46100 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

1Petitioners are Nucor Corporation and United 

States Steel Corporation. 

2 In these preliminary results, unless otherwise 

stated, we use POSCO to collectively refer to 

POSCO, POCOS, and POSTEEL. 

Protecting Children in the 21st Century 

Act (Act). The OSTWG is composed of 

representatives of relevant sectors of the 

business community, public interest 

groups, and other appropriate groups 

and Federal agencies. The members 

were selected for their expertise and 

experience in online safety issues, as 

well as their ability to represent the 

views of the various industry 

stakeholders. 

According to the Act, the OSTWG is 

tasked with evaluating industry efforts 

to promote a safe online environment 

for children. The Act requires the 

OSTWG to report its findings and 

recommendations to the Assistant 

Secretary for Communications and 

Information and to Congress within one 

(1) year after its first meeting. 

Matters to Be Considered: The 

OSTWG will hear presentations relevant 

to online safety and will have 

discussions focused on consumer 

education. 

Time and Date: The meeting will be 

held on September 24, 2009, from 9:00 

a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. 

The times and the agenda topics are 

subject to change. The meeting may be 

webcast. Please refer to NTIA’s web site, 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov, for the most 

up-to-date meeting agenda and webcast 

information. 

Place: The meeting will be held at the 

United States Department of Commerce, 

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 

4830, Washington, DC 20230. The 

meeting will be open to the public and 

press on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Space is limited. Attendees should bring 

a photo ID and arrive early to clear 

security. The public meeting is 

physically accessible to people with 

disabilities. Individuals requiring 

special services, such as sign language 

interpretation or other ancillary aids, are 

asked to notify Mr. Gattuso at (202) 482– 

0977 or jgattuso@ntia.doc.gov, at least 

five (5) business days before the 

meeting. 

Dated: September 2, 2009. 

Kathy D. Smith, 

Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–21604 Filed 9–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–818] 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From the Republic of Korea: 

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 the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 

products (CORE) from the Republic of 

Korea (Korea) for the period of review 

(POR) January 1, 2007, through 

December 31, 2007. For information on 

the net subsidy for each company 

reviewed, see the ‘‘Preliminary Results 

of Review’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section of 

this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 8, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak or Gayle Longest, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2209 

and (202) 482–3338, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 17, 1993, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

CVD order on CORE from Korea. See 

Countervailing Duty Orders and 

Amendments of Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determinations: 

Certain Steel Products from Korea, 58 

FR 43752 (August 17, 1993). On August 

1, 2008, the Department published a 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of this CVD order. 

See Antidumping or Countervailing 

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation: Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 44966 

(August 1, 2008). 

On August 29, 2008, we received a 

timely request for review from 

petitioners 1 with regard to Pohang Iron 

and Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Dongbu 

Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu). On August 29, 

2008, we also received a timely request 

for review from Hyundai HYSCO Ltd. 

(HYSCO). On September 30, 2008, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of the administrative review of 

the CVD order on CORE from Korea 

covering the period January 1, 2007, 

through December 31, 2007. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 56794, 56796 (September 30, 

2008). On October 2, 2008, the 

Department issued the initial 

questionnaire to Dongbu, HYSCO, and 

POSCO as well as the Government of 

Korea (GOK). On November 24, 2008, 

the Department received questionnaire 

responses from POSCO, POSCO Steel 

Service & Sales Co., Ltd. (POSTEEL, a 

trading company for POSCO), Pohang 

Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS, a production 

affiliate of POSCO),2 Dongbu, and 

HYSCO. On November 25, 2008, the 

Department received the GOK’s 

questionnaire response. On February 25 

and February 26, 2009, the Department 

received supplemental questionnaire 

responses from the GOK and HYSCO, 

respectively. On March 27, 2009, the 

Department received supplemental 

questionnaire responses from the GOK 

and POSCO. On April 3, 2009, the 

Department received a supplemental 

questionnaire response from the GOK. 

On April 15, 2009, the Department 

received a second supplemental 

questionnaire response from HYSCO. 

On April 16, 2009, the Department 

issued a third supplemental 

questionnaire to HYSCO and received 

the company’s response on April 30, 

2009. On May 8, 2009, and May 13, 

2009, the Department issued additional 

supplemental questionnaires to POSCO 

and the GOK, respectively. On May 22, 

2009, and May 27, 2009, the Department 

received responses from POSCO and the 

GOK, respectively. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), this review covers only 

those producers or exporters for which 

a review was specifically requested. The 

companies subject to this review are 

Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO (and its 

affiliates POCOS and POSTEEL). 

Affiliated Companies 

In this administrative review, record 

evidence indicates that POCOS is a 

majority-owned production affiliate of 

POSCO. Under 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6)(iii), if the firm that 

received a subsidy is a holding 

company, including a parent company 

with its own operations, the Department 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46101 

will attribute the subsidy to the 

consolidated sales of the holding 

company and its subsidiaries. Thus, we 

attributed any subsidies received by 

POCOS to POSCO and its subsidiaries, 

net of intra-company sales. Dongbu 

reported that it is the only member of 

the Dongbu group in Korea that was 

involved with the production and sale 

of subject merchandise to the United 

States. HYSCO reported that it is the 

only company within the Hyundai 

Motor Group that produces and sells the 

subject merchandise. 

Scope of Order 

Products covered by this order are 

certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel 

flat products from Korea. These 

products include flat-rolled carbon steel 

products, of rectangular shape, either 

clad, plated, or coated with corrosionresistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, 

or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or ironbased 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. The merchandise subject 

to this order is currently classifiable in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 

7210.30.0000, 7210.31.0000, 

7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 

7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 

7210.60.0000, 7210.61.0000, 

7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 

7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 

7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 

7212.20.0000, 7212.21.0000, 

7212.29.0000, 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, 

7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 

7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 

7217.20.1500, 7217.22.5000, 

7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 

7217.29.5000, 7217.30.15.0000, 

7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 

7217.39.1000, 7217.39.5000, 

7217.90.1000 and 7217.90.5000. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the Department’s written 

description of the merchandise is 

dispositive. 

Average Useful Life 

Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), we will 

presume the allocation period for nonrecurring subsidies to be the average 

useful life (AUL) of renewable physical 

assets for the industry concerned as 

listed in the Internal Revenue Service’s 

(IRS) 1997 Class Life Asset Depreciation 

Range System, as updated by the 

Department of the Treasury. The 

presumption will apply unless a party 

claims and establishes that the IRS 

tables do not reasonably reflect the 

company-specific AUL or the countrywide AUL for the industry under 

examination and that the difference 

between the company-specific and/or 

country-wide AUL and the AUL from 

the IRS tables is significant. According 

to the IRS tables, the AUL of the steel 

industry is 15 years. No interested party 

challenged the 15-year AUL derived 

from the IRS tables. Thus, in this 

review, we have allocated, where 

applicable, all of the non-recurring 

subsidies provided to the producers/ 

exporters of subject merchandise over a 

15-year AUL. 

Creditworthiness 

In their February 9, 2009, submission 

petitioners allege that Dongbu was 

uncreditworthy during 2004 through 

2007. The examination of 

creditworthiness is an attempt to 

determine if the company in question 

could obtain long-term financing from 

conventional commercial sources. See 

19 CFR 351.505(a)(4). According to 19 

CFR 351.505(a)(4)(i), the Department 

will generally consider a firm to be 

uncreditworthy if, based on information 

available at the time of the governmentprovided loan, the firm could not have 

obtained long-term loans from 

conventional commercial sources. In 

making this determination, according to 

19 CFR 351.505(a)(4)(i), the Department 

normally examines the following four 

types of information: (1) The receipt by 

the firm of comparable commercial 

long-term loans; (2) present and past 

indicators of the firm’s financial health; 

(3) present and past indicators of the 

firm’s ability to meet its costs and fixed 

financial obligations with its cash flow; 

and (4) evidence of the firm’s future 

financial position. 

As explained in the Department’s 

memorandum dated August 31, 2009, 

we find that Dongbu obtained 

comparable loans from commercial 

lending institutions that coincide with 

the time period during which 

petitioners allege Dongbu was 

uncreditworthy. See Memorandum to 

Melissa G. Skinner, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, titled 

‘‘Uncreditworthiness Allegation 

Regarding Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.’’ 

(August 31, 2009) (Creditworthy 

Memorandum), of which a public 

version is on file in Room 1117 of the 

main Commerce building in the Central 

Records Unit (CRU). Therefore, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(4)(i), we preliminarily 

determine that Dongbu was 

creditworthy during 2004 through 2007. 

For further information see the 

Creditworthy Memorandum. 

Subsidies Valuation Information 

A. Benchmarks for Short-Term 

Financing 

For those programs requiring the 

application of a won-denominated, 

short-term interest rate benchmark, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(2)(iv), we used as our 

benchmark the company-specific 

weighted-average interest rate for 

commercial won-denominated loans 

outstanding during the POR. Where no 

such benchmark instruments are 

available, we used national average 

lending rates for the POR, as reported in 

the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) 

International Financial Statistics 

Yearbook. This approach is in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(3)(ii) and the Department’s 

practice. See, e.g., See Corrosion— 

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from the Republic of Korea: Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 

(January 15, 2009) (CORE from Korea 

2006), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (CORE from 

Korea 2006 Decision Memorandum) at 

‘‘Benchmarks for Short-Term 

Financing.’’ 

For document acceptance (D/A) loans 

rediscounted under the Korean Export 

Import Bank’s (KEXIM’s) rediscount 

program, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(2)(ii), we used, for 

benchmark purposes, usance loans 

issued by commercial banks to the 

respondent firms. This approach is in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(2)(ii) and the Department’s 

practice. See, e.g., Coated Free Sheet 

Paper from the Republic of Korea: 

Notice of Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 

FR 60639 (October 25, 2007) (CFS Paper 

Investigation), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Comment 18’’ (CFS Paper Decision 

Memorandum). 

B. Benchmark for Long-Term Loans 

During the POR, Dongbu, HYSCO, 

and POSCO had outstanding 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46102 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

3MKE was formerly known as the Ministry of 

Commerce, Industry, and Energy (MOCIE). 

4Also known as Korea New Iron & Steel 

Technology Research Association (KNISTRA). 

countervailable long-term wondenominated and foreign-currency 

denominated loans from governmentowned banks and Korean commercial 

banks. We used the following 

benchmarks to calculate the subsidies 

attributable to respondents’ 

countervailable long-term loans 

obtained through 2007: 

(1) For countervailable, foreigncurrency denominated loans, we used 

the company-specific weighted-average 

foreign currency-denominated interest 

rates on the company’s loans from 

foreign bank branches in Korea, foreign 

securities, and direct foreign loans 

outstanding during the POR. Where no 

such benchmark instruments were 

available, and consistent with 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(3)(ii), as well as our practice, 

we relied on the national average 

lending rates as reported by the IMF’s 

International Financial Statistics 

Yearbook. See, e.g., CORE from Korea 

2006 and CORE from Korea 2006 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Benchmarks 

for Long-Term Loans.’’ 

(2) For countervailable, wondenominated long-term loans, we used, 

where available, the company-specific 

interest rates on the company’s 

comparable commercial, wondenominated loans. If such loans were 

not available, we used, where available, 

the company-specific corporate bond 

rate on the company’s public and 

private bonds, as we determined that 

the GOK did not control the Korean 

domestic bond market after 1991. See, 

e.g., Final Negative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Stainless Steel Plate in 

Coils from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 

15530, 15531 (March 31, 1999) 

(Stainless Steel Investigation) and 

‘‘Analysis Memorandum on the Korean 

Domestic Bond Market’’ (March 9, 

1999). The use of a corporate bond rate 

as a long-term benchmark interest rate is 

consistent with the approach the 

Department has taken in several prior 

Korean CVD proceedings. See Id.; see 

also Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination: Structural Steel 

Beams from the Republic of Korea (H 

Beams Investigation), 65 FR 41051 (July 

3, 2000), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Benchmark 

Interest Rates and Discount Rates;’’ and 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Dynamic Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors from 

the Republic of Korea, 68 FR 37122 

(June 23, 2003) (DRAMS Investigation), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Discount Rates and 

Benchmark for Loans.’’ Specifically, in 

those cases, we determined that, absent 

company-specific, commercial longterm loan interest rates, the wondenominated corporate bond rate is the 

best indicator of the commercial longterm borrowing rates for wondenominated loans in Korea. Where 

company-specific rates were not 

available, we used the national average 

of the yields on three-year, wondenominated corporate bonds, as 

reported by the Bank of Korea (BOK). 

This approach is consistent with 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(3)(ii) and our practice. See, 

e.g., CORE from Korea 2006 Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Benchmark for Long 

Term Loans.’’ 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(2)(i), our benchmarks take 

into consideration the structure of the 

government-provided loans. For 

countervailable fixed-rate loans, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iii), 

we used benchmark rates issued in the 

same year that the government loans 

were issued. For countervailable 

variable-rate loans outstanding during 

the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(5)(i), we used the interest 

rates of variable-rate lending 

instruments issued during the year in 

which the government loans were 

issued. Where such benchmark 

instruments were unavailable, we used 

interest rates from debt instruments 

issued during the POR as such rates also 

reflect a variable interest rate that would 

be in effect during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(5)(ii). 

I. Programs Determined To Be 

Countervailable 

A. Asset Revaluation Under Article 

56(2) of the Tax Reduction and 

Exemption Control Act (TERCL) 

Under Article 56(2) of the TERCL, the 

GOK permitted companies that made an 

initial public offering between January 

1, 1987, and December 31, 1990, to 

revalue their assets at a rate higher than 

the 25 percent required of most other 

companies under the Asset Revaluation 

Act. The Department has previously 

found this program to be 

countervailable. For example, in the 

CTL Plate Investigation, the Department 

determined that this program was de 

facto specific under section 

771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), because the actual 

recipients of the subsidy were limited in 

number and the basic metal industry 

was a dominant user of this program. 

See Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from 

the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 73176, 

73183 (December 29, 1999) (CTL Plate 

Investigation). We also determined that 

a financial contribution was provided in 

the form of tax revenue foregone 

pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the 

Act. Id. The Department further 

determined that a benefit was conferred 

within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) 

of the Act on those companies that were 

able to revalue their assets under TERCL 

Article 56(2) because the revaluation 

resulted in participants paying fewer 

taxes than they would otherwise pay 

absent the program. Id. No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances was presented in this 

review to warrant any reconsideration of 

the countervailability of this program. 

The benefit from this program is the 

difference that the revaluation of 

depreciable assets has on a company’s 

tax liability each year. Evidence on the 

record indicates that, in 1989, POSCO 

made an asset revaluation that increased 

its depreciation expense. To calculate 

the benefit to POSCO, we took the 

additional depreciation listed in the tax 

return filed during the POR, which 

resulted from the company’s asset 

revaluation, and multiplied that amount 

by the tax rate applicable to that tax 

return. We then divided the resulting 

benefit by POSCO’s total free on board 

(f.o.b.) sales. See 19 CFR 351.525(b)(3). 

On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine the net countervailable 

subsidy to be 0.02 percent ad valorem 

for POSCO. Dongbu and HYSCO did not 

use this program during the POR. 

B. Research and Development Grants 

Under the Industrial Development Act 

(IDA) 

The GOK, through the Ministry of 

Knowledge Economy (MKE),3 provides 

research and development (R&D) grants 

to support numerous projects pursuant 

to the IDA, including technology for 

core materials, components, engineering 

systems, and resource technology. The 

IDA is designed to foster the 

development of efficient technology for 

industrial development. To participate 

in this program a company may: (1) 

Perform its own R&D project, (2) 

participate through the Korea 

Association of New Iron and Steel 

Technology (KANIST),4 which is an 

association of steel companies 

established for the development of new 

iron and steel technology, and/or (3) 

participate in another company’s R&D 

project and share R&D costs as well as 

funds received from the GOK. To be 

eligible to participate in this program, 

the applicant must meet the 

qualifications set forth in the basic plan 

and must perform R&D as set forth 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46103 

under the Notice of Industrial Basic 

Technology Development Plan. If the 

R&D project is not successful, the 

company must repay the full amount of 

the grants provided by the GOK. 

In the H Beams Investigation, the 

Department determined that through 

KANIST, the Korean steel industry 

receives funding specific to the steel 

industry. Therefore, given the nature of 

KANIST, the Department found projects 

under KANIST to be specific. See 

Preliminary Negative Countervailing 

Duty Determination with Final 

Antidumping Duty Determination: 

Structural Steel Beams From the 

Republic of Korea, 64 FR 69731, 69740 

(December 14, 1999) (unchanged in the 

final results, 65 FR 69371 (July 3, 2000), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘R&D Grants Under the 

Korea New Iron & Steel Technology 

Research Association (KNISTRA)’’). 

Further, we found that the grants 

constitute a financial contribution under 

section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act in the 

form of a grant, and bestow a benefit 

under section 771(5)(E) of the Act in the 

amount of the grant. Id. No new factual 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been provided to the 

Department with respect to this 

program. Therefore, we preliminarily 

continue to find that this program is de 

jure specific within the meaning of 

section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act and 

constitutes a financial contribution and 

confers a benefit under sections 

771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 

respectively. 

HYSCO and POSCO were the only 

responding companies that benefitted 

from this program during the POR. Both 

HYSCO and POSCO participated in 

projects indirectly through KANIST. 

POSCO also participated indirectly 

through the Korea Construction 

Equipment Research Association 

(KCERA). Both companies claim that 

projects for which grants were received 

from the government were not related to 

subject merchandise. 

Upon review of the information 

submitted by HYSCO, we preliminarily 

determine that certain grants pertain 

specifically to production of a product 

that is not subject merchandise. See 

Memorandum to the File titled 

‘‘HYSCO’s R&D Grants Under the IDA’’ 

(August 31, 2009) (HYSCO Grants 

Memorandum), of which a public 

version is on file in the CRU. In 

addition, based on our review of the 

information submitted by POSCO, we 

preliminarily determine that certain 

grants pertain to non-subject 

merchandise that involves a production 

process that is downstream from the 

production process for subject 

merchandise. See Memorandum to the 

File titled ‘‘POSCO’s R&D Grants Under 

the IDA’’ (August 31, 2009) (POSCO 

Grants Memorandum), of which a 

public version is on file in the CRU. 

Therefore, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(5)(i) and our past practice, 

we preliminarily determine that these 

grants are tied to non-subject 

merchandise. Hence, we did not include 

these grants in our benefit calculations. 

HYSCO and POSCO, however, did 

report receiving certain grants related to 

new technologies that are applicable to 

both inputs of subject merchandise as 

well as subject merchandise. See 

HYSCO Grants Memorandum and 

POSCO Grants Memorandum. Some of 

these R&D grants were examined in 

previous reviews of this order and were 

found to provide countervailable 

benefits for the same reasons. See 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: 

Final Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 2444 

(January 15, 2008) (2005 CORE from 

Korea), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 

(2005 CORE from Korea Decision 

Memorandum); see also CORE from 

Korea 2006 Decision Memorandum, at 

‘‘Research and Development Grants 

Under the Industrial Development Act.’’ 

In this administrative review, there is no 

information on the record that 

demonstrates that the R&D projects in 

question could not be used in the 

production of subject merchandise or 

that this new technology is limited to 

the development of non-subject 

merchandise. Therefore, we find in 

these preliminary results, as in prior 

reviews, that the R&D grants in question 

provide a countervailable benefit to 

HYSCO and POSCO during the POR. 

To determine the benefit from the 

grants that HYSCO and POSCO received 

through KANIST, we calculated the 

GOK’s contribution for each R&D project 

that was apportioned to each company. 

See 19 CFR 351.504(a). Next, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), 

we determined whether to allocate the 

non-recurring benefit from the grants 

over a 15-year AUL by dividing the GOK 

approved grant amount by each 

company’s total sales in the year of 

approval. Because the approved 

amounts were less than 0.5 percent of 

each company’s total sales, we expensed 

the grants to the year(s) of receipt. Next, 

to calculate the net subsidy rate, we 

divided the portion of the benefit 

allocated to the POR by HYSCO’s and 

POSCO’s total f.o.b. sales for 2007, 

respectively. See 19 CFR 351.525(b)(3). 

On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine net subsidy rates under this 

program to be 0.02 percent ad valorem 

for HYSCO and 0.01 percent ad valorem 

for POSCO. 

With respect to POSCO’s project with 

KCERA, we performed the grant 

calculation applying the same 

methodology described above for the 

grants received through KANIST. For 

the POR, we preliminarily determine 

the net subsidy rate for the grant 

received through KCERA under this 

program to be less than 0.005 percent ad 

valorem which, consistent with the 

Department’s practice, does not confer a 

measurable benefit and is not included 

in the calculation of the net 

countervailable rate. See, e.g., CORE 

from Korea 2006 Decision 

Memorandum, at ‘‘Long-Term Lending 

Provided by the KDB and Other GOKOwned Institutions from 2002–2006.’’ 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that it is unnecessary for the 

Department to make a finding with 

regard to the countervailability of the 

R&D grants under IDA through KCERA. 

C. R&D Grants Under the Promotion of 

Industrial Technology Innovation Act 

The GOK, through the MKE, provides 

R&D grants to promote a company’s 

productivity and industrial 

competitiveness using industrial 

technology (IT) infrastructure under the 

Promotion of Industrial Technology 

Innovation Act (PITIA), which was 

established in 2006. The funding of an 

R&D project under the PITIA is shared 

by the company and the GOK, with the 

government contributing up to 50 

percent of the project’s costs. To be 

eligible to participate in this program, 

the applicant must meet the 

qualifications set forth in the basic plan 

issued by MKE and perform R&D as set 

forth in the Notice of IT Innovation 

Network Organization Business. 

Applications are submitted to the Korea 

E-Business Association. If a company’s 

application is approved, MKE and the 

company enter into an R&D contract and 

MKE provides the grants. R&D grants 

under the PITIA are provided with 

respect to specific projects, which are 

generally multi-year projects, where the 

amount of funds to be received each 

year from the GOK is set out in the 

original contract. 

During the POR, HYSCO was the only 

responding company that benefitted 

from this program. HYSCO reported that 

it led a consortium of several companies 

in a project for IT network innovation 

and that the project was unrelated to the 

production of subject merchandise. 

In its response, the GOK provided a 

copy of the ‘‘Notice for Recruiting 

Participating Industries in IT Innovation 

Network Organization Business for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46104 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

2006.’’ See GOK’s November 25, 2008, 

Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 

G–15. The notice states that grants for IT 

new technology were limited to certain 

industries, i.e., motor, steel, 

shipbuilding, textile, distribution, and 

others. The notice further states that 

‘‘one consortium from each industry 

applicable for applying’’ for grants in 

2006 would be selected. Id. The 

‘‘Application Form for IT Innovation 

Network Organization Business’’ also 

contains the eligibility limitation stating 

that the ‘‘application’’ industry is ‘‘one 

of automobile, steel, fabric, paper, 

others.’’ See GOK’s November 25, 2008, 

Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 

G–14. The GOK further reported that 

during 2006, 13 consortia applied for 

benefits under the PITIA and just four 

consortia received approval for financial 

assistance. See GOK’s February 25, 

2009, Supplemental Questionnaire 

Response, at 3. 

Because R&D grants under the PITIA 

were expressly limited to certain 

industries in 2006, we preliminarily 

find that this program is de jure specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. We further 

preliminarily find that grants provided 

under the PITIA constitute a financial 

contribution and confer a benefit under 

sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the 

Act, respectively. 

With respect to HYSCO’s statement 

that the R&D grants are unrelated to the 

production of subject merchandise, we 

preliminarily find that the information 

on the record demonstrates that the 

grants for IT network innovation benefit 

the company’s business processes and 

all of its product lines and, therefore, 

the grants are not limited to non-subject 

merchandise. See Memorandum to the 

File titled ‘‘HYSCO’s R&D Grants Under 

the PITIA’’ (August 31, 2009), of which 

a public version is on file in the CRU. 

To determine the benefit from the grants 

that HYSCO received under the PITIA, 

we first calculated the GOK’s total 

contribution to the project that was 

apportioned to HYSCO. Next, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), 

we determined whether to allocate the 

non-recurring benefit from the grant 

over HYSCO’s AUL by dividing the total 

amount of the GOK’s contribution by 

HYSCO’s total sales in the year the total 

grant amount was approved. Because 

the approved amount was less than 0.5 

percent of HYSCO’s total sales, we 

expensed the grants in the year of 

receipt. Next, to calculate the net 

subsidy rate, we divided the portion of 

the benefit allocated to the POR by 

HYSCO’s total f.o.b. sales for 2007. See 

19 CFR 351.525(b)(3). On this basis, we 

preliminarily determine the net subsidy 

rate under this program to be 0.02 

percent ad valorem for HYSCO. 

D. Short-Term Export Financing 

KEXIM supplies two types of shortterm loans for exporting companies, 

short-term trade financing and 

comprehensive export financing. 

KEXIM provides short-term loans to 

Korean exporters that manufacture 

goods under export contracts. The loans 

are provided up to the amount of the 

bill of exchange or contracted amount 

less any amount already received. For 

comprehensive export financing loans, 

KEXIM supplies short-term loans to any 

small or medium-sized company, or any 

large company that is not included in 

the five largest conglomerates based on 

their comprehensive export 

performance. To obtain the loans, 

companies must report their export 

performance periodically to KEXIM for 

review. Comprehensive export financing 

loans cover from 50 to 90 percent of the 

company’s export performance; 

however, the maximum loan amount is 

restricted to 30 billion won. 

In Steel Products From Korea, the 

Department determined that the GOK’s 

short-term export financing program 

was countervailable. See Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determinations and Final Negative 

Critical Circumstances Determinations: 

Certain Steel Products From Korea, 58 

FR 37338, 37350 (July 9, 1993) (Steel 

Products From Korea); see also Notice of 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From the 

Republic of Korea, 67 FR 62102, 

(October 3, 2002) (Cold-Rolled 

Investigation), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum (ColdRolled Decision Memorandum) at 

‘‘Short-Term Export Financing.’’ No 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances was presented in this 

review to warrant any reconsideration of 

the countervailability of this program. 

Therefore, we continue to find this 

program countervailable. Specifically, 

we preliminarily determine that the 

export financing constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a loan within 

the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of 

the Act and confers a benefit within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the 

Act to the extent that the amount of 

interest the respondents paid for export 

financing under this program was less 

than the amount of interest that would 

have been paid on a comparable shortterm commercial loan. See discussion 

above in the ‘‘Subsidies Valuation 

Information’’ section with respect to 

short-term loan benchmark interest 

rates. In addition, we preliminarily 

determine that the program is specific, 

pursuant to section 771(5A)(A) of the 

Act, because receipt of the financing is 

contingent upon exporting. Dongbu, 

HYSCO, and POCOS, POSCO’s affiliate, 

reported using short-term export 

financing during the POR. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), to 

calculate the benefit under this program, 

we compared the amount of interest 

paid under the program to the amount 

of interest that would have been paid on 

a comparable commercial loan. As our 

benchmark, we used the short-term 

interest rates discussed above in the 

‘‘Subsidies Valuation Information’’ 

section. To calculate the net subsidy 

rate, we divided the benefit by the f.o.b. 

value of the respective company’s total 

exports. On this basis, we determine the 

net subsidy rate to be 0.01 percent ad 

valorem for Dongbu. In the case of 

HYSCO and POSCO, we find the net 

subsidy rate to be less than 0.005 

percent ad valorem, which consistent 

with the Department’s practice, does not 

confer a measurable benefit and is not 

included in the calculation of the net 

countervailable rate. See, e.g., CORE 

from Korea 2006 Decision Memorandum 

at ‘‘GOK’s Direction of Credit.’’ 

E. Reduction in Taxes for Operation in 

Regional and National Industrial 

Complexes 

Under Article 46 of the Industrial 

Cluster Development and Factory 

Establishment Act (Industrial Cluster 

Act), a state or local government may 

provide tax exemptions as prescribed by 

the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. 

In accordance with this authority, 

Article 276 of the Local Tax Act 

provides that an entity that acquires real 

estate in a designated industrial 

complex for the purpose of constructing 

new buildings or enlarging existing 

facilities is exempt from the acquisition 

and registration tax. In addition, the 

entity is exempt from 50 percent of the 

property tax on the real estate (i.e., the 

land, buildings, or facilities constructed 

or expanded) for five years from the date 

the tax liability becomes effective. The 

exemption is increased to 100 percent of 

the relevant land, buildings, or facilities 

that are located in an industrial complex 

outside of the Seoul metropolitan area. 

The GOK established the tax exemption 

program under Article 276 in December 

1994, to provide incentives for 

companies to relocate from populated 

areas in the Seoul metropolitan region 

to industrial sites in less populated 

parts of the country. The program is 

administered by the local tax officials of 

the county where the industrial 

complex is located. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46105 

During the POR, pursuant to Article 

276 of the Local Tax Act, HYSCO 

received exemptions from the 

acquisition tax, registration tax, and 

property tax based on the location of its 

manufacturing facilities, Suncheon 

Works, in the Yulchon Industrial 

Complex, a government-sponsored 

industrial complex designated under the 

Industrial Cluster Act. In addition, 

HYSCO received an exemption from the 

local education tax during the POR. The 

local education tax is levied at 20 

percent of the property tax. The 

property tax exemption, therefore, 

results in an exemption of the local 

education tax. Dongbu and POSCO did 

not receive tax exemptions under 

Article 276 during the POR. 

In the CFS Paper Investigation, the 

Department determined that the tax 

exemptions under Article 276 of the 

Local Tax Act are countervailable 

subsidies. See CFS Paper Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Reduction in Taxes 

for Operation in Regional and National 

Industrial Complexes.’’ No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances from HYSCO or the GOK 

was presented in this review to warrant 

a reconsideration of the 

countervailability of this program. We, 

therefore, continue to find this program 

countervailable. Specifically, we 

preliminarily find that the tax 

exemptions that HYSCO received 

constitute a financial contribution and 

confer a benefit under sections 

771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 

respectively. We further preliminarily 

find that the tax exemptions are 

regionally specific under section 

771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because the 

exemptions are limited to an enterprise 

or industry located within designated 

geographical regions in Korea. 

To calculate the benefit, we divided 

HYSCO’s total tax exemptions by the 

company’s total f.o.b. sales value for 

2007. On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine the net subsidy rate to be less 

than 0.005 percent ad valorem, which 

consistent with the Department’s 

practice, does not confer a measurable 

benefit and is not included in the 

calculation of the net countervailable 

rate. See, e.g., CORE from Korea 2006 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘GOK’s 

Direction of Credit.’’ 

F. Other Subsidies Related to 

Operations at Asan Bay: Provision of 

Land and Exemption of Port Fees Under 

the Harbor Act 

1. Provision of Land 

The GOK’s overall development plan 

is published every 10 years and 

describes the nationwide land 

development goals and plans for the 

balanced development of the country. 

Under these plans, the Ministry of 

Construction and Transportation 

(MOCAT) prepares and updates its Asan 

Bay Area Broad Development Plan. See, 

e.g., Cold-Rolled Decision 

Memorandum, at ‘‘Provision of Land at 

Asan Bay.’’ See also Preliminary Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic of 

Korea, 71 FR 53413, 53418 (September 

11, 2006) (Preliminary Results of CORE 

from Korea 2004), unchanged in Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review: CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from the Republic of Korea, 72 FR 119 

(January 3, 2007) (CORE from Korea 

2004). The Korea Land Development 

Corporation (Koland) is a government 

investment corporation that is 

responsible for purchasing, developing, 

and selling land in the industrial sites. 

Id. 

In the Cold-Rolled Investigation, we 

verified that the GOK, in setting the 

price per square meter for land at the 

Kodai industrial estate, removed the 10 

percent profit component from the price 

charged to Dongbu. See Cold-Rolled 

Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Provision of 

Land at Asan Bay.’’ In the Cold-Rolled 

Investigation, we further explained that 

companies purchasing land at Asan Bay 

must make payments on the purchase 

and development of the land before the 

final settlement. However, in the case of 

Dongbu, we found that the GOK 

provided an adjustment to Dongbu’s 

final payment to account for ‘‘interest 

earned’’ by the company for the prepayments. Id. POSCO and HYSCO did 

not use this program. 

In the Cold-Rolled Investigation, we 

determined that the price discount and 

the adjustment of Dongbu’s final 

payment to account for ‘‘interest 

earned’’ by the company on its prepayments were countervailable 

subsidies. Specifically, the Department 

determined that they were specific 

under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the 

Act, as they were limited to Dongbu. Id. 

Further, the Department found the price 

discount and the price adjustment for 

‘‘interest earned’’ constituted financial 

contributions and conferred benefits 

under sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. Id. No 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances from Dongbu or the GOK 

was presented in this review to warrant 

a reconsideration of the 

countervailability of this program. 

Therefore, we continue to find this 

program countervailable in this case. 

Consistent with the Cold-Rolled 

Investigation, we have treated the land 

price discount and the interest earned 

refund as non-recurring subsidies. Id. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), 

because the grant amounts were more 

than 0.5 percent of the company’s total 

sales in the year of receipt, we applied 

the Department’s standard grant 

methodology, as described under 19 

CFR 351.524(d)(1), and allocated the 

subsidies over a 15-year allocation 

period. See the ‘‘Average Useful Life’’ 

section, above. To calculate the benefit 

from these grants, we used as our 

discount rate the rates described above 

in the ‘‘Subsidies Valuation 

Information’’ section. We then summed 

the benefits received by Dongbu during 

the POR. We calculated the net subsidy 

rate by dividing the total benefit 

attributable to the POR by Dongbu’s 

total f.o.b. sales for the POR. On this 

basis, we determine a net 

countervailable subsidy rate for Dongbu 

of 0.18 percent ad valorem for the POR. 

2. Exemption of Port Fees Under Harbor 

Act 

Under the Harbor Act, companies are 

allowed to construct infrastructure 

facilities at Korean ports; however, these 

facilities must be deeded back to the 

government. Because the ownership of 

these facilities reverts to the 

government, the government 

compensates private parties for the 

construction of these infrastructure 

facilities. Because a company must 

transfer to the government its 

infrastructure investment, under the 

Harbor Act, the GOK grants the 

company free usage of the facility and 

the right to collect fees from other users 

of the facility for a limited period of 

time. Once a company has recovered its 

cost of constructing the infrastructure, 

the company must pay the same usage 

fees as other users of the infrastructure. 

In the Cold-Rolled Investigation, the 

Department found that Dongbu received 

free use of harbor facilities at Asan Bay 

based upon both its construction of a 

port facility as well as a road that the 

company built from its plant to its port. 

See Cold-Rolled Decision 

Memorandum, at ‘‘Dongbu’s Excessive 

Exemptions under the Harbor Act.’’ The 

Department also determined that 

Dongbu received an exemption of 

harbor fees for a period of almost 70 

years under this program. Id. In the 

Cold-Rolled Investigation, the 

Department found the exemption from 

the fees to be a countervailable subsidy. 

No new evidence or information of 

changed circumstances was presented 

in this review to warrant any 

reconsideration of the countervailability 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46106 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

5 In the initial questionnaire responses, both 

HYSCO and the GOK reported that HYSCO received 

these grants related to energy use under the Energy 

Use Rationalization Act. See HYSCO’s November 

24, 2008 Questionnaire Response, at 17; and GOK’s 

November 25, 2008 Questionnaire Response, at 

Exhibit G–8. In their supplemental questionnaire 

responses, HYSCO and GOK corrected their earlier 

statements and reported that the energy grants were 

provided under the Act on the Promotion of 

Development of Alternative Energy. See HYSCO’s 

February 26, 2009 Supplemental Questionnaire 

Response, at Exhibit G–7 and Exhibit G–16; and 

GOK’s February 25, 2009 Supplemental 

Questionnaire Response, at 1. 

of this program. Consistent with the 

Cold-Rolled Investigation, we 

preliminarily find that the exemption of 

port fees constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

foregone and confers a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) 

and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. 

Further, we preliminarily find that the 

program is specific under section 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because the 

excessive exemption period of 70 years 

is limited to Dongbu. Thus, for purposes 

of these preliminary results, we 

continue to find this aspect of the 

program countervailable. 

In the Cold-Rolled Investigation, the 

Department determined that the benefit 

from the program is equal to the average 

yearly amount of harbor fees 

exemptions provided to Dongbu. Id. For 

purposes of these preliminary results, 

we have employed the same benefit 

calculation. To calculate the net subsidy 

rate, we divided the average yearly 

amount of exemptions by Dongbu’s total 

f.o.b. sales for the POR. On this basis, 

we preliminarily determine that 

Dongbu’s net subsidy rate under this 

program is 0.02 percent ad valorem. 

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

Not to Confer a Benefit During the POR 

A. Energy Savings Fund Program 

The Energy Savings Fund (ESF) 

program provides financing for 

investment in projects and equipment 

that use energy efficiently. In the 

DRAMS Investigation, the Department 

analyzed ESF loans separately from the 

direction of credit allegation and found 

that the loans were not specific within 

the meaning of section 771(5A) of the 

Act during the period of investigation 

(POI), which was January 1, 2001, 

through June 30, 2002. See Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Dynamic Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors from 

the Republic of Korea, 68 FR 37122 

(June 23, 2003) (DRAMS Investigation), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (DRAMS Investigation 

Decision Memorandum) at ‘‘ESF 

Program’’ and ‘‘Comment 24.’’ In the 

instant review, HYSCO reported that, 

during the POR, the company had 

outstanding balances for ESF loans that 

were received in 2000. The 

Department’s specificity finding in the 

DRAMS Investigation did not cover the 

year 2000. See Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Dynamic Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors from the Republic of 

Korea, 68 FR 16766, 16775 (April 7, 

2003) (unchanged in final results, 68 FR 

37122 (June 23, 2003)). However, 

because there is no measurable benefit 

for this program, we preliminarily 

determine that it is unnecessary for the 

Department to make a determination on 

the countervailability of ESF loans that 

were issued in 2000 as explained below. 

We performed the loan benefit 

calculation applying the long-term 

benchmark interest rates described 

above in the ‘‘Subsidies Valuation 

Information’’ section. For the POR, we 

preliminarily determine the net subsidy 

rate under the ESF loan program to be 

less than 0.005 percent ad valorem, 

which, consistent with the Department’s 

practice, does not confer a measurable 

benefit and is not included in the 

calculation of the net countervailable 

rate. See, e.g., CORE from Korea 2006 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘GOK’s 

Direction of Credit.’’ This program was 

not used by Dongbu or POSCO. 

B. R&D Grants Under the Act on the 

Promotion of the Development of 

Alternative Energy 

During the POR, HYSCO received 

energy-related grants under the Act on 

the Promotion of the Development of 

Alternative Energy (Alternative Energy 

Act) for an R&D project in which the 

company participated with other firms.5

HYSCO reported that R&D grants under 

the Alternative Energy Act are provided 

with respect to specific projects, which 

are generally multi-year projects where 

the amount of funds to be provided by 

the GOK is set out in the project 

contract. The cost of R&D projects under 

this program is shared by the 

participating companies and the GOK. 

We calculated the GOK’s contribution 

to the project that was apportioned to 

HYSCO and then, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.524(b)(2), determined whether 

to allocate the non-recurring benefit 

from the grant over HYSCO’s AUL by 

dividing the total amount of the GOK’s 

contribution by HYSCO’s total sales in 

the year the grants were approved. 

Because the amount of the grants is less 

than 0.5 percent of the relevant sales, 

we expensed the benefits from the 

grants to the year of receipt. We 

preliminarily determine the subsidy rate 

under this program to be less than 0.005 

percent ad valorem, which, consistent 

with the Department’s practice, does not 

confer a measurable benefit and is not 

included in the calculation of the net 

countervailable rate. See, e.g., CORE 

from Korea 2006 Decision Memorandum 

at ‘‘GOK’s Direction of Credit.’’ 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that it is unnecessary for the 

Department to make a finding as to the 

countervailability of this program in this 

review. If a future administrative review 

of this proceeding is requested, we will 

further examine grants provided under 

the Alternative Energy Act. 

C. Export Loans by Commercial Banks 

Under KEXIM’s Trade Bill 

Rediscounting Program 

The GOK enacted KEXIM’s Trade Bill 

Rediscount program in July 1998. From 

July 1998 to May 2004, KEXIM 

rediscounted the actual D/A and export 

letter of credit (L/C) (e.g., export usance 

loans) financing of exporters that had 

first been discounted by commercial 

banks. However, after May 18, 2004, 

KEXIM switched to a rediscount ceiling 

method with Korean commercial banks. 

Under the ceiling method, KEXIM 

calculates the rediscount ceiling for 

participating commercial banks on a 

quarterly basis based on the total D/A or 

export L/C financing provided by the 

banks during the previous period, the 

banks’ projected rediscounts, and the 

banks’ credit rating. Under the trade bill 

rediscounting program, exporters first 

discount their D/As and export L/Cs 

with banks that are participating in the 

program. The banks, in turn, discount 

promissory notes with KEXIM. Dongbu 

had D/A loans outstanding under the 

program during the POR from banks that 

participated in the KEXIM rediscount 

program. We preliminarily determine 

that HYSCO and POSCO did not use the 

program during the POR. 

The Department found this program 

countervailable in the CFS Paper 

Investigation. See CFS Paper Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Export Loans by 

Commercial Banks Under KEXIM’s 

Trade Bill Rediscounting Program.’’ For 

purposes of these preliminary results, 

we find that no information was 

submitted in this review that warrants 

reconsideration of our finding in the 

CFS Paper Investigation regarding this 

program. 

We also find that companies do not 

know whether commercial banks 

subsequently rediscount their D/A loans 

with KEXIM nor does KEXIM link 

rediscounts to individual loans or 

exporters. Further, we find that 

KEXIM’s rediscount ceiling represents 

only a portion of participating banks’ 

total discounts on export loans during 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46107 

6For POSCO, we also removed intra-company 

sales from the denominators of the net subsidy rate 

calculations of the other programs found 

countervailable in these preliminary results. This 

step was not necessary for Dongbu or HYSCO. 

the POR. Therefore, we are pro-rating 

benefits under this program by the 

percentage of loans each bank 

rediscounted with KEXIM under the 

program. 

To determine whether a benefit was 

conferred, we first compared the 

amount Dongbu paid on its D/A loans 

outstanding during the POR to the 

amount it would pay on comparable 

commercial short-term financing that it 

could obtain on the market. See 19 CFR 

351.505(a). For our benchmark, we have 

used Dongbu’s weighted-average 

interest rate on its foreign currency, 

commercial short-term loans 

outstanding during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(2)(iv). Where unavailable, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(3)(ii), we have used the 

short-term lending rate for the POR, as 

published in the IMF’s International 

Financial Statistics Yearbook. Because 

loans under this program are discounted 

(i.e., interest is paid up-front at the time 

the loans are received), the effective rate 

paid by Dongbu on its D/A loans is a 

discounted rate. Therefore, for 

benchmark interest rates that were not 

already discounted, it was necessary to 

derive a discounted benchmark interest 

rate from Dongbu’s company-specific 

weighted-average interest rates for shortterm commercial loans. For Dongbu, we 

preliminarily determine that there is no 

benefit during the POR because the 

benchmark interest rate is lower than 

the interest rates that the company 

actually paid. 

D. D/A Loans Issued by the Korean 

Development Bank and Other 

Government-Owned Banks 

Of the D/A loans rediscounted under 

KEXIM’s trade bill rediscount program, 

Dongbu received D/A loans from such 

government-owned banks as the Korean 

Development Bank (KDB). In the CFS 

Paper Investigation, we found this 

program countervailable. See CFS Paper 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘D/A Loans 

Issued by the KDB and Other 

Government-Owned Banks.’’ For 

purposes of these preliminary results, 

we find that no information was 

submitted in this review that warrants 

reconsideration of our finding in the 

CFS Paper Investigation regarding this 

program. 

To calculate the benefit, we compared 

the amount of interest paid on the 

government loan to the amount of 

interest that would have been paid on 

comparable commercial short-term 

financing that could have been obtained 

on the market. See 19 CFR 351.505(a). 

For our benchmark, we have used the 

Dongbu’s weighted-average interest rate 

on its commercial short-term loans 

outstanding during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(2)(iv). Where unavailable, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(3)(ii), we have used the 

short-term lending rate for the POR, as 

published in the IMF’s International 

Financial Statistics Yearbook. Because 

loans under this program are discounted 

(i.e., interest is paid up-front at the time 

the loans are received), the effective rate 

paid by Dongbu on its D/A loans is a 

discounted rate. Therefore, it was 

necessary to derive a discounted 

benchmark interest rate from Dongbu’s 

company-specific weighted-average 

interest rates for short-term commercial 

loans, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(2)(iv). See the ‘‘Subsidies 

Valuation Information’’ section above at 

‘‘Benchmarks for Short-Term 

Financing.’’ For Dongbu, we 

preliminarily determine that there is no 

benefit during the POR because the 

benchmark interest rate is lower than 

the interest rates that the company 

actually paid. 

We preliminarily determine that 

POSCO and HYSCO did not use this 

program during the POR. 

E. GOK’s Direction of Credit for Loans 

Issued Prior to 2002 

In CORE from Korea 2006, the 

Department determined the GOK ended 

its practice of directing credit to the 

steel industry as of 2002. However, 

during 2007, respondents had 

outstanding loans that were provided 

prior to 2002. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.505(c)(2) and (4), we calculated the 

benefit for each fixed- and variable-rate 

loan received prior to 2002 as the 

difference between the actual amount of 

interest paid on the directed loan during 

the POR and the amount of interest that 

would have been paid during the POR 

at the benchmark interest rate. We 

conducted our benefit calculations 

using the benchmark interest rates 

described in the ‘‘Subsidies Valuation 

Information’’ section above. For foreign 

currency-denominated loans, we 

converted the benefits into Korean won. 

We then summed the benefits from each 

company’s long-term fixed-rate and 

variable-rate loans. 

To calculate the net subsidy rate, we 

divided the companies’ total benefits by 

their respective total f.o.b. sales values 

during the POR, as this program is not 

tied to exports or a particular product. 

In calculating the net subsidy rate for 

POSCO, we removed from the 

denominator sales made between 

affiliated parties.6 For POSCO, Dongbu, 

and HYSCO, we preliminarily 

determine the net subsidy rate under the 

direction of credit program to be less 

than 0.005 percent ad valorem, which 

pursuant to the Department’s practice 

we find to be not measurable. See, e.g., 

CORE from Korea 2006 Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘GOK’s Direction of 

Credit.’’ Because any benefits stemming 

from respondents’ outstanding loans 

issued prior to 2002 are not measurable 

during the POR, we preliminarily 

determine that no benefit was received 

under this program. 

F. Overseas Resource Development 

Program 

The GOK enacted the Overseas 

Resource Development (ORD) Business 

Act in order to establish the foundation 

for securing the long-term supply of 

essential energy and major material 

minerals, which are mostly imported 

because of scarce domestic resources. 

Pursuant to Article 11 of this Act, the 

Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE) 

annually announces its budget and the 

eligibility criteria to obtain a loan from 

MKE. Any company that meets the 

eligibility criteria may apply for a loan 

to MKE. The loan evaluation committee 

evaluates the applications, selects the 

recipients and gets the approval from 

the minister of MKE. For projects that 

are related to petroleum and natural gas, 

the Korea National Oil Corporation 

(KNOC) lends the funds to the company 

for foreign resources development. An 

approved company enters into a 

borrowing agreement with KNOC for the 

development of the selected resource. 

Two types of loans are provided under 

this program: ‘‘General loans’’ and 

‘‘success-contingent loans.’’ For a 

success-contingent loan, the repayment 

obligation is subject to the results of the 

development project. In the event that 

the project fails, the company will be 

exempted from all or a portion of the 

loan repayment obligation. However, if 

the project succeeds, a portion of the 

project income is payable to KNOC. 

During the POR, POSCO reported in 

its 2006–2007 audited non-consolidated 

financial statements that it had received 

a success-contingent loan from KNOC. 

See POSCO’s November 24, 2008 

Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 7. 

Because the repayment of this liability 

is contingent on subsequent events, the 

Department would treat the balance on 

this unpaid liability as a contingentliability interest-free loan, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.505(d). We performed the 

loan benefit calculation applying the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46108 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

7See, e.g., Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review: Corrosion-Resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from France, 71 FR 

52770, 52772 (September 7, 2006) (unchanged in 

final results, Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From France: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

68549 (November 26, 2006)): ‘‘If a program is 

determined to be non-countervailable in a previous 

proceeding, the Department will not normally 

reconsider such a determination in future 

proceedings absent evidence potentially 

contradicting that determination. We preliminarily 

find that there is no information on the record of 

the instant case, including this segment of the 

proceeding, that warrants a change to our earlier 

finding that this program is not specific and, 

therefore, not countervailable.’’ 

8Our determination in this regard does not 

change the decision that was made by the 

Department in DRAMS Investigation that there may 

still be instances in which the GOK may attempt to 

influence bank decisions on an ad hoc basis such 

as the government-led financial restructuring of 

Hynix. See, e.g, DRAMS Investigation and DRAMS 

Investigation Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Direction 

of Credit and Other Financial Assistance.’’ 

9The GOK was able to provide information 

concerning the amount of loans the KDB issued to 

each industry during the period 2001 through 2007. 

Therefore, when analyzing whether loans issued in 

2002 were specific, we were only able to analyze 

lending patterns during the period 2001 and 2002. 

long-term benchmark interest rates 

described above in the ‘‘Subsidies 

Valuation Information’’ section. For the 

POR, we preliminarily determine that 

the net subsidy rate under the ORD loan 

program is less than 0.005 percent ad 

valorem. Where the countervailable 

subsidy rate for a program is less than 

0.005 percent, the Department considers 

the net subsidy rate to be not 

measurable and excludes the net 

subsidy rate from the total CVD rate. 

See, e.g., CORE from Korea 2006 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘GOK’s 

Direction of Credit.’’ Hence, we 

preliminarily find that this loan does 

not confer a measurable benefit to 

POSCO. Accordingly, it is unnecessary 

to make a finding as to the 

countervailability of this program for 

this POR. We will include an 

examination of this program in future 

administrative reviews. 

Dongbu and HYSCO did not use this 

program during the POR. 

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Be Not Countervailable 

A. GOK’s Direction of Credit for Loans 

Issued After 2001 

In CORE from Korea 2006, the 

Department determined that the GOK no 

longer has a systemic practice of 

directing credit within the Korean 

financial sector and that directed credit 

within the Korean steel industry ended 

as of 2002. See CORE from Korea 2006 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘GOK’s 

Direction of Credit.’’ As there has been 

no information submitted in this review 

to warrant reconsideration of our 

finding in CORE from Korea 2006, we 

continue to find that there is no directed 

credit to the Korean steel industry from 

2002.7 As in CORE from Korea 2006, our 

decision is restricted to the post-2001 

period.8 Because this program was 

found not countervailable in CORE from 

Korea 2006, we will no longer review 

this program in any further 

administrative review absent evidence 

of changed circumstances or new 

information. 

B. Long-Term Loans From the KDB 

Issued in Years 2002 Through 2007 

HYSCO, Dongbu, and POSCO had 

long-term loans that were issued by the 

KDB, a government policy bank, in 

years 2002 through 2007 on which they 

made interest payments during the POR. 

Therefore, in these preliminary results, 

we have analyzed whether the long-term 

KDB loans are countervailable. First, we 

analyzed whether the KDB issued longterm loans to respondents and/or the 

Korean steel industry in a manner that 

was specific within the meaning of 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

The Department has previously 

determined that long-term loans issued 

by the KDB during the period 2002 

through 2006 are not de jure specific 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5A)(D)(i) and (ii) of the Act because: 

(1) They are not based on exportation; 

(2) they are not contingent on the use of 

domestic goods over imported goods; 

and (3) the legislation and/or 

regulations do not expressly limit access 

to the subsidy to an enterprise or 

industry, or groups thereof, as a matter 

of law. See CFS Paper Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Long-Term Lending 

Provided by the KDB and Other GOKOwned Institutions.’’ The Department’s 

finding in the CFS Paper Investigation 

that long-term loans issued by the KDB 

during the period 2002 through 2006 are 

not de jure specific was not limited to 

a particular industry or industries. Id. 

Therefore, in regard to this issue, we 

find that the Department’s 

determination in the CFS Paper 

Investigation is applicable to the instant 

review. Further, concerning this 

program, there is no information on the 

record of the instant review that 

warrants reconsideration of the 

Department’s prior finding of the 

absence of de jure specificity during the 

2002 through 2006 period. On this basis, 

we preliminarily determine that the 

KDB’s issuance of long-term loans 

during the 2002 through 2007 period are 

not de jure specific within the meaning 

of sections 771(5A)(D)(i) and (ii) of the 

Act. 

Where the Department finds no de 

jure specificity, section 771(5A)(D)(iii) 

of the Act also directs the Department 

to examine whether the benefits 

provided under the program are de facto 

specific—that is, whether the benefits 

are specific as a matter of fact. 

Subparagraphs (I) through (IV) of 

section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act 

stipulate that a program is de facto 

specific if one or more of the following 

factors exist: 

(I) The actual recipients of the subsidy 

whether considered on an enterprise or 

industry basis are limited in number. 

(II) An enterprise or industry is a 

predominant user of the subsidy. 

(III) An enterprise or industry receives a 

disproportionately large amount of the 

subsidy. 

(IV) The manner in which the authority 

providing the subsidy has exercised 

discretion in the decision to grant the 

subsidy indicates that an enterprise or 

industry is favored over others. 

In response to the Department’s 

request, the GOK provided the 

Department with a breakdown of the 

issuance of long-term lending by the 

KDB, by industry, for the years 2001 

through 2007. See GOK’s April 3, 2009 

Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit A–7. 

In conducting our de facto specificity 

analysis, we identified all long-term 

loans issued by the KDB to POSCO, 

Dongbu, and HYSCO on which interest 

payments were made during the POR. 

We then analyzed the distribution of all 

long-term loans issued by the KDB 

across industry groups in the year in 

which HYSCO’s outstanding loans were 

issued as well as the two preceding 

years.9 Specifically, we compared the 

amount of long-term KDB loans issued 

to the ‘‘Base Metal Industry’’ (e.g., the 

steel industry) to the amount of longterm KDB loans issued to other 

industries. 

Based on our analysis of the long-term 

KDB lending data coupled with the KDB 

lending data reported by POSCO, 

Dongbu, and HYSCO in their respective 

questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily determine that respondent 

firms, as individual enterprises, did not 

receive KDB loans in a manner that was 

de facto specific as described under 

sections 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) through (III) 

of the Act. Further, based on these 

comparisons, we preliminarily 

determine that the KDB did not issue 

loans to the steel industry in a manner 

that was de facto specific as described 

under sections 771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) and 

(III) of the Act. Lastly, we preliminarily 

determine that there is no evidence on 

the record of the instant review 

indicating that the GOK exercised 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46109 

discretion in the decision to issue longterm KDB loans which indicates that the 

steel industry was favored over other 

industries within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(IV) of the Act. For 

further information, see Memorandum 

to the File titled ‘‘Analysis of KDB 

Lending Data’’ (August 31, 2009), which 

is a public document on file in the CRU. 

On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine that the long-term loans that 

POSCO, Dongbu, and HYSCO received 

from the KDB during the years 2002 

through 2007 are not specific within the 

meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act, 

and, therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that they are not 

countervailable. 

C. Restriction of Special Taxation Act 

(RSTA) Article 94: Equipment 

Investment To Promote Worker’s 

Welfare 

Under Article 94 of the Restriction of 

Special Taxation Act and its 

enforcement decree, a company that 

invests in facilities to promote 

employees’ welfare may deduct an 

amount equivalent to 7 percent of the 

acquisition value of the facilities from 

its income tax. See GOK’s November 25, 

2008, Questionnaire Response, at 

Exhibit B–1. In the Cold-Rolled 

Investigation, the Department 

determined that the tax credit was only 

available for companies using domestic 

machines and equipment and was 

therefore countervailable. See ColdRolled Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Investment Tax Credits.’’ In this 

administrative review, POSCO reported 

that it earned tax credits under RSTA 

Article 94 in fiscal year 2006 and used 

the tax credit on the tax return filed 

during the POR. 

In its November 25, 2008, 

Questionnaire Response, the GOK 

explained that the eligibility 

requirement for home-produced 

machines and materials in the Tax 

Reduction and Control Act (TERCL) 

Article 88 (the predecessor program to 

RSTA Article 94) was deleted through 

amendment by Act No. 5534 of April 10, 

1998 in compliance with eliminating 

prohibited subsidies under the World 

Trade Organization (WTO). See GOK’s 

November 25, 2009, Questionnaire 

Response, at Exhibit B–5. The GOK 

further explained that RSTA Article 94 

in its current form provides a tax credit 

of 7 percent, has no domestic content 

requirement, and the program expires in 

2009. See GOK’s November 25, 2008, 

Questionnaire Response, at 11. The 

GOK affirmed that POSCO claimed its 

tax credit pursuant to the January 1, 

2004 version of RSTA Article 94, which 

was in effect from January 1, 2004, to 

December 31, 2006. See GOK’s May 27, 

2009, Questionnaire Response, at 1. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that POSCO did not receive a 

countervailable benefit under RSTA 

Article 94 because the program is no 

longer an import substitution program. 

Furthermore, this program is available 

and used by all companies and 

industries in Korea that invest in 

facilities that promote employee 

welfare, and thus, is not specific under 

771(5A)(D) of the Act. 

IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Be Not Used 

• Reserve for Research and Manpower 

Development Fund Under RSTA Article 9 

(TERCL Article 8); 

• RSTA Article 11: Tax Credit for 

Investment in Equipment to Development 

Technology and Manpower (TERCL Article 

10); 

• Reserve for Export Loss Under TERCL 

Article 16; 

• Reserve for Overseas Market 

Development Under TERCL Article 17; 

• Reserve for Export Loss Under TERCL 

Article 22; 

• Exemption of Corporation Tax on 

Dividend Income from Overseas Resources; 

Development Investment Under TERCL 

Article 24; 

• Tax Credits for Temporary Investments 

Under TERCL Article 27; 

• Social Indirect Capital Investment 

Reserve Funds Under TERCL Article 28; 

• Energy-Savings Facilities Investment 

Reserve Funds Under TERCL Article 29; 

• Reserve for Investment (Special Cases of 

Tax for Balanced Development Among Areas 

Under TERCL Articles 41–45); 

• Tax Credits for Specific Investments 

Under TERCL Article 71; 

• Emergency Load Reduction Program; 

• Electricity Discounts Under the 

Requested Loan Adjustment Program; 

• Electricity Discounts Under the 

Emergency Load Reductions Program; 

• Export Industry Facility Loans and 

Specialty Facility Loans; 

• Local Tax Exemption on Land Outside of 

a Metropolitan Area; 

• Short-Term Trade Financing Under the 

Aggregate Credit Ceiling Loan Program 

Administered by the Bank of Korea; 

• Industrial Base Fund; 

• Excessive Duty Drawback; 

• Private Capital Inducement Act; 

• Scrap Reserve Fund; 

• Special Depreciation of Assets on 

Foreign Exchange Earnings; 

• Export Insurance Rates Provided by the 

Korean Export Insurance Corporation; 

• Loans from the National Agricultural 

Cooperation Federation; 

• Tax Incentives from Highly Advanced 

Technology Businesses Under the Foreign 

Investment and Foreign Capital Inducement 

Act. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for each 

producer/exporter subject to this 

administrative review. For the period 

January 1, 2007, through December 31, 

2007, we preliminarily determine the 

net subsidy rate for Dongbu to be 0.21 

percent ad valorem, 0.04 percent ad 

valorem for HYSCO, and 0.01 percent 

ad valorem for POSCO, all of which are 

de minimis rates. See 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1). 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. If the final results 

remain the same as these preliminary 

results, the Department will instruct 

CBP to liquidate without regard to 

countervailable duties all shipments of 

subject merchandise produced by 

Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO, entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption from January 1, 2007 

through December 31, 2007. The 

Department will also instruct CBP not to 

collect cash deposits of estimated 

countervailing duties on shipments of 

the subject merchandise produced by 

Dongbu, HYSCO, and POSCO, entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

We will instruct CBP to continue to 

collect cash deposits for non-reviewed 

companies at the most recent companyspecific or country-wide rate applicable 

to the company. Accordingly, the cash 

deposit rates that will be applied to 

companies covered by this order, but 

not examined in this review, are those 

established in the most recently 

completed administrative proceeding 

for each company. These rates shall 

apply to all non-reviewed companies 

until a review of a company assigned 

these rates is requested. 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the 

Department will disclose to parties to 

the proceeding any calculations 

performed in connection with these 

preliminary results within five days 

after the date of the public 

announcement of this notice. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties 

may submit written comments in 

response to these preliminary results. 

Unless otherwise indicated by the 

Department, case briefs must be 

submitted within 30 days after the 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal 

briefs, which are limited to arguments 

raised in case briefs, must be submitted 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing case briefs, unless 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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