53468 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Notices 

1The petitioners in this case include: Allegheny 

Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless, 

United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco 

Independent Organization, and the United 

Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO/CLC 

(collectively, the petitioners). 

33701; phone (727) 824–5312; fax (727) 

824–5309. 

Written comments or requests for a 

public hearing on this application 

should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those 

individuals requesting a hearing should 

set forth the specific reasons why a 

hearing on this particular request would 

be appropriate. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile at (301) 713–0376, provided 

the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy 

submitted by mail and postmarked no 

later than the closing date of the 

comment period. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

e-mail. The mailbox address for 

providing e-mail comments is 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Include 

in the subject line of the e-mail 

comment the following document 

identifier: File No. 14450. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carrie Hubard or Kristy Beard, (301) 

713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit is requested under the 

authority of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the 

regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.), and the regulations governing 

the taking, importing, and exporting of 

endangered and threatened species (50 

CFR 222–226). 

The SEFSC is requesting a five-year 

permit to conduct cetacean research in 

U.S. and international waters of the 

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and 

Caribbean Sea. The research is designed 

to meet the SEFSC’s mandates under the 

MMPA and ESA and primarily focuses 

on stock assessment. Specific objectives 

include: (1) define stock structure for 

each species; (2) provide estimates of 

each stock’s abundance and 

distribution; (3) describe the habitat of 

each stock in terms of biological and 

oceanographic parameters; (4) study 

association, movement, and ranging 

patterns of individual animals using 

photo-identification; and (5) assess the 

level of anthropogenic chemical 

contaminants in selected species. 

Proposed activities include aerial and 

vessel-based line-transect sampling, 

acoustic sampling, behavioral 

observations, and vessel-based photoidentification and biopsy sampling. 

Tissue samples collected in other 

countries would be imported into the 

U.S. Research platforms would include 

large ships, small vessels, and a variety 

of aircraft. The SEFSC is requesting 

takes of all cetacean species that may 

occur in the study area, including the 

following species listed as endangered 

(maximum number of animals that 

would be taken per year by Level B 

harassment / maximum number of 

animals that would be biopsy sampled 

per year: blue whales (Balaenoptera 

musculus) (20/10), fin whales (B. 

physalus) (500/15), sei whales (B. 

borealis) (10/15), humpback whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) (1000/300), 

sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) 

(4000/300), and North Atlantic right 

whales (Eubalaena glacialis) (50/0). See 

table in application for numbers of takes 

requested for other species. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register, 

NMFS is forwarding copies of this 

application to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: October 9, 2009. 

Tammy C. Adams, 

Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–25062 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–423–808] 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 8, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) 

from Belgium. See Stainless Steel Plate 

in Coils From Belgium: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 27097 

(June 8, 2009) (Preliminary Results). 

This review covers one manufacturer/ 

exporter of the subject merchandise: 

ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. 

(AMS Belgium). The period of review 

(POR) is May 1, 2007, through April 30, 

2008. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes to the Preliminary Results. For 

the final dumping margins see the 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section 

below. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 19, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy 

Zhang or George McMahon at (202) 

482–1168 or (202) 482–1167, 

respectively; Office of AD/CVD 

Operations 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 8, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the seventh 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on SSPC from 

Belgium. See Preliminary Results. Since 

the Preliminary Results, a case brief was 

timely filed by AMS Belgium on July 8, 

2009 (AMS case brief). The petitioners 1

did not submit a case brief or rebuttal 

brief. 

The issues raised in the case brief by 

AMS Belgium are addressed in the 

memorandum titled, ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results of the Seventh Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 

Belgium (2007–2008)’’, from John M. 

Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

(October 6, 2009) (Decision 

Memorandum), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues addressed in the Decision 

Memorandum is appended to this 

notice. The Decision Memorandum is 

on file in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU), room 1117 of the Department of 

Commerce main building and can be 

accessed directly at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order 

The product covered by this order is 

certain stainless steel plate in coils. 

Stainless steel is an alloy steel 

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more 

of chromium, with or without other 

elements. The subject plate products are 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Notices 53469 

2 Due to the proprietary nature of this particular 

expense, see the Department’s discussion of this 

expense in the proprietary version of the 

Department’s Final Sales Analysis Memorandum, 

dated October 6, 2009. 

flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in 

width and 4.75 mm or more in 

thickness, in coils, and annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 

otherwise descaled. The subject plate 

may also be further processed (coldrolled, polished, etc.) provided that it 

maintains the specified dimensions of 

plate following such processing. 

Excluded from the scope of this order 

are the following: (1) Plate not in coils; 

(2) Plate that is not annealed or 

otherwise heat treated and pickled or 

otherwise descaled; (3) Sheet and strip; 

and (4) Flat bars. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 

7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 

7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21, 

7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 

7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.66, 

7219.12.00,71, 7219.12.00.81, 

7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 

7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 

7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 

7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 

7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 

7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 

7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 

7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 

7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise subject to these orders is 

dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The period of review is May 1, 2007, 

through April 30, 2008. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the calculations for the final 

dumping margin. The changes made 

since the Preliminary Results are listed 

under the ‘‘List of Issues,’’ which is 

appended to this notice. The changes 

are discussed in detail in the 

memorandum to the File Through James 

Terpstra from Joy Zhang and titled, 

‘‘Analysis Memorandum for 

ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. for 

the Final Results of the Seventh 

Administrative Review of Stainless 

Steel Plate in Coils (SSPC) from 

Belgium,’’ dated October 6, 2009 (Final 

Sales Analysis Memorandum). 

Facts Available 

As discussed in the Preliminary 

Results, we found that it was 

appropriate to resort to facts otherwise 

available with an adverse inference to 

account for a certain selling expense 2

and U.S. other transportation expenses. 

The respondent, AMS Belgium, raised 

several issues in its case brief regarding 

the Department’s application of facts 

otherwise available with an adverse 

inference with respect to the certain 

selling expense and the U.S. other 

transportation expenses. See the 

Decision Memorandum for a discussion 

of these issues. 

We have considered the issues raised 

by AMS Belgium. With respect to the 

certain selling expense, the Department 

maintains its decision from the 

Preliminary Results that facts otherwise 

available with an adverse inference are 

warranted for these final results. Id. 

With respect to the U.S. other 

transportation expenses (data field 

name: USOTHR1U) reported by AMS 

Belgium, we have reconsidered the 

information provided and have changed 

our position, as outlined in the 

Preliminary Results, in which we 

applied facts otherwise available with 

an adverse inference for this expense. 

Specifically, during the sales 

verification, the company officials 

presented the Department with a 

calculation for this expense that was 

incorrect due to the weight basis 

applied therein. After reviewing AMS 

Belgium’s case brief and our sales 

verification report and exhibits with 

respect to the calculation of 

USOTHR1U, we agree with AMS 

Belgium that we made a ministerial 

error in our two sample calculations of 

the per-unit USOTHR1U referenced in 

the Preliminary Results. Final Sales 

Analysis Memorandum. We find that 

AMS Belgium’s recalculated 

USOTHR1U values provided at the 

constructed export price (CEP) 

verification for these two sample sales 

are correct. Accordingly, for the final 

results, we will use the actual 

USOTHR1U value that we collected at 

the CEP verification. See Sales 

Verification Exhibit 19; see also AMS 

case brief at Appendix 1. 

Final Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that the following weightedaverage margin exists for the period May 

1, 2007, through April 30, 2008: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin 

(percent) 

ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium 

N.V. ........................................... 6.57 

Duty Assessment 

The Department shall determine and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department 

calculates an assessment rate for each 

importer of the subject merchandise for 

each respondent. Upon issuance of the 

final results of this administrative 

review, if any importer-specific 

assessment rates calculated in the final 

results are above 4. minimis (i.e., at or 

above 0.5 percent), the Department will 

issue appraisement instructions directly 

to CBP to assess antidumping duties on 

appropriate entries. 

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates covering the period 

were minimis, in accordance with the 

requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we 

calculated importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rates by aggregating 

the dumping margins calculated for all 

U.S. sales to that importer or customer 

and dividing this amount by the total 

value of the sales to that importer (or 

customer). Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than de minimis, and the 

respondent has reported reliable entered 

values, we apply the assessment rate to 

the entered value of the importer’s/ 

customer’s entries during the review 

period. Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than minimis and we do not 

have reliable entered values, we 

calculate a per-unit assessment rate by 

aggregating the dumping duties due for 

all U.S. sales to each importer (or 

customer) and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity sold to that importer 

(or customer). 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the respondent for which 

it did not know its merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceeding 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

We have been enjoined from 

liquidating entries of the subject 

merchandise produced and exported by 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
53470 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Notices 

1On August 9, 2004, the Department published 

the following antidumping duty orders: 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags From the People’s Republic of China, 

69 FR 48201 (August 9, 2004); Antidumping Duty 

Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Malaysia, 69 FR 48203 (August 9, 2004); 

Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags From Thailand, 69 FR 48204 (August 

9, 2004). 

Ugine & ALZ Belgium N.V. (U&A 

Belgium). Therefore, we do not intend 

to issue liquidation instructions to U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

for entries made during the period May 

1, 2007, through April 30, 2008, until 

such time the preliminary injunction 

issued on January 16, 2009, is lifted. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following antidumping duty 

deposit rates will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of SSPC from Belgium entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of these final results, as provided 

for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For 

AMS Belgium, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate established in the final 

results of this review; (2) if the exporter 

is not a finn covered in this review, but 

was covered in a previous review or the 

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

investigation, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

established for the most recent period; 

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 

in this review, a prior review, or the 

LTFV investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the subject merchandise; and (4) if 

neither the exporter nor the 

manufacturer is a firm covered by this 

review, a prior review, or the LTFV 

investigation, the cash deposit rate will 

be 9.86 percent ad valorem, the ‘‘allothers’’ rate established in the LTFV 

investigation. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 

from Belgium, 64 FR 15476 (March 31, 

1999). These deposit rates, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Notification Regarding APOs 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: October 6, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Issues 

Comment 1: Whether the Department 

Incorrectly Converted Inventory Carrying 

Costs (DINVCARU). 

Comment 2: Whether to Exclude Certain 

Sales Transactions from the U.S. Sales 

Listing. 

Comment 3: Whether to Use Facts 

Otherwise Available for U.S. Other 

Transportation Costs (USOTHR1U). 

Comment 4: Whether to Use Facts 

Otherwise Available for Failing to Report a 

Certain Selling Expense. 

Comment 5: Whether to Use AMS 

Belgium’s Reported U.S. Warranty Expense. 

Comment 6: Whether to Offset Negative 

Margins. 

[FR Doc. E9–24699 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–886, A–557–813, A–549–821] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

the People’s Republic of China, 

Thailand, and Malaysia: Final Results 

of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC), Thailand, and Malaysia pursuant 

to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). See 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review, 74 FR 31412 (July 1, 2009). The 

Department has conducted expedited 

(120-day) sunset reviews for these 

orders. As a result of these sunset 

reviews, the Department finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

as indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Review’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 19, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dustin Ross or Minoo Hatten, 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) 482–0747 or (202) 482– 

1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2009, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 

orders 1 on PRCBs from the PRC, 

Malaysia, and Thailand pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 74 FR 

31412 (July 1, 2009) (Notice of 

Initiation). 

The Department received notices of 

intent to participate in these sunset 

reviews from the Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bag Committee and its 

individual members, Hilex Poly Co., 

LLC, Superbag Corporation, Unistar 

Plastics LLC, Command Packaging, 

Roplast Industries Inc., and Genpack 

LLC (collectively, the Committee) 

within the 15-day period specified in 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interestedparty status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as producers of a domestic like 

product in the United States. 

The Department received complete 

substantive responses to the Notice of 

Initiation from the domestic interested 

parties within the 30-day period 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 

The Department received no substantive 

responses from any respondent 

interested parties. On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and 

adequate substantive responses filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and no responses filed on behalf of 

respondent interested parties and in 

accordance with 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department is conducting expedited 

(120-day) sunset reviews of the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES