24572 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices 

1 ICL Performance Products LP and Prayon, Inc. 

Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

The Foreign–Trade Zones (FTZ) 

Board (the Board) has considered the 

application (filed 03/17/2010) submitted 

by the Southern California Logistics 

Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 243, 

requesting reissuance of the grant of 

authority for said zone to the City of 

Victorville, which has accepted such 

reissuance subject to approval by the 

FTZ Board. Upon review, the Board 

finds that the requirements of the FTZ 

Act and the Board’s regulations are 

satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 

public interest. 

Therefore, the Board approves the 

application and recognizes the City of 

Victorville as the new grantee of 

Foreign–Trade Zone 243, subject to the 

FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations, 

including Section 400.28. The Secretary 

of Commerce, as Chairman of the Board, 

is hereby authorized to issue an 

appropriate Board Order. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th

day of April 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

AdministrationAlternate ChairmanForeign– 

Trade Zones Board. 

ATTEST: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10621 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign–Trade Zones Board 

[Docket 28–2010] 

Foreign–Trade Zone 29 - Louisville, 

Kentucky, Application for Subzone, 

Louisville Bedding Company 

(Household Bedding Products), 

Louisville and Munfordville, Kentucky 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign–Trade Zones Board (the 

Board) by the Louisville & Jefferson 

County Riverport Authority, grantee of 

FTZ 29, requesting special–purpose 

subzone status for the bedding products 

manufacturing facilities of Louisville 

Bedding Company (LBC) located in 

Louisville and Munfordville, Kentucky. 

The application was submitted pursuant 

to the provisions of the Foreign–Trade 

Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a– 

81u), and the regulations of the Board 

(15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed 

on April 26, 2010. 

The LBC facilities (530 employees) 

consist of three sites: Site 1 - 

manufacturing plant and warehouse 

(26.1 acres) located at 10400 Bunsen 

Way, Louisville; Site 2 - warehouse (4.3 

acres) located at 100 Quality Street, 

Munfordville; and, Site 3 - 

manufacturing plant and warehouse 

(27.7 acres) located at 660 National 

Turnpike, Munfordville, Kentucky. The 

facilities are used to manufacture 

household bedding products, including 

mattress pads and pillows (up to 10 

million pillows and 10 million mattress 

pads annually) for the U.S. market and 

export. LBC is requesting authority to 

utilize foreign–origin wide roll (80 

inches and wider), high thread count 

(180 threads per inch and higher) 

cotton, polyester, and synthetic woven 

fabric and pillow shells (classified 

under HTSUS Headings 5208, 5210, 

5512, 5513, and 6307; duty rate range: 

7 - 14.9%) to be cut, sewn, quilted and 

assembled into the bedding products 

noted above under FTZ procedures. 

FTZ procedures could exempt LBC 

from customs duty payments on the 

foreign–origin fabrics and pillow shells 

used in export production. On its 

shipments for the domestic market, the 

finished household bedding products 

would be entered for consumption from 

the proposed subzone classified under 

HTSUS 9404.90, and LBC is seeking 

authority to elect the various finished 

bedding product duty rates (4.4 - 7.3%, 

ad valorem) for the foreign–origin fabric 

and pillow shell material inputs. 

Domestic–status fibers would be used to 

fill the foreign pillow shells. The 

application indicates that the savings 

from FTZ procedures would help 

improve the facilities’ international 

competitiveness. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Pierre Duy of the FTZ Staff 

is designated examiner to evaluate and 

analyze the facts and information 

presented in the application and case 

record and to report findings and 

recommendations to the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

following address: Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Room 2111, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230–0002. The closing period for 

receipt of comments is July 6, 2010. 

Rebuttal comments in response to 

material submitted during the foregoing 

period may be submitted during the 

subsequent 15-day period to July 19, 

2010. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Foreign–Trade Zones 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address listed above and in the ‘‘Reading 

Room’’ section of the Board’s website, 

which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ 

ftz. For further information, contact 

Pierre Duy at Pierre.Duy@trade.gov or 

(202) 482–1378. 

Dated: April 26, 2010. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10614 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–962] 

Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Determination 

of Critical Circumstances in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 5, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Gorelik at (202) 482–6905, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

Background 

On March 16, 2010, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination in the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

certain potassium phosphate salts 

(‘‘salts’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). See Certain Potassium 

Phosphate Salts From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 75 FR 12508 (March 16, 

2010) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

On April 2, 2010, Petitioners 1 filed a 

timely critical circumstances allegation, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206, alleging 

that critical circumstances exist with 

respect to imports of the merchandise 

under consideration. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.206(c)(1), when a critical 

circumstances allegation is filed 30 days 

or more before the scheduled date of the 

final determination (as was done in this 

case), the Department will issue a 

preliminary finding whether there is a 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that critical circumstances exist. 

Because the critical circumstances 

allegation in this case was submitted 

after the preliminary determination was 

published, the Department must issue 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices 24573 

2See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular 

Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 2008) 

(‘‘Carbon Steel Pipe’’); Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Small 

Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People’s 

Republic of China, 74 FR 2049 January 14, 2009) 

(‘‘SDGE’’). 

3See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 

Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, 

and Ukraine: Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 11, 

2002); Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 

Critical Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 5606 (February 

3, 2005). 

4See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 

Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, 

and Ukraine: Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 11, 

2002); Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 

Critical Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 5606 (February 

3, 2005). 

our preliminary findings of critical 

circumstances not later than 30 days 

after the allegation was filed. See 19 

CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii). 

Legal Framework 

Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), provides that 

the Department, upon receipt of a timely 

allegation of critical circumstances, will 

determine whether there is a reasonable 

basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) 

there is a history of dumping and 

material injury by reason of dumped 

imports in the United States or 

elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or 

(ii) the person by whom, or for whose 

account, the merchandise was imported 

knew or should have known that the 

exporter was selling the subject 

merchandise at less than its fair value 

and that there was likely to be material 

injury by reason of such sales, and; (B) 

there have been massive imports of the 

subject merchandise over a relatively 

short period. 

Further, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1) 

provides that, in determining whether 

imports of the subject merchandise have 

been ‘‘massive,’’ the Department 

normally will examine: (i) The volume 

and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal 

trends; and (iii) the share of domestic 

consumption accounted for by the 

imports. In addition, 19 CFR 

351.206(h)(2) provides that, ‘‘{i}n 

general, unless the imports during the 

‘relatively short period’ * * * have 

increased by at least 15 percent over the 

imports during an immediately 

preceding period of comparable 

duration, the Secretary will not consider 

the imports massive.’’ 19 CFR 351.206(i) 

defines ‘‘relatively short period’’ 

generally as the period starting on the 

date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date 

the petition is filed) and ending at least 

three months later. This section of the 

regulations further provides that, if the 

Department ‘‘finds that importers, or 

exporters or producers, had reason to 

believe, at some time prior to the 

beginning of the proceeding, that a 

proceeding was likely,’’ then the 

Department may consider a period of 

not less than three months from that 

earlier time. 

Allegation 

In their allegation, Petitioners contend 

that, based on the dumping margins 

assigned by the Department in the 

Preliminary Determination, importers 

knew or should have known that the 

merchandise under consideration was 

being sold at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’). Petitioners also contend that, 

based on the preliminary determination 

of injury by the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘ITC’’), there is a 

reasonable basis to impute importers’ 

knowledge that material injury is likely 

by reason of such imports. In their 

allegation, Petitioners included import 

statistics for the three different ‘‘like 

products’’ covered by the scope of this 

investigation for the period between 

June 2009 and January 2010. See 

Petitioners’ Allegation, dated April 2, 

2010, at 10–11. 

Analysis 

The Department’s normal practice in 

determining whether critical 

circumstances exist pursuant to the 

statutory criteria has been to examine 

evidence available to the Department, 

such as: (1) The evidence presented in 

Petitioners’ critical circumstances 

allegation; (2) import statistics released 

by the ITC, and (3) shipment 

information submitted to the 

Department by the respondents selected 

for individual examination.2 Here, in 

determining whether the above statutory 

criteria have been satisfied in this case, 

we examined: (1) The evidence 

presented in Petitioners’ April 2, 2010, 

allegation; and (2) evidence obtained 

since the initiation of this investigation, 

and (3) the ITC’s preliminary injury 

determination. 

Section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act: 

History of Dumping and Material Injury 

by Reason of Dumped Imports in the 

United States or Elsewhere of the 

Subject Merchandise 

In determining whether a history of 

dumping and material injury exists, the 

Department generally has considered 

current or previous antidumping duty 

orders on subject merchandise from the 

country in question in the United States 

and current orders in any other country. 

Id. In this case, the Department is not 

aware of any antidumping duty order on 

subject merchandise from the PRC in 

any country. Therefore, the Department 

finds no history of injurious dumping of 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the 

Act. 

Section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii): The Importer 

Knew or Should Have Known That 

Exporter Was Selling at Less Than Fair 

Value and That There Was Likely To Be 

Material Injury 

In determining whether an importer 

knew or should have known that the 

exporter was selling subject 

merchandise at LTFV and that there was 

likely to be material injury by reason of 

such sales, the Department must rely on 

the facts before it at the time the 

determination is made. The Department 

generally bases its decision with respect 

to knowledge on the margins calculated 

in the preliminary determination and 

the ITC’s preliminary injury 

determination. 

The Department normally considers 

margins of 25 percent or more for export 

price sales and 15 percent or more for 

constructed export price sales sufficient 

to impute importer knowledge of sales 

at LTFV.3 The Department preliminarily 

determined margins of 69.58 percent for 

the non-selected separate-rate 

applicants and 95.40 percent for the 

PRC-wide entity, which includes the 

mandatory respondents. Therefore, as 

we preliminarily determined margins 

greater than 25 percent for all producers 

and exporters, we preliminarily find, 

with respect to all producers and 

exporters, that there is a reasonable 

basis to believe or suspect that 

importers knew, or should have known, 

that exporters were selling subject 

merchandise at LTFV. 

In determining whether an importer 

knew or should have known that there 

was likely to be material injury caused 

by reason of such imports, the 

Department normally will look to the 

preliminary injury determination of the 

ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable 

indication of present material injury to 

the relevant U.S. industry, the 

Department will determine that a 

reasonable basis exists to impute 

importer knowledge that material injury 

is likely by reason of such imports.4

Here, the ITC found that that ‘‘there is 

a reasonable indication that an industry 

producing monopotassium phosphate 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
24574 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices 

5See Investigation Nos. 701–TA–473 and 731– 

TA–1173 (Preliminary) Certain Sodium and 

Potassium Phosphate Salts From China, 74 FR 

61173 (November 23, 2009) (‘‘ITC Prelim’’). 

6See, e.g., Notice of Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 

68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003); Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products from Japan, 64 FR 24329 (May 6, 1999) 

at Comment 2 (where the Department considered 

other sources of information, including press 

reports regarding rising imports, falling domestic 

prices resulting from rising imports and domestic 

buyers shifting to foreign suppliers). 

7See ‘‘Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, 

Office IX, from Katie Marksberry, Case Analyst, 

through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

Office IX; regarding Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

November 13, 2009. 

(‘‘MKP’’), is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury.’’ 5 The 

ITC also found that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable indication that industries 

producing dipotassium phosphate 

(‘DKP’) and tetrapotassium 

pyrophosphate (‘TKPP’), are threatened 

with material injury.’’ Id. Where the ITC 

finds threat of material injury, the 

Department also considers such factors 

as: (1) The extent of the increase in the 

volume of imports of the subject 

merchandise during the critical 

circumstances period and (2) the 

magnitude of the dumping margins in 

determining whether a reasonable basis 

exists to impute knowledge that 

material injury was likely.6 In this case, 

import volume data from ITC’s Dataweb 

shows an increase of 86.1 percent in 

salts imports from the PRC during the 

comparison period, more than five times 

the increase needed to find massive 

imports. See Petitioners’ Allegation at 

10. Furthermore, the preliminary 

dumping margins are significantly 

greater than 25 percent. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily finds that 

there is a reasonable basis to believe or 

suspect that importers knew or should 

have known that there was likely to be 

material injury by reason of sales at 

LTFV of subject merchandise from the 

PRC. 

Section 733(e)(1)(B): Whether There 

Have Been Massive Imports of the 

Subject Merchandise Over a Relatively 

Short Period 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), the 

Department will not consider imports to 

be massive unless imports in the 

comparison period have increased by at 

least 15 percent over imports in the base 

period. The Department normally 

considers a ‘‘relatively short period’’ as 

the period beginning on the date the 

proceeding begins and ending at least 

three months later. See 19 CFR 

351.206(i). For this reason, the 

Department normally compares the 

import volumes of the subject 

merchandise for at least three months 

immediately preceding the filing of the 

petition (i.e., the ‘‘base period’’) to a 

comparable period of at least three 

months following the filing of the 

petition (i.e., the ‘‘comparison period’’). 

In their April 2, 2010, allegation, 

Petitioners maintained that importers, 

exporters, or foreign producers gained 

knowledge that this proceeding was 

possible when the petition for an 

antidumping duty investigation was 

filed on September 24, 2009. See 

Petitioners’ April 2, 2010, submission at 

5–9. Moreover, Petitioners noted that 

when a petition is filed in the second 

half of a month, the month following the 

filing is treated as part of the postpetition period. Petitioners also 

included in their allegation U.S. import 

data collected from the ITC’s Dataweb. 

Based on this data, Petitioners provided 

data for a four-month base period (June 

2009 through September 2009) and a 

four-month comparison period (October 

2009 through January 2010) in showing 

whether imports were massive. 

Based on the date of the filing of the 

petition, i.e., September 24, 2009, which 

is in the second half of the month, the 

Department agrees with Petitioners that 

October 2009 is the month in which 

importers, exporters, or producers knew 

or should have known an antidumping 

duty investigation was likely, and falls 

within the comparison period. 

According to 19 CFR 351.206(i), the 

base and comparison periods normally 

should be at least three months. 

Adverse Facts Available (‘‘AFA’’) 

In this investigation, the Department 

selected SD BNI(LYG) Co. Ltd. (‘‘SD 

BNI’’) and Sichuan Blue Sword Import 

& Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sichuan Blue 

Sword’’) as mandatory respondents in 

this investigation.7 In the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department 

determined that there were exporters/ 

producers of the merchandise under 

investigation during the POI from the 

PRC that did not respond to the 

Department’s request for information, 

including Sichuan Blue Sword, one of 

the mandatory respondents. Therefore, 

we treated these PRC exporters/ 

producers, including Sichuan Blue 

Sword, as part of the PRC-wide entity 

because they did not qualify for a 

separate rate. See Preliminary 

Determination at 75 FR 12508, 12512. 

Further, information on the record 

indicates that the PRC-wide entity was 

non-cooperative because certain 

companies did not respond to our 

requests for information. Id. As a result, 

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

776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily 

found that the use of AFA was 

warranted to determine the PRC-wide 

rate. Id. As AFA, we preliminarily 

assigned to the PRC-wide entity a rate 

of 95.40 percent, which is the highest 

margin alleged in the Petition. Id. 

Furthermore, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and 776(b) of 

the Act, we preliminarily applied AFA 

to SD BNI, the other mandatory 

respondent, because we found that the 

information necessary to calculate an 

accurate and otherwise reliable margin 

is not available on the record with 

respect to SD BNI. We preliminarily 

found that SD BNI failed to provide the 

information requested by the 

Department in a timely manner and in 

the form required, and significantly 

impeded the Department’s ability to 

calculate an accurate margin for SD BNI. 

The Department was unable to calculate 

a margin without the necessary 

information, requiring the application of 

facts otherwise available to SD BNI for 

the purpose of the Preliminary 

Determination. Id. at 12513 Therefore, 

because SD BNI was selected as a 

mandatory respondent and failed to 

submit the information required, SD 

BNI did not receive a separate rate and 

remains part of the PRC-wide entity. Id. 

PRC–Wide Entity 

Because the PRC-wide entity did not 

respond to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire, we did not 

obtain shipment data from the PRCwide entity for purposes of our critical 

circumstances analysis and therefore 

there is no verifiable information on the 

record with respect to its export 

volumes. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 

provides that, if an interested party or 

any other person (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the administering authority or the 

Commission under this title, (B) fails to 

provide such information by the 

deadlines for submission of the 

information or in the form and manner 

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782, (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under this title, or 

(D) provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified as 

provided in section 782(i), the 

administering authority and the 

Commission shall, subject to section 

782(d), use the facts otherwise available 

in reaching the applicable 

determination under this title. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that, if a party has failed to act 

to the best of its ability, the Department 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Notices 24575 

8See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and 

Alloy Seamless Standard Pipe and Pressure Pipe 

from the Czech Republic, 65 FR 33803 (May 25, 

2000) and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Small Diameter 

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and 

Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, 65 FR 

39363 (June 26, 2000) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

9See, e.g., Carbon Steel Pipe and SDGE. 

may apply an adverse inference. The 

PRC-wide entity did not respond to the 

Department’s request for information. 

Thus, we are using facts available, in 

accordance with section 776(a) of the 

Act, and, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, we also find that AFA is 

warranted so that the PRC-wide entity 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

fully cooperated. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily find that there were 

massive imports of merchandise from 

the PRC-wide entity. 

Further, in some cases the Department 

has also considered the import volume 

from the ITC Dataweb as further 

evidence supporting an affirmative 

determination of critical circumstances 

based on AFA.8 Here, we find that the 

ITC Dataweb import statistics further 

support the Department’s determination 

that the volume of imports of subject 

merchandise in the post-petition period 

are consistent with an AFA finding that 

these imports were massive. 

Separate-Rate Applicants 

Because it has been the Department’s 

practice to conduct its massive imports 

analysis of separate rate companies 9

based on the experience of investigated 

companies, we did not request monthly 

shipment information from the three 

separate-rate applicants. However, 

where mandatory respondents have 

received AFA, we have not imputed 

those adverse inferences of massive 

imports to the non-individually 

examined companies receiving a 

separate rate. Instead, the Department 

has relied upon the ITC Dataweb import 

statistics where appropriate in 

determining whether there have been 

massive imports for the separate-rate 

companies. Accordingly, as the basis for 

determining whether imports were 

massive for these separate-rate 

companies, we are relying on ITC 

Dataweb import statistics as evidence 

that imports in the post-petition period 

were massive for those companies. As 

stated above, in this case, import 

volume data shows an increase of 86.1 

percent of salts imports from the PRC 

during the comparison period. See 

Petitioners’ Allegation at 10. Thus, 

pursuant to section 351.206(h) of the 

Department’s regulations, we determine 

that this increase, being greater than 15 

percent, shows that imports in the 

comparison period were massive for the 

separate-rate companies. 

Critical Circumstances 

Record evidence indicates that 

importers of salts knew, or should have 

known, that exporters were selling the 

merchandise at LTFV, and that there 

was likely to be material injury by 

reason of such sales. In addition, record 

evidence indicates that the PRC-wide 

entity and the separate-rate applicants 

had massive imports during a relatively 

short period. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 733(e)(1) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that there is reason to 

believe or suspect that critical 

circumstances exist for imports of 

subject merchandise from the PRC-wide 

entity (which includes SD BNI and 

Sichuan Blue Sword) and the separaterate companies (Snow-Apple Group 

Limited, Tianjin Chengyi International 

Trading (Tianjin) Co., Limited, Wenda 

Co., Ltd., and Yunnan Newswift 

Company Ltd.) in this antidumping duty 

investigation. See section 733(f) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we are directing 

CBP to suspend liquidation of any 

unliquidated entries of subject 

merchandise from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse for 

consumption, on or after December 16, 

2009, which is 90 days prior to the date 

of publication of the Preliminary 

Determination in the Federal Register. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary determination. 

Public Comment 

Since this determination is being 

made subsequent to the due dates for 

public comment as published in our 

notice of preliminary determination of 

sales at LTFV, we will accept written 

comments limited to this preliminary 

determination of critical circumstances 

if they are submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than five days after the publication 

of this notice. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to section 733(f) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii). 

Dated: April 29, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10583 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–963] 

Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Determination 

of Critical Circumstances in the 

Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) has preliminarily 

determined that critical circumstances 

exist with respect to imports of certain 

potassium phosphate salts (‘‘phosphate 

salts’’ or ‘‘subject merchandise’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 5, 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: 

Background 

This investigation was initiated on 

October 14, 2009. 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). The products covered by this 

investigation and the title of this 

investigation were modified 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 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, 

75 FR 10466 (March 8, 2010) 

(Preliminary Determination), at the 

section ‘‘Case History.’’ As mandatory 

company respondents in this 

investigation, the Department selected 

Lianyungang Mupro Import Export Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Mupro’’); Mianyang Aostar 

Phosphate Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES