54024 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 

1November 3, 2009, is twenty calendar days from 

the signature date of this notice. 

Dated: October 13, 2009. 

Elizabeth Whiteman 

Acting Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–25341 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–962 

Certain Sodium and Potassium 

Phosphate Salts From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21,2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie Marksberry at (202) 482–7906, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On September 24, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a petition 

concerning imports of certain sodium 

and potassium phosphate salts (‘‘certain 

phosphate salts’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) filed in 

proper form by ICL Performance 

Products LP (‘‘ICL’’) and Prayon, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). See Petition 

for the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Certain Sodium and Potassium 

Phosphate Salts from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated September 24, 

2009 (‘‘Petition’’). On September 30, 

2009, the Department issued an 

additional request for information and 

clarification of certain areas of the 

Petition. Based on the Department’s 

requests, Petitioners timely filed 

additional general information 

pertaining to the Petition on October 5, 

2009, and additional information 

pertaining to the antidumping portion of 

the Petition on October 6, 2009 

(hereinafter, ‘‘Supplement to the AD 

Petition’’). The period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 2009, through June 

30, 2009. 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports 

of certain phosphate salts from the PRC 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are an interested party, as defined in 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigation that Petitioners are 

requesting the Department to initiate 

(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support 

for the Petition’’ section below). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain phosphate salts 

from the PRC. For a full description of 

the scope of the investigation, please see 

the ‘‘Scope of Investigation,’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments by November 3, 

2009.1Comments should be addressed to 

Import Administration’s APO/Dockets 

Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

The period of scope consultations is 

intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and to consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

certain phosphate salts to be reported in 

response to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaires. This 

information will be used to identify the 

key physical characteristics of the 

merchandise under consideration in 

order to more accurately report the 

relevant factors and costs of production, 

as well as to develop appropriate 

product comparison criteria. 

Interested parties may provide 

information or comments that they 

believe are relevant to the development 

of an accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as: 

1) general product characteristics; and 

2) the product comparison criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product comparison criteria. We base 

product comparison criteria on 

meaningful commercial differences 

among products. In other words, while 

there may be some physical product 

characteristics utilized by 

manufacturers to describe certain 

phosphate salts, it may be that only a 

select few product characteristics take 

into account commercially meaningful 

physical characteristics. Generally, the 

Department attempts to list the most 

important physical characteristics first 

and the least important characteristics 

last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping duty 

questionnaires, we must receive 

comments at the above–referenced 

address by November 3, 2009. 

Additionally, rebuttal comments must 

be received by November 10, 2009. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for 

determining whether ‘‘the domestic 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 54025 

industry’’ has been injured, must also 

determine what constitutes a domestic 

like product in order to define the 

industry. While both the Department 

and the ITC must apply the same 

statutory definition regarding the 

domestic like product (section 771(10) 

of the Act), they do so for different 

purposes and pursuant to a separate and 

distinct authority. In addition, the 

Department’s determination is subject to 

limitations of time and information. 

Although this may result in different 

definitions of the like product, such 

differences do not render the decision of 

either agency contrary to law. See 

USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. 

Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma 

Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 

Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff’d 865 

F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 

492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this subtitle.’’ 

Although the reference point from 

which the domestic like product 

analysis begins is usually ‘‘the article 

subject to an investigation’’ (i.e., the 

class or kind of merchandise to be 

investigated, which normally will be the 

scope as defined in the petition), 

Petitioners presented one class or kind 

of merchandise, but four domestic like 

products. 

The four like products, when 

considered together, correspond to the 

product scope description. Based on our 

analysis of the information submitted on 

the record, we have determined that 

certain phosphate salts (sodium 

tripolyphospate (‘‘STPP’’), 

monopotassium phosphate (‘‘MKP’’), 

dipotassium phosphate (‘‘DKP’’), and 

tetrapotassium phosphate (‘‘TKPP’’)) 

constitute four domestic like products 

and we have analyzed industry support 

in terms of those domestic like 

products. For a discussion of the 

domestic like product analysis in this 

case, see ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Certain Sodium and Potassium 

Phosphate Salts from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (‘‘Initiation 

Checklist’’), at Attachment II, Analysis 

of Industry Support for the Petitions 

Covering Certain Sodium and Potassium 

Phosphate Salts from the People’s 

Republic of China, on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of 

the main Department of Commerce 

building. 

With regard to section 732(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, in determining whether 

Petitioners have standing (i.e., the 

domestic workers and producers 

supporting the Petition account for (1) at 

least 25 percent of the total production 

of the domestic like product and (2) 

more than 50 percent of the production 

of the domestic like product produced 

by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition), we considered the 

industry support data contained in the 

Petition with reference to the domestic 

like products. To establish industry 

support, Petitioners provided their own 

production volume of the domestic like 

products for calendar year 2008, and 

compared that to total production 

volume of the domestic like products for 

the industry. We have relied upon data 

Petitioners provided for purposes of 

measuring industry support. For further 

discussion, see Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

The Department’s review of the data 

provided in the Petition, supplemental 

submissions, and other information 

readily available to the Department 

indicates that Petitioners have 

established industry support for each of 

the four like products. First, the Petition 

establishes support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like 

products and, as such, the Department 

is not required to take further action in 

order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling). See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the 

Act, see also Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the relevant 

domestic like product. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the relevant domestic like 

product produced by that portion of the 

industry expressing support for, or 

opposition to, the Petition. Accordingly, 

the Department determines that the 

Petition was filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in sections 

771(9)(C) of the Act and have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

investigation that they are requesting 

the Department initiate. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industries producing the domestic like 

products are being materially injured, or 

are threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than NV. 

Petitioners contend that the industries’ 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, underselling and 

price depressing and suppressing 

effects, lost sales and revenue, reduced 

production, reduced capacity and 

capacity utilization, reduced shipments, 

reduced employment, and an overall 

decline in financial performance. We 

have assessed the allegations and 

supporting evidence regarding material 

injury, threat of material injury, and 

causation, and we have determined that 

these allegations are properly supported 

by adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III 

(Analysis of Injury Allegations and 

Evidence of Material Injury and 

Causation). 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegation of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate this investigation of 

imports of certain phosphate salts from 

the PRC. The sources of data for the 

deductions and adjustments relating to 

the U.S. price and the factors of 

production are also discussed in the 

initiation checklist. See Initiation 

Checklist. 

U.S. Price 

Petitioners calculated export price 

(‘‘EP’’) based on documentation of 

actual sales and offers for sale obtained 

from confidential sources. See Initiation 

Checklist; see also Volume I of the 

Petition, at 26, and Supplement to the 

AD Petition at Exhibit 36. Petitioners 

made adjustments for distributor mark– 

ups and cost, insurance and freight 

(‘‘CIF’’) charges. See Initiation Checklist; 

see also Volume I of the Petition, at 26. 

Petitioners also relied on Census Bureau 

statistics for U.S. price. See Volume I of 

the Petition, at 45. We did not rely on 

one of the provided U.S. prices because, 

according to the supporting affidavit, it 

was based on an estimated, not actual, 

price from a rejected sales offer. See 

Initiation Checklist; see also 

Supplement to the AD Petition at 

Exhibit AD–39. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54026 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 

Normal Value 

Petitioners state that the PRC is a 

non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) country 

and no determination to the contrary 

has been made by the Department. See 

Volume I of the Petition, at 27. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, the presumption of NME status 

remains in effect until revoked by the 

Department. The presumption of NME 

status for the PRC has not been revoked 

by the Department and, therefore, 

remains in effect for purposes of the 

initiation of this investigation. 

Accordingly, the normal value (‘‘NV’’) 

of the product for the PRC investigation 

is appropriately based on factors of 

production valued in a surrogate 

market–economy country in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Act. In the 

course of the PRC investigation, all 

parties, including the public, will have 

the opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issue of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

Petitioners contend that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because: 1) it is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC; 2) it is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise; 

and 3) information required to calculate 

unit factor costs and financial ratios is 

readily available. See Volume I of the 

Petition, at 27–30, and Volume 3 of the 

Petition at Exhibit AD–5. Based on the 

information provided by Petitioners, we 

believe that it is appropriate to use India 

as a surrogate country for initiation 

purposes. After initiation of the 

investigation, interested parties will 

have the opportunity to submit 

comments regarding surrogate country 

selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an 

opportunity to submit publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production within 40 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Petitioners calculated the NV and 

dumping margins using the 

Department’s NME methodology as 

required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) 

and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioners 

calculated separate NV and dumping 

margins for integrated and non– 

integrated producers in order to reflect 

the different production processes used. 

Petitioners based the calculations on the 

experience of ICL and its predecessor, 

Astaris, with a few exceptions based on 

recent articles concerning the PRC 

phosphorus industry. See Volume 1 of 

the Petition, at 30–31, Volume 3 of the 

Petition, at Exhibits AD 10 and AD–11, 

and Supplement to the AD Petition at 

13, and Exhibit AD–35. In calculating 

NV, Petitioners based the quantity of 

each of the inputs used to manufacture 

certain phosphate salts in the PRC on its 

own industry knowledge and 

production experience during and 

before the POI, with some supplemental 

information obtained from China 

Chemical Reporter. See Supplement to 

the AD Petition at 13–14, and Exhibit 

AD–35. Petitioner states that the 

constructed NV for each PRC producer 

may be different, depending on the level 

of integration. See Volume 1 of the 

Petition, at 31. 

Petitioner determined the 

consumption quantities of all raw 

materials and packing materials based 

on the production experience of ICL, 

Astaris, and China Chemical Reporter. 

See Supplement to the AD Petition at 

Exhibit AD–35. Petitioners valued the 

factors of production based on 

reasonably available, public surrogate 

country data, specifically, Indian import 

statistics from the World Trade Atlas 

(‘‘WTA’’). See Volume 3 of the Petition, 

at Exhibit AD–16. Petitioners excluded 

from these import statistics imports 

from countries previously determined 

by the Department to be NME countries 

and from Indonesia, the Republic of 

Korea, and Thailand as the Department 

has previously excluded prices from 

these countries because they maintain 

broadly available, non–industry-specific 

export subsidies. See id. In addition, the 

Petitioners made currency conversions, 

where necessary, based on the POI– 

average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate, 

as reported on the Department’s 

website. See Supplement to the AD 

Petition at 4–5, and Exhibit AD–26. 

Petitioners determined labor costs for 

STPP, TKPP, DKP and MKP using the 

labor consumption, in hours, derived 

from its ICL’s experience in 2008. See 

Supplement to the AD Petition Exhibit, 

at AD–35. Petitioners valued direct 

labor costs using the Department’s NME 

Wage Rate for the PRC at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages– 

051608.html. See Volume 1 of the 

Petition, at 41. The Department 

determines that the surrogate values 

used by Petitioners are reasonably 

available and, thus, acceptable for 

purposes of initiation. 

Petitioners determined electricity 

costs for STPP, TKPP, DKP and MKP 

using the electricity consumption, in 

kilowatt hours, derived from ICL’s 

experience in 2008. See Supplement to 

the AD Petition, at Exhibit at AD–35. 

Petitioners valued electricity using the 

Indian electricity rate reported by the 

Central Electric Authority of the 

Government of India. See Volume 1 of 

the Petition, at 40 and Volume 3 of the 

Petition, at Exhibit AD–15. 

Petitioners determined natural gas 

costs for STPP, TKPP, DKP and MKP 

using the natural gas consumption 

derived from ICL’s experience in 2008. 

See Supplement to the AD Petition 

Exhibit at AD–35. Petitioners valued 

natural gas using Indian import 

statistics from WTA. See Volume 3 of 

the Petition, at Exhibit AD–15. 

Petitioners based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

(‘‘SG&A’’), and profit on data from Tata 

Chemicals, the largest Indian producer 

of phosphate salts, for the fiscal year 

April 2008 through March 2009. See 

Volume 3 of the Petition, at Exhibit AD– 

19. Petitioners state that Tata Chemicals 

is a producer of phosphate salts that is 

back–integrated to the production of 

phosphoric acid and that it produces 

more than one phosphate salt and 

various related upstream materials. See 

Volume 1 of the Petition, at 42–44. 

Petitioners were unable to identify a 

fully integrated producer of phosphate 

salts in India and anticipate that an 

adjustment may be necessary to account 

for differing levels of integration. 

However, Petitioners state that Tata 

Chemical provides the best information 

available to reasonably represent the 

cost structure of an integrated 

phosphate salt producer in the PRC. See 

id. Therefore, for purposes of the 

initiation, the Department finds 

Petitioners’ use of Tata Chemical’s 

unconsolidated financial ratios 

appropriate. 

Fair-Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of certain phosphate salts 

from the PRC are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value. Based on a comparison of 

U.S. prices and NV calculated in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, the estimated dumping margins for 

certain phosphate salts from the PRC 

range from 33.7 percent to 177.4 

percent. See Initiation Checklist. 

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition on certain phosphate salts from 

the PRC, the Department finds that the 

Petition meets the requirements of 

section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 

initiating an antidumping duty 

investigation to determine whether 

imports of certain phosphate salts from 

the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. In accordance with section 

733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 54027 

make our preliminary determinations no 

later than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Targeted–Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeteddumping analysis in antidumping duty 

investigations, and the corresponding 

regulation governing the deadline for 

targeted–dumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the 

Regulatory Provisions Governing 

Targeted Dumping in Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 

(December 10, 2008). The Department 

stated that ‘‘{w}ithdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ See id. at 

74931. 

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted- dumping allegation in this 

investigation pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such 

allegations are due no later than 45 days 

before the scheduled date of the 

preliminary determination. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

will request quantity and value 

information from all known exporters 

and producers identified with complete 

contact information in the Petition, see 

Petition at Exhibit GEN–12. The 

quantity and value data received from 

NME exporters/producers will be used 

as the basis to select the mandatory 

respondents. 

The Department requires that the 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate–rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate–rate status. 

See Circular Welded Austenitic 

Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 

FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). The 

Department will post the quantity and 

value questionnaire along with the filing 

instructions on the Import 

Administration website at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and– 

news.html, and a response to the 

quantity and value questionnaire is due 

no later than November 4, 2009. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate–rate status 

in NME investigations, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate–rate 

status application. See our practice, 

described in Policy Bulletin 05.1: 

Separate–Rates Practice and Application 

of Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non–Market 

Economy Countries, dated April 5, 2005 

(‘‘Separate Rates and Combination Rates 

Bulletin’’), available on the 

Department’s website at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–1.pdf. 

Based on our experience in processing 

the separate–rate applications in 

previous antidumping duty 

investigations, we have modified the 

application for this investigation to 

make it more administrable and easier 

for applicants to complete. See, e.g., 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic 

Off–the-Road Tires From the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 43591, 43594– 

95 (August 6, 2007). The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate–rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, which will be 

available on the Department’s website at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and– 

news.html on the date of publication of 

this initiation notice in the Federal 

Register. The separate–rate application 

will be due 60 days after publication of 

this initiation notice. For exporters and 

producers who submit a separate–rate 

status application and subsequently are 

selected as mandatory respondents, 

these exporters and producers will no 

longer be eligible for consideration for 

separate rate status unless they respond 

to all parts of the questionnaire as 

mandatory respondents. As noted in the 

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section above, 

the Department requires that 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate–rate status. 

Use of Combination Rates in an NME 

Investigation 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

Separate Rates and Combination Rates 

Bulletin states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its 

NME investigations will be specific 

to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that 

one rate is calculated for the 

exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period 

of investigation. This practice 

applies both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate 

rate as well as the pool of non– 

investigated firms receiving the 

weighted–average of the 

individually calculated rates. This 

practice is referred to as the 

application of ‘‘combination rates’’ 

because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one 

or more producers. The cash– 

deposit rate assigned to an exporter 

will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm 

that supplied the exporter during 

the period of investigation. 

See Separate Rates and Combination 

Rates Bulletin at 6 (emphasis added). 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), copies of the public versions 

of the Petition have been provided to 

the representatives of the Government of 

the PRC. Because of the large number of 

producers/exporters identified in the 

Petition, the Department considers the 

service of the public version of the 

Petition to the foreign producers/ 

exporters satisfied by the delivery of the 

public version to the Government of the 

PRC, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiations, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than November 9, 2009, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of certain phosphate salts 

from the PRC are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to a U.S. 

industry. A negative ITC determination 

will result in the investigation being 

terminated; otherwise, this investigation 

will proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. This notice is 

issued and published pursuant to 

section 777(i) of the Act. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54028 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 

Dated: October 14, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The phosphate salts covered by this 

investigation include Sodium 

Tripolyphosphate (STPP), whether 

anhydrous or in solution, anhydrous 

Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP), 

anhydrous Dipotassium Phosphate 

(DKP) and Tetrapotassium 

Pyrophosphate (TKPP), whether 

anhydrous or in solution (collectively 

‘‘phosphate salts’’). 

STPP, also known as Sodium 

triphosphate, Tripoly or Pentasodium 

triposphate, is a sodium polyphosphate 

with the formula Na5O10P3. The 

American Chemical Society, Chemical 

Abstract Service (‘‘CAS’’) registry 

number for STPP is 7758–29–4. STPP is 

typically 25% phosphorus, 31% sodium 

and and 57% diphosphorus pentoxide 

(P2O5). STPP is classified under 

heading 2835.31.0000, HTSUS. 

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, 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 

product covered by this investigation 

includes anhydrous MKP and DKP 

without regard to the physical form, 

whether crushed, granule, powder or 

fines. Also covered are all forms of 

STPP and TKPP, whether crushed, 

granule, powder, fines or solution. 

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. 

[FR Doc. E9–25340 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

[Docket No. [PTO–P–2009–0039] 

Request for Comments and Notice of 

Roundtable on Work Sharing for 

Patent Applications 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In an effort to avoid 

duplication of work and to expedite the 

patent examination process, the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office 

(USPTO) has been developing worksharing initiatives in which an office 

uses, to the maximum extent 

practicable, the work already done by 

another office. The USPTO is 

conducting a roundtable to obtain input 

from diverse sources in the patent 

community and/or the public sector to 

evaluate views on work sharing. The 

roundtable is open to the public. The 

USPTO plans to invite a number of 

roundtable participants from patent user 

groups, practitioners, industry, 

independent inventor organizations, 

academia, and Government. To ensure 

that the USPTO is receiving a balanced 

array of views on work sharing, the 

USPTO also plans to have a few ‘‘atlarge’’ participants based upon requests 

received in response to this notice. To 

ensure that all who are speaking will 

have a meaningful chance to do so, the 

number of participants in the 

roundtable is limited. Those who wish 

to participate in the roundtable must do 

so by written request. Members of the 

public who wish solely to attend and 

observe the roundtable need not submit 

a request. 

In addition, any member of the public 

may submit written comments on issues 

raised at the roundtable or on any issue 

pertaining to work sharing. 

Dates and Times: The public meeting 

will be held on Wednesday, November 

18, 2009, from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. The 

deadline for receipt of requests to 

participate in the roundtable is 5 p.m. 

on Wednesday, November 4, 2009. 

The deadline for receipt of written 

comments for consideration by the 

USPTO on issues raised at the 

roundtable or on any issue pertaining to 

work sharing is December 11, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The roundtable will be held 

at the USPTO, Madison Auditorium, 

Concourse Level, Madison Building, 600 

Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 

22314. 

Requests to participate at the 

roundtable are required and must be 

submitted by electronic mail message 

through the Internet to 

elizabeth.shaw2@uspto.gov. Requests to 

participate at the roundtable should 

indicate the following information: (1) 

The name of the person desiring to 

participate and the person’s contact 

information (telephone number and 

electronic mail address); and (2) the 

organization(s) the person represents, if 

any. 

Written comments should be sent by 

electronic mail message over the 

Internet addressed to 

IP.Policy@uspto.gov. Comments may 

also be submitted by mail addressed to: 

Mail Stop OIPPE, United States Patent 

and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, 

Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, ATTN: 

Elizabeth Shaw. Although comments 

may be submitted by mail, the USPTO 

prefers to receive comments via the 

Internet. 

The written comments will be 

available for public inspection by 

appointment only at the Office of 

Intellectual Property Policy and 

Enforcement in the Executive Library 

located in Madison West, Tenth Floor, 

600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 

22314. Contact: Elizabeth Shaw at 

elizabeth.shaw2@uspto.gov or 571–272– 

8494. 

Because comments will be made 

available for public inspection, 

information that is not desired to be 

made public, such as an address or 

phone number, should not be included 

in the comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Shaw, Office of Intellectual 

Property Policy and Enforcement, by 

phone 571–272–8494, by facsimile to 

571–273–0121, by e-mail at 

elizabeth.shaw2@uspto.gov or by mail 

addressed to: Mail Stop OIPPE, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, 

P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 

22313–1450, ATTN: Elizabeth Shaw. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inventors 

and companies are increasingly seeking 

intellectual property protection for their 

inventions domestically and in multiple 

international markets. Because of the 

fractured nature of the global patent 

system, applicants must file different 

applications for their inventions in each 

country leading to multiple searches 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES