9204 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2012 / Notices 

1See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 76 

FR 54430 (September 1, 2011); see also Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order: Furfuryl Alcohol From 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC), 60 FR 32302 

(June 21, 1995). 

2See Furfuryl Alcohol From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Expedited Third Sunset 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 

78613 (December 19, 2011). 

3See Furfuryl Alcohol From China, 77 FR 5844 

(February 6, 2012). 

1See Large Power Transformers from the 

Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 76 FR 49439 (August 10, 2011) 

(Initiation Notice). 

2See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 49440; see also 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) 

(Preamble). 

3See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 49440; see also 

Preamble, 62 FR at 27323. 

4See Memorandum from Angelica Mendoza, 

Program Manager, to All Interested Parties, dated 

August 10, 2011. 

5See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Large Power Transformers 

from the Republic of Korea: Department Visit to 

DATES: Effective Date: February 16, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5047. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 1, 2011, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on furfuryl 

alcohol from the PRC pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’).1

The Department conducted an 

expedited sunset review of this order. 

As a result of its review, the Department 

found that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping and notified the ITC of the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail were the order to be revoked.2

On February 6, 2012, the ITC 

published its determination pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act that revocation 

of the antidumping duty order on 

furfuryl alcohol from the PRC would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to an 

industry in the United States within a 

reasonably foreseeable time.3

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

is furfuryl alcohol (C4H3OCH2OH). 

Furfuryl alcohol is a primary alcohol, 

and is colorless or pale yellow in 

appearance. It is used in the 

manufacture of resins and as a wetting 

agent and solvent for coating resins, 

nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and 

other soluble dyes. 

The product subject to the order is 

classifiable under subheading 

2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, our written 

description of the scope of this 

proceeding is dispositive. 

Continuation of the Order 

As a result of the determinations by 

the Department and the ITC that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and material injury to an industry in the 

United States, pursuant to section 

751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department 

hereby orders the continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on furfuryl 

alcohol from the PRC. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

will continue to collect antidumping 

duty cash deposits at the rates in effect 

at the time of entry for all imports of 

subject merchandise. 

The effective date of continuation of 

this order will be the date of publication 

in the Federal Register of this Notice of 

Continuation. Pursuant to section 

751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department 

intends to initiate the next five-year 

review of the order not later than 

February 2017. 

This five-year (sunset) review and this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

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

CFR 351.218(f)(4). 

Dated: February 7, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3715 Filed 2–15–12; 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: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 16, 

2012. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) preliminarily 

determines that large power 

transformers from the Republic of Korea 

(Korea) are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value, as provided in section 733(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act). The estimated dumping margins 

are listed in the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. Pursuant to requests 

from interested parties, we are 

postponing for 60 days the final 

determination and extending 

provisional measures from a four-month 

period to not more than six months. 

Accordingly, we will make our final 

determination not later than 135 days 

after publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell or Brian Davis, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0408 or (202) 482– 

7924, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 10, 2011, the Department 

initiated the antidumping duty 

investigation on large power 

transformers from Korea.1 Petitioners in 

this investigation are ABB Inc., Delta 

Star, Inc., and Pennsylvania 

Transformer Technology Inc. 

(collectively, petitioners). The 

Department set aside a period of time 

for parties to raise issues regarding 

product coverage and invited all parties 

to submit comments within 20 calendar 

days of publication of the Initiation 

Notice.2 The Department also set aside 

a time for parties to comment on 

product characteristics for use in the 

antidumping duty questionnaire.3 Since 

the Initiation Notice, the following 

events have occurred. 

On August 10, 2011, the Department 

notified all interested parties of its 

intent to select mandatory respondents 

for this investigation based on U.S. 

import data obtained from U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) and set 

aside a period of time for parties to 

comment on the potential respondent 

selection. Parties were invited to submit 

comments within five calendar days 

from the date of that memorandum.4

On August 29, 2011, and August 30, 

2011, Department officials visited 

Canonsburg, Pennsylvania to meet with 

officials of Pennsylvania Transformer 

Technology Inc., a petitioner in this 

proceeding, and their legal counsel, and 

also toured their facility.5


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2012 / Notices 9205 

Pennsylvania Transformer Technology Inc.,’’ dated 

September 1, 2011. 

6See 76 FR 54790 (September 2, 2011); see also 

USITC Publication 4526 (September 2011), titled 

‘‘Large Power Transformers from Korea: 

Investigation No. 731–TA–1189 (Preliminary).’’ 

7See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary, from Richard O. Weible, 

Director, Office 7, titled ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Large Power Transformers from the 

Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’): Respondent Selection 

Memorandum,’’ dated September 16, 2011. 

8See Large Power Transformers from the 

Republic of Korea: Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 

76 FR 76146 (December 6, 2011). 

9See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, 

Director, Office 7, titled, ‘‘Petitioners’ Allegation of 

Sales Below the Cost of Production for Hyosung 

Corporation,’’ from the Team (Hyosung Cost 

Initiation Memo), dated December 9, 2011. 

10See Memorandum to the File titled, 

‘‘Petitioners’ Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for Hyundai Heavy Industry Co., Ltd.,’’ 

from the Team to Richard Weible dated February 

8, 2012, (Hyundai Sales Below Cost Allegation 

Memorandum). 

On September 2, 2011, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(USITC) published its affirmative 

preliminary determination that there is 

a reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured or threatened with material 

injury, by reason of imports from Korea 

of large power transformers.6

On September 16, 2011, we selected 

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. 

(Hyundai) and Hyosung Corporation 

(Hyosung) as the mandatory 

respondents in this investigation and 

issued the Department’s antidumping 

duty questionnaire to both respondents 

on September 28, 2011.7

Hyundai and Hyosung submitted 

responses to section A of the 

Department’s antidumping duty 

questionnaire on November 2, 2011 and 

on November 16, 2011, both 

respondents submitted their responses 

to sections B (i.e., the section covering 

comparison market sales) and C (i.e., the 

section covering U.S. sales) of the 

Department’s antidumping duty 

questionnaire. Also on November 16, 

2011, Hyosung voluntarily reported a 

response to section D of the 

questionnaire (i.e., the section covering 

the cost of production (COP) and 

constructed value (CV)). 

On November 23, 2011, petitioners 

made a timely request pursuant to 

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

CFR 351.205(e) for a 50-day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination and on December 6, 2011, 

the Department postponed the 

preliminary determination of this 

investigation until February 9, 2011.8

Hyosung 

On November 30, 2011, the 

Department received an allegation from 

petitioners that home market sales made 

by Hyosung were made at prices below 

the cost of production and on December 

9, 2011, the Department initiated a 

sales-below-cost of production 

investigation with respect to Hyosung.9

On November 21, 2011, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire concerning Hyosung’s 

section A–C responses. On December 

12, and 19, 2011, Hyosung submitted its 

response to this supplemental 

questionnaire. On December 14, 2011, 

the Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire regarding Hyosung’s 

section D response. 

On December 29, 2011, the 

Department issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire covering 

Hyosung’s section A–C and 

supplemental responses. On January 6, 

2012, we received the supplemental cost 

(i.e., section D) response from Hyosung 

and on January 19, 2012, we received 

Hyosung’s response to our December 29, 

2011, supplemental questionnaire. On 

January 6, 2012, we issued a third sales 

supplemental questionnaire and on 

January 20, 2012, Hyosung submitted its 

response to this supplemental 

questionnaire. On February 2, 2012, we 

requested that Hyosung provide an 

updated U.S. sales database which 

includes actual shipment dates for all 

sales that have been shipped regardless 

of whether or not they have been 

invoiced, and on February 3, 2012, 

Hyosung submitted this revised U.S. 

sales database. Also on February 3, 

2012, we requested that Hyosung 

provide an updated home market sales 

database which includes actual 

shipment dates for all sales that have 

been shipped regardless of whether they 

have been invoiced and on February 6, 

2012, Hyosung submitted this revised 

home market sales database. 

Hyundai 

On November 21, 2011, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire concerning Hyundai’s 

section A–C responses. On December 

12, 2011, Hyundai responded to this 

questionnaire. Also on December 12, 

2011, Hyundai filed its response to the 

constructed value sections of the section 

D questionnaire. 

On December 23, 2011, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Hyundai covering 

Hyundai’s section B–D responses. 

Hyundai responded to this 

supplemental questionnaire on January 

13, and 18, 2012. On January 9, 2012, 

the Department issued a third sales 

supplemental questionnaire as well as a 

second supplemental cost questionnaire 

to which Hyundai responded on January 

23, 2012. 

On December 30, 2011, the 

Department received an allegation from 

petitioners that home market sales made 

by Hyundai were made at prices below 

the cost of production and on February 

9, 2012, the Department decided not to 

initiate a sales-below-cost of production 

investigation.10

Deadline for Submission of Updated 

Information 

With regard to cost estimates 

provided by respondents thus far, the 

Department will accept updated 

information for actual costs through and 

including December 31, 2011, where 

available. Further, with regard to 

estimates in the sales database, the 

Department will accept the 

corresponding actual sales information 

only through December 31, 2011. The 

Department does not expect to request 

updated information on sales or cost 

estimates for dates subsequent to 

December 31, 2011. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011. This 

period corresponds to the four most 

recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 

of the filing of the petition. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

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, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
9206 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2012 / Notices 

11See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube & 

Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 

1087, 1090 (CIT 2001) (quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)) 

(‘‘Allied Tube’’). 

12See Allied Tube, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090–1092. 

13SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, 25 C.I.T. 

133, 135 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001). 

14See USEC Inc. v. United States, 31 C.I.T. 1049, 

1055 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007). 

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. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

the Department’s regulations, see 

Preamble, 62 FR at 27323, in our 

Initiation Notice we set aside a period 

of time for parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage, and invited 

all parties to submit comments within 

20 calendar days of publication of the 

Initiation Notice. 

On August 23, 2011, we received 

comments from Hyundai and Hyosung 

concerning the scope of this 

investigation. In their submissions, both 

Hyundai and Hyosung request that the 

scope language be modified expressly to 

exclude spare parts when imported 

individually, or when imported with a 

complete LPT (whether assembled or 

unassembled) or with a subassembly, 

because they are not integral to the startup or operation of an LPT. 

On September 2, 2011, petitioners 

filed rebuttal comments regarding the 

scope comments by Hyundai and 

Hyosung. In their rebuttal comments, 

petitioners state that Hyundai and 

Hyosung failed to demonstrate the 

necessity for any exclusionary language 

and that the scope language published 

in the Department’s Initiation Notice is 

clear and does not require modification. 

Petitioners state that the scope correctly 

does not exclude spare parts as this 

exclusion could be used to evade or 

circumvent any antidumping duty order 

that may be in place. 

We preliminarily find that the 

language of the scope of the order is 

clear and does not require amendment. 

Product Comparisons 

We have considered the comments 

that were submitted by the interested 

parties concerning product-comparison 

criteria. In accordance with section 

771(16) of the Act, all products 

produced by the respondents covered by 

the description in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section, above, and sold 

in Korea during the period of 

investigation are considered to be 

foreign like product for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. We have 

relied on the following 18 criteria to 

match U.S. sales of subject merchandise 

to comparison-market sales of the 

foreign like product: (1) Number of 

phases; (2) maximum MVA rating; (3) 

transformer technology; (4) high line 

voltage; (5) high voltage winding basic 

insulation level; (6) number of windings 

in transformer; (7) type of tap changer 

and percentage regulation; (8) low line 

voltage; (9) impedance at maximum 

MVA rating; (10) type of core steel; (11) 

type of transformer; (12) low voltage 

winding basic insulation level; (13) load 

loss at maximum MVA rating; (14) noload loss; (15) cooling class designation; 

(16) overload requirement; (17) decibel 

rating; and (18) frequency. We 

compared U.S. sales to sales of the next 

most similar foreign like product on the 

basis of the characteristics listed above, 

which were made in the ordinary course 

of trade. Where we were unable to find 

a home market match of such or similar 

merchandise, in accordance with 

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

NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments to CV in accordance with 

section 773(a)(8) of the Act. 

Date of Sale 

19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, in 

identifying the date of sale of the 

merchandise under consideration or 

foreign like product, the Secretary 

normally will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter or producer’s 

records kept in the ordinary course of 

business. Additionally, the Secretary 

may use a date other than the date of 

invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that 

a different date better reflects the date 

on which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale.11

The Department has explained that, ‘‘in 

situations involving large custom-made 

merchandise in which the parties 

engage in formal negotiation and 

contracting procedures, the Department 

usually will use a date other than the 

date of invoice.’’ Preamble, 62 FR at 

27349. The Court of International Trade 

(‘‘CIT’’) has stated that ‘‘a party seeking 

to establish a date of sale other than 

invoice date bears the burden of 

producing sufficient evidence to ‘satisfy’ 

the Department that a different date 

better reflects the date on which the 

exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale.’’ 12 Alternatively, 

the Department may exercise its 

discretion to rely on a date other than 

invoice date if the Department 

‘‘provides a rational explanation as to 

why the alternative date ‘better reflects’ 

the date when ‘material terms’ are 

established.’’ 13 The date of sale is 

generally the date on which the parties 

establish the material terms of the sale. 

This normally includes the price, 

quantity, delivery terms and payment 

terms.14

In this case, Hyosung argued that the 

date of sale should be the purchase 

order date. See Hyosung’s letter to the 

Department dated October 11, 2011. 

Hyosung also asked the Department to 

modify its reporting period to ‘‘permit 

Hyosung to report all U.S. sales that 

were invoiced during the POI (i.e., 

between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011), 

even if the purchase order date falls 

before July 1, 2010.’’ Hyundai filed a 

similar request on October 12, 2011. 

Petitioners initially urged the 

Department to have respondents report 

all sales based upon purchase order date 

and noted that Hyosung concedes that 

‘‘sales terms do not change after the 

purchase order is issued,’’ and that ‘‘the 

purchase order date satisfies the 

Department’s definition of the date of 

sales because purchase orders nearly 

always memorialize all material terms,’’ 

quoting Hyosung’s October 11, 2011, 

letter at 3. Petitioners concluded that 

‘‘thus, the date of the purchase order, 

not the invoice date, is the proper date 

of sale in this proceeding.’’ See 

Petitioners letter dated October 14, 

2011, at 3. The Department issued a 

letter to all parties on October 17, 2011, 

noting that ‘‘no party to this proceeding 

has placed any information on the 

record to call in to question the fact that 

purchase order date satisfies the 

Department’s definition of the date of 

sale,’’ and that ‘‘based upon what is 

currently on the record, it appears that 

material terms of sale for sales of large 

power transformers are established at 

the purchase order date.’’ See Letter to 

all interested parties from the 

Department entitled ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Large Power 

Transformers from the Republic of 

Korea (‘‘Korea’’): Request for Modified 

Reporting Period’’ dated October 17, 

2011. 

Since that time, petitioners have 

raised concerns about the reported date 

of sale, arguing that we should ‘‘rely on 

the earliest document in the sales 

process that establishes the essential 

elements of a sale’’ and that in this case 

this ‘‘is either the date of the alliance (or 

other relevant descriptor, e.g., ‘blanket,’ 

‘long-term,’ etc.) contract, the date on 

which the customer transmits a blanket 

purchase order to Hyundai or Hyosung, 

or the date on which the customer 

transmits its production order forecast 

to the respondents.’’ See Petitioners 

letter to the Department dated January 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2012 / Notices 9207 

20, 2012, at 2. Petitioners claim ‘‘the 

respondents have withheld complete 

documentation that would allow 

Commerce to establish accurately the 

date of sale,’’ and that ‘‘Commerce 

should find that record evidence 

indicates that the correct date of sale is 

established at a point earlier in the sales 

transaction process than the ‘purchase 

order’ date identified by respondents.’’ 

Id. at 23–24. 

For the purposes of this preliminary 

determination, we are using the 

purchase order date as the date of sale 

because record evidence currently 

demonstrates that this date best reflects 

the date upon which the material terms 

of sale were established. However, we 

are excluding from our analysis those 

sales which are known to be based on 

long term contracts executed prior to the 

POI because it is unclear whether the 

material terms of these sales were set 

during the POI. We will further examine 

whether there is other information that 

denotes a more appropriate date of sale 

as it is unclear from the record whether 

the material terms of these sales were 

set prior to the POI. We intend to issue 

one final supplemental questionnaire to 

each respondent regarding the date of 

sale issue. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether respondents’ 

sales of large power transformers from 

Korea to the United States were made at 

LTFV, we compared the constructed 

export price (CEP) to normal value (NV) 

or constructed value, as appropriate and 

as described in the ‘‘Constructed Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. In accordance with section 

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 

compared POI weighted-average CEPs to 

POI weighted-average NVs or 

constructed values, as appropriate. 

Constructed Export Price 

For the price to the United States, we 

used CEP, in accordance with section 

772(b) of the Act. We calculated CEP for 

those sales where a person in the United 

States, affiliated with the foreign 

exporter or acting for the account of the 

exporter, made the sale to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States of the subject merchandise. See 

section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP 

on the packed prices charged to the first 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States and the applicable terms of sale. 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP where the 

record established that sales made by 

Hyundai and Hyosung were made in the 

United States after the date of 

importation by or for the account of the 

producer or exporter, or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter. 

Hyundai 

In accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, and where 

appropriate, we made deductions from 

the starting price for certain billing 

adjustments, early payment discounts, 

quantity discounts, and certain other 

discounts, including rebates. We also 

made further deductions to price for 

certain movement expenses where 

appropriate, for foreign inland freight, 

inland insurance, foreign brokerage, 

U.S. inland freight, certain other 

transportation expenses, U.S. customs 

duties and U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses, pursuant to section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the 

Act, we made additional adjustments to 

CEP for commissions, credit expenses, 

bank charges, direct selling expenses 

associated with costs incurred in the 

United States, and other indirect selling 

expenses in the United States associated 

with economic activity in the United 

States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of 

the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP 

profit. For a detailed discussion of these 

adjustments, see Memorandum to the 

file, through Angelica Mendoza, 

Program Manager, from David Cordell 

and Brian Davis, International Trade 

Analysts, titled ‘‘Analysis Memorandum 

for the Preliminary Determination of the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Large Power Transformers from the 

Republic of Korea: Hyundai Heavy 

Industries Co., Ltd.,’’ dated February 9, 

2012 (Hyundai Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum). 

Hyosung 

In accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, and where 

appropriate, we made deductions from 

the starting price for certain movement 

expenses, foreign inland freight, foreign 

brokerage, foreign inland insurance, 

U.S. inland freight, international freight, 

marine insurance, and U.S. brokerage 

and handling expenses, pursuant to 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Pursuant 

to section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made 

additional adjustments to CEP for 

commissions, credit expenses, warranty 

expenses, inventory carrying costs 

incurred in Korea, direct selling 

expenses associated with costs incurred 

in the United States (i.e., oil and 

installation expenses), and indirect 

selling expenses. Pursuant to section 

772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an 

adjustment for CEP profit. For a detailed 

discussion of these adjustments, see 

Memorandum to the file, through 

Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, 

from David Cordell and Brian Davis, 

International Trade Analysts, titled 

‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Determination of the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Large Power Transformers from the 

Republic of Korea: Hyosung 

Corporation,’’ dated February 9, 2012 

(Hyosung Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum). 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and 

Comparison-Market Selection 

To determine whether there is a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product is equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales), we compared 

respondents’ volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product to its 

volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise. See section 773(a)(1)(C) of 

the Act. Based on this comparison, we 

determined that both respondents had a 

viable home market during the POI. 

Consequently, we based NV on home 

market sales. Although Hyundai has 

argued that we should base NV on CV, 

based on the record of the case, the 

Department is following its normal 

methodology and invites parties to 

comment on the matches under a priceto-price comparison in their briefs. 

B. Affiliated Party Transactions and 

Arm’s-Length Test 

Pursuant to its regulations, the 

Department may use prices from sales 

made to affiliated parties if the price is 

comparable to the price at which the 

exporter or producer sold the foreign 

like product to a non-affiliate. See 19 

CFR 351.403(c). During the POI, 

Hyundai sold foreign like product to an 

affiliated customer for its own use and 

not for resale. To test whether the sales 

made by Hyundai were made at arm’slength prices, and thus comparable to 

the prices for non-affiliates, we 

compared, on a product-specific basis, 

the starting prices of sales to affiliated 

and unaffiliated customers, net of all 

applicable billing adjustments, 

discounts and rebates, movement 

charges, direct selling expenses and 

packing expenses. Where the price to 

the affiliated party was, on average, 

within a range of 98 to 102 percent of 

the price of the same or comparable 

merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, 

we determined that sales made to the 

affiliated party were at arm’s-length. See 

19 CFR 351.403(c); see also Stainless 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
9208 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2012 / Notices 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 

Japan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 39615 (August 7, 2009), 

unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils From Japan: Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 6631 (February 10, 2010). 

Sales to affiliated customers in the home 

market that were not made at arm’slength prices were excluded from our 

analysis because we considered them to 

be outside the ordinary course of trade 

and thus not appropriate for 

determining normal value. See section 

771(15) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(35). 

C. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (LOT) as the export 

price or CEP. See also section 773(a)(7) 

of the Act. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(1)(iii), the NV LOT is based 

on the starting price of the sales in the 

comparison market or, when NV is 

based on constructed value, the starting 

price of the sales from which we derive 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses, and profit. For CEP sales 

(which constituted all sales by both 

Hyundai and Hyosung), the U.S. LOT is 

based on the starting price of the U.S. 

sales, as adjusted under section 772(d) 

of the Act, which is from the exporter 

to the importer. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(1)(ii). 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than CEP sales, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market 

sales are at a different LOT, and the 

difference affects price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and comparisonmarket sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction, we make an LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level 

is more remote from the factory than the 

CEP level and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

levels between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability, we adjust NV under 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEPoffset provision). See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732–33 (November 19, 

1997) (applying the CEP offset analysis 

under section 773(a)(7)(B)). 

In this investigation, we obtained 

information from Hyundai and Hyosung 

regarding the marketing stages involved 

by both parties making their reported 

home market and U.S. market sales, 

including a description of the selling 

activities performed by the respondents 

and/or their affiliates for each channel 

of distribution. See Hyundai’s AQR at 

pages A–16 through A–21 and 

Attachment A–12; see also Hyundai’s 

TSQR dated January 23, 2012, at pages 

1 through 2 and Exhibit 1 (selling 

activities chart); and Hyosung’s AQR at 

pages A–17 through A–18; see also 

Hyosung’s SQR at pages SA–11 through 

SA–17 and Exhibit SA–6 (selling 

activities chart). We did not make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.412(e) because there was only one 

home market LOT for each respondent 

and we were unable to identify a pattern 

of consistent price differences 

attributable to differences in LOTs. See 

19 CFR 351.412(d). Under section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.412(f), we are preliminarily granting 

a CEP offset to reduce normal value by 

the appropriate amount of indirect 

selling expenses for both Hyundai and 

Hyosung because the NV sales for each 

company are at a more advanced LOT 

than the LOT for their U.S. CEP sales. 

For a detailed description of our LOT 

methodology and a summary of the 

company-specific LOT findings for this 

preliminary determination, see Hyundai 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum and 

Hyosung Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

D. Cost of Production Analysis 

Based on the Department’s analysis of 

the Petitioners’ allegation, we initiated a 

sales-below-cost investigation to 

determine whether Hyosung had sales 

that were made at prices below their 

COP pursuant to section 773(b) of the 

Act. See Hyosung Cost Initiation Memo. 

As stated in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

of this notice, above, we declined to 

initiate such an investigation for 

Hyundai. See Hyundai Sales Below Cost 

Allegation Memorandum. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

We calculated the COP based on the 

sum of the cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus amounts for selling, general, and 

administrative (SG&A) expenses and 

packing, in accordance with section 

773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the 

COP data submitted by respondents 

except where noted below. Based on the 

review of record evidence, respondents 

did not appear to experience significant 

changes in the cost of manufacturing 

during the period of investigation. 

Therefore, we followed our normal 

methodology of calculating an annual 

weighted-average cost. 

Hyosung 

We reclassified certain selling, G&A 

and other non-operating income and 

expense items that appeared not to be 

properly classified by Hyosung and 

revised Hyosung’s calculation of the 

G&A expense ratio. For additional 

details, see Memorandum to Neal M. 

Halper from Sheikh M. Hannan titled 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Determination—Hyosung 

Corporation’’ dated February 9, 2012 

(Hyosung Preliminary Cost Calculation 

Memorandum). 

Hyundai 

We excluded unconsolidated foreign 

exchange gains and losses from 

Hyundai’s G&A expenses and included 

the corresponding consolidated gains 

and losses in the calculation of the 

financial expense ratio according to our 

normal practice. We disallowed the 

offset to Hyundai’s G&A expense for 

certain miscellaneous income items. For 

additional details, see Memorandum to 

Neal M. Halper from Ernest Z. Gziryan 

titled ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Determination—Hyundai Heavy 

Industries Co., Ltd. and Hyundai 

Corporation, USA’’ dated February 9, 

2012 (Hyundai Preliminary Cost 

Calculation Memorandum). 

2. Test of Comparison Market Prices 

With respect to Hyosung, on a 

product-specific basis, pursuant to 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales 

prices of the foreign like product, in 

order to determine whether the sale 

prices were below the COP. For 

purposes of this comparison, we used 

COP exclusive of selling and packing 

expenses. The prices were net of billing 

adjustments, movement charges, 

discounts, direct and indirect selling 

expenses and packing expenses, where 

appropriate. See Hyosung Preliminary 

Analysis Memorandum. 

3. Results of COP Test 

Section 773(b)(1) provides that where 

sales made at less than the COP ‘‘have 

been made within an extended period of 

time in substantial quantities’’ and 

‘‘were not at prices which permit 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time’’ the Department may 

disregard such sales when calculating 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2012 / Notices 9209 

15While Hyosung provided ranged data of their 

quantities and values in its public version, Hyundai 

provided indexed data and thus the Department 

cannot disclose a weighted-average dumping 

margin for the all other’s rate. 

NV. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) 

of the Act, we did not disregard belowcost sales that were not made in 

‘‘substantial quantities,’’ i.e., where less 

than 20 percent of sales of a given 

product were at prices less than the 

COP. We disregarded below-cost sales 

when they were made in substantial 

quantities, i.e., where 20 percent or 

more of a respondent’s sales of a given 

product were at prices less than the COP 

and where ‘‘the weighted average per 

unit price of the sales * * * is less than 

the weighted average per unit cost of 

production for such sales.’’ See section 

773(b)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act. Finally, based 

on our comparison of prices to the 

weighted-average COPs for the POR, we 

considered whether the prices would 

permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time. See section 

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 

Therefore, for Hyosung, we 

disregarded below-cost sales of a given 

product of 20 percent or more and used 

the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See 

Hyosung Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison-Market Prices 

We calculated NV for Hyundai and 

Hyosung based on the reported packed, 

ex-factory or delivered prices to 

comparison market customers. We made 

deductions from the starting price, 

where appropriate, for billing 

adjustments, early payment and certain 

other discounts, other revenues 

received, inland freight and insurance, 

and warehousing expenses, pursuant to 

section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we 

made, where appropriate, circumstanceof-sale adjustments (i.e., bank charges 

for Hyosung). We added U.S. packing 

costs and deducted home market 

packing costs, in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the 

Act. Finally, we made a CEP offset 

pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). We 

calculated the CEP offset as the lesser of 

the indirect selling expenses incurred 

on the home market sales or the indirect 

selling expenses deducted from the 

starting price in calculating CEP. 

When comparing U.S. sales with 

comparison market sales of similar, but 

not identical, merchandise, we also 

made adjustments for physical 

differences in the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We 

based this adjustment on the difference 

in the variable cost of manufacturing for 

the foreign-like product and subject 

merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 

F. Price-to-CV Comparison 

Where we were unable to find a home 

market match of such or similar 

merchandise, in accordance with 

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

NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments to CV in accordance with 

section 773(a)(8) of the Act. 

G. Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(e) of 

the Act, we calculated CV based on the 

sum of Hyundai’s and Hyosung’s 

respective material and fabrication 

costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. 

packing costs. We calculated the COP 

component of CV as described above in 

the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ 

section of this notice. In accordance 

with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 

based SG&A expenses and profit on the 

amounts incurred and realized by the 

respondents in connection with the 

production and sale of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade, 

for consumption in the foreign country. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.415(a) based on the exchange rates 

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales 

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

relied upon in making our final 

determination for Hyundai and 

Hyosung. 

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Manufacturer/ 

Exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., 

Ltd. .......................................... 21.79 

Hyosung Corporation .................. 38.07 

All-others ..................................... 29.93 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we will direct CBP to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

large power transformers from Korea 

that are entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. We will also 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond equal to the 

weighted-average dumping margins, as 

indicated in the chart below. These 

suspension of liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

All Others Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that the estimated ‘‘All Others’’ 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. Hyundai and 

Hyosung are the only respondents in 

this investigation for which the 

Department has calculated a companyspecific rate that is not zero or de 

minimis. Therefore, for purposes of 

determining the ‘‘all others’’ rate and 

pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the 

Act, we are using the simple average of 

the dumping margins calculated for 

Hyundai and Hyosung for the ‘‘all 

others’’ rate, as referenced in the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section, 

above. See Seamless Refined Copper 

Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 75 FR 60723, 60724 (October 

1, 2010) (using a simple average to 

determine the ‘‘All Others’’ rate when 

there only two relevant weightedaverage dumping margins because use 

of a weighted average risks disclosure of 

business proprietary information).15

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with this preliminary 

determination within five days of the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that a final determination may be 

postponed until not later than 135 days 

after the date of the publication of the 

preliminary determination if, in the 

event of an affirmative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by exporters, 

who account for a significant proportion 

of exports of the subject merchandise, or 

in the event of a negative preliminary 

determination, a request for such 

postponement is made by the petitioner. 

The Department’s regulations, at 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), require that requests by 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
9210 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2012 / Notices 

respondents for postponement of a final 

determination be accompanied by a 

request for extension of provisional 

measures from a four-month period to 

not more than six months. 

On December 22, 2011, and January 5, 

2012, Hyosung and Hyundai, 

respectively, requested that in the event 

of an affirmative preliminary 

determination in this investigation, the 

Department postpone its final 

determination by 60 days (135 days after 

publication of the preliminary 

determination) and extend the 

application of the provisional measures 

prescribed under section 733(d) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a 

four-month period to a six-month 

period. In accordance with section 

735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our 

preliminary determination is 

affirmative; (2) the requesting 

producers/exporters account for a 

significant proportion of exports of the 

subject merchandise; and (3) no 

compelling reasons for denial exist, we 

are granting this request and are 

postponing the final determination until 

no later than 135 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Suspension of liquidation will 

be extended accordingly. We are also 

granting the request to extend the 

application of the provisional measures 

prescribed under section 733(d) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 

four-month period to a six-month 

period. 

USITC Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the USITC of 

the Department’s preliminary 

affirmative determination. If the 

Department’s final determination is 

affirmative, the USITC will determine 

before the later of 120 days after the date 

of this preliminary determination or 45 

days after our final determination 

whether imports of large power 

transformers from Korea are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to, the U.S. industry. See section 

735(b)(2) of the Act. Because we are 

postponing the deadline for our final 

determination to 135 days from the date 

of the publication of this preliminary 

determination, the USITC will make its 

final determination no later than 45 

days after our final determination. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs to the Department no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the issuance of the last verification 

report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the 

content of which is limited to the issues 

raised in the case briefs, must be filed 

within five days from the deadline date 

for the submission of case briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d)(1) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(2). A list of authorities used, 

a table of contents, and an executive 

summary of issues should accompany 

any briefs submitted to the Department. 

Executive summaries should be limited 

to five pages total, including footnotes. 

Interested parties, who wish to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination must file briefs 

electronically using Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). An electronically filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the Department’s 

electronic records system, IA ACCESS, 

by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. 

In accordance with section 774(1) of 

the Act, the Department will hold a 

public hearing, if timely requested, to 

afford interested parties an opportunity 

to comment on arguments raised in case 

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 

hearing is requested by an interested 

party. See also 19 CFR 351.310. 

Interested parties, who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, filed electronically using 

IA ACCESS, as noted above. An 

electronically filed document must be 

received successfully in its entirety by 

the Department’s electronic records 

system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time within 30 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 

contain the party’s name, address, and 

telephone number, the number of 

participants, and a list of the issues to 

be discussed. If a request for a hearing 

is made, we will inform parties of the 

scheduled date for the hearing which 

will be held at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at 

a time and location to be determined. 

See 19 CFR 351.310. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the date, time, and 

location of the hearing. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

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

Dated: February 9, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3716 Filed 2–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XB003 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission Appointments 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of nominations. 

SUMMARY: NOAA is soliciting 

nominations for two individuals to 

serve as United States Commissioners to 

the International Pacific Halibut 

Commission (IPHC). This action is 

necessary to ensure that the interests of 

the United States and all of its 

stakeholders in the Pacific halibut 

fishery are adequately represented. The 

intended effect of this action is to 

improve transparency and stakeholder 

participation in the nomination process. 

DATES: Nominations must be received 

by March 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Nominations for U.S. 

Commissioners to the IPHC should be 

made in writing to Mr. Patrick E. Moran, 

Office of International Affairs, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, at 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. Nominations can also be sent via 

fax (301–713–2313) or email 

(Pat.Moran@noaa.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Patrick E. Moran, (301) 427–8370. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The IPHC is a bilateral regional 

fishery management organization 

established pursuant to the Convention 

between Canada and the United States 

for the Preservation of the Halibut 

Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and 

Bering Sea (Convention). The 

Convention was signed at Ottawa, 

Ontario, on March 2, 1953, and was 

amended by a Protocol Amending the 

Convention signed at Washington, DC, 

on March 29, 1979. The Convention’s 

central objective is to develop the stocks 

of Pacific halibut in waters off the west 

coasts of Canada and the United States 

to levels that will permit the optimum 

yield from the Pacific halibut fishery 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES