48716 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 184 / Thursday, September 24, 2009 / Notices 

Reply Brief,’’ dated June 30, 2009. CP 

Kelco subsequently contacted officials 

at the Department and withdrew its 

request for a public hearing. See CP 

Kelco’s ‘‘Withdrawal of Hearing 

Request,’’ dated July 2, 2009. In lieu of 

a public hearing, counsel for respondent 

requested a meeting with Department 

officials. See the Memorandum to the 

File, titled ‘‘Administrative Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

the Netherlands: Meeting with Counsel 

for Respondent,’’ dated July 15, 2009. 

The current deadline for the final results 

of this review is September 23, 2009. 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to complete the final 

results of an administrative review 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary results are published. 

However, if it is not practicable to 

complete the review within these time 

periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 

allows the Department to extend the 120 

day time period for the final results to 

180 days. 

The Department has determined it is 

not practicable to complete this 

administrative review within the 

statutory time limit because the 

Department requires additional time to 

fully evaluate the comments put forth 

by CP Kelco, particularly the extensive 

comments concerning the nature of 

reported factoring expenses. 

Accordingly, the Department is 

extending the time limit for completion 

of the final results of this administrative 

review until no later than October 7, 

2009, which is 134 days after the date 

on which the preliminary results of 

review were published. 

This extension is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: September 18, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–23115 Filed 9–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–836] 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate From the Republic of 

Korea: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Intent To Rescind 

Administrative Review in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 24, 2009, in 

response to a request from interested 

parties, the Department of Commerce 

(the Department) published a notice of 

initiation of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate 

(CTL plate) from the Republic of Korea 

(Korea). The review covers four 

manufacturers/exporters. The period of 

review is February 1, 2008, through 

January 31, 2009. We have preliminarily 

determined that sales have been made 

below normal value by certain 

companies subject to this review. We 

invite interested parties to comment on 

these preliminary results. Parties who 

submit comments in this review are 

requested to submit with each argument 

a statement of the issue and a brief 

summary of the argument. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 24, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5760 and (202) 

482–4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 10, 2000, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on CTL plate 

from Korea. See Notice of Amendment 

of Final Determinations of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Orders: Certain Cut-To-Length CarbonQuality Steel Plate Products From 

France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan 

and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585 

(February 10, 2000). On February 4, 

2009, the Department published in the 

Federal Register a notice of opportunity 

to request an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on CTL 

plate from Korea. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 74 

FR 6013 (February 4, 2009). On 

February 27, 2009, pursuant to section 

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

amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.213(b), Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. 

(DSM), requested that the Department 

review its sales of subject merchandise 

from Korea and Nucor Corporation, the 

domestic interested party in this review, 

requested that the Department review 

the sales of subject merchandise from 

Korea produced or exported by Daewoo 

International Corporation (Daewoo), 

Hyosung Corporation (Hyosung), 

Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co., Ltd. 

(Hyundai Mipo), and JeongWoo 

Industrial Machine Co., Ltd. 

(JeongWoo), during the period of 

review. On March 24, 2009, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department 

initiated the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on CTL 

plate from Korea produced and/or 

exported by DSM, Daewoo, Hyosung, 

Hyundai Mipo, and JeongWoo for the 

period of review. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 12310, 

12312 (March 24, 2009). 

On April 1, 2009, for purposes of 

selecting respondents in this review, we 

released the data we obtained from U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on 

March 16, 2009, for this review to 

interested parties which have access to 

business-proprietary information under 

the Administrative Protective Order. See 

the April 1, 2009, memorandum to the 

File entitled ‘‘Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the 

Republic of Korea: CBP Data’’ (CBP Data 

Memo). On April 8, 2009, DSM 

withdrew its request that the 

Department review its sales of subject 

merchandise. On May 7, 2009, we 

issued a quantity-and-value 

questionnaire to Daewoo, Hyosung, 

Hyundai Mipo, and JeongWoo. See the 

May 12, 2009, memorandum to the File 

entitled ‘‘Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 

Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of 

Korea: Release of Quantity-and-Value 

Questionnaire’’ (Q&V Release Memo). 

