46110 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

1Petitioners are the United States Steel 

Corporation (U.S. Steel), Nucor Corporation 

(Nucor), and Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc. (Mittal Steel 

USA). 

2See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, In Part, 74 FR 28664 (June 17, 2009). 

3See memo from James Terpstra to Melissa 

Skinner entitled ‘‘2007-2008 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 

Republic of Korea: Selection of POSCO as a 

Voluntary Respondent,’’ dated July 8, 2009. 

4See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Final Results of the Thirteenth Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission, 73 FR 14220 (March 

17, 2008) (CORE 13 Final Results); see also Certain 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the 

otherwise specified by the Department. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who 

submit argument in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument. Parties 

submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs 

are requested to provide the Department 

copies of the public version on disk. 

Case and rebuttal briefs must be served 

on interested parties in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice, 

interested parties may request a public 

hearing on arguments to be raised in the 

case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the 

secretary specifies otherwise, the 

hearing, if requested, will be held two 

days after the date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.305(b)(4), 

representatives of parties to the 

proceeding may request disclosure of 

proprietary information under 

administrative protective order no later 

than 10 days after the representative’s 

client or employer becomes a party to 

the proceeding, but in no event later 

than the date the case briefs, under 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(i), are due. The 

Department will publish the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief 

or at a hearing. 

These preliminary results of review 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: August 31, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–21614 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–816] 

Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic 

of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results 

of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely 

requests, the Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting the 

fifteenth administrative review of the 

antidumping order on corrosion– 

resistant carbon steel flat products 

(CORE) from the Republic of (Korea). 

This review covers seven manufacturers 

and/or exporters (collectively, the 

respondents) of the subject 

merchandise: LG Chem., Ltd. (LG 

Chem), Haewon MSC Co. Ltd. 

(Haewon), Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., 

(Dongbu); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO); 

Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) 

and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. 

(POCOS) (collectively, POSCO); and 

Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

(Union). The period of review (POR) is 

August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. 

We preliminarily determine that Union 

made sales of subject merchandise at 

less than normal value (NV). We 

preliminarily determine that HYSCO 

and POSCO have not made sales below 

NV. 

In addition, based on the preliminary 

results for the respondents selected for 

an individual review, we have 

preliminarily determined a margin for 

those companies that were not selected 

for individual review. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in the 

final results of this administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis McClure (Union, POSCO, and all 

others), and Christopher Hargett 

(HYSCO), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5973, 

(202) 482–4161, and (202) 482–5075, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 19, 1993, the Department 

published the antidumping order on 

CORE from Korea. See Antidumping 

Duty Orders on Certain Cold–Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159 

(August 19, 1993) (Orders on Certain 

Steel from Korea). On August 1, 2008, 

we published in the Federal Register 

the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 44966 

(August 1, 2008). Between August 20, 

2008, and September 2, 2008, 

respondents and petitioners1 requested 

a review of Dongbu, HYSCO, POSCO, 

Union, Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. 

(Dongkuk), Haewon and LG Chem. The 

Department initiated a review of each of 

the companies for which a review was 

requested. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 56794 

(September 30, 2008). 

On December 8, 2008, the Department 

selected HYSCO and Union as 

mandatory respondents in this review. 

See Memorandum from Christopher 

Hargett, International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, through James Terpstra, 

Program Manager, to Melissa Skinner, 

Director, Office 3, entitled ‘‘2007–2008 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic of 

Korea: Selection of Respondents for 

Individual Review,’’ dated December 8, 

2008. The Department indicated that it 

would calculate a weighted–average of 

the mandatory respondents’ margins to 

apply to those companies not selected 

for individual examination. 

On July 2, 2009, we published the 

notice of rescission of this antidumping 

duty administrative review with respect 

to Dongkuk because it had no sales of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR.2

On July 8, 2009, we reconsidered our 

resources and found it practicable to 

review POSCO as a voluntary 

respondent. Specifically, in other 

antidumping duty cases being 

conducted by the office, several review 

requests were withdrawn and/or 

respondents have ceased participating 

in the review. Moreover, POSCO 

submitted a timely response to the 

Department’s questionnaire. Therefore, 

we selected POSCO as a voluntary 

respondent in the instant review.3

At the time we issued the 

questionnaire, during the most recently 

completed segments of the proceeding 

in which HYSCO and Union 

participated,4 the Department 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46111 

Twelfth Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission, 72 FR 13086 (March 20, 2007) (CORE 12 

Final Results). 

5Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, 

Markets and Merchandise; Section B: Comparison 

Market Sales; Section C: Sales to the United States; 

Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value; Section E: Further Manufacturing. 

6See Corrosion-resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From the Republic of Korea: Extension of 

Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

19049 (April 27, 2009). 

disregarded sales below the cost of 

production (COP) that failed the cost 

test. Therefore, pursuant to section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), we had 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales by these companies of the 

foreign like product under consideration 

for the determination of NV in this 

review were made at prices below the 

COP. We instructed HYSCO and Union 

to respond to sections A–E of the initial 

questionnaire,5 which we issued on 

December 8, 2008. In its voluntary 

response, POSCO responded to sections 

A–E of the questionnaire. 

On April 27, 2009, the Department 

published a notice extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results of the fifteenth administrative 

review to August 31, 2009.6

HYSCO 

On February 11, 2009, HYSCO 

submitted its sections A–D response to 

the Department’s initial questionnaire. 

HYSCO submitted its response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaires for sections A–C on May 

21, 2009, and July 23, 2009, and 

submitted its response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire for section D on August 

27, 2009. HYSCO submitted a 

reconciliation of its home market and 

U.S. sales databases on August 10, 2009. 

The Department has used the COP 

database submitted on May 21, 2009, for 

these preliminary results, and will take 

into consideration the COP database 

submitted on August 27, 2009, for the 

final results. 

Union 

On January 14, 2009, Union submitted 

its section A response to the initial 

questionnaire. On February 5, 2009, 

Union submitted its response to sections 

B and C of the Department’s 

questionnaire. On April 9, 2009, and 

June 24, 2009, Union submitted its 

responses to the Department’s 

supplemental questionnaires for 

sections A–C. Union submitted a 

reconciliation of its home market and 

U.S. sales databases on August 10, 2009. 

On August 27, 2009, Union submitted 

its response to the Department’s 

supplemental questionnaire for section 

D. The Department has used the COP 

database submitted on February 4, 2009, 

for these preliminary results, and will 

take into consideration the COP 

database submitted on August 27, 2009, 

for the final results. 

POSCO 

On February 11, 2009 (the deadline 

applied to HYSCO), POSCO submitted 

its sections A through D response to the 

initial questionnaire. On August 7, 

2009, POSCO submitted its response the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire for Section D. POSCO 

submitted a reconciliation of its home 

market and U.S. sales databases on 

August 10, 2009. 

Period of Review 

The POR covered by this review is 

August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

This order covers flat–rolled carbon 

steel products, of rectangular shape, 

either clad, plated, or coated with 

corrosion–resistant metals such as zinc, 

aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickelor iron–based alloys, whether or not 

corrugated or painted, varnished or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances in addition to 

the metallic coating, in coils (whether or 

not in successively superimposed 

layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or 

greater, or in straight lengths which, if 

of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, 

are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and 

which measures at least 10 times the 

thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 

millimeters or more are of a width 

which exceeds 150 millimeters and 

measures at least twice the thickness, as 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item numbers 

7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 

7210.49.0090, 7210.49.0091, 

7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 

7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 

7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 

7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 

7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 

7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 

7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. 

Included in the order are flat–rolled 

products of non–rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is 

achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process including products which have 

been beveled or rounded at the edges 

(i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked 

after rolling’’). Excluded from this order 

are flat–rolled steel products either 

plated or coated with tin, lead, 

chromium, chromium oxides, both tin 

and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both 

chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tin– 

free steel’’), whether or not painted, 

varnished or coated with plastics or 

other nonmetallic substances in 

addition to the metallic coating. Also 

excluded from this order are clad 

products in straight lengths of 0.1875 

inch or more in composite thickness 

and of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness. Also excluded from this 

order are certain clad stainless flat– 

rolled products, which are three– 

layered corrosion–resistant carbon steel 

flat–rolled products less than 4.75 

millimeters in composite thickness that 

consist of a carbon steel flat–rolled 

product clad on both sides with 

stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. 

These HTSUS item numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written descriptions 

remain dispositive. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all CORE 

products produced by the respondents, 

covered by the scope of the order, and 

sold in the home market during the POR 

to be foreign like products for the 

purpose of determining appropriate 

product comparisons to CORE sold in 

the United States. 

Where there were no sales in the 

ordinary course of trade of identical 

merchandise in the home market to 

compare to U.S. sales, we compared 

U.S. sales to the next most similar 

foreign like product on the basis of the 

characteristics listed in Appendix V of 

the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire. In making the product 

comparisons, we matched foreign like 

products based on the Appendix V 

physical characteristics reported by 

each respondent. 

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of CORE 

by the respondents to the United States 

were made at less than NV, we 

compared the Export Price (EP) or 

Constructed Export Price (CEP) to the 

NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price/ 

Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice. In 

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

the Act, we calculated monthly 

weighted–average prices for NV and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46112 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

7See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Final Results of the Fourteenth Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission, 74 FR 11082 (March 

16, 2009) (CORE 14 Final Results); see also Certain 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 51584, 51586 

(September 10, 2007) (unchanged in CORE 13 Final 

Results). 

compared these to individual U.S. 

transactions. 

Export Price/Constructed Export Price 

For the price to the United States, we 

used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in 

accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) 

of the Act. We calculated EP when the 

merchandise was sold by the producer 

or exporter outside of the United States 

directly to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation and when CEP was not 

otherwise warranted based on the facts 

on the record. We calculated CEP for 

those sales where a person in the United 

States, affiliated with the foreign 

exporter or acting for the account of the 

exporter, made the sale to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States of the subject merchandise. We 

based EP and CEP on the packed prices 

and the applicable delivery terms to the 

first unaffiliated customer in, or for 

exportation to, the United States. 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated EP for a number 

of Union’s U.S. sales because these sales 

were made before the date of 

importation and were sales directly to 

unaffiliated customers in the United 

States, and because CEP methodology 

was not otherwise indicated. We made 

deductions for movement expenses in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act, which included, where 

appropriate, foreign inland freight to the 

port, foreign brokerage, international 

freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland 

freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. 

warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight 

from the warehouse to the unaffiliated 

customer, U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses, and U.S. customs duty. 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP where the 

record established that sales made by 

HYSCO, POSCO, and Union were made 

in the United States after importation. 

HYSCO’s, POSCO’s, and Union’s 

respective affiliates in the United States 

(1) took title to the subject merchandise 

and (2) invoiced and received payment 

from the unaffiliated U.S. customers for 

their sales of the subject merchandise to 

those U.S. customers. Thus, where 

appropriate, the Department determined 

that these U.S. sales should be classified 

as CEP transactions under section 772(b) 

of the Act. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price for 

foreign inland freight to the port, foreign 

brokerage, international freight, marine 

insurance, U.S. inland freight from the 

port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse 

expenses, U.S. inland freight from the 

warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, 

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, 

U.S. customs duty, credit expenses, 

warranty expenses, inventory carrying 

costs incurred in the United States, and 

other indirect selling expenses in the 

United States associated with economic 

activity in the United States. See 

sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) of 

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

the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP 

profit. Where appropriate, we added 

interest revenue to the gross unit price. 

HYSCO’s Sales of Subject Merchandise 

that were Further Manufactured and 

Sold as Non–Subject Merchandise in 

the United States 

In its section A questionnaire 

response, HYSCO requested that the 

Department excuse it from reporting 

information for certain POR sales of 

subject merchandise imported by its 

wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, HYSCO 

America Company (HAC), that were 

further manufactured after importation 

and sold as non–subject merchandise in 

the United States, claiming that 

determining CEP for sales through HAC 

would be unreasonably burdensome. 

Section 772(e) of the Act provides that 

when the value added in the United 

States by an affiliated party is likely to 

exceed substantially the value of the 

subject merchandise, the Department 

shall use one of the following prices to 

determine CEP if there is a sufficient 

quantity of sales to provide a reasonable 

basis of comparison and the use of such 

sales is appropriate: (1) the price of 

identical subject merchandise sold by 

the exporter or producer to an 

unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of 

other subject merchandise sold by the 

exporter or producer to an unaffiliated 

person. 

The record evidence shows that the 

value added by the affiliated party to the 

subject merchandise after importation in 

the United States was significantly 

greater than the 65 percent threshold we 

use in determining whether the value 

added in the United States by an 

affiliated party substantially exceeds the 

value of the subject merchandise. See 19 

CFR 351.402(c)(2). We then considered 

whether there were sales of identical 

subject merchandise or other subject 

merchandise sold in sufficient 

quantities by the exporter or producer to 

an unaffiliated person that could 

provide a reasonable basis of 

comparison. In addition to the sales to 

HAC that were further manufactured, 

HYSCO also had CEP sales of similar, 

but not identical, subject merchandise 

to unaffiliated customers in the United 

States in back–to-back transactions 

through another HYSCO affiliate in the 

United States, Hyundai HYSCO USA 

(HHU), and EP sales through an 

unaffiliated trading company. 

The appropriate methodology for 

determining the CEP for sales whose 

value has been substantially increased 

through U.S. further manufacturing 

generally must be made on a case–bycase basis. In this instance, we find that 

there is a reasonable quantity of sales of 

subject merchandise to an unaffiliated 

person for comparison purposes. See 

‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai 

HYSCO,’’ dated August 31, 2009, the 

public version of which is on file in the 

Central Record Unit, Room 1117, of the 

main Department building. Further, 

another reasonable method for 

determining CEP for the HAC CEP sales 

is not evident. Therefore, we relied on 

HYSCO’s other sales of similar 

merchandise to unaffiliated parties in 

the United States as the basis for 

calculating CEP for HYSCO’s sales 

through HAC, which is consistent with 

the two previous administrative reviews 

of CORE from Korea.7

Normal Value 

Based on a comparison of the 

aggregate quantity of home market and 

U.S. sales, we determined that the 

quantity of the foreign like product sold 

in the exporting country was sufficient 

to permit a proper comparison with the 

sales of the subject merchandise to the 

United States, pursuant to section 

773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 

of the Act, we 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 and in the ordinary course of 

trade. We increased NV by U.S. packing 

costs in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. 

Where appropriate, we deducted 

inland freight from the plant to 

distribution warehouse, warehouse 

expense, inland freight from the plant/ 

warehouse to customer, and packing, 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B). 

Additionally, we made adjustments to 

NV, where appropriate, for credit and 

warranty expenses, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. 

Where appropriate, we added interest 

revenue and applied billing adjustments 

to the gross unit price. 

For purposes of calculating NV, 

section 771(16) of the Act defines 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46113 

‘‘foreign like product’’ as merchandise 

which is either (1) identical or (2) 

similar to the merchandise sold in the 

United States. When no identical 

products are sold in the home market, 

the products which are most similar to 

the product sold in the United States are 

identified. For the non–identical or 

most similar products which are 

identified based on the Department’s 

product matching criteria, an 

adjustment is made to the NV for 

differences in cost attributable to 

differences in the actual physical 

differences between the products sold in 

the United States and the home market. 

See 19 CFR 351.411 and section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 

NV based on sales in the comparison 

market at the same level of trade (LOT) 

as the EP or CEP sales, to the extent 

practicable. When there were no sales at 

the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales 

to comparison market sales at a different 

LOT. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to 

determine whether EP or CEP sales and 

NV sales were at different LOTs, we 

examined stages in the marketing 

process and selling functions along the 

chain of distribution between the 

producer and the unaffiliated (or arm’s– 

length) customers. If the comparison 

market sales are at a different LOT and 

the differences affect price 

comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between sales at different LOTs in the 

country in which NV is determined, we 

will make an LOT adjustment under 

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP 

sales, if the NV LOT is at a more 

advanced stage of distribution than the 

CEP LOT and the data available do not 

provide an appropriate basis to 

determine an LOT adjustment, we will 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate from South 

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732–33 

(November 19, 1997). 

We did not make an LOT adjustment 

under 19 CFR 351.412(e) because, there 

was only one home market LOT for each 

respondent and we were unable to 

identify a pattern of consistent price 

differences attributable to differences in 

LOTs. See 19 CFR 351.412(d). Under 19 

CFR 351.412(f), we are preliminarily 

granting a CEP offset for HYSCO, 

POSCO, and Union because the NV 

sales for each company are at a more 

advanced LOT than the LOT for the U.S. 

CEP sales. 

For a detailed description of our LOT 

methodology and a summary of 

company–specific LOT findings for 

these preliminary results, see the 

August 31, 2009, ‘‘Calculation 

Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,’’ 

‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Pohang 

Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and 

Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) 

(collectively, POSCO),’’ and 

‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Union 

Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.’’ the 

public versions of which are on file in 

the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of 

the main Department building. 

Cost of Production Analysis 

In the most recently completed 

segment of the proceeding in which 

HYSCO, POSCO, and Union 

participated, the Department found and 

disregarded sales that failed the cost test 

for each of these companies. Therefore, 

for this review, the Department has 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales of the foreign like products 

under consideration for the 

determination of NV may have been 

made at prices below the COP as 

provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 

the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of 

the Act, the Department conducted a 

COP investigation of sales in the home 

market by HYSCO, POSCO and Union. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, the Department calculated 

company–specific COPs for HYSCO, 

POSCO, and Union based on the sum of 

each respondent’s cost of materials and 

fabrication employed in producing the 

foreign like product, plus amounts for 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses (SG&A), and packing costs. We 

relied on the COP data as submitted by 

HYSCO, POSCO, and Union, except for 

POSCO, where we excluded gains and 

losses related to disposition and 

valuation of trading securities from the 

calculation of financial expense ratio. 

See the August 31, 2009, ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results - Pohang Iron & 

Steel Co., Ltd. and Pohang Coated Steel 

Co. Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘POSCO’’).’’ 

In determining whether home market 

sales had been made at prices below the 

COP, as required under sections 

773(b)(1) of the Act, we compared the 

model–specific, weighted–average COPs 

to home market sales prices of the 

foreign like product. For this 

comparison, the Department adjusted 

the reported home market sales prices 

(not including value added tax (VAT)) 

by applying billing adjustments, adding 

interest revenue, and deducting 

movement charges, discounts, and 

rebates, as appropriate. 

To determine whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, the Department examined 

whether such sales were made (1) 

within an extended period of time, in 

substantial quantities, and (2) at prices 

which did not permit the recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time 

in the normal course of trade, in 

accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. 

Where 20 percent or more of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the POR were at prices less than 

the COP, we determined that sales of 

that model were made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time, in accordance with sections 

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Because 

the Department compared prices to 

average COPs in the POR, the 

Department has also determined that the 

below–cost prices did not permit the 

recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. In such 

cases, we disregarded the below–cost 

sales in accordance with section 

773(b)(1) of the Act. 

We tested and identified below–cost 

home market sales for HYSCO, POSCO, 

and Union. For each company we 

disregarded individual below–cost sales 

of a given product and used the 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the 

August 31, 2009, ‘‘Calculation 

Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,’’ 

‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Pohang 

Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and 

Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) 

(collectively, POSCO),’’ and 

‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Union 

Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.’’ 

Arm’s–Length Sales 

HYSCO and POSCO also reported that 

they made sales in the home market to 

affiliated parties. The Department 

calculates NV based on a sale to an 

affiliated party only if it is satisfied that 

the price to the affiliated party is 

comparable to the price at which sales 

are made to parties not affiliated with 

the producer or exporter, i.e., sales at 

arm’s length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). 

To test whether these sales were made 

at arm’s length, we compared the 

reported home market prices of sales to 

affiliated and unaffiliated customers 

with applied billing adjustment, 

including interest revenue and net of all 

movement charges, direct selling 

expenses, discounts, rebates, and 

packing. In accordance with the 

Department’s current practice, if the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46114 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

prices charged to an affiliated party 

were, on average, between 98 and 102 

percent of the prices charged to 

unaffiliated parties for merchandise 

identical or most similar to that sold to 

the affiliated party, we considered the 

sales to be at arm’s–length prices. See 

Notice of Preliminary Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative: Ninth Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 

45017, 45020 (August 8, 2006) 

(unchanged in Notice of Final Results of 

the Ninth Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 

14, 2007)); 19 CFR 351.403(c). 

Conversely, where we found that the 

sales to an affiliated party did not pass 

the arm’s–length test, then all sales to 

that affiliated party have been excluded 

from the NV calculation. See 

Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 

Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of 

Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 

15, 2002); see also August 31, 2009, 

‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai 

HYSCO,’’ ‘‘Calculation Memorandum 

for Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. 

(POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., 

Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, POSCO),’’ 

and ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for 

Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.’’ 

Currency Conversion 

For purposes of these preliminary 

results, we made currency conversions 

in accordance with section 773A(a) of 

the Act, based on the official exchange 

rates published by the Federal Reserve 

Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily find that the following 

weighted–average dumping margins 

exist: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

HYSCO ......................... 0.43 (de minimis) 

POSCO ......................... 0.16 (de minimis) 

Union ............................ 3.94 

Review–Specific Average Rate Applicable 

to the Following Companies:8 LG Chem, 

Haewon, and Dongbu 3.94 

8This rate is based on the margins calculated for those companies that were selected for individual review, excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts available. 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

to the parties to this proceeding in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

no later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). 

Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs and may be 

filed no later than five days after the 

time limit for filing the case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and 3) a table 

of authorities, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.309(d)(2). Further, parties 

submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs 

are requested to provide the Department 

with an additional electronic copy of 

the public version of any such 

comments on a computer diskette. Case 

and rebuttal briefs must be served on 

interested parties in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.303(f). 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 

ordinarily will be held two days after 

the due date of the rebuttal briefs in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, or at a hearing, if requested, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, unless extended. 

See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 

19 CFR 351.213(h). 

Assessment Rate 

Upon completion of the final results 

of this 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 will 

calculate importer–specific assessment 

rates for each respondent based on the 

ratio of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of those sales. 

Where the respondent did not report the 

entered value for U.S. sales, we have 

calculated importer–specific assessment 

rates for the merchandise in question by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity of those sales. To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates were de minimis, in accordance 

with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer– 

specific ad valorem rates based on the 

estimated entered value. Where the 

assessment rate is above de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after 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). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the respondents subject to 

this review for which the reviewed 

companies did not know that the 

merchandise which it sold to an 

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. For a full 

discussion of this clarification, see id. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of CORE from Korea 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rates for the companies listed 

above will be the rates established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is less than 0.5 percent and, 

therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit 

will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed 

or investigated companies not listed 

above, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent final 

results in which that manufacturer or 

exporter participated; (3) if the exporter 

is not a firm covered in this review, a 

prior 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 final results for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this or any previous 

review conducted by the Department, 

the cash deposit rate will be 17.70 

percent, the all–others rate established 

in the LTFV. See Orders on Certain 

Steel from Korea. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46115 

1NFA is the only registered futures association. 

2See Section 237 of the Futures Trading Act of 

1982, 7 U.S.C. 16a and 31 U.S.C. 9701. For a 

broader discussion of the history of Commission 

Fees, see 52 FR 46070 (Dec. 4, 1987). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice 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. 

These preliminary results of review 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: August 31, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–21594 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Fees for Reviews of the Rule 

Enforcement Programs of Contract 

Markets and Registered Futures 

Associations 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Establish the FY 2009 schedule 

of fees. 

SUMMARY: The Commission charges fees 

to designated contract markets and 

registered futures associations to recover 

the costs incurred by the Commission in 

the operation of its program of oversight 

of self-regulatory organization (SRO) 

rule enforcement programs (17 CFR part 

1 Appendix B) (National Futures 

Association (NFA), a registered futures 

association, and the contract markets are 

referred to as SROs). The calculation of 

the fee amounts to be charged for FY 

2009 is based upon an average of actual 

program costs incurred during FY 2006, 

2007, and 2008, as explained below. 

The FY 2009 fee schedule is set forth in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

Electronic payment of fees is required. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The FY 2009 fees 

for Commission oversight of each SRO 

rule enforcement program must be paid 

by each of the named SROs in the 

amount specified by no later than 

November 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stacy Dean Yochum, Deputy Executive 

Director, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, (202) 418–5157, Three 

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. For information 

on electronic payment, contact Angela 

Clark, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, 

(202) 418–5178. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General 

This notice relates to fees for the 

Commission’s review of the rule 

enforcement programs at the registered 

futures associations 1 and designated 

contract markets (DCM), which are 

referred to as SROs, regulated by the 

Commission. 

II. Schedule of Fees 

Fees for the Commission’s review of 

the rule enforcement programs at the 

registered futures associations and 

DCMs regulated by the Commission: 

Entity Fee amount 

Chicago Board of Trade ........... $77,371 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange .. 121,071 

New York Mercantile Exchange 197,535 

Kansas City Board of Trade ..... 10,127 

ICE Futures U.S. ...................... 32,683 

Minneapolis Grain Exchange ... 62,449 

HedgeStreet .............................. 14,375 

Chicago Climate Futures Exchange .................................. 12,259 

U.S. Futures Exchange ............ 18,601 

OneChicago .............................. 1,157 

National Futures Association .... 179,641 

Total ................................... 727,270 

III. Background Information 

A. General 

The Commission recalculates the fees 

charged each year with the intention of 

recovering the costs of operating this 

Commission program.2 All costs are 

accounted for by the Commission’s 

Management Accounting Structure 

Codes (MASC) system, which records 

each employee’s time for each pay 

period. The fees are set each year based 

on direct program costs, plus an 

overhead factor. 

B. Overhead Rate 

The fees charged by the Commission 

to the SROs are designed to recover 

program costs, including direct labor 

costs and overhead. The overhead rate 

is calculated by dividing total 

Commission-wide overhead direct 

program labor costs into the total 

amount of the Commission-wide 

overhead pool. For this purpose, direct 

program labor costs are the salary costs 

of personnel working in all Commission 

programs. Overhead costs consist 

generally of the following Commissionwide costs: indirect personnel costs 

(leave and benefits), rent, 

communications, contract services, 

utilities, equipment, and supplies. This 

formula has resulted in the following 

overhead rates for the most recent three 

years (rounded to the nearest whole 

percent): 109 percent for fiscal year 

2006, 140 percent for fiscal year 2007, 

and 144 percent for fiscal year 2008. 

C. Conduct of SRO Rule Enforcement 

Reviews 

Under the formula adopted in 1993 

(58 FR 42643, Aug. 11, 1993), which 

appears at 17 CFR Part 1 Appendix B, 

the Commission calculates the fee to 

recover the costs of its rule enforcement 

reviews and examinations, based on the 

three-year average of the actual cost of 

performing such reviews and 

examinations at each SRO. The cost of 

operation of the Commission’s SRO 

oversight program varies from SRO to 

SRO, according to the size and 

complexity of each SRO’s program. The 

three-year averaging computation 

method is intended to smooth out yearto-year variations in cost. Timing of the 

Commission’s reviews and 

examinations may affect costs—a review 

or examination may span two fiscal 

years and reviews and examinations are 

not conducted at each SRO each year. 

Adjustments to actual costs may be 

made to relieve the burden on an SRO 

with a disproportionately large share of 

program costs. 

The Commission’s formula provides 

for a reduction in the assessed fee if an 

SRO has a smaller percentage of United 

States industry contract volume than its 

percentage of overall Commission 

oversight program costs. This 

adjustment reduces the costs so that, as 

a percentage of total Commission SRO 

oversight program costs, they are in line 

with the pro rata percentage for that 

SRO of United States industry-wide 

contract volume. 

The calculation is made as follows: 

The fee required to be paid to the 

Commission by each DCM is equal to 

the lesser of actual costs based on the 

three-year historical average of costs for 

that DCM or one-half of average costs 

incurred by the Commission for each 

DCM for the most recent three years, 

plus a pro rata share (based on average 

trading volume for the most recent three 

years) of the aggregate of average annual 

costs of all DCMs for the most recent 

three years. The formula for calculating 

the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt = 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES