Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry, 30375-30377 [2010-13070]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–963] Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2010. SUMMARY: On March 8, 2010, the Department of Commerce (Department) published its preliminary affirmative determination in the countervailing duty investigation of certain potassium phosphate salts from the People’s Republic of China (PRC).1 The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. We invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary Determination, and received comments from the domestic industry. We have made no changes for the final determination. We determine that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain potassium phosphate salts from the PRC. For information on the estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section, below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street, and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3148. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Case History The following events have occurred since the announcement of the Preliminary Determination, which was published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2010. ICL Performance Products LP and Prayon, Inc. (Petitioners) filed a critical circumstances allegation on April 6, 2010. Subsequently, on April 29, 2010, the Department issued a preliminary affirmative critical circumstances determination. See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical 1 See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 75 FR 10466 (March 8, 2010) (Preliminary Determination). VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:41 May 28, 2010 Jkt 220001 30375 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, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (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 Injury Test and 52% P2O5. MKP is classified under heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS. Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies DKP, also known as dipotassium salt, Agreement Country’’ within the meaning dipotassium hydrogen orthophosphate of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of or potassium phosphate, dibasic, has a 1930, as amended (the Act), the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is chemical formula of K2HPO4. The CAS registry number for DKP is 7758–11–4. required to determine pursuant to DKP is typically 17.8% phosphorus, section 701(a)(2) of the Act whether imports of the subject merchandise from 44.8% potassium and 40% P2O5 content. DKP is classified under heading the PRC materially injure, or threaten 2835.24.0000, HTSUS. material injury to, a United States The products covered by this industry. On November 23, 2009, the investigation include the foregoing ITC published its preliminary phosphate salts in all grades, whether determination that there is a reasonable food grade or technical grade. The indication that an industry in the products covered by this investigation United States producing include anhydrous MKP and DKP monopotassium phosphate (MKP) is without regard to the physical form, materially injured or threatened with whether crushed, granule, powder or material injury, and industries in the fines. Also covered are all forms of United States producing dipotassium TKPP, whether crushed, granule, phospate (DKP) and tetrapotassium powder, fines or solution. pyrophosphate (TKPP) are threatened For purposes of the investigation, the with material injury by reason of narrative description is dispositive, not allegedly subsidized imports from the the tariff heading, American Chemical PRC of subject merchandise. See Society, CAS registry number or CAS Investigations Nos. 701–TA–473 and name, or the specific percentage 731–TA–1173 (Preliminary), Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts chemical composition identified above. from China, 74 FR 61173 (November 23, Period of Investigation 2009). The ITC found that there is no The period for which we are reasonable indication that an industry measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of producing sodium tripolyphosphate investigation, is January 1, 2008 through (STPP) is materially injured by reason of December 31, 2008. imports alleged to be subsidized by the Comments on the Preliminary PRC. Id. Determination Scope of the Investigation As noted above, the Department The phosphate salts covered by this received a case brief from Petitioners investigation include anhydrous only, and no rebuttal briefs. Petitioners’ monopotassium phosphate (MKP), brief simply states their agreement with anhydrous dipotassium phospate (DKP) the Department’s preliminary AFA and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate determination, and reiterates their (TKPP), whether anhydrous or in arguments for finding critical solution (collectively ‘‘phosphate salts’’). circumstances, but does not offer any arguments or suggestions for modifying 2 Because the critical circumstances allegation our determinations or methodologies in was not filed until April 6, 2010, we were not able any manner. Moreover, Petitioners’ to issue our determination before the due date for affirmative statements regarding critical case briefs. We did not receive any requests to extend the due date. circumstances have become moot now Circumstances in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24575, 24577 (May 5, 2010). On April 27, 2010, we received a case brief from Petitioners. We received no other case briefs and no rebuttal briefs. Petitioners’ brief simply notes its agreement with the Department’s preliminary countervailing duty determination, and reiterates its arguments in favor of an affirmative critical circumstances determination.2 Petitioners put forth no arguments for revisions to our adverse facts available (AFA) methodology or to any other aspect of our determinations. On May 18, 2010, Petitioners withdrew their critical circumstances allegation. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM 01JNN1 30376 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices that they have withdrawn their allegation (see below). Therefore, given Petitioners’ complete concurrence with the Department’s positions, we have not addressed their comments specifically. Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available For purposes of this final determination, we relied on AFA in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act to determine the total countervailable subsidy rates. The government of the PRC and the three mandatory company respondents did not respond to the Department’s questionnaire. Because of the failure to provide requested information, we determine that the use of facts otherwise available is required, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C), and that, because of this lack of cooperation, the application of an adverse inference is also warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. In determining appropriate AFA rates for the programs under investigation, we applied the methodology developed in prior CVD investigations. A full discussion of our decision to apply AFA, and the methodology we followed, is presented in the Preliminary Determination in the section ‘‘Application of Facts Otherwise Available,’’ and a detailed explanation of the AFA rates determined for each program can be found in Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Application of Adverse Facts Available Rates for Preliminary Determination,’’ March 1, 2010. There is no new information or more recently calculated rates in final CVD determinations involving the PRC which warrant any revisions to the rates assigned in the Preliminary Determination. Critical Circumstances As noted above, Petitioners withdrew their critical circumstances allegation on May 18, 2010. Pursuant to this withdrawal, and because the Department has not ‘‘expended significant resources’’ in examining the allegation,3 the Department determines there is no need to make a critical circumstances determination in this investigation and is terminating the critical circumstances inquiry. We will, therefore, instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to terminate the suspension of liquidation, refund any cash deposits, and release any bond or other security previously posted, for entries from December 8, 2009 until March 8, 2010, the publication date of the Preliminary Determination, effectively rescinding our instructions to CBP pursuant to the preliminary affirmative critical circumstances determination. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have assigned a subsidy rate to each of the three producers/exporters of the subject merchandise that were selected as mandatory company respondents in this CVD investigation. With respect to the all-others rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that if the countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are determined entirely in accordance with section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this case, the rate calculated for the three investigated companies is based entirely on facts available under section 776 of the Act. There is no other information on the record upon which to determine an allothers rate. As a result, we have used the AFA rate assigned to the three mandatory respondents as the all-others rate. This method is consistent with the Department’s past practice. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, 66 FR 37007, 37008 (July 16, 2001); see also, Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From India, 68 FR 68356 (December 8, 2003); Sodium Nitrite from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 38981 (July 8, 2008). As a result, we have determined the following subsidy rates. Producer/Exporter Subsidy rate erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Lianyungang Mupro Import Export Co Ltd ............................................... Mianyang Aostar Phosphate Chemical Industry Co. Ltd ......................... Shifang Anda Chemicals Co. Ltd ............................................................. All-Others .................................................................................................. 109.11 109.11 109.11 109.11 percent percent percent percent ad ad ad ad valorem. valorem. valorem. valorem. In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we directed CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from the PRC, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 8, 2010, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. After the preliminary affirmative critical circumstances determination, we directed CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries on or after December 8, 2009 (encompassing the retroactive 90-day period) pursuant to section 703(e)(2) of the Act. As noted above, however, we will now instruct CBP to remove the suspension of liquidation for the 90-day prepreliminary determination period, to refund any cash deposits and release any bond or other security previously posted within the 90-day period, but to continue collecting bonds or cash deposits on all entries, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 8, 2010. If the ITC issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty order under section 706(a) of the Act, and instruct CBP to require cash deposits of the estimated countervailing duties. If the ITC determines that material injury to, threat of material injury to, or material retardation of, the domestic industry does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. 3 See e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical-Circumstances Investigation: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia, 73 FR 47586, 47586–87 (August 14, 2008), granting a post- preliminary determination request to withdraw a critical circumstances allegation. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:41 May 28, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM 01JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices such information, either publicly or under an Administrative Protective Order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 24, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2010–13070 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [A–570–962] erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2010. SUMMARY: On March 16, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) published its notice of preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the antidumping investigation of certain potassium phosphate salts (‘‘salts’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. We made no changes for the final 1 See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 12508 (March 16, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 15:41 May 28, 2010 Jkt 220001 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katie Marksberry or Irene Gorelik, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–7906 or (202) 482– 6905, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The Department published its Preliminary Determination on March 16, 2010. On April 2, 2010, Petitioners filed an allegation of critical circumstances.2 On April 15, 2010, we received a case brief from Petitioners. We did not receive any case or rebuttal briefs from any other interested parties. On May 5, 2010, we published the preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances.3 On May 18, 2010, Petitioners withdrew their allegation of critical circumstances.4 Tolling of Administrative Deadlines International Trade Administration VerDate Mar<15>2010 determination. We determine that salts from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section of this notice. As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from February 5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by seven days. The revised deadline for this final determination is now May 24, 2010. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010. 2 See Letter from Petitioners to the Department; regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Allegation of Critical Circumstances; dated April 2, 2010. 3 See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24572 (May 5, 2010) (‘‘Prelim Critical Circumstances Determination’’). 4 See letter to the Department from Petitioners, regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Withdrawal of Allegation of Critical Circumstances, dated May 18, 2010. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 30377 Scope of Investigation The phosphate salts covered by this investigation include anhydrous Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP), anhydrous Dipotassium Phosphate (DKP) and Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate (TKPP), whether anhydrous or in solution (collectively ‘‘phosphate salts’’). 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 TKPP, whether crushed, granule, powder, fines or solution. For purposes of the investigation, the narrative description is dispositive, and not the tariff heading, American Chemical Society, CAS registry number or CAS name, or the specific percentage chemical composition identified above. Comments on the Preliminary Determination On April 15, 2010, Petitioners submitted a case brief in which they agreed with the decisions the Department made in the Preliminary Determination and stated that the Department’s use of adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) in the Preliminary Determination was warranted and appropriate. No other interested party commented on the Preliminary Determination. E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM 01JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30375-30377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13070]



[[Page 30375]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-963]


Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2010.
SUMMARY: On March 8, 2010, the Department of Commerce (Department) 
published its preliminary affirmative determination in the 
countervailing duty investigation of certain potassium phosphate salts 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC).\1\ The period of 
investigation (POI) is January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. We 
invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary Determination, 
and received comments from the domestic industry. We have made no 
changes for the final determination. We determine that countervailable 
subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain 
potassium phosphate salts from the PRC. For information on the 
estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty 
Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 75 FR 10466 
(March 8, 2010) (Preliminary Determination).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street, and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    The following events have occurred since the announcement of the 
Preliminary Determination, which was published in the Federal Register 
on March 8, 2010. ICL Performance Products LP and Prayon, Inc. 
(Petitioners) filed a critical circumstances allegation on April 6, 
2010. Subsequently, on April 29, 2010, the Department issued a 
preliminary affirmative critical circumstances determination. See 
Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the 
Countervailing Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24575, 24577 (May 5, 2010).
    On April 27, 2010, we received a case brief from Petitioners. We 
received no other case briefs and no rebuttal briefs. Petitioners' 
brief simply notes its agreement with the Department's preliminary 
countervailing duty determination, and reiterates its arguments in 
favor of an affirmative critical circumstances determination.\2\ 
Petitioners put forth no arguments for revisions to our adverse facts 
available (AFA) methodology or to any other aspect of our 
determinations. On May 18, 2010, Petitioners withdrew their critical 
circumstances allegation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because the critical circumstances allegation was not filed 
until April 6, 2010, we were not able to issue our determination 
before the due date for case briefs. We did not receive any requests 
to extend the due date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to 
determine pursuant to section 701(a)(2) of the Act whether imports of 
the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten 
material injury to, a United States industry. On November 23, 2009, the 
ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States producing 
monopotassium phosphate (MKP) is materially injured or threatened with 
material injury, and industries in the United States producing 
dipotassium phospate (DKP) and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate (TKPP) are 
threatened with material injury by reason of allegedly subsidized 
imports from the PRC of subject merchandise. See Investigations Nos. 
701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173 (Preliminary), Certain Sodium and Potassium 
Phosphate Salts from China, 74 FR 61173 (November 23, 2009). The ITC 
found that there is no reasonable indication that an industry producing 
sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP) is materially injured by reason of 
imports alleged to be subsidized by the PRC. Id.

Scope of the Investigation

    The phosphate salts covered by this investigation include anhydrous 
monopotassium phosphate (MKP), anhydrous dipotassium phospate (DKP) and 
tetrapotassium pyrophosphate (TKPP), whether anhydrous or in solution 
(collectively ``phosphate salts'').
    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, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (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 products covered by this investigation include anhydrous MKP and 
DKP without regard to the physical form, whether crushed, granule, 
powder or fines. Also covered are all forms of 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.

Period of Investigation

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e., the period 
of investigation, is January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008.

Comments on the Preliminary Determination

    As noted above, the Department received a case brief from 
Petitioners only, and no rebuttal briefs. Petitioners' brief simply 
states their agreement with the Department's preliminary AFA 
determination, and reiterates their arguments for finding critical 
circumstances, but does not offer any arguments or suggestions for 
modifying our determinations or methodologies in any manner. Moreover, 
Petitioners' affirmative statements regarding critical circumstances 
have become moot now

[[Page 30376]]

that they have withdrawn their allegation (see below). Therefore, given 
Petitioners' complete concurrence with the Department's positions, we 
have not addressed their comments specifically.

Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available

    For purposes of this final determination, we relied on AFA in 
accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act to determine the 
total countervailable subsidy rates. The government of the PRC and the 
three mandatory company respondents did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. Because of the failure to provide requested information, 
we determine that the use of facts otherwise available is required, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C), and that, because of this lack of 
cooperation, the application of an adverse inference is also warranted, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. In determining appropriate AFA 
rates for the programs under investigation, we applied the methodology 
developed in prior CVD investigations. A full discussion of our 
decision to apply AFA, and the methodology we followed, is presented in 
the Preliminary Determination in the section ``Application of Facts 
Otherwise Available,'' and a detailed explanation of the AFA rates 
determined for each program can be found in Memorandum to the File, 
``Application of Adverse Facts Available Rates for Preliminary 
Determination,'' March 1, 2010. There is no new information or more 
recently calculated rates in final CVD determinations involving the PRC 
which warrant any revisions to the rates assigned in the Preliminary 
Determination.

Critical Circumstances

    As noted above, Petitioners withdrew their critical circumstances 
allegation on May 18, 2010. Pursuant to this withdrawal, and because 
the Department has not ``expended significant resources'' in examining 
the allegation,\3\ the Department determines there is no need to make a 
critical circumstances determination in this investigation and is 
terminating the critical circumstances inquiry. We will, therefore, 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to terminate the 
suspension of liquidation, refund any cash deposits, and release any 
bond or other security previously posted, for entries from December 8, 
2009 until March 8, 2010, the publication date of the Preliminary 
Determination, effectively rescinding our instructions to CBP pursuant 
to the preliminary affirmative critical circumstances determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical-Circumstances 
Investigation: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Australia, 73 FR 
47586, 47586-87 (August 14, 2008), granting a post-preliminary 
determination request to withdraw a critical circumstances 
allegation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 
assigned a subsidy rate to each of the three producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise that were selected as mandatory company respondents 
in this CVD investigation. With respect to the all-others rate, section 
705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that if the countervailable 
subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually 
investigated are determined entirely in accordance with section 776 of 
the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an 
all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually 
investigated. In this case, the rate calculated for the three 
investigated companies is based entirely on facts available under 
section 776 of the Act. There is no other information on the record 
upon which to determine an all-others rate. As a result, we have used 
the AFA rate assigned to the three mandatory respondents as the all-
others rate. This method is consistent with the Department's past 
practice. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Argentina, 66 FR 37007, 37008 (July 16, 2001); see also, Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Prestressed Concrete 
Steel Wire Strand From India, 68 FR 68356 (December 8, 2003); Sodium 
Nitrite from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 38981 (July 8, 2008).
    As a result, we have determined the following subsidy rates.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Producer/Exporter                       Subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lianyungang Mupro Import Export Co Ltd.  109.11 percent ad valorem.
Mianyang Aostar Phosphate Chemical       109.11 percent ad valorem.
 Industry Co. Ltd.
Shifang Anda Chemicals Co. Ltd.........  109.11 percent ad valorem.
All-Others.............................  109.11 percent ad valorem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we directed 
CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise 
from the PRC, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after March 8, 2010, the date of publication of the 
Preliminary Determination. After the preliminary affirmative critical 
circumstances determination, we directed CBP to suspend liquidation of 
all entries on or after December 8, 2009 (encompassing the retroactive 
90-day period) pursuant to section 703(e)(2) of the Act. As noted 
above, however, we will now instruct CBP to remove the suspension of 
liquidation for the 90-day pre-preliminary determination period, to 
refund any cash deposits and release any bond or other security 
previously posted within the 90-day period, but to continue collecting 
bonds or cash deposits on all entries, entered or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after March 8, 2010.
    If the ITC issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will 
issue a countervailing duty order under section 706(a) of the Act, and 
instruct CBP to require cash deposits of the estimated countervailing 
duties. If the ITC determines that material injury to, threat of 
material injury to, or material retardation of, the domestic industry 
does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated 
duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of 
liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose

[[Page 30377]]

such information, either publicly or under an Administrative Protective 
Order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration.

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury 
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties 
subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of 
proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 24, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-13070 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P