On June 5, 2009, we rescinded the 

review in part with respect to CTL plate 

from Korea produced and/or exported 

by DSM. See Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the 

Republic of Korea: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 27015 (June 5, 2009). 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the 

antidumping duty order are certain hotrolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 184 / Thursday, September 24, 2009 / Notices 48717 

mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products 

rolled on four faces or in a closed box 

pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but 

not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a 

nominal or actual thickness of not less 

than 4 mm, which are cut-to length (not 

in coils) and without patterns in relief), 

of iron or non-alloy quality steel; and (2) 

flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a 

nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm 

or more and of a width which exceeds 

150 mm and measures at least twice the 

thickness, and which are cut-to-length 

(not in coils). Steel products included in 

the scope of the order are of rectangular, 

square, circular, or other shape and of 

rectangular or non-rectangular cross 

section where such non-rectangular 

cross-section is achieved subsequent to 

the rolling process (i.e., products which 

have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for 

example, products which have been 

beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel 

products that meet the noted physical 

characteristics that are painted, 

varnished, or coated with plastic or 

other non-metallic substances are 

included within the scope. Also, 

specifically included in the scope of the 

order are high strength, low alloy 

(HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are 

recognized as steels with micro-alloying 

levels of elements such as chromium, 

copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, 

and molybdenum. Steel products 

included in the scope, regardless of 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) definitions, are 

products in which: (1) Iron 

predominates, by weight, over each of 

the other contained elements, (2) the 

carbon content is two percent or less, by 

weight, and (3) none of the elements 

listed below is equal to or exceeds the 

quantity, by weight, respectively 

indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 

1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent 

of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, 

or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 

percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of 

lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 

percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of 

molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of 

niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 

0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 

percent zirconium. All products that 

meet the written physical description, 

and in which the chemistry quantities 

do not equal or exceed any one of the 

levels listed above, are within the scope 

of the order unless otherwise 

specifically excluded. The following 

products are specifically excluded from 

the order: (1) Products clad, plated, or 

coated with metal, whether or not 

painted, varnished or coated with 

plastic or other non-metallic substances; 

(2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of 

series 2300 and above; (3) products 

made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their 

proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasionresistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS 

AR 500); (5) products made to ASTM 

A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade 

S, or their proprietary equivalents; (6) 

ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8) 

silicon manganese steel or silicon 

electric steel. 

Imports of steel plate are currently 

classified in the HTSUS under 

subheadings 7208.40.30.30, 

7208.40.30.60, 7208.51.00.30, 

7208.51.00.45, 7208.51.00.60, 

7208.52.00.00, 7208.53.00.00, 

7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 

7210.90.90.00, 7211.13.00.00, 

7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.45, 

7211.90.00.00, 7212.40.10.00, 

7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00, 

7225.40.30.50, 7225.40.70.00, 

7225.50.60.00, 7225.99.00.90, 

7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 

7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description of the merchandise 

covered by the order is dispositive. 

Intent To Rescind in Part 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3), we will rescind an 

administrative review in part if we 

conclude that there were no exports of 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review. On May 20, 2009, Daewoo 

submitted a letter stating that it had no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the period of review. Daewoo’s 

claim of no shipments is consistent with 

CBP data on the record of the review. 

See CBP Data Memo. Further, we have 

received no comments on Daewoo’s 

May 20, 2009, submission. Because we 

preliminarily find that Daewoo had no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the period of review, we intend 

to rescind the administrative review 

with respect to Daewoo. If we continue 

to find at the time of our final results 

that Daewoo had no shipments of CTL 

plate from Korea, we will rescind the 

administrative review with respect to 

Daewoo. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that the use of adverse facts 

available is appropriate for the 

preliminary results with respect to 

Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, and 

JeongWoo. 

A. Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party withholds 

information requested by the 

administering authority, fails to provide 

such information by the deadlines for 

submission of the information and in 

the form or manner requested, 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under this title, or provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i) 

of the Act, the Department shall use 

facts otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. 

On May 7, 2009, we transmitted our 

questionnaire to Hyosung, Hyundai 

Mipo, and JeongWoo via Federal 

Express. We confirmed that Hyundai 

Mipo and JeongWoo signed for and 

received the questionnaire on May 11, 

2009, and Hyosung signed for and 

received the questionnaire on May 12, 

2009. See Q&V Release Memo. The due 

date for the responses to our 

questionnaire was May 18, 2009. The 

Department never received a response 

from Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, or 

JeongWoo. 

Because Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, and 

JeongWoo did not provide their 

responses to the Department’s 

questionnaire, Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, 

and JeongWoo failed to provide any 

information to the Department within 

the meaning of section 776(a)(2) of the 

Act. As a result, we are unable to 

calculate margins for Hyosung, Hyundai 

Mipo, and JeongWoo and, therefore, 

must rely entirely on facts available. 

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for 

Facts Available 

In selecting among the facts otherwise 

available, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that, if the Department finds 

that an interested party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information, the Department may use an 

inference adverse to the interests of that 

party. In addition, the Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Rep. 103–316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. 

(1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 

4040 (SAA), establishes that the 

Department may employ an adverse 

inference ‘‘to ensure that the party does 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See SAA at 870. The 

SAA also instructs the Department to 

consider, in employing adverse 

inferences, ‘‘the extent to which a party 

may benefit from its own lack of 

cooperation.’’ Id. Moreover, ‘‘affirmative 

evidence of bad faith on the part of a 

respondent is not required before the 

Department may make an adverse 

inference.’’ See Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
48718 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 184 / Thursday, September 24, 2009 / Notices 

We find that, by failing completely to 

respond to our questionnaire, Hyosung, 

Hyundai Mipo, and JeongWoo withheld 

requested information and thus failed to 

cooperate to the best of their abilities. 

Therefore, we find it appropriate to use 

an inference that is adverse to these 

companies’ interests in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available. By 

doing so, we ensure that these 

companies will not obtain a more 

favorable rate by failing to cooperate 

than had they cooperated fully. 

C. Selection of Information Used as 

Facts Available 

Where the Department applies an 

adverse facts-available rate because a 

respondent failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information, section 

776(b) of the Act authorizes the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from the petition, a final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. See 

also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 

870. 

For the preliminary results, we have 

selected 32.70 percent as the adverse 

facts-available dumping margin for 

Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, and 

JeongWoo. This rate is the rate we 

assigned as adverse facts available to 

Tae Chang Steel Co., Ltd. (TC Steel), 

which failed to submit its response to 

our antidumping questionnaire in the 

administrative review of this proceeding 

for the period February 1, 2006, through 

January 31, 2007. See Certain Cut-toLength Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 

Products From the Republic of Korea: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Intent 

To Rescind Administrative Review in 

Part, 72 FR 65701, 65702–03 (November 

23, 2007) (CTL Plate from Korea 2006– 

07 Prelim), unchanged in Certain Cut-toLength Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 

Products From the Republic of Korea: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Rescission 

of Administrative Review in Part, 73 FR 

15132, 15133 (March 21, 2008) (CTL 

Plate from Korea 2006–07 Final) 

(collectively CTL Plate from Korea 

2006–07). In CTL Plate from Korea 

2006–07, the adverse facts-available rate 

of 32.70 percent which we assigned to 

TC Steel was the highest productspecific margin we had calculated based 

on data reported by a respondent. See 

CTL Plate from Korea 2006–07 Prelim, 

72 FR at 65702–03, and CTL Plate from 

Korea 2006–07 Final, 73 FR at 15133. 

We have selected this rate because we 

have never reviewed Hyosung, Hyundai 

Mipo, and JeongWoo in a prior segment 

of this proceeding and we do not have 

any additional information about these 

three companies. Id. Moreover, we 

believe this rate is sufficiently high to 

ensure that Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, 

and JeongWoo do not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate. 

D. Corroboration of Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information as facts available, 

it must corroborate, to the extent 

practicable, that information from 

independent sources that are reasonably 

at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870. The 

SAA also states that independent 

sources used to corroborate may 

include, for example, published price 

lists, official import statistics, and 

customs data as well as information 

obtained from interested parties during 

the particular proceeding. Id. 

To corroborate secondary information, 

to the extent practicable, the 

Department normally examines the 

reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used. See, e.g., Ball 

Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, 

et al.: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Intent to Rescind Reviews 

in Part, 73 FR 25654, 25657 (May 7, 

2008), unchanged in Ball Bearings and 

Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Rescission 

of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 

(September 11, 2008) (collectively AFBs 

18). Unlike other types of information 

such as input costs or selling expenses, 

there are no independent sources for 

calculated dumping margins. The only 

sources for antidumping duty margins 

are administrative determinations. 

Thus, with respect to an administrative 

review, if the Department chooses to use 

as facts available a calculated dumping 

margin from a prior segment of the 

proceeding, it is not necessary to 

question the reliability of the margin for 

that time period. See AFBs 18 and 

Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof 

from France, et al.: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent 

To Rescind Administrative Reviews, and 

Notice of Intent To Revoke Order in 

Part, 69 FR 5949, 5953 (February 9, 

2004), unchanged in Antifriction 

Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, et al.: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Rescission of Administrative 

Reviews in Part, and Determination To 

Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574, 

55576–77 (September 15, 2004). 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as adverse 

facts available, the Department will 

disregard the margin and determine an 

appropriate margin. For example, in 

Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (February 22, 1996), the 

Department disregarded the highest 

margin in that case as best information 

available (the predecessor to facts 

available) because the margin was based 

on another company’s uncharacteristic 

business expense resulting in an 

unusually high margin. Similarly, the 

Department does not apply a margin 

that has been discredited or judicially 

invalidated. See D & L Supply Co. v. 

United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 

(CAFC 1997). 

In this review, there are no 

circumstances present to indicate that 

the selected margin is not appropriate as 

adverse facts available. Moreover, there 

is no information on the record of this 

review that demonstrates that 32.70 

percent, which we assigned to TC Steel 

as an adverse facts-available rate in CTL 

Plate from Korea 2006–07, is not an 

appropriate adverse facts-available rate 

for Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, and 

JeongWoo. Because there are no 

calculated margins for any other 

respondents in this administrative 

review, we examined transactionspecific margins from the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on CTL plate from Korea for the period 

February 1, 2007, through January 31, 

2008, and we found a number of 

transaction-specific margins in our 

calculation for DSM which were higher 

than 32.70 percent. See the September 

XX, 2009, memorandum to the File 

entitled ‘‘Certain Cut-to-Length CarbonQuality Steel Plate from the Republic of 

Korea: Placement on Record’’ for details 

which contain DSM’s businessproprietary information. With the 

information at our disposal for the 

corroboration of this adverse factsavailable rate, we find that the rate of 

32.70 percent is corroborated to the 

greatest extent practicable in accordance 

with section 776(c) of the Act. 

Because we are making an adverse 

inference with regard to Hyosung, 

Hyundai Mipo, and JeongWoo based on 

the most recent information at our 

disposal, we preliminarily find that the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 184 / Thursday, September 24, 2009 / Notices 48719 

1See the September XX, 2009, memorandum to 

the File entitled ‘‘Certain Cut-to-Length CarbonQuality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea: AllOthers Cash-Deposit Rate’’ for details on the 

calculation of this rate. 

rate of 32.70 percent is a reasonable 

indication of the margins that Hyosung, 

Hyundai Mipo, and JeongWoo would 

have received on their U.S. transactions 

had they responded to our request for 

information. We preliminarily find that 

use of the rate of 32.70 percent as 

adverse facts available is sufficiently 

high to ensure that Hyosung, Hyundai 

Mipo, and JeongWoo do not benefit 

from failing to cooperate in our review 

by refusing to respond to our 

questionnaire. See CTL Plate from Korea 

2006–07 Final, 73 FR at 15133. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

CTL plate from Korea for the period 

February 1, 2008, through January 31, 

2009, are as follows: 

Company Margin 

(percent) 

Hyosung ................................ 32.70 

Hyundai Mipo ........................ 32.70 

JeongWoo ............................. 32.70 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

We will disclose the draft liquidation 

instructions to parties to this review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.310. Interested parties who 

wish to request a hearing or to 

participate in a hearing if a hearing is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain the following: 

(1) The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in the case briefs. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from 

interested parties may be submitted not 

later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice of preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs from 

interested parties, limited to the issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be 

submitted not later than five days after 

the time limit for filing the case briefs 

or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) 

and 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 

requested, will be held two days after 

the scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

Parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each argument 

a statement of the issue, a summary of 

the arguments not exceeding five pages, 

and a table of statutes, regulations, and 

cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs, 

not later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. See section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. Because we are 

relying on total adverse facts available 

to establish the dumping margins for 

Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, and 

JeongWoo, we intend to instruct CBP to 

apply a dumping margin of 32.70 

percent to CTL plate from Korea that 

was produced and/or exported by 

Hyosung, Hyundai Mipo, and JeongWoo 

and entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption during the 

period of review. 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions to 

CBP 15 days after publication of the 

final results of review. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of steel plate 

from Korea entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication, as provided by 

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

cash-deposit rates for Hyosung, Hyundai 

Mipo, and JeongWoo will be the rate 

established in the final results of this 

review; (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 period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the less-thanfair-value investigation but the 

manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer has its 

own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 

0.98 percent,1 the all-others rate 

established in the less-than-fair-value 

investigation, adjusted for the exportsubsidy rate in the companion 

countervailing duty investigation. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during the period of 

review. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: September 18, 2009. 

Carole A. Showers, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy 

and Negotiations. 

[FR Doc. E9–23112 Filed 9–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XR53 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

General Provisions for Domestic 

Fisheries; Application for Exempted 

Fishing Permits (EFPs) 

AGENCY: Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

ACTION: Notification of a proposal for an 

EFP to conduct exempted fishing; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, 

Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant 

Regional Administrator), has made a 

preliminary determination that the 

subject EFP application that was 

submitted by the Cornell Cooperative 

Extension of Suffolk County Marine 

Program (CCE) warrants further 

consideration and should be issued for 

public comment. The EFP would 

exempt participating vessels from 

summer flounder size restrictions and 

summer flounder mesh-size restrictions. 

The Assistant Regional Administrator 

has also made a preliminary 

determination that the activities 

authorized under the EFP would be 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES