Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 49439 

deposit rate in effect on the date of 

entry. 

In our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’ clarification, we explained 

that, where respondents in an 

administrative review demonstrate that 

they had no knowledge of sales through 

resellers to the United States, we would 

instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 

the all-others rate applicable to the 

proceeding. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). 

Because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation 

instructions do not alleviate the 

concerns which the May 2003 

clarification was intended to address, 

we find it appropriate in this case to 

instruct CBP to liquidate any existing 

entries of merchandise produced by the 

respondents, and exported by other 

parties at the all-others rate, should we 

continue to find that the respondents 

had no shipments of subject 

merchandise in the POR in our final 

results. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal 

From the Russian Federation: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010), 

unchanged in Magnesium Metal From 

the Russian Federation: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 56989, 56990 (September 

17, 2010). In addition, the Department 

finds that it is more consistent with the 

May 2003 clarification not to rescind the 

review in its entirety but, rather, to 

complete the review with respect to the 

respondents, issuing appropriate 

instructions to CBP based on the final 

results of the review. See the 

‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section of this 

notice below. 

B. Duty Absorption 

On January 25, 2011, Wheatland 

requested that the Department conduct 

a duty absorption inquiry with regard to 

Mueller, Lamina, and Ternium 

Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (Ternium). 

Mueller responded to this request on 

February 22, 2011. Section 751(a)(4) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), provides for the Department, if 

requested, to determine during an 

administrative review initiated two or 

four years after publication of the order 

whether antidumping duties have been 

absorbed by the foreign producer or 

exporter if the subject merchandise is 

sold in the United States through an 

affiliated importer. See also 19 CFR 

351.213(j). First, Ternium is not a 

respondent in this administrative 

review. Notwithstanding, because this 

review was not initiated at the two-year 

or four-year interval from publication of 

the antidumping duty order, a duty 

absorption inquiry is not authorized. 

See Antidumping Duty Order. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department intends to 

issue appraisement instructions directly 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

As noted above, the Department 

clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ 

regulation on May 6, 2003. See 

Assessment Policy Notice. This 

clarification will apply to POR entries 

by each respondent company if we 

continue to make a final determination 

of no shipments based upon their 

certifications that they made no POR 

shipments of subject merchandise for 

which they had knowledge of U.S. 

destination. We will instruct CBP to 

liquidate these entries at the all-others 

rate established in the less-than-fairvalue investigation (32.62 percent) if 

there is no rate for the intermediary 

involved in the transaction. See 

Assessment Policy Notice for a full 

discussion of this clarification. 

The preliminary results of 

administrative review and this notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: August 2, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20331 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–867] 

Large Power Transformers From the 

Republic of Korea: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angelica Mendoza at (202) 482–3019 or 

David Cordell at 202–482–0408, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On July 14, 2011, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received 

a petition concerning imports of large 

liquid dielectric power transformers 

(‘‘large power transformers’’) from the 

Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’), filed in 

proper form on behalf of ABB Inc., Delta 

Star, Inc. and Pennsylvania Transformer 

Technology, Inc., (collectively, ‘‘the 

Petitioners’’). See the Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 

Large Power Transformers from the 

Republic of Korea, filed on July 14, 2011 

(‘‘the Petition’’). On July 20, 2011, the 

Department issued a request for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petition. The 

Petitioners filed a response to this 

request on July 26, 2011 (hereinafter, 

‘‘Supplement to the Petition’’). In 

accordance with section 732(b) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), the Petitioners allege that imports 

of large power transformers from Korea 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. On July 28, 2011, the 

Petitioners filed an amendment to the 

Petition in which they revised the scope 

language, amended the lost sales listing 

and provided the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) page for HTSUS number 

8504.90.9540, (hereinafter, ‘‘Second 

Supplement to the Petition’’). On 

August 1, 2011, the Petitioners filed an 

additional amendment to the Petition 

with respect to industry support for the 

Petition (hereinafter, ‘‘Third 

Supplement to the Petition’’). 

On July 28, 2011, the Department 

received a standing challenge to the 

Petition by Hyosung Corporation, a 

Korean producer and exporter of the 

subject merchandise, and its U.S. 

affiliate HICO America Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Hyosung’’). On July 29, 

2011, the Department received a 

standing challenge to the petition by 

Hyundai Corporation, a Korean 

producer and exporter of the subject 

merchandise, and its U.S. affiliate 

Hyundai Corporation, USA 

(collectively, ‘‘Hyundai’’). The 

Petitioners responded to HICO’s and 

Hyundai’s submission on August 1, 

2011 (hereinafter, ‘‘Fourth Supplement 

to the Petition’’). 

The Department finds that the 

Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
49440 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 

1See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR–2011–07– 

06/pdf/2011–16352.pdf for details of the 

Department’s Electronic Filing Requirements, 

which go into effect on August 5, 2011. Information 

on help using IAACCESS can be found at https:// 

iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can 

be found at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/

Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20

Procedures.pdf. 

the domestic industry because the 

Petitioners are interested parties as 

defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act 

and have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

antidumping duty investigation which 

the Petitioners are requesting that the 

Department initiate (see ‘‘Determination 

of Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

section below). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011. See 

19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are large power 

transformers from Korea. For a full 

description of the scope of the 

investigation, please see the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with the Petitioners 

to ensure that it is an accurate reflection 

of the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations (Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997)), we are setting aside a period for 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. The 

Department invites all interested parties 

to submit such comments by August 23, 

2011, 20 calendar days from the 

signature date of this notice. The period 

of scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

All comments must be filed on the 

record of the investigation. If filed after 

August 5, 2011, all comments and 

submissions to the Department must be 

filed electronically using Import 

Administration’s Antidumping 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’).1

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaire 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

large power transformers to be reported 

in response to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire. This 

information will be used to identify the 

key physical characteristics of the 

subject merchandise in order to more 

accurately report the relevant factors 

and costs of production, as well as to 

develop appropriate product 

comparison criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they feel 

are relevant to the development of an 

accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as 

(1) general product characteristics and 

(2) the product comparison criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product comparison criteria. We base 

product comparison criteria on 

meaningful commercial differences 

among products. In other words, while 

there may be some physical product 

characteristics utilized by 

manufacturers to describe large power 

transformers, it may be that only a select 

few product characteristics take into 

account commercially meaningful 

physical characteristics. In addition, 

interested parties may comment on the 

hierarchy under which the physical 

characteristics should be considered in 

product matching. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping duty 

questionnaire, we must receive 

comments by August 23, 2011. 

Additionally, rebuttal comments must 

be received by August 30, 2011. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

industry. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. Although 

both the Department and the ITC must 

apply the same statutory definition 

regarding the domestic like product (see 

section 771(10) of the Act), they do so 

for different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 

2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. 

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 

(CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, the Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that large 

power transformers constitute a single 

domestic like product and we have 

analyzed industry support in terms of 

that domestic like product. For a 

discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping 

Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Large Power Transformers from the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 49441 

Republic of Korea (‘‘Checklist’’), at 

Attachment II, Analysis of Industry 

Support for the Petition Covering Large 

Power Transformers from Korea, on file 

in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 

of the main Department of Commerce 

building. 

In determining whether the 

Petitioners have standing under section 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petition with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section above. 

To establish industry support, the 

Petitioners provided their production of 

the domestic like product in 2010 and 

compared this to the estimated total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See 

Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit 2 and 

Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit 9. 

To estimate total 2010 production of the 

domestic like product, the Petitioners 

used their own data and industry 

specific knowledge. See Volume I of the 

Petition, at Exhibit 2 and Supplement to 

the Petition, at Exhibit 9; see also 

Checklist at Attachment II. We have 

relied upon data the Petitioners 

provided for purposes of measuring 

industry support. For further 

discussion, see Checklist at Attachment 

II. 

As noted above, on July 28, 2011, and 

July 29, 2011, we received submissions 

on behalf of Hyosung and Hyundai, 

respectively, Korean producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise, 

questioning the domestic like product 

definition and the industry support 

calculation in the Petition. On August 1, 

2011, the Petitioners filed a reply. For 

further discussion of these submissions, 

see Checklist at Attachment II. 

