Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Notices 973 

2. Has a management plan (can be 

site-specific or part of a broader 

programmatic management plan; must 

have goals and objectives and call for 

monitoring or evaluation of those goals 

and objectives). 

3. Contributes to at least one priority 

conservation objective as listed in the 

Framework. 

4. Cultural heritage MPAs must also 

conform to criteria for the National 

Register for Historic Places. 

The MPA Center used existing 

information in the MPA Inventory to 

determine which MPAs meet the first 

and second criteria. The inventory is 

online at http://www.mpa.gov/ 

helpful_resources/inventory.html, and 

potentially eligible sites are posted 

online at http://mpa.gov/pdf/nationalsystem/allsitesumsheet8O9.pdf. As part 

of the nomination process, the managing 

entity for each potentially eligible site is 

asked to provide information on the 

third and fourth criteria. 

List of MPAs Nominated to the National 

System 

The following 32 MPAs have been 

nominated by their managing programs 

to join the national system of MPAs. A 

list providing more detail for each site 

is available at http://www.mpa.gov. 

Federal Marine Protected Areas 

National Parks 

Acadia National Park 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

Buck Island Reef National Monument 

Cabrillo National Monument 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Cape Cod National Seashore 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore 

Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Fire Island National Seashore 

Gateway National Recreation Area 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and 

Preserve 

Kalaupapa National Historical Park 

Kaloko-Honokahau National Historical Park 

National Park of American Samoa 

Olympic National Park 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

Salt River Bay National Historical Park and 

Ecological Preserve 

San Juan Islands National Historical Park 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 

National Wildlife Refuges 

Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Pickney Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Tybee National Wildlife Refuge 

Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Wolf National Wildlife Refuge 

Partnership Marine Protected Areas 

Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research 

Reserve (Puerto Rico) 

State Marine Protected Areas 

North Carolina 

Queen Anne’s Revenge (Shipwreck) 

Virgin Islands 

East End Marine Park 

Washington 

San Juan County/Cypress Island Marine 

Biological Preserve 

Review and Approval 

Following this public comment 

period, the MPA Center will forward 

public comments to the relevant 

managing entity or entities, which will 

reaffirm or withdraw (in writing to the 

MPA Center) the nomination. After final 

MPA Center review, mutually agreed 

upon MPAs will be accepted into the 

national system and the List of National 

System MPAs will be posted at http:// 

www.mpa.gov. 

Dated: December 30, 2009. 

David M. Kennedy, 

Assistant Administrator for Ocean Service 

and Coastal Zone Management. 

[FR Doc. E9–31406 Filed 1–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–810] 

Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes 

From the Republic of Korea: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: 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 certain 

welded stainless steel pipes (WSSP) 

from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for 

the period of review (POR) December 1, 

2007 through November 30, 2008. The 

review covers one respondent, SeAH 

Steel Corporation (SeAH). 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

made by SeAH have been made at below 

normal value (NV). If the preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of administrative review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on entries of SeAH’s merchandise 

during the POR. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on the preliminary 

results. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Holly Phelps or Elizabeth Eastwood, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0656 or (202) 482– 

3874, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In December 1992, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

WSSP from Korea. See Antidumping 

Duty Order and Clarification of Final 

Determination: Certain Welded 

Stainless Steel Pipes from Korea, 57 FR 

62301 (Dec. 30, 1992), as amended in 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from the 

Republic of Korea, 60 FR 10064 (Feb. 23, 

1995) (Amended Final Determination 

and Order). On December 1, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order of WSSP from 

Korea for the period December 1, 2007, 

through November 31, 2008. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 72764 

(Dec. 1, 2008). 

On December 29, 2008, the 

Department received a timely request 

from SeAH, in accordance with section 

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.213(b), for an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on WSSP 

from Korea. On February 2, 2009, the 

Department published, in the Federal 

Register, the notice of initiation of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on WSSP from 

Korea for SeAH. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 5821 (Feb. 

2, 2009). 

In February 2009, the Department 

issued the antidumping duty 

questionnaire to SeAH. SeAH timely 

submitted its response to section A of 

the questionnaire (i.e., the section 

relating to general information about the 

company) on March 20, 2009, and its 

responses to sections B through D of its 

questionnaires (i.e., the sections relating 

to sales to the home and U.S. markets 

and cost information) on April 20, 2009. 

In August 2009, in accordance with 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.212(h)(2), we extended the 

deadline for the preliminary results of 

this review by 120 days until no later 

than December 31, 2009. See Welded 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

974 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Notices 

ASTM A–312 Stainless Steel Pipe from 

the Republic of Korea: Extension of 

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 39045 (Aug. 5, 2009). 

During the period August 2009 

through December 2009, we issued 

supplemental questionnaires to SeAH. 

We received responses to these 

questionnaires from September 2009 

through December 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the 

antidumping duty order is welded 

austenitic stainless steel pipe that meets 

the standards and specifications set 

forth by the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) for the 

welded form of chromium-nickel pipe 

designated ASTM A–312. The 

merchandise covered by the scope of the 

order also includes austenitic welded 

stainless steel pipes made according to 

the standards of other nations which are 

comparable to ASTM A–312. 

WSSP is produced by forming 

stainless steel flat-rolled products into a 

tubular configuration and welding along 

the seam. WSSP is a commodity product 

generally used as a conduit to transmit 

liquids or gases. Major applications for 

steel pipe include, but are not limited 

to, digester lines, blow lines, 

pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical 

stock lines, brewery process and 

transport lines, general food processing 

lines, automotive paint lines, and paper 

process machines. Imports of WSSP are 

currently classifiable under the 

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (HTSUS) 

subheadings: 7306.40.5005, 

7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5040, 

7306.40.5065, and 7306.40.5085. 

Although these subheadings include 

both pipes and tubes, the scope of the 

antidumping duty order is limited to 

welded austenitic stainless steel pipes. 

The HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes. 

However, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Normal Value Analysis 

In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) 

of the Act, to determine whether sales 

of WSSP from Korea were made in the 

United States at less than NV, we 

compared the constructed export price 

(CEP) to the NV, as described in the 

‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

Product Comparisons 

When making comparisons in 

accordance with section 771(16) of the 

Act, we considered all products sold by 

the respondent in the home market 

during the POR as described in the 

‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section of this 

notice, above, that were in the ordinary 

course of trade for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. 

In accordance with section 771(16)(A) 

of the Act, we first attempted to 

compare products produced by the same 

company and sold in the U.S. and home 

markets that were identical with respect 

to the following characteristics: 

Specification and grade, hot or cold 

finish, size, wall thickness schedule, 

and end finish. Where there were no 

home market sales of foreign like 

product that were identical in these 

respects to the merchandise sold in the 

United States, in accordance with 

section 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act, we 

compared U.S. products with the most 

similar merchandise sold in the home 

market based on the characteristics 

listed above, in that order of priority. 

Constructed Export Price 

Pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, 

for sales to the United States, we 

preliminarily determine that all of 

SeAH’s U.S. sales are CEP sales because 

all sales of subject merchandise to the 

United States were made by Pusan Pipe 

America (PPA), SeAH’s U.S. sales 

subsidiary, to an unaffiliated customer 

in the United States. We based CEP on 

the packed prices charged to the first 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States. To establish CEP, where 

appropriate, we made net price 

adjustments, as defined by 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(38), to PPA’s starting price to 

account for early payment discounts, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 

made deductions for movement 

expenses, in accordance with section 

772(c)(2) of the Act; these adjustments 

included, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight expenses, foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses, ocean 

freight expenses, marine insurance, U.S. 

brokerage and handling expenses, and 

U.S. customs duties. For further 

discussion of the changes made to 

SeAH’s reported U.S. sales data, see the 

December 31, 2009, memorandum from 

Holly Phelps, Analyst, to the File, 

entitled ‘‘Calculations Performed for 

SeAH Steel Corporation for the 

Preliminary Results in the 2007–2008 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Welded Stainless 

Steel Pipe from Korea’’ (SeAH Prelim 

Calc Memo). 

In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) 

and (2) of the Act, we also deducted, 

where applicable, those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including U.S. direct selling expenses 

(i.e., warranty and imputed credit 

expenses), and indirect selling expenses 

(including inventory carrying costs and 

other indirect selling expenses incurred 

in the United States). 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act, we further reduced the starting 

price by an amount for profit to arrive 

at CEP. In accordance with section 

772(f) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(d), 

we calculated the CEP profit rate using 

the expenses incurred by SeAH and its 

U.S. affiliate on their sales of the subject 

merchandise in the United States and 

the profit associated with those sales. 

Normal Value 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based 

NV on the price at which the foreign 

like product was first sold for 

consumption in the home market, in the 

usual commercial quantities, in the 

ordinary course of trade, and, to the 

extent practicable, at the same level of 

trade (LOT) as the CEP sale. See ‘‘Level 

of Trade’’ section, below. After testing 

home market viability and whether 

home market sales were at below-cost 

prices, we calculated NV for SeAH as 

discussed in the following sections. 

A. Home Market Viability and Selection 

of Comparison Markets 

In order to determine whether there is 

a sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product is five percent or 

more of the aggregate volume of U.S. 

sales), we compared the volume of 

SeAH’s home market sales of the foreign 

like product to the volume of U.S. sales 

of subject merchandise, in accordance 

with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. 

Based on this comparison, we 

determined that SeAH had a viable 

home market during the POR. 

Consequently, we based NV on home 

market sales, pursuant to section 

773(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.404(b). 

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and 

Arm’s-Length Test 

During the POR SeAH made sales of 

WSSP in the home market to an 

affiliated party, as defined in section 

771(33) of the Act. Consequently, we 

tested these sales to ensure that they 

were made at arm’s-length prices, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To 

test whether the sales to the affiliate 

were made at arm’s-length prices, we 

compared the unit prices of sales to 

affiliated and unaffiliated customers net 

of all movement charges, direct selling 

expenses, and packing expenses. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Notices 975 

1Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), 

we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the 

sales from which we derive selling expenses, 

general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and 

profit for CV, where possible. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, where the price to that 

affiliated party was, on average, within 

a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price 

of the same or comparable merchandise 

sold to the unaffiliated parties at the 

same LOT, we determined that the sales 

made to the affiliated party were at 

arm’s length. See Antidumping 

Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 

the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 

69186 (Nov. 15, 2002) (establishing that 

the overall ratio calculated for an 

affiliate must be between 98 and 102 

percent, inclusive, of prices to 

unaffiliated customers in order for sales 

to that affiliate to be considered in the 

ordinary course of trade and used in the 

NV calculation). Sales to affiliated 

customers in the home market that were 

not made at arm’s-length prices were 

excluded from our analysis because we 

considered these sales to be outside the 

ordinary course of trade. See section 

771(15) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.102(b). 

C. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the home market at the same 

LOT as CEP. Sales are made at different 

LOTs if they are made at different 

marketing stages (or their equivalent). 

See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial 

differences in selling activities are a 

necessary, but not sufficient, condition 

for determining that there is a difference 

in the stages of marketing. Id; see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from South 

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 

1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order 

to determine whether the home market 

sales were at different stages in the 

marketing process than the U.S. sales, 

we reviewed the distribution system in 

each market (i.e., the chain of 

distribution), including selling 

functions, class of customer (customer 

category), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying LOTs for export 

price (EP) and comparison market sales 

(i.e., NV based on either home market or 

third country prices),1 we consider the 

starting prices before any adjustments. 

For CEP sales, we consider only the 

selling activities reflected in the price 

after the deduction of expenses and 

profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 

See Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 

243 F.3d 1301, 1314–16 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market at the 

same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 

CEP sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it possible, we make an LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if 

the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage 

of distribution than the LOT of the CEP 

and there is no basis for determining 

whether the difference in LOTs between 

NV and CEP affects price comparability 

(i.e., no LOT adjustment was possible), 

the Department shall grant a CEP offset, 

as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act. See, e.g., Plate from South 

Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. 

In determining whether separate 

LOTs exist, we obtained information 

from SeAH regarding the marketing 

stages for the reported U.S. and home 

market sales, including a description of 

the selling activities performed for each 

channel of distribution. Generally, if the 

reported LOTs are the same, the 

functions and activities of the seller at 

each level should be similar. 

Conversely, if a party reports that LOTs 

are different for different groups of 

sales, the selling functions and activities 

of the seller for each group should be 

dissimilar. 

In the current review, SeAH reported 

that it made sales through a single 

channel of distribution in the home 

market (i.e., direct sales to affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers). SeAH reported 

performing the following selling 

functions for its home market sales: 

Sales negotiation, sales personnel 

training, sales promotion, order input/ 

processing, invoicing, collection of 

payment, sales forecasting, sales 

marketing support, market research, 

freight/delivery, warehouse operations, 

and inventory maintenance. These 

selling activities can be generally 

grouped into three selling function 

categories for analysis: (1) Sales and 

marketing; (2) freight and delivery; and 

(3) inventory management. 

Accordingly, based on the selling 

functions noted above, we find that 

SeAH performed sales and marketing, 

freight and delivery services, and 

inventory management services for 

home market sales. Because all home 

market sales are made through a single 

distribution channel and the selling 

activities to SeAH’s customers do not 

vary within the channel, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the home market for SeAH. 

With respect to the United States, 

SeAH reported that it made sales 

through one channel of distribution (i.e., 

CEP sales via an affiliated reseller) and 

that the selling functions were 

performed at a lower level of intensity 

than in the home market. We examined 

the selling functions performed for U.S. 

sales and found that SeAH performed 

the following selling functions: order 

input/processing, invoicing, collection 

of payment, freight/delivery, and 

inventory maintenance. These selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

three selling function categories for 

analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) 

freight and delivery; and (3) inventory 

management. 

Accordingly, based on the selling 

functions, we find that SeAH performed 

sales and marketing, freight and 

delivery services, warranty and 

technical services, and inventory 

management for all U.S. sales. Because 

all U.S. sales are made through a single 

distribution channel and the selling 

activities to SeAH’s affiliated reseller do 

not vary within the channel, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT to the U.S. market for SeAH. 

SeAH stated that its U.S. sales were 

made at a different, less advanced LOT 

than its home market sales. SeAH is not 

seeking a LOT adjustment, however, 

because it had only one LOT in the 

home market. Instead, it claims that a 

CEP offset is warranted. As a result, we 

compared the U.S. LOT to the home 

market LOT and found that the selling 

functions performed for U.S. and home 

market customers differ, as SeAH did 

not perform identical selling functions 

in both markets, and the selling 

functions for sales in the home market 

are at a greater intensity than for sales 

to the United States. Specifically, we 

determine that differences in sales 

negotiation, sales personnel training, 

warehousing, and advertising exist 

between sales to home market and U.S. 

customers. See SeAH’s September 10, 

2009, section A supplemental response 

at page 5 and Exhibit A–37. 

In this case, because SeAH sold at one 

LOT in the home market, there is no 

basis upon which to determine whether 

there is a pattern of consistent price 

differences between LOTs. Therefore, 

we have not made a LOT adjustment. 

Instead, in accordance with section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we preliminarily 

determine that a CEP offset is 

appropriate to reflect that SeAH’s home 

market sales are at a more advanced 

stage than the LOT of SeAH’s CEP sales. 

We based the amount of the CEP offset 

on home market indirect selling 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

976 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Notices 

expenses and limited the deduction to 

the amount of the indirect selling 

expenses deducted from CEP under 

section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. We 

applied the CEP offset to the NV–CEP 

comparisons. 

D. Cost of Production Analysis 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, for SeAH there were reasonable 

grounds to believe or suspect that SeAH 

made home market sales at prices below 

its cost of production (COP) in this 

review because the Department had 

disregarded sales that failed the cost test 

for SeAH in the most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding in 

which SeAH participated (i.e., the 

1997–1998 administrative review) at the 

time of the initiation of this 

administrative review. See Certain 

Welded ASTM A–312 Stainless Steel 

Pipe from Korea: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 72645, 72647 (Dec. 28, 

1999), unchanged in Certain Welded 

ASTM A–312 Stainless Steel Pipe from 

the Republic of Korea; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 30071 (May 10, 2000). As 

a result, the Department initiated an 

investigation to determine whether 

SeAH made home market sales during 

the POR at prices below their COPs. 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of SeAH’s cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus amounts for G&A expenses and 

interest expenses. See the ‘‘Test of 

Home Market Sales Prices’’ section 

below for treatment of home market 

selling expenses. 

We relied on the COP information 

provided by SeAH in its questionnaire 

response, except for the following 

instances where the information was not 

appropriately quantified or valued: 

i. During the POR, SeAH purchased 

hot-rolled stainless steel coil from a 

Korean affiliate, Pohang Iron and Steel 

Company (POSCO). Stainless steel coil 

is a major input in the production of 

stainless steel pipe. In accordance with 

section 773(f)(3) of the Act, we 

evaluated transactions between SeAH 

and its affiliate using the transfer price, 

COP, and market price of stainless steel 

coils. We adjusted SeAH’s reported 

costs to reflect the highest of these three 

values for SeAH’s purchases of stainless 

steel coil from POSCO. 

ii. We adjusted the numerator of 

SeAH’s G&A expense ratio to include 

raw material and work-in-process 

inventory (WIP) valuation losses. We 

also adjusted the denominator of the 

G&A expense ratio to exclude these 

inventory valuation losses. 

iii. We excluded the long-term 

interest income generated from 

retirement and severance deposits from 

the calculation of the interest expense 

ratio. We also adjusted the denominator 

of the financial expense ratio to exclude 

raw material and WIP inventory 

valuation losses. 

iv. We replaced the negative labor 

cost reported for one product (or 

‘‘control number’’) with the labor cost of 

the most similar control number. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the memorandum from 

Laurens van Houten, Accountant, to 

Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, entitled, ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—SeAH Steel 

Corporation,’’ dated December 31, 2009. 

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices 

To determine whether SeAH’s home 

market sales had been made at prices 

below the COP, we computed weightedaverage COPs during the POR, and 

compared the weighted-average COP 

figures to home market sales prices of 

the foreign like product as required 

under section 773(b) of the Act. On a 

product-specific basis, we compared the 

COP to the home market prices, net of 

billing adjustments, any applicable 

movement charges, selling expenses, 

and packing expenses. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to sections 773(b)(1)(A) and 

(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 

percent of SeAH’s sales of a given 

product were at prices less than the 

COP, we did not disregard any belowcost sales of that product because we 

determined that the below-cost sales 

were not made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of SeAH’s sales of a given product were 

at prices below the COP, we determined 

that sales of that model were made in 

‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an 

extended period of time (as defined in 

section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) 

of the Act. In such cases, we also 

determined that such sales were not 

made at prices which would permit 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2)(D) of the 

Act. Therefore, for purposes of this 

administrative review, we disregarded 

these below-cost sales for SeAH and 

used the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(1) of the Act. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value 

We calculated NV based on the 

starting prices to home market 

customers. We made adjustments, 

where appropriate, to the starting price 

for billing adjustments in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.401(c). In addition, 

where appropriate, we made deductions 

for inland freight expenses, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) 

of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the 

Act, we made adjustments for credit 

expenses. We made a CEP offset 

pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). We 

calculated the CEP offset as the lesser of 

the indirect selling expenses on the 

home-market sales or the indirect 

selling expenses deducted from the 

starting price in calculating CEP. We 

deducted home market packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs, in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. 

Finally, we made an adjustment to NV 

to account for differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411(a). 

Currency Conversion 

In accordance with section 773A of 

the Act, we made currency conversions 

based on the official exchange rates in 

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html. See also 19 CFR 351.415. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following margin exists for SeAH during 

the period December 1, 2007, through 

November 30, 2008: 

Manufacturer/producer/exporter Percent 

margin 

SeAH Steel Corporation ............... 5.15 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates 

an assessment rate for each importer of 

the subject merchandise for each 

respondent. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific assessment rates on 

the basis of the ratio of the total amount 

of antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales and the total entered 

value of the examined sales. These rates 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Notices 977 

will be assessed uniformly on all entries 

of the respective importers made during 

the POR if these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of review. 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by SeAH for 

which SeAH did not know that the 

merchandise it sold to the intermediary 

(e.g., a reseller, trading company, or 

exporter) was destined for the United 

States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-others rate if there is no 

rate for the intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for SeAH will be 

that established in the final results of 

this review, except if the rate is less 

than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de 

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

this review, or the original less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and 4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will continue to be 7.00 

percent, the all-others rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

Amended Final Determination and 

Order, 60 FR 10061, 10065 (Feb. 23, 

1995). These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c), interested parties may 

submit cases briefs not later than 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be filed 

not later than five days after the date for 

filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are encouraged to submit 

with each argument: (1) A statement of 

the issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room 1870, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

respective case briefs. The Department 

will issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of its analysis of the issues raised 

in any written briefs, not later than 120 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: December 31, 2009. 

Susan Kuhbach, 

Senior Director, Office 1, Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29 Filed 1–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–839] 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From 

India: Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of Alpanil 

Industries, Ltd. (Alpanil) under the 

countervailing duty order on carbazole 

violet pigment 23 (CVP–23) from India 

for the period January 1, 2007, through 

December 31, 2007. We preliminarily 

determine that subsidies are being 

provided to Alpanil on the production 

and export of CVP–23 from India. See 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Administrative 

Review’’ section, below. If the final 

results remain the same as the 

preliminary results of this review, we 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess 

countervailing duties. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on the 

preliminary results of this 

administrative review. See the ‘‘Public 

Comment’’ section below. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi 

Blum or Myrna Lobo, 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) 482–0197 or (202) 482– 

2371, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 29, 2004, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the countervailing duty (CVD) 

order on CVP–23 from India. See Notice 

of Countervailing Duty Order: Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 from India, 69 FR 

77995 (December 29, 2004) (CVP–23 

Order). On December 1, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register 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, 73 

FR 72764 (December 1, 2008). 

On December 30, 2008, the 

Department received a timely request to 

conduct an administrative review from 

Alpanil, an Indian producer and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES