[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6627-6631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-822]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: On August 7, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary

[[Page 6628]]

results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel sheet and strip (S4) in coils from Mexico. See 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent Not To 
Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 39622 (August 7, 2009) (Preliminary 
Results). This review covers sales of subject merchandise made by 
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox) for the period July 1, 
2007, to June 30, 2008. Based on our analysis of the comments received, 
we have made changes to the margin calculation; therefore, the final 
results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average 
dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section 
entitled ``Final Results of Review.''

DATES: Effective Date: February 10, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards, Brian Davis, or 
Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-8029, (202) 482-7924, and (202) 482-3019, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On August 7, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on S4 in coils from Mexico for the period July 1, 2007, to 
June 30, 2008. See Preliminary Results. In response to the Department's 
invitation to comment on the preliminary results of this review, 
Mexinox submitted a request for a public hearing and a case brief on 
September 4, 2009, and September 15, 2009, respectively. See Letter 
from respondent titled ``Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
Mexico--Request for Hearing,'' dated September 4, 2009; see also Case 
Brief from respondent titled ``Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
from Mexico--Case Brief,'' dated September 15, 2009. Allegheny Ludlum 
Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, and North American Stainless 
(collectively referred to as petitioner), submitted their rebuttal 
brief on September 24, 2009. See Letter from petitioner, titled 
``Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico--Petitioner's 
Rebuttal Brief,'' dated September 24, 2009. A public hearing was held 
on October 2, 2009. See Transcript of ``In the Matter of: The 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico'' dated October 9, 2009. On 
December 9, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register our 
notice extending the time limit for this review until February 3, 2010. 
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico: Extension of 
Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
74 FR 65100 (December 9, 2009).

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of the order, the products covered are certain 
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is alloy 
steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The 
subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is 
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
processing.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at 
subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 
7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 
7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 
7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 
7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 
7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 
7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 
7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 
7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 
7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 
7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 
7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 
7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 
7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 
7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 
7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description 
of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of the order are the following: (1) Sheet 
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or 
otherwise descaled; (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length; (3) 
plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 
4.75 mm or more); (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a 
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 
mm); and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled 
product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-
reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness 
of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent 
chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ``Additional 
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    In response to comments by interested parties, the Department has 
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also 
excluded from the scope of the order. These excluded products are 
described below.
    Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils 
containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 
1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 
manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 
percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur 
of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of 
vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more 
than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 
valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield 
strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a 
hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most 
commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves for compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks

[[Page 6629]]

may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. 
The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, 
and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and total rare earth 
elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as ``Arnokrome III.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless 
steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 
percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its 
resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 
1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms 
per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most 
commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers 
and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The 
product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as 
``Gilphy 36.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile 
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering 
System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 
percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, 
silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, 
with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or 
less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve 
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and 
ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with 
elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 
25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of 
television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade 
names such as ``Durphynox 17.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\4\ This steel is similar to ASTM grade 440F, but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent 
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold 
under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per square micron. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \5\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested 
parties in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico'' (Issues and Decision 
Memorandum), from John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 7, 2009, which are 
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of all issues, which parties have 
raised and to which we have responded, in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find 
a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the 
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit in room 1117 of the main Commerce 
building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly via the Internet at 
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/fm/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version 
of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we accepted Mexinox's 
reporting of the handling expenses incurred by Mexinox Trading 
(Mexinox's home market affiliate) and imputed credit expenses based on 
reported payment dates. However, in order to be consistent with past 
administrative reviews of this case, we placed respondent on notice 
that we intended to request additional information after the issuance 
of the preliminary results regarding (1) the reported handling 
expenses, and (2) the actual date of payment for these sales, and 
address these issues in our final results. See Preliminary Results at 
39630; see also Memorandum to the File, ``Analysis of Data Submitted by 
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. for the Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils from Mexico (A-201-822),'' from Patrick Edwards and 
Brian Davis, Case Analysts, through Angelica

[[Page 6630]]

Mendoza, Program Manager, dated July 31, 2009, at page 18.
    Accordingly, on August 24, 2009, we requested Mexinox report, with 
regard to handling expenses, (1) a worksheet showing the total 
warehousing and distribution expenses (separated by warehouse) for all 
sales handled by Mexinox Trading during the POR, and (2) the total 
value of the sales on which these expenses were incurred. See Mexinox's 
September 8, 2009, response to the Department's August 24, 2009, 
supplemental questionnaire (SSSQR) at pages 2-4 and attachment B-36. 
Therefore, we have recalculated the handling expenses incurred by 
Mexinox Trading and applied the revised ratio to those home market 
sales for which Mexinox reported a handling expense. See Memorandum to 
the File, ``Analysis of Data Submitted by ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de 
C.V. for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico (A-201-
822)'' (Final Analysis Memorandum), from Brian Davis and Patrick 
Edwards, Case Analysts, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, 
dated February 3, 2010, at pages 10 through 12.
    Also on August 24, 2009, we requested that Mexinox (1) clarify 
whether or not it was able to calculate per-unit credit expenses based 
on the actual number of days between the date of shipment to the 
customer and the date of payment and, if so, (2) report the 
transaction-specific payment dates for each customer as well as imputed 
credit expenses based on those transaction specific dates. See 
Mexinox's September 8, 2009, response to the Department's August 24, 
2009, supplemental questionnaire (SSSQR) at pages 4-8 and accompanying 
database revisions. Therefore, we have recalculated the handling 
expenses incurred by Mexinox Trading and applied the revised ratio to 
those home market sales for which Mexinox reported a handling expense.
    We calculated imputed credit expenses based on the short-term 
borrowing rate associated with the currency of each home market sale 
transaction and using transaction-specific payment dates (as reported 
by Mexinox in its SSSQR at pages 4-7 and corresponding home market 
sales database) rather than customer-specific weighted average ones (as 
originally reported by Mexinox in its response to section B of the 
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire at page B-21 and attachment 
B-14). See Final Analysis Memorandum at 9 through 10; see also Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 for a further discussion of 
imputed credit expenses.
    Our methodology for calculating handling charges and imputed credit 
expenses is consistent with past administrative reviews of this case. 
See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
45708 (August 6, 2008) at 45715 (unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 6365 (February 9, 2009)), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (for imputed credit 
expenses); see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
72 FR 43600 (August 6, 2007) at 43605 (unchanged in Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 7710 (February 11, 2008), and Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico: Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 14215 (March 17, 2008)); 
see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
35618 (June 21, 2006) at 35623 (unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 76978 (December 22, 2006)).
    Furthermore, based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have made the following changes to the margin calculation:
    <bullet> We have converted U.S. inventory carrying costs (INVCARU) 
to a hundred weight (CWT) basis.
    <bullet> We included Ken-Mac Metals \6\ sales that were further 
processed in the margin calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Ken-Mac Metals is an affiliated service center headquartered 
in Cleveland, Ohio, whose primary business is the resale and 
further-processing of aluminum, stainless steel, and other metals. 
See Mexinox's October 7, 2008, response to the Department's section 
A antidumping duty questionnaire at 15-18 for additional information 
regarding Ken-Mac's operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> We excluded non-subject sales, made by Ken-Mac Metals, 
from the margin calculation.
    <bullet> We applied a corrected net interest expense ratio to 
further processing costs reported by Ken-Mac Metals.
    <bullet> We included fuel surcharges imposed by Ken-Mac Metals in 
the net U.S. price calculation.
    <bullet> We calculated a single importer-specific assessment rate 
for Mexinox USA, Inc.
    <bullet> We adjusted the assessment rate for the entered value of 
merchandise sold outside the United States.
    <bullet> We recalculated Mexinox's imputed credit expenses to 
reflect transaction-specific payment dates (PAYDTACTH) as noted above.
    <bullet> We have recalculated the handling expenses incurred by 
Mexinox's home market affiliate, Mexinox Trading, and applied the 
revised ratio to those home market sales for which Mexinox reported a 
handling expense, as discussed above.
    These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum and Final Analysis Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

    We determine the following weighted-average percentage margin 
exists for the period July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Weighted average margin
         Manufacturer/exporter                     (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V.......  4.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise covered by 
the review. Upon issuance of the final results of this review, for any 
importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results that 
are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), we will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties 
on appropriate entries by applying the per-unit dollar amount against 
each unit of merchandise on each of that importer's entries during the 
review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), 
the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days 
after the date of publication of these final results of 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). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by Mexinox for which Mexinox did not know the merchandise 
was destined for the United States. In

[[Page 6631]]

such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the 30.69 percent all-others rate if there is no company-specific rate 
for an intermediary involved in the transaction.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of these final results of administrative 
review, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed above; 
(2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was 
covered in a previous review or the original less-than-fair-value 
(LTFV) investigation, 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, a prior review, or the 
original 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 30.69 percent, the 
all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of 
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
Mexico, 64 FR 40560 (July 27, 1999). These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a final 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern 
business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 
Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO 
materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an 
APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 3, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

List of Issues in Issues and Decision Memorandum

General Issues

    Comment 1: Clerical Errors.
    Comment 2: Offsetting for U.S. Sales that Exceed Normal Value.

Sales Issues

    Comment 3: Date of Sale.
    Comment 4: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses.

Adjustments to Normal Value

    Comment 5: Calculation of Credit Expenses.

Cost of Production

    Comment 6: Whether to Apply an Alternative Cost Averaging 
Methodology.
    Comment 7: General and Administrative Expense Ratio (Employee 
Profit Sharing).
    Comment 8: General and Administrative Expense Ratio (Gains on 
Sale of Warehouse).
    Comment 9: Financial Expenses.

[FR Doc. 2010-2987 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P