Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10163 

the Department’s Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. The 

process now requires the submission of 

a separate-rate status application. 

Due to the large number of firms 

requesting an administrative review in 

this proceeding, the Department is 

requiring all firms listed above that wish 

to qualify for separate-rate status in this 

administrative review to complete, as 

appropriate, either a separate-rate status 

application or certification, as described 

below. 

For this administrative review, in 

order to demonstrate separate-rate 

eligibility, the Department requires 

entities for whom a review was 

requested that were assigned a separate 

rate in the less than fair value 

investigation of this proceeding to 

certify that they continue to meet the 

criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The 

certification form will be available on 

the Department’s Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ on the date of publication 

of this Federal Register. In responding 

to the certification, please follow the 

‘‘Instructions for Filing the 

Certification’’ in the Separate Rate 

Certification. Certifications are due to 

the Department no later than March 21, 

2007. The deadline and requirement for 

submitting a Certification applies 

equally to NME-owned firms, wholly 

foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers 

who purchase the subject merchandise 

and export it to the United States. 

For entities that have not previously 

been assigned a separate rate, to 

demonstrate eligibility for such, the 

Department requires a separate-rate 

status application. The separate-rate 

status application will be available on 

the Department’s Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ on the date of publication 

of this Federal Register. In responding 

to the separate-rate status application, 

refer to the instructions contained in the 

application. Separate-rate status 

applications are due to the Department 

no later than May 7, 2007. The deadline 

and requirement for submitting a 

separate-rate status application applies 

equally to NME-owned firms, wholly 

foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers 

that purchase the subject merchandise 

and export it to the United States. 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter and producer of the subject 

merchandise. Where it is not practicable 

to examine all known producers/ 

exporters of subject merchandise, 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the 

Department to examine either (1) a 

sample of exporters, producers or types 

of products that is statistically valid 

based on the information available at 

the time of selection; or (2) exporters 

and producers accounting for the largest 

volume of the subject merchandise from 

the exporting country that can be 

reasonably examined. Due to the large 

number of firms requested for an 

administrative review and the 

Department’s experience regarding the 

resulting administrative burden to 

review each company for which a 

request has been made, the Department 

is considering exercising its authority to 

limit the number of respondents 

selected for review using one of the two 

methods described above. 

Quantity and Value Questionnaire 

In advance of issuance of the 

antidumping questionnaire, we will also 

be requiring all parties for whom a 

review is requested to respond to a 

Quantity and Value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

questionnaire, which will request 

information on the respective quantity 

and U.S. dollar sales value of all exports 

to the United States of wooden bedroom 

furniture during the period of January 1, 

2006, through December 31, 2006. 

Additionally, in the event sampling is 

employed, in order to determine a 

sampling method that is representative 

of the sales under review, the 

Department will require that each 

company complete the economic 

characteristics section of the Q&V 

questionnaire. The Q&V questionnaire 

will be available on the Department’s 

Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ on the 

date of publication of this Federal 

Register. The responses to the Q&V 

questionnaire are due to the Department 

no later than March 21, 2007. Due to the 

time constraints imposed by our 

statutory and regulatory deadlines, and 

the need to preserve the statistical 

validity of the sampling methodology, 

the Department may not be able to grant 

any extensions for the submission of the 

Q&V questionnaire. In responding to the 

Q&V questionnaire, refer to the 

instructions contained in the Q&V 

questionnaire. 

Notice 

This notice constitutes public 

notification to all firms requested for 

review and seeking separate-rate status 

in this administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on wooden 

bedroom furniture from the PRC that 

they must submit a separate-rate status 

application or certification (as 

appropriate) as described above, and a 

complete response to the Q&V 

questionnaire within the time limits 

established in this notice of initiation of 

administrative review in order to 

receive consideration for separate-rate 

status. In other words, the Department 

will not give consideration to any 

separate-rates certification or separate 

rate-status application made by parties 

who fail to timely respond to the Q&V 

questionnaire or fail to timely submit 

the requisite separate-rate certification 

or application. All information 

submitted by respondents in this 

administrative review is subject to 

verification. To allow the possibility for 

sampling and to complete this segment 

within the statutory time frame, the 

Department will be limited in its ability 

to extend deadlines on the above 

submissions. As noted above, the 

separate-rate certification, the separaterate status application, and the Q&V 

questionnaire will be available on the 

Department’s Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ on the date of publication 

of this Federal Register. However, the 

Department will also issue, as a courtesy 

to the parties, a letter of notification of 

these requirements to the parties 

requested for review. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective orders 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. 

This initiation and notice are in 

accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

Wendy J. Frankel, 

Director AD/CVD Operations, Office 8 for 

Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4051 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–837] 

Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Cut-to-Length CarbonQuality Steel Plate From the Republic 

of Korea 

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 

certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel 

plate (CTL plate) from the Republic of 

Korea (Korea) for the period January 1, 

2005, through December 31, 2005, the 

period of review (POR). For information 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10164 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

on the net subsidy rate for the reviewed 

company, 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. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jolanta Lawska or Kristen Johnson, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3862 or 

(202) 482–4793, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 10, 2000, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

CVD order on CTL plate from Korea. See 

Notice of Amended Final 

Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India 

and the Republic of Korea; and Notice 

of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel 

Plate From France, India, Indonesia, 

Italy, and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 

6587 (February 10, 2000) (CTL Plate 

Order). On February 1, 2006, 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, 71 FR 5239 

(February 1, 2006). On February 28, 

2006, we received a timely request for 

review from Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., 

Ltd. (DSM), a Korean producer and 

exporter of subject merchandise. On 

April 5, 2006, the Department initiated 

an administrative review of the CVD 

order on CTL plate from Korea, covering 

January 1, 2005, through December 31, 

2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Deferral of Administrative 

Reviews, 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006). 

On July 6, 2006, the Department 

issued a questionnaire to the 

Government of Korea (GOK) and DSM. 

We received questionnaire responses 

from DSM and the GOK on September 

12, 2006. 

On October 16, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

extension of the deadline for the 

preliminary results. See Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Quality Steel Plate from 

Korea; Notice of Extension of Time Limit 

for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 60689 (October 16, 2006). 

On October 31, 2006, the Department 

issued supplemental questionnaires to 

the GOK and DSM. We received 

questionnaire responses from the GOK 

and DSM on November 27 and 

November 28, 2006, 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 

only company subject to this review is 

DSM. 

Scope of Order 

The products covered by the CVD 

order are certain hot-rolled carbonquality steel: (1) Universal 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) flatrolled 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 to be 

included in the scope of the order are 

of rectangular, square, circular or other 

shape and of rectangular or nonrectangular 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 this 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 to be included in this 

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 this 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. 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is currently classifiable under the 

HTSUS under subheadings: 

7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 

7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 

7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 

7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 

7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 

7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 

7226.99.0000. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise covered by the order is 

dispositive. 

Subsidies Valuation Information 

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 table is significant. According to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10165 

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. 

Benchmarks for Long-Term Loans 

Issued Through 2005 

During the POR, DSM had 

outstanding long-term wondenominated and foreign-currency 

denominated loans from governmentowned banks and Korean commercial 

banks. Based on our findings on this 

issue in prior investigations and 

administrative reviews, we are using the 

following benchmarks to calculate the 

subsidies attributable to respondent’s 

countervailable long-term loans 

obtained in the years 1991 through 

2005: 

(1) For countervailable, foreigncurrency denominated loans, pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(ii), and 

consistent with our past practice to date, 

our preference is to use the companyspecific, weighted-average foreign 

currency-denominated interest rates on 

the company’s loans from foreign bank 

branches in Korea, foreign securities, 

and direct foreign loans received after 

1991. See, e.g., Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 

30636, 30640 (June 8, 1999) (Sheet and 

Strip Investigation); see also Final 

Negative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Stainless Steel Plate in 

Coils from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 

15530, 15531 (March 31, 1999) (Plate in 

Coils Investigation). Where no such 

benchmark instruments are available, 

and consistent with 19 CFR 

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

methodology in a prior administrative 

review, we rely on the lending rates as 

reported by the IMF’s International 

Financial Statistics Yearbook. See Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 

in Coils from the Republic of Korea, 69 

FR 2113 (January 14, 2004) (2001 Sheet 

and Strip), and the accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum (2001 Sheet 

and Strip Decision Memorandum), at 

Section II. B ‘‘Subsidies Valuation 

Information.’’

(2) For countervailable, wondenominated, long-term loans, our 

practice is to use the company-specific 

corporate bond rate on the company’s 

public and private bonds. We note that 

this benchmark is consistent with our 

decision in Plate in Coils Investigation, 

64 FR at 15531, in which we determined 

that the GOK did not direct or control 

the Korean domestic bond market after 

1991, and that the interest rate on 

domestic bonds may serve as an 

appropriate benchmark interest rate. 

Where unavailable, we used the 

national average of the yields on threeyear corporate bonds, as reported by the 

Bank of Korea (BOK). For example, we 

note that the use of the three-year 

corporate bond rate from the BOK 

follows the approach taken in the Plate 

in Coils Investigation, in which we 

determined that, absent companyspecific interest rate information, the 

corporate bond rate is the best indicator 

of a market rate for won-denominated 

long-term loans in Korea. See Plate in 

Coils Investigation, 64 FR at 15531. See 

also 19 CFR 505(a)(3)(ii). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

consideration the structure of the 

government-provided loans. For fixedrate 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 

variable-rate loans outstanding during 

the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(5)(i), our preference is to use 

the interest rates of variable-rate lending 

instruments issued during the year in 

which the government loans were 

issued. Where such benchmark 

instruments are unavailable, we use 

weighted average interest rates of all 

variable rate loans issued during the 

POR as our benchmark, as such rates 

better reflect a variable interest rate that 

would be in effect during the POR. This 

approach is in accordance with the 

Department’s practice in similar cases. 

See, e.g., Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip From the Republic of 

Korea, 68 FR 13267 (March 19, 2003) 

(2000 Sheet and Strip), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (Sheet and Strip Decision 

Memorandum), at Comment 8; see also 

19 CFR 351.505(a)(5)(ii). 

Programs Preliminarily Determined To 

Confer Subsidies 

1. The GOK’s Direction of Credit 

In the most recently completed 

administrative review of this CVD order, 

the Department reaffirmed earlier 

determinations that the GOK controlled 

and directed lending through year 2001. 

In addition, the Department noted that 

neither DSM nor the GOK provided any 

new information that would warrant a 

change in the Department’s 

determination. Finding that the GOK 

did not act to the best of its ability, the 

Department employed an adverse 

inference and determined that the GOK 

continued it direction-of-credit policies 

from 2002 through 2004. See, e.g., 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel 

Plate from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 

11397, 11399 (March 7, 2006) (2004 CTL 

Plate Preliminary Results) (unchanged 

in final results by Notice of Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from 

the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 38861 (July 

10, 2006)). 

During the POR, DSM had 

outstanding loans that were received 

prior to the 2002 period. As in the prior 

administrative review, in this review, 

we asked the GOK for information 

pertaining to the GOK’s direction-ofcredit policies for the period from 2002 

through 2005. The GOK did not provide 

any new or additional information that 

would warrant a departure from these 

prior findings, stating instead that: 

‘‘* * * the Government of Korea continues 

to believe that the evidence demonstrates 

that there has been no direction of credit to 

the Korean steel industry. Nevertheless, the 

Department has consistently found that longterm loans received by Korean steel 

producers were the result of the Korean 

Government’s direction, despite the 

Government’s repeated submission of 

evidence to the contrary * * * . 

Consequently, in this review, the 

Government will not contest the 

Department’s findings on direction of longterm loans.’’

See September 12, 2006, GOK, 

submission at page 9. Because the GOK 

withheld the requested information on 

its lending policies, the Department 

does not have the necessary information 

on the record to determine whether the 

GOK has continued its direction-ofcredit policies through 2005; therefore, 

the Department must base its 

determination on facts otherwise 

available. See section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has 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 also authorizes the 

Department to use as adverse facts 

available (AFA) information derived 

from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10166 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that, in accordance with 

sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, 

the use of AFA is appropriate for the 

preliminary results for the 

determination of direction of credit for 

loans received from 2002 through 2005. 

In this case, the GOK refused to 

supply requested information that was 

in its possession, even though the GOK 

had provided similar information in 

prior proceedings. See, e.g., Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the 

Republic of Korea, 64 FR 73176, 73178 

(December 29, 1999) (CTL Plate 

Investigation). Therefore, consistent 

with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the 

Act, we find that the GOK did not act 

to the best of its ability and, therefore, 

are employing an adverse inference in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available. As AFA, we 

preliminarily find that the GOK’s 

direction-of-credit policies continued 

through 2005. As noted above, the 

GOK’s direction-of-credit policies 

provide a financial contribution, confer 

a benefit, and are specific, pursuant to 

sections 771(5)(D)(i), 771(5)(E)(ii), and 

771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, respectively. 

Therefore, we preliminarily find that 

lending from domestic banks and 

government-owned banks through 2005 

are countervailable. Thus, any loans 

received through 2005 from domestic 

banks and government-owned banks 

that were outstanding during the POR 

are countervailable, to the extent that 

the interest amount paid on the loan is 

less than what would have been paid on 

a comparable commercial loan. The 

Department’s decision to rely on 

adverse inferences when lacking a 

response from the GOK regarding the 

direction-of-credit issue is in 

accordance with its practice. See, e.g., 

2004 CTL Plate Preliminary Results 

(unchanged in final results by Notice of 

Final Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from 

the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 38861 (July 

10, 2006)). 

DSM received long-term fixed- and 

variable-rate loans from GOK-owned or 

-controlled institutions that were 

outstanding during the POR and had 

both won- and foreign currencydenominated loans outstanding during 

the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

benefit for each fixed- and variable-rate 

loan received from GOK-owned or 

-controlled banks to be 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 

using exchange rates obtained from the 

BOK. We then summed the benefits 

from DMS’s long-term fixed-rate and 

variable-rate won-denominated loans. 

To calculate the net subsidy rate, we 

divided DSM’s total benefits by its 

respective total f.o.b. sales values during 

the POR, as this program is not tied to 

exports or a particular product. On this 

basis, we preliminarily determine the 

net subsidy rate under the direction-ofcredit program to be 0.01 percent ad 

valorem for DSM. 

2. Asset Revaluation Under Tax 

Programs Under the Tax Reduction and 

Exemption Control Act (TERCL) Article 

56(2) 

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 Act because the 

actual recipients of the subsidy were 

limited in number and the basic metal 

industry was a dominant user of this 

program. 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. See CTL Plate Investigation, 64 FR 

at 73182–83. 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, evidence of 

changed circumstances, or comments 

from interested parties were presented 

in this review to warrant any 

reconsideration of the countervailable 

status 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 DSM revalued its 

assets under Article 56(2) of the TERCL 

in 1988. However, DSM reports that in 

1998 it revalued its assets yet again. 

DSM states the revaluation in 1998 was 

not pursuant to TERCL Article 56(2) 

and, according to the GOK, was 

consistent with Korean Generally 

Accepted Accounting Principles 

(GAAP). DSM claims that the asset 

revaluations that were adopted in 1988 

under Article 56(2) of TERCL were 

superseded when it revalued its assets 

in 1998. Hence, the 1988 asset 

revaluation would only affect the 

calculation of depreciation costs for tax 

years prior to 1998. However, there were 

certain assets that were not revalued in 

1998. For those assets which were not 

revalued in 1998, we identified the total 

amount of the change in depreciation 

expense attributable to the 1988 asset 

revaluation for 2004 (the tax return 

submitted during the POR). We then 

multiplied this amount by the tax rate 

for 2004 to determine the benefit under 

this program. This is the same approach 

the Department used in the previous 

review. See 2004 CTL Plate Preliminary 

Results (unchanged in final results by 

Notice of Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel 

Plate from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 

38861 (July 10, 2006)). As this program 

is not tied to exports, we used the 

benefit amount as the numerator and 

DSM’s total sales as the denominator. 

Using this methodology, we 

preliminarily determine the 

countervailable subsidy from this 

program to be less than 0.005 percent ad 

valorem, which, according to the 

Department’s practice, is considered not 

measurable and is not included in the 

calculation of the CVD rate. See, e.g., 

Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Softwood Lumber 

Products from Canada, 70 FR 33088, 

33091 (June 7, 2005). 

3. GOK Infrastructure Investment at 

Inchon North Harbor 

Under the Act on Participation of 

Private Investment in Infrastructure (the 

Harbor Act), signed in 2000, the GOK 

contracts with private companies to 

construct infrastructure facilities at 

Inchon North Harbor. The program is 

designed to encourage private 

investment in public infrastructure 

facilities at Inchon North Harbor. 

Because the ownership of these facilities 

reverts to the GOK, the government 

compensates private parties for a 

portion of the construction costs of 

these facilities. In addition, the 

company is given right to operate the 

facility for a certain period of time. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10167 

1The GOK indicated in its September 12, 2006, 

response that benefits received by DSM in 2003 

were inadvertently not reported during the last 

POR, due to an oversight. 

Under the Harbor Act, DSM 

participated in an agreement with the 

Ministry of Maritime Affairs and 

Fisheries (‘‘MOMAF’’), under which 

DSM is constructing one of 17 piers at 

Inchon North Harbor. According to 

information submitted by the GOK, the 

government will retain title of the pier. 

However, upon completion of the 

project, DSM will receive free use of 

harbor facilities at Inchon Port and the 

right to collect fees it chooses to from 

other users of the facility for a period of 

50 years. At the end of the 50-year 

period, operating rights revert to the 

GOK. Further, under the Harbor Act, the 

GOK compensates DSM for 30 percent 

of the construction costs of the facility. 

DSM reported receiving payments from 

the GOK as reimbursements for 

construction costs it incurred from the 

fourth quarter of 2003 through the third 

quarter of 2004. As this is the first time 

DSM has reported receiving benefits to 

the Department, the Department has not 

previously examined this program.1

DSM and the GOK claim that the 

reimbursements DSM received under 

the program are not countervailable, 

‘‘Because this program represents a 

government purchase of construction 

services, it does not constitute a 

‘‘financial contribution’’ under the 

terms of the countervailing duty 

statute.’’ See GOK’s September 12, 2006, 

questionnaire response at 4; see also 

DSM’s September 12, 2006, 

questionnaire response at 38. 

The record evidence indicates that the 

actual recipients of the grant, whether 

considered on an enterprise or industry 

basis are limited in number. The GOK 

has reported that only [six] companies 

representing [four] industries received 

the grant. See DSM’s September 12, 

2006, questionnaire response at 

Appendix G–6–C. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

program is de facto specific within the 

meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of 

the Act. For purposes of these 

preliminary results, we disagree with 

the claims of the GOK and DSM that the 

GOK’s payments to DSM constitute 

compensation for services provided in 

connection with the construction of the 

GOK’s pier. We find that the 50-year 

duration of DSM’s lease of the pier 

facility is so long that it effectively 

renders DSM the owner of the facility. 

See the ‘‘Average Useful Life’’ section, 

above. We note that under the IRS 1997 

Class Life Asset Depreciation Range 

System, the AUL of land improvements, 

such as wharves and docks, is only 20 

years. Therefore, the fact that the GOK 

retains ‘‘ownership’’ of the pier for 50 

years is essentially meaningless. As 

such, we preliminary find that the 

GOK’s payments to DSM constitute 

grants that aid the construction of a 

facility which, due to the lengthy 

duration of the lease, is effectively 

owned and operated by DSM. On this 

basis, we preliminarily determine that 

the reimbursements DSM received 

under the program constitute a direct 

financial contribution, in the form of 

grants, and confer a benefit within the 

meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

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

On page 3 of its November 27, 2006, 

questionnaire response, the GOK 

indicates that the payments to DSM 

relate to stage one pier construction. See 

also GOK’s September 12, 2006, 

questionnaire response at Appendix G–

6–C. According to the GOK, the stage 

one piers are intended to handle 

shipments of steel scrap. See GOK’s 

November 27, 2006, questionnaire 

response at page 3. The record evidence 

indicates that one of DSM’s main raw 

materials used in the production of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

was steel scrap. See DSM’s September 

12, 2006, questionnaire response at 9. 

See also DSM’s November 28, 2006, 

questionnaire response at Appendix SD 

9. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(5), we preliminarily find that 

the grants received by DSM under this 

program are tied to the production and 

sales of the subject merchandise. 

Accordingly, we have attributed the 

grants DSM has received under this 

program to its production and sales of 

the subject merchandise. 