Based on information provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information obtained by the 

Department, we determine that the 

domestic producers and workers have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 732(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product and more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition. See Checklist at 

Attachment II for further details on the 

Department’s evaluation of industry 

support for the Petition. Accordingly, 

the Department determines that the 

Petition was filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. 

The Department finds that the 

Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of 

the domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and they have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigation that they are 

requesting the Department initiate, in 

accordance with section 732(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

The Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, the 

Petitioners allege that subject imports 

exceed the negligibility threshold 

provided for under section 771(24)(A) of 

the Act. 

The Petitioners contend that the 

industry’s injured condition is 

illustrated by reduced market share, 

reduced shipments, reduced capacity 

utilization, underselling and price 

depression or suppression, a decline in 

financial performance, lost sales and 

revenue, an increase in import 

penetration, and threat of future injury. 

See Volume I of the Petition, at 21–22, 

24–33, and Exhibits 5, 7–9, and 10–11, 

and Second Supplement to the Petition 

at 3 and at Attachment 1. We have 

assessed the allegations and supporting 

evidence regarding material injury, 

threat of material injury, and causation, 

and we have determined that these 

allegations are properly supported by 

adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation. See 

Checklist at Attachment III, Analysis of 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation for the Petition 

Covering Large Power Transformers 

from the Republic of Korea. 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate this investigation of 

imports of large power transformers 

from Korea. The sources of data for the 

deductions and adjustments relating to 

the U.S. price, and cost of production 

(‘‘COP’’) are also discussed in the 

initiation checklist. See Checklist at 

6–9. 

Export Price 

The Petitioners based U.S. export 

price (‘‘EP’’) on the prices of four large 

power transformers manufactured in 

Korea and offered for sale in the United 

States by two Korean producers/ 

exporters. See Checklist at 7; see also 

Volume II of the Petition at II–2 and 

Exhibit AD–2 and Supplement to the 

Petition at 29, 30 and Exhibits 18 and 

21. Based on the stated sales and 

delivery terms, the Petitioners then 

adjusted the U.S. prices to account for 

certain expenses associated with 

exporting and delivering the product to 

the U.S. customers (i.e., U.S. inland rail 

freight, ocean freight and U.S. port fees). 

While the Department will normally 

make additional downward adjustments 

to U.S. price for U.S. brokerage and 

handling, foreign brokerage and 

handling, direct selling and credit 

expenses, the Petitioners took a 

conservative approach and did not 

include any such adjustments in their 

calculation of U.S. price. See Checklist 

at 7; see also Volume II of the Petition 

at page II–3, 5, 7, and 10 and Exhibits 

AD–2–3, and Supplement to the 

Petition, at 29–31 and Exhibits 18–21. 

Normal Value 

According to the Petitioners, large 

power transformers are highly complex 

and specialized products that are 

manufactured to a customer’s unique 

specifications. As such, identifying sales 

of identical or similar large power 

transformers in the U.S. and Korean 

markets that could be compared on a 

price-to-price basis is virtually 

impossible because they differ 

substantially. Accordingly, the 

Petitioners based normal value on 

constructed value (‘‘CV’’) in accordance 

with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. 

Constructed value consists of the cost 

of manufacturing, selling, general and 

administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, 

financial expenses and profit. See 

section 773(a)(4) of the Act. The 

Petitioners calculated constructed value 

based on the U.S. producer’s bid 

proposal cost of production model for 

the U.S. sales of large power 

transformers used in the Petition. The 

U.S. producer develops the cost of 

production for each transformer when 

bidding on large power transformers 

contracts in the United States, and thus 

the costs were developed based on the 

specific transformer for each U.S. sale 

identified in the Petition. 

In calculating constructed value, the 

Petitioners adjusted the U.S. producer’s 

cost of manufacturing for known 

differences, where available, between 

the U.S. and Korean markets. 

Specifically, the Petitioners based the 

cost of labor on the Korean 

manufacturing wage from the 

International Labor Statistics as 

published on the Department’s Web site. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
49442 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 

2The scope also covers HTSUS number 

8504.90.9540 of all transformer parts. However, we 

will not use this number in our respondent 

selection analysis as it is a basket category and 

would not allow for a meaningful analysis. 

See Supplement to the Petition at 

Exhibit 13. The Petitioners also adjusted 

the U.S. producer’s energy costs based 

on publicly available Korean electricity 

and natural gas costs. See Supplement 

to the Petition at Exhibits 14 and 15. 

The Petitioners did not adjust the U.S. 

producer’s cost of materials for the 

differences between the U.S. and Korean 

markets. According to the Petitioners 

such an adjustment is not practical 

because the materials used in the 

production of large power transformers 

are specialized inputs, the costs of 

which are not reflected accurately in 

published data. The Petitioners also 

state that the U.S. material costs are 

comparable to the costs in the Korean 

market because most of the inputs are 

commodity-type products that are 

widely traded on world markets. To 

calculate the variable and fixed 

overhead costs, the Petitioners relied 

upon the variable and fixed overhead 

rates of the U.S. producer calculated as 

a percentage of the labor costs adjusted 

for known differences between the U.S. 

and Korean markets. See Supplement to 

the Petition at Exhibit 16. 

To determine constructed value, the 

Petitioners added to the cost of 

manufacturing amounts for SG&A 

expenses, financial expenses and profit 

based on financial statements of the 

Korean producers that manufactured the 

specific transformers sold to the United 

States pursuant to each U.S. sale 

identified in the Petition. See 

Supplement to the Petition at Exhibits 

16 and 17; see also Checklist, at 8 and 

9. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of large power transformers 

from Korea are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. Based on a comparison of EPs 

and CV calculated in accordance with 

section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the 

estimated dumping margins for large 

power transformers range from 43.01 

percent to 60.81 percent. See Checklist 

at 9. 

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition on large power transformers 

from Korea, the Department finds that 

the Petition meets the requirements of 

section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 

initiating an antidumping duty 

investigation to determine whether 

imports of large power transformers are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. In 

accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), 

unless postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determination no later than 

140 days after the date of this initiation. 

Targeted Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeted 

dumping analysis in antidumping duty 

investigations, and the corresponding 

regulation governing the deadline for 

targeted dumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the 

Regulatory Provisions Governing 

Targeted Dumping in Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 

(December 10, 2008). The Department 

stated that ‘‘{w}ithdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ Id. at 

74931. 

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted dumping allegation in this 

investigation pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such 

allegations are due no later than 45 days 

before the scheduled date of the 

preliminary determination. 

Respondent Selection 

Following standard practice in AD 

investigations involving market 

economy countries, in the event the 

Department determines that the number 

of known exporters or producers for this 

investigation is large, the Department 

intends to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. imports under the 

HTSUS numbers 8504.23.0040 and 

8504.23.0080 for the large power 

transformers.2 We intend to release the 

CBP data under Administrative 

Protective Order (‘‘APO’’) to all parties 

with access to information protected by 

APO within five days of publication of 

this Federal Register notice and make 

our decision regarding respondent 

selection within 20 days of publication 

of this notice. The Department invites 

comments regarding the CBP data and 

respondent selection within seven days 

of publication of this Federal Register 

notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s Web 

site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Distribution of Copy of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the Petition has been provided to the 

representatives of the Government of 

Korea. The Department considers the 

service of the public version of the 

Petition to the foreign producers/ 

exporters satisfied by the delivery of the 

public version of the Petition to the 

Government of Korea, consistent with 

19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than August 29, 2011, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of large power transformers 

from Korea are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to a U.S. 

industry. A negative ITC determination 

will result in the investigation being 

terminated; otherwise, this investigation 

will proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 

January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 

22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate 

in this investigation should ensure that 

they meet the requirements of these 

procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 

appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD/CVD proceeding 

must certify to the accuracy and 

completeness of that information. See 

section 782(b) of the Act. Parties are 

hereby reminded that revised 

certification requirements are in effect 

for company/government officials as 

well as their representatives in all 

segments of any AD/CVD proceedings 

initiated on or after March 14, 2011. See 

Certification of Factual Information to 

Import Administration During 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 

7491 (February 10, 2011) (‘‘Interim Final 

Rule’’) amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) 

and (2). The formats for the revised 

certifications are provided at the end of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 49443 

1See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 76 FR 

10557 (February 25, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

2See Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping 

Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 

2005). 

the Interim Final Rule. The Department 

intends to reject factual submissions in 

any proceeding segments initiated on or 

after March 14, 2011, if the submitting 

party does not comply with the revised 

certification requirements. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: August 3, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers large 

liquid dielectric power transformers (LPTs) 

having a top power handling capacity greater 

than or equal to 60,000 kilovolt amperes (60 

megavolt amperes), whether assembled or 

unassembled, complete or incomplete. 

Incomplete LPTs are subassemblies 

consisting of the active part and any other 

parts attached to, imported with or invoiced 

with the active parts of LPTs. The ‘‘active 

part’’ of the transformer consists of one or 

more of the following when attached to or 

otherwise assembled with one another: the 

steel core or shell, the windings, electrical 

insulation between the windings, the 

mechanical frame for an LPT. 

The product definition encompasses all 

such LPTs regardless of name designation, 

including but not limited to step-up 

transformers, step-down transformers, 

autotransformers, interconnection 

transformers, voltage regulator transformers, 

rectifier transformers, and power rectifier 

transformers. 

The LPTs subject to this investigation are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

8504.23.0040, 8504.23.0080 and 

8504.90.9540 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this investigation is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20336 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–972, A–583–848] 

Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening 

Agents From the People’s Republic of 

China, and Taiwan: Postponement of 

Preliminary Determinations of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sandra Stewart at (202) 482–0768 or 

Hermes Pinilla at (202) 482–3477 

(Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, Office 5; 

Maisha Cryor at (202) 482–5831 or 

Shaun Higgins at (202) 482–0679 

(People’s Republic of China), AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations 

On April 20, 2011, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) initiated 

the antidumping duty investigations on 

certain stilbenic optical brightening 

agents from the People’s Republic of 

China and Taiwan. See Certain Stilbenic 

Optical Brightening Agents From the 

People’s Republic of China and Taiwan: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 76 FR 23554 (April 27, 

2011). The notice of initiation stated 

that the Department would issue its 

preliminary determinations for these 

investigations no later than 140 days 

after the issuance of the initiation in 

accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1) unless 

postponed. 

On July 29, 2011, Clariant Corporation 

(the petitioner) made a timely request 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) 

for postponement of the preliminary 

determinations in these investigations. 

The petitioner requested a 50-day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determinations in order to allow the 

Department additional time to resolve a 

number of complex issues in these 

investigations. 

The petitioner submitted a request for 

postponement of the preliminary 

determinations more than 25 days 

before the scheduled date of the 

preliminary determinations. Therefore, 

because the petitioner provided reasons 

for its request and the Department finds 

no compelling reasons to deny the 

request, the Department is postponing 

the deadline for the preliminary 

determinations in accordance with 

section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) by 50 days to 

October 27, 2011. The deadline for the 

final determinations will continue to be 

75 days after the date of the preliminary 

determinations unless extended. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). 

Dated: August 4, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20306 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–890] 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011. 

SUMMARY: On February 18, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) initiated a new shipper 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on wooden bedroom furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

covering sale(s) of subject merchandise 

made by Dongguan Yujia Furniture Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Yujia’’).1

The Department preliminarily 

determines that Yujia has not made 

sales at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’). 

Upon completion of the final results of 

review, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties 

on entries of subject merchandise 

during the period January 1, 2010 

through December 31, 2010 (the period 

of review or ‘‘POR’’), for which the 

importer-specific assessment rates are 

above de minimis. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick O’Connor or Jeff Pedersen, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0989 or (202) 482– 

2769, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

antidumping duty order on wooden 

bedroom furniture from the PRC was 

published on January 4, 2005.2 On 

January 28, 2011, the Department 

received a timely request for a new 

shipper review from Yujia. On February 

18, 2011, the Department initiated this 

new shipper review. See Initiation 

Notice. On February 24, 2011, the 

Department issued an antidumping duty 

questionnaire. From March 2011 

through July 2011, the Department 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES