1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony, 78967-78968 [2010-31756]

Download as PDF emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2010 / Notices allow us to estimate a firm’s stock of management and organizational assets, specifically the use of decentralized decision rights and greater investments in human capital. The results will provide information on investments in organizational practices thus allowing us to gain a better understanding of the benefits from these investments when measured in terms of firm productivity or firm market value. A manufacturing sector establishment based survey on management and organizational practices would provide information on the dimensions of organizational capital for this sector that is not currently available. Understanding the determinants of productivity growth is essential to understanding the dynamics of the U.S. economy. The Management and Organizational Practices Survey (MOPS) will provide information on whether the large and persistent differences in productivity across establishments (even within the same industry) are partly driven by differences in management and organizational practices. In addition to increasing our understanding of the dynamics of the economy, the MOPS will provide policy makers with some guidance in attempts to raise aggregate productivity levels. Policymakers, such as the Federal Reserve Board, can use the MOPS to understand the current state and evolution of management and organizational practices which can in turn aid the policymakers in forecasting future productivity growth. Management data will also be particularly important for understanding what policymakers can do to assist U.S. manufacturing companies hit particularly hard by the recent recession. There has been renewed policy interest in approaches to support the manufacturing industry. For example, some policymakers have suggested extending programs like the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP). The MEP is a nationwide system of resources, transforming manufactures to compete globally by making use of modern manufacturing equipment, innovative methodologies, and management practices to improve/ increase the productivity in the manufacturing sector. The MOPS would provide information on differences in manufacturing management and organizational practices by region, industry and firm size which would directly aid policy discussions about the potential impact of programs like the MEP. Researchers for this proposed survey have discussed with members of the Council of Economic Advisors the potential impact of management VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:45 Dec 16, 2010 Jkt 223001 practices on manufacturing performance and the evaluation of the MEP. In a similar vein, researchers on this proposal have had discussions with members of the current administration about measuring and evaluating differences in healthcare management and its links to patient outcomes. The MOPS could also provide information in this area. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. Frequency: Annually. Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 131, 182, 193, and 224. OMB Desk Officer: Brian HarrisKojetin, (202) 395–7314. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at dhynek@doc.gov). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202–395– 7245) or e-mail (bharrisk@omb.eop.gov). Dated: December 13, 2010. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2010–31679 Filed 12–16–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–07–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–934] 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1Diphosphonic Acid From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 13, 2010, the United States Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) sustained the remand determination made by the Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) pursuant to the CIT’s remand of the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on 1hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (‘‘HEDP’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) and ordered AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 78967 the case dismissed.1 This case arises out of the Department’s final determination in the antidumping investigation on HEDP from the PRC.2 The final judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department’s Final Determination. DATES: Effective Date: September 23, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Higgins, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0679. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 11, 2009, the Department published its Final Determination in which it determined that HEDP from the PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’).3 Separate rate respondent companies Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wujin Fine’’) and Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiangsu Jianghai’’) timely challenged certain aspects of the Final Determination to the CIT. Among the issues raised before the CIT was whether the Department properly corroborated the adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) rate upon which it relied in calculating the separate rate. On February 8, 2010, the CIT granted the United States’ motion for a voluntary remand to reconsider the separate rate assigned to Wujin Fine and Jiangsu Jianghai after examining whether the Department corroborated the AFA rate upon which it relied in calculating the separate rate.4 In a remand determination filed on May 3, 2010, the Department determined that the AFA rate upon which the Department relied in calculating the separate rate was not corroborated in the Final Determination.5 Consequently, the 1 See Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, No. 09–00216, Slip Op. 10–85 (Ct. Int’l Trade Aug. 5, 2010); Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, No. 09–00216, Slip Op. 10–103 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 13, 2010). 2 See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545 (March 11, 2009) (‘‘Final Determination’’). 3 Id. at 10545. 4 See Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, No. 09–00216 (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb. 8, 2010). 5 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order: Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States (May 3, 2010) at 1–9. E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM 17DEN1 78968 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2010 / Notices Department calculated a revised separate rate of 15.47 percent for Wujin Fine and Jiangsu Jianghai relying on a second AFA rate that did not require corroboration. The CIT sustained the Department’s remand redetermination on August 5, 2010, and subsequently dismissed the case.6 On November 12, 2010, Wujin Fine and Jiangsu Jianghai filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) of the CIT’s decision. Timken Notice In its decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s decision of September 13, 2010, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department’s Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. In the event the CIT’s decision is affirmed on appeal, the Department will publish an amended final determination revising the separate rate assigned to Wujin Fine and Jiangsu Jianghai and issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 10, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2010–31756 Filed 12–16–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–821–819] emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: DATES: Effective Date: December 17, 2010. 6 See Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, No. 09–00216, Slip Op. 10–103 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 13, 2010). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:45 Dec 16, 2010 Jkt 223001 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street, and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3477. Background On May 28, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the Russian Federation for the period April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 29976 (May 28, 2010). The preliminary results of this administrative review are currently due no later than December 31, 2010. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published in the Federal Register. If it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month. We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review by the current deadline of December 31, 2010, because we require additional time to analyze a number of complex corporate-affiliation issues relating to this administrative review. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this review by 75 days to March 16, 2011. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 13, 2010. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2010–31753 Filed 12–16–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–520–803] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This review covers respondents, JBF RAK LLC (JBF), and FLEX Middle East FZE (FLEX), producers and exporters of PET Film from the UAE. The Department preliminarily determines that sales of PET Film from the UAE have been made below normal value (NV) during the November 6, 2008, through October 31, 2009 period of review. The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review.’’ Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. DATES: Effective Date: December 17, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Huston, or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4261 or (202) 482– 1396, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On November 10, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on PET Film from the UAE. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Brazil, the People’s Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value for the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595 (November 10, 2008) (Order). On November 2, 2009, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 56573 (November 2, 2009). In response, on November 24, E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM 17DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78967-78968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31756]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-934]


1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International 
Trade Not in Harmony

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 13, 2010, the United States Court of 
International Trade (``CIT'') sustained the remand determination made 
by the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') pursuant to the 
CIT's remand of the final determination in the antidumping duty 
investigation on 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-diphosphonic acid (``HEDP'') 
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') and ordered the case 
dismissed.\1\ This case arises out of the Department's final 
determination in the antidumping investigation on HEDP from the PRC.\2\ 
The final judgment in this case was not in harmony with the 
Department's Final Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. v. 
United States, No. 09-00216, Slip Op. 10-85 (Ct. Int'l Trade Aug. 5, 
2010); Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, No. 09-00216, Slip Op. 10-103 (Ct. Int'l Trade Sept. 13, 
2010).
    \2\ See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545 (March 11, 2009) (``Final 
Determination'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 23, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Higgins, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0679.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 11, 2009, the Department published 
its Final Determination in which it determined that HEDP from the PRC 
is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the ``Act'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. at 10545.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separate rate respondent companies Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical 
Factory Co., Ltd. (``Wujin Fine'') and Jiangsu Jianghai Chemical Group 
Co., Ltd. (``Jiangsu Jianghai'') timely challenged certain aspects of 
the Final Determination to the CIT. Among the issues raised before the 
CIT was whether the Department properly corroborated the adverse facts 
available (``AFA'') rate upon which it relied in calculating the 
separate rate.
    On February 8, 2010, the CIT granted the United States' motion for 
a voluntary remand to reconsider the separate rate assigned to Wujin 
Fine and Jiangsu Jianghai after examining whether the Department 
corroborated the AFA rate upon which it relied in calculating the 
separate rate.\4\ In a remand determination filed on May 3, 2010, the 
Department determined that the AFA rate upon which the Department 
relied in calculating the separate rate was not corroborated in the 
Final Determination.\5\ Consequently, the

[[Page 78968]]

Department calculated a revised separate rate of 15.47 percent for 
Wujin Fine and Jiangsu Jianghai relying on a second AFA rate that did 
not require corroboration. The CIT sustained the Department's remand 
redetermination on August 5, 2010, and subsequently dismissed the 
case.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. v. 
United States, No. 09-00216 (Ct. Int'l Trade Feb. 8, 2010).
    \5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Order: Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. v. United 
States (May 3, 2010) at 1-9.
    \6\ See Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. v. 
United States, No. 09-00216, Slip Op. 10-103 (Ct. Int'l Trade Sept. 
13, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 12, 2010, Wujin Fine and Jiangsu Jianghai filed an 
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(``CAFC'') of the CIT's decision.

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 
516A(e) of the Act, the Department must publish a notice of a court 
decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Department determination and 
must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court 
decision. The CIT's decision of September 13, 2010, constitutes a final 
decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's 
Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the 
publication requirements of Timken. In the event the CIT's decision is 
affirmed on appeal, the Department will publish an amended final 
determination revising the separate rate assigned to Wujin Fine and 
Jiangsu Jianghai and issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 10, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-31756 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.