U.S. prices and 

normal values for the mandatory 

respondents. We found that the U.S. 

prices and normal values used to 

calculate the initiation margin were 

within the range of net U.S. prices and 

normal values, respectively, used in our 

margin calculations for the mandatory 

respondents in this investigation. 

Because no parties commented on the 

selection of the PRC-wide rate, we 

continue to find that the margin of 

156.87 percent has probative value. 

Accordingly, we find that the rate of 

156.87 percent is corroborated within 

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Combination Rates 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for the 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

62961. This practice is described in 

Policy Bulletin 05.1, ‘‘Separate Rates 

Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations Involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries’’ available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted-average margins 

exist for the POI: 

Exporter Producer Margin 

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

Ltd.).

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

Ltd.).

129.08 

Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd ............................................. Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd ............................................. 94.61 

Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd ............................................. Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd ............................................. 111.85 

Anhui BBCA Biochemical Co., Ltd ............................................. China BBCA Maanshan Biochemical Corp ................................ 111.85 

A.H.A. International Co., Ltd ...................................................... Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd ............................................. 111.85 

A.H.A. International Co., Ltd ...................................................... Nantong Feiyu Fine Chemical Co., Ltd ...................................... 111.85 

High Hope International Group Jiangsu Native Produce IMP & 

EXP Co., Ltd.

Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd ............................................. 111.85 

Huangshi Xinghua Biochemical Co., Ltd .................................... Huangshi Xinghua Biochemical Co., Ltd .................................... 111.85 

16842 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices 

Exporter Producer Margin 

Lianyungang JF International Trade Co., Ltd ............................ TTCA Co., Ltd. (a.k.a. Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co., 

Ltd.).

111.85 

Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd ............................................ Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd ............................................ 111.85 

Lianyungang Shuren Scientific Creation Import & Export Co., 

Ltd.

Lianyungang Great Chemical Industry Co., Ltd ......................... 111.85 

Penglai Marine Bio-Tech Co. Ltd ............................................... Penglai Marine Bio-Tech Co. Ltd ............................................... 111.85 

RZBC Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd./RZBC Co., Ltd./RZBC (Juxian) 

Co., Ltd.

RZBC Co., Ltd ............................................................................ 111.85 

RZBC Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd./RZBC Co., Ltd./RZBC (Juxian) 

Co., Ltd.

RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd .............................................................. 111.85 

RZBC Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd./RZBC Co., Ltd./RZBC (Juxian) 

Co., Ltd.

Lianyungang Great Chemical Industry Co., Ltd ......................... 111.85 

Shihezi City Changyun Biochemical Co., Ltd ............................ Shihezi City Changyun Biochemical Co., Ltd ............................ 111.85 

Weifang Ensign Industry Co., Ltd .............................................. Weifang Ensign Industry Co., Ltd .............................................. 111.85 

PRC-Wide Entity ......................................................................... ..................................................................................................... 156.87 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all imports of subject 

merchandise entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

November 20, 2008, the date of 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination in the Federal Register. 

We will instruct CBP to continue to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond for all companies based on the 

estimated weighted-average dumping 

margins shown above, adjusted for the 

export subsidy rate determined in CVD 

Citric Acid Final (i.e., countervailable 

subsidy of 1.76 percent ad valorem). See 

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination (‘‘CVD Citric Acid 

Final’’), to be published concurrently 

with this notice. Furthermore, for all 

separate-rate recipients that were not 

selected as mandatory respondents, we 

will instruct CBP to require an 

antidumping cash deposit or the posting 

of a bond for each entry equal to the 

average of the margins calculated for the 

mandatory respondents, adjusted for 

their respective export subsidy rates, if 

applicable, from CVD Citric Acid Final. 

The suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the 

ITC will determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of 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. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: April 6, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Selection of Surrogate Country 

Comment 2: Treatment of Energy in the 

Surrogate Financial Statements 

Comment 3: Treatment of Interest Expense 

and Income in Selling, General and 

Administrative Expenses 

Comment 4: Correct Calculation for the 

Inflator of the Indian Trucking Value 

Comment 5A: Surrogate Value for 

Hydrochloric Acid/Hydrogen Chloride 

Comment 5B: Surrogate Value for Calcium 

Carbonate 

Comment 5C: Surrogate Value for Coal 

Comment 5D: Surrogate Value for Water 

Comment 5E: Surrogate Value for Brokerage 

and Handling 

Comment 6: Indonesian Inflator 

Comment 7: Valuation of High Protein Corn 

By-Product 

Comment 8: Additional Expenses for Sales of 

Corn Feed By-Product Offset 

Issues Specific to TTCA 

Comment 9: Date of Sale: Contract Date 

Versus Invoice Date 

Comment 10: Adjustment of TTCA’s Labor 

Factors 

Comment 11A: Correction of Clerical Error in 

Application of Billing Adjustment 

Comment 11B: Correction of Clerical Error in 

the Surrogate Value of Sodium 

Lignosulphonate 

Comment 12: Offset for Steam By-Product 

Comment 13: Use of TTCA’s MarketEconomy Freight Costs 

Comment 14: Adjustment of the Surrogate 

Value for Hydrochloric Acid/Hydrogen 

Chloride 

Comment 15: Low-Protein Scrap Offset 

Issues Specific to Yixing Union 

Comment 16: Yixing Union Corn Usage Rate 

Comment 17: Yixing Union Mycelium ByProduct Offset 

Comment 18: Inflation of the Surrogate Value 

for Steam 

[FR Doc. E9–8359 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P