Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 54024-54028 [E9-25340]

Download as PDF 54024 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 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 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: AGENCY: jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:33 Oct 20, 2009 Jkt 220001 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 1 November 3, 2009, is twenty calendar days from the signature date of this notice. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:33 Oct 20, 2009 Jkt 220001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 54025 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. E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:33 Oct 20, 2009 Jkt 220001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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. VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:33 Oct 20, 2009 Jkt 220001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 54027 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. E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 54028 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices the tariff heading, American Chemical Society, CAS registry number or CAS name, or the specific percentage chemical composition identified above. Appendix I jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Dated: October 14, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E9–25340 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 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 BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:33 Oct 20, 2009 Jkt 220001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54024-54028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25340]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\1\Comments 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ November 3, 2009, is twenty calendar days from the signature 
date of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 54026]]

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

[[Page 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 targeted- dumping 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{time} 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{time} 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.


[[Page 54028]]


    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