To calculate the benefit under this 

program, we first summed the amount 

of payments DSM received each year 

under the program. In accordance with 

19 CFR 351.524(c), we are treating the 

grants DSM received under the program 

as non-recurring. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.524(b)(2), the Department allocates 

non-recurring benefits provided under a 

particular subsidy program to the year 

in which the benefits are received if the 

total amount approved under the 

subsidy program is less that 0.5 percent 

of the relevant sales of the firm in 

question, during the year in which the 

subsidy was approved. The GOK 

provided the total approved amount 

with the date of approval. For the 

preliminary results, the Department 

performed the 0.5 percent test by 

dividing DSM’s portion of the GOK 

contribution at the time of receipt by 

DSM’s total steel sales at the time of 

receipt. Because the amounts were less 

than 0.5 percent of DSM’s total steel 

sales in the year of receipt, we expensed 

the grants to the year of receipt. On this 

basis, we preliminarily determine that 

DSM’s net subsidy rate under this 

program to be 0.09 percent ad valorem. 

4. Research and Development Under 

Korea Research Association of New Iron 

and Steelmaking Technology (KANIST) 

(Formerly KNISTRA) 

Under the program, companies make 

contributions to KANIST, which also 

receives contributions from the GOK. 

KANIST then contracts with 

universities and other research 

institutions. Upon completion of the 

projects, KANIST shares the results of 

the research with the companies that 

participated in the projects. 

The Department examined this 

program in the underlying investigation. 

In that segment of the proceeding, the 

Department determined that the GOK, 

through the Ministry of Commerce, 

Industry and Energy (MOCIE) provided 

research and development grants to 

support numerous projects designed to 

foster the development of efficient 

technology for industrial development. 

See CTL Plate Investigation, 64 FR at 

73185. We found this program to be 

specific as the grants were provided 

directly to respondents and their 

affiliates that are steel-related, and that 

the grants provided a financial 

contribution. Id. see also sections 

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

Act. Moreover, pursuant to section 

771(5)(E) of the Act, the Department 

determined that the benefit was the 

amount of the GOK’s contribution 

allocated to the percentage of the 

company’s contribution and was 

conferred at the time of receipt. No new 

information, evidence of changed 

circumstances, or comments from 

interested parties were presented in this 

review to warrant any reconsideration of 

the countervailable status of this 

program. 

DSM reported that it participated in 

research and development projects 

coordinated by KANIST. In these 

projects, DSM and other Korean 

companies made contributions to 

KANIST, which also received 

contributions from the GOK. 

Specifically, DSM reported that it 

participated in four projects. The first 

project deals with the ‘‘Elimination of 

Accumulated Impurities and Metal 

Structural Non-detrimental Technology 

Development.’’ DSM and the GOK made 

contributions to this project from 2002 

through 2006. The remaining three 

projects are dedicated to the 

development of structural steel. See 

Exhibit D–6–A, Volume II, of DSM’s 

September 12, 2006, questionnaire 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10168 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

response; see also Exhibit G–-B–4 of the 

GOK’s September 12, 2006, 

questionnaire response. Based on the 

information in DSM’s response, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

projects aimed at structural steel 

development are tied to non-subject 

merchandise. We also preliminarily 

determine that the remaining research 

and development project is relevant to 

the early stages of the production 

process and, therefore, attributable to 

DSM’s total steel sales. 

In keeping with the Department’s 

practice, we calculated the benefits 

related to the project on the 

‘‘Elimination of Accumulated Impurities 

and Metal Structural Non-detrimental 

Technology Development’’ by allocating 

the GOK’s payments based on DSM’s 

contributions to the project. See 2004 

CTL Plate Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 

11400 (unchanged in final results by 

Notice of Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel 

Plate from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 

38861 (July 10, 2006)). Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.524(b)(2), the Department 

allocates non-recurring benefits 

provided under a particular subsidy 

program to the year in which the 

benefits are received if the total amount 

approved under the subsidy program is 

less that 0.5 percent of the relevant sales 

of the firm in question, during the year 

in which the subsidy was approved. 

However, neither the GOK nor DSM 

provided the total approved amounts 

nor the dates of approval. Therefore, we 

performed our analysis under 19 CFR 

351.524(b)(2) by dividing DSM’s portion 

of the GOK contribution at the time of 

receipt by DSM’s total steel sales at the 

time of receipt. Using this approach, the 

calculated percentages in each year 

were less than 0.5 percent. Therefore, 

we preliminarily determine that all of 

the GOK’s contributions were expensed 

in the year of receipt. To calculate the 

net subsidy rate under the program, we 

divided the contributions made by the 

GOK during the POR that were allocated 

to DSM by DSM’s total steel sales during 

the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily 

calculate a net subsidy rate for DSM to 

be less than 0.005 percent ad valorem, 

which, according to the Department’s 

practice, is considered not measurable 

and is not included in the calculation of 

the C.V.D. rate. 

Programs Preliminarily Found To Be 

Not Used 

1. Special Cases of Tax for Balanced 

Development Among Areas (TERCL 

Articles 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45) (Reserve 

for Investment Program) 

2. Electricity Discounts (VRA, VCA, 

ELR and DLI Programs) 

3. Price Discount for DSM Land 

Purchase at Asan Bay 

4. Local Tax Exemption on Land 

Outside of Metropolitan Area 

5. Exemption of VAT on Anthracite 

Coal 

Programs Preliminarily Found To Be 

Not Countervailable 

1. Special Tax Credit for Boosting 

Employment 

Under Articles 30–34 of the RSTA, 

the GOK created ‘‘The Special Tax 

Credit for Boosting Employment’’ in 

July 2004. The program expired in 

December 31, 2005. It was designed to 

boost employment, and tax credits were 

allowed for any Korean company that 

met the requirements of employing 

more full-time workers in 2004 and 

2005 than it employed the previous 

year. It provided for a credit of one 

million won for each full-time worker 

employed in 2004 or 2005 in excess of 

the numbers of full-time workers 

employed the previous year. DSM 

reported receiving credits towards taxes 

payable under this program for its 2004 

tax return, the tax return submitted 

during the POR. 

Information supplied by DSM and the 

GOK indicate that this tax program is 

available to nearly all companies in 

Korea except for a small category of 

specialized businesses the GOK deems 

‘‘harmful to juveniles, affecting public 

morales, certain private teaching 

institutes, and certain real estate 

businesses.’’ See page 25, Exhibit I of 

DSM’s September 12, 2006, 

questionnaire. Based on information 

supplied by DSM and the GOK, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program is not specific within the 

meaning of Section 771(5A)(D) of the 

Act. Therefore, the Department 

preliminarily determines that no 

countervailable benefits were conferred 

under this program during the POR. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated a subsidy 

rate for DSM for 2005. We preliminarily 

determine the total estimated net 

countervailable subsidy rate for DSM is 

0.10 percent ad valorem for 2005, which 

is de minimis. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 

If the final results of this review 

remain the same as these preliminary 

results, the Department will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP), 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results, to 

liquidate shipments of CTL plate from 

DSM, entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption from 

January 1, 2004, through December 31, 

2004, without regard to countervailing 

duties. Also, the Department will 

instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits 

rate of estimated countervailing duties 

on shipments of CTL plate from DSM, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative 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 nonreviewed companies covered by this 

order are those established in the most 

recently completed administrative 

proceeding. See CTL Plate Order, 65 FR 

6589. These rates shall apply to all nonreviewed 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(b)(1), interested 

parties may submit written arguments in 

response to these preliminary results. 

Unless otherwise indicated by the 

Department, case briefs must be 

submitted within 30 days after the date 

of publication of this notice, and 

rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments 

raised in case briefs, must be submitted 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Parties who submit 

written arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the written 

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, 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. 

Representatives of parties to the 

proceeding may request disclosure of 

proprietary information under 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10169 

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)(1)(ii), are due. The 

Department will publish the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

arguments made in any case or rebuttal 

briefs. 

This administrative review is issued 

and published in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4070 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 022707A] 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Take of Anadromous Fish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Issuance of scientific research 

permits. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

NMFS has issued Permit 1105 

Modification 1 to Hagar Environmental 

Science (HES) in Richmond, CA; and 

Permit 1121 to Santa Clara Valley Water 

District (SCVWD) in San Jose, CA. This 

notice is relevant to federally 

endangered Central California Coast 

coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), 

threatened Central California Coast 

steelhead (O. mykiss), and threatened 

South-Central California Coast steelhead 

(O. mykiss). 

ADDRESSES: The applications, permits, 

and related documents are available for 

review by appointment at: Protected 

Resources Division, NMFS, 777 Sonoma 

Avenue, Room 315, Santa Rosa, CA 

95404 (ph: 707–575–6097, fax: 707–

578–3435, e-mail at: 

Jeffrey.Jahn@noaa.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Jahn at 707–575–6097, or e-mail: 

Jeffrey.Jahn@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority 

The issuance of permits and permit 

modifications, as required by the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531–1543) (ESA), is based on a 

finding that such permits/modifications: 

(1) are applied for in good faith; (2) 

would not operate to the disadvantage 

of the listed species which are the 

subject of the permits; and (3) are 

consistent with the purposes and 

policies set forth in section 2 of the 

ESA. Authority to take listed species is 

subject to conditions set forth in the 

permits. Permits and modifications are 

issued in accordance with and are 

subject to the ESA and NMFS 

regulations (50 CFR parts 222–226) 

governing listed fish and wildlife 

permits. 

Species Covered in This Notice 

This notice is relevant to federally 

endangered Central California Coast 

coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), 

threatened Central California Coast 

steelhead (O. mykiss), and threatened 

South-Central California Coast steelhead 

(O. mykiss).Permits Issued 

A notice of the receipt of an 

application to renew and modify Permit 

1105 was published in the Federal 

Register on December 4, 2006 (71 FR 

70367). Permit 1105 Modification 1 was 

issued to HES on February 15, 2007. 

Permit 1105 Modification 1 authorizes 

capture (by seine or backpack 

electrofishing), handling, and release of 

juvenile Central California Coast coho 

salmon, Central California Coast 

steelhead, and South-Central California 

Coast steelhead. Permit 1105 

Modification 1 is for research to be 

conducted in the following watersheds 

and coastal lagoons: Pilarcitos Creek in 

San Mateo County, California; San 

Lorenzo River, Liddell Creek, Laguna 

Creek, and Majors Creek in Santa Cruz 

County, California; Salinas River in 

Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties, 

California; and Arroyo Grande Creek in 

San Luis Obispo County, California. 

Permit 1105 Modification 1 authorizes 

unintentional lethal take of juvenile 

ESA-listed salmonids associated with 

research activities not to exceed 3 

percent of ESA-listed salmonids 

captured. Permit 1105 Modification 1 

does not authorize take of adult ESAlisted salmonids or intentional lethal 

take of ESA-listed salmonids. The 

purpose of the research is to provide 

ESA-listed salmonid population, 

distribution, and habitat assessment 

data to inform watershed management 

as well as establish baseline population 

abundances preceding the 

implementation of habitat conservation 

measures. Permit 1105 Modification 1 

expires on December 31, 2011.A notice 

of the receipt of an application for a 

scientific research permit (1121) was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 21, 2006 (71 FR 55169). 

Permit 1121 was issued to SCVWD on 

February 15, 2007. 

Permit 1121 authorizes capture (by 

backpack electrofishing or boat 

electrofishing), handling, and release of 

juvenile Central California Coast 

steelhead; and capture (by weir-trap), 

handling, and release of adult Central 

California Coast steelhead. Permit 1121 

is for research to be conducted in the 

Coyote Creek, Guadalupe River, and 

Stevens Creek watersheds in Santa Clara 

County, California. Permit 1121 

authorizes unintentional lethal take of 

juvenile ESA-listed salmonids 

associated with research activities not to 

exceed 3 percent of ESA-listed 

salmonids captured. Permit 1121 does 

not authorize intentional lethal take of 

ESA-listed salmonids or unintentional 

lethal take of adult ESA-listed 

salmonids. 

The purpose of the research is to 

provide fish population and habitat 

assessment data to direct SCVWD wateruse and habitat restoration activities. 

Permit 1121 expires on December 31, 

2011. 

Angela Somma, 

Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office 

of Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–3950 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 022807E] 

Marine Mammals; File No. 782–1719 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

The National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory (NMML), Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center, (Dr. John L. Bengston, 

Principal Investigator), 7600 Sand Point 

Way, NE, Seattle, Washington 98115–

6349, has requested an amendment to 

scientific research Permit No. 782–

1719–04. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

April 6, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: The amendment request 

and related documents are available for 

review upon written request, or by 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES