2032 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2012 / Notices 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), and 19 

CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the 

Department to issue the preliminary 

results in a new shipper review of an 

antidumping duty order 180 days after 

the date on which the review is 

initiated. The Department may, 

however, extend the deadline for 

completion of the preliminary results of 

a new shipper review to 300 days if it 

determines that the case is 

extraordinarily complicated. See section 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(i)(2). 

The Department finds that this new 

shipper review is extraordinarily 

complicated and, therefore, it requires 

additional time to complete the 

preliminary results. Specifically, the 

Department requires additional time to 

examine factors of production data that 

were only fully provided this month 

and then issue supplemental 

questionnaires for any additional 

information that may be needed. 

Accordingly, we are extending the time 

for the completion of the preliminary 

results of this review by 120 days, until 

May 22, 2012. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 5, 2012. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–585 Filed 1–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–836] 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate Products From the 

Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request by an 

interested party, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate 

products (steel plate) from the Republic 

of Korea (Korea). This review covers one 

producer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise, Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., 

Ltd. (DSM). The period of review (POR) 

is February 1, 2010, through January 31, 

2011. 

The Department has preliminarily 

determined that DSM made U.S. sales at 

prices less than normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of administrative review, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results of 

review. We intend to issue the final 

results of review no later than 120 days 

from the publication date of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 13, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 

482–5760. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 10, 2000, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on steel plate 

from Korea. See Notice of Amendment 

of Final Determinations of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

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

France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan 

and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585 

(February 10, 2000). On February 1, 

2011, the Department published in the 

Federal Register a notice of opportunity 

to request administrative review of the 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 76 

FR 5559 (February 1, 2011). 

On February 25, 2011, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), DSM 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of its sales and 

entries of subject merchandise into the 

United States during the POR. On 

March 31, 2011, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of 

DSM. See Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests 

for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 17825 

(March 31, 2011). 

The Department is conducting this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the 

antidumping duty order are certain hotrolled carbon-quality 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) 

flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a 

nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm 

or more and of a width which exceeds 

150 mm and measures at least twice the 

thickness, and which are cut-to-length 

(not in coils). Steel products included in 

the scope of the order are of rectangular, 

square, circular, or other shape and of 

rectangular or non-rectangular cross 

section where such non-rectangular 

cross-section is achieved subsequent to 

the rolling process (i.e., products which 

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

example, products which have been 

beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel 

products that meet the noted physical 

characteristics that are painted, 

varnished, or coated with plastic or 

other non-metallic substances are 

included within the scope. Also, 

specifically included in the scope of the 

order are high strength, low alloy 

(HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are 

recognized as steels with micro-alloying 

levels of elements such as chromium, 

copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, 

and molybdenum. Steel products 

included in the scope, regardless of 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) definitions, are 

products in which: (1) Iron 

predominates, by weight, over each of 

the other contained elements, (2) the 

carbon content is two percent or less, by 

weight, and (3) none of the elements 

listed below is equal to or exceeds the 

quantity, by weight, respectively 

indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 

1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent 

of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, 

or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 

percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of 

lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 

percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of 

molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of 

niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 

0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 

percent zirconium. All products that 

meet the written physical description, 

and in which the chemistry quantities 

do not equal or exceed any one of the 

levels listed above, are within the scope 

of the order unless otherwise 

specifically excluded. The following 

products are specifically excluded from 

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

coated with metal, whether or not 

painted, varnished or coated with 

plastic or other non-metallic substances; 

(2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2012 / Notices 2033 

series 2300 and above; (3) products 

made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their 

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

AR 500); (5) products made to ASTM 

A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade 

S, or their proprietary equivalents; (6) 

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

silicon manganese steel or silicon 

electric steel. 

Imports of steel plate are currently 

classified in the HTSUS under 

subheadings 7208.40.30.30, 

7208.40.30.60, 7208.51.00.30, 

7208.51.00.45, 7208.51.00.60, 

7208.52.00.00, 7208.53.00.00, 

7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 

7210.90.90.00, 7211.13.00.00, 

7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.45, 

7211.90.00.00, 7212.40.10.00, 

7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00, 

7225.40.30.50, 7225.40.70.00, 

7225.50.60.00, 7225.99.00.90, 

7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 

7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description of the merchandise 

covered by the order is dispositive. 

Fair-Value Comparison 

To determine whether DSM’s sales of 

the subject merchandise from Korea to 

the United States were at prices below 

normal value, we compared the 

constructed export price (CEP) to the 

normal value as described in the 

‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Act, we compared the CEP of individual 

U.S. transactions to the monthly 

weighted-average normal value of the 

foreign like product where there were 

sales made in the ordinary course of 

trade. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

covered by the ‘‘scope of the order’’ 

section above produced and sold by 

DSM in the comparison market during 

the POR to be foreign like product for 

the purposes of determining appropriate 

product comparisons to U.S. sales of 

subject merchandise. Specifically, we 

made comparisons to weighted-average 

comparison market prices that were 

based on all sales which passed the 

cost-of-production (COP) test of the 

identical product during the relevant or 

contemporary month. We calculated the 

weighted-average comparison market 

prices on a level of trade-specific basis. 

Constructed Export Price 

The Department based the price of 

DSM’s U.S. sales of subject merchandise 

on CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of 

the Act, because the merchandise was 

sold, before importation, by a U.S.-based 

seller affiliated with the producer to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

772(d)(1) of the Act, we calculated the 

CEP by deducting selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, which 

includes direct selling expenses. In 

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 

Act, we also deducted those indirect 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States and the profit allocated to 

expenses deducted under section 

772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 

772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In 

accordance with section 772(f) of the 

Act, we computed profit based on the 

total revenues realized on sales in both 

the U.S. and comparison markets, less 

all expenses associated with those sales. 

We then allocated profit to expenses 

incurred with respect to U.S. economic 

activity based on the ratio of total U.S. 

expenses to total expenses for both the 

U.S. and comparison markets. 

Normal Value 

A. Affiliation 

DSM made home market sales to 

Dongkuk S&C (DSC), which is a 

subsidiary of Dongkuk Industries Co., 

Ltd. (DKI). DKI owns 60 percent of DSC. 

DSM’s Chairperson, Sae Joo Chang, and 

President, Sae Wook Chang, are 

brothers. DKI’s Chairperson, Sang Kuhn 

Chang, is the father of DSC’s President/ 

Director, Sae Hee Chang. DKI’s 

Chairperson, Sang Kuhn Chang, is also 

an uncle of DSM’s Chairperson, Sae Joo 

Chang, and President, Sae Wook Chang. 

Together the Chang family grouping 

owns the largest block of the 

outstanding shares of DSM and DKI. 

Members of a family are affiliates 

pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(3). The 

definition of family includes unclenephew relationships under section 

771(33)(A) of the Act. See Ferro Union, 

Inc. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 

1310, 1325–26 (CIT 1999). Two or more 

persons directly or indirectly 

controlling, controlled by, or under 

common control with any person are 

affiliates under section 771(33)(F) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(3). In past 

reviews, the Department has found that 

DSM and DKI are affiliated. See, e.g., 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate Products From the Republic 

of Korea: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 77614, 77615–16 

(December 19, 2008) (2007–08 Prelim), 

unchanged in Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products 

From the Republic of Korea: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 19046 

(April 27, 2009) (2007–08 Final). The 

U.S. Court of International Trade has 

upheld the Department’s decision to 

find DSM and DKI affiliates in a 

separate review. See Dongkuk Steel Mill 

Co. v. United States, 29 CIT 724 (2005). 

Therefore, we preliminarily find that 

DKI’s Chairperson, Sang Kuhn Chang, 

and DSM’s Chairperson, Sae Joo Chang, 

and President, Sae Wook Chang, are 

affiliated under section 771(33)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(3) 

because of their uncle-nephew 

relationship. We also preliminarily find 

that DSM, DKI, and DSC are affiliated 

under section 771(33)(F) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.102(b)(3) because DSM, 

DKI, and DSC are under common 

control of the Chang family grouping. 

See the memorandum entitled ‘‘Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel 

Plate Products from the Republic of 

Korea: Affiliation of Dongkuk Steel Mill 

Co., Ltd., and Dongkuk Industries Co., 

Ltd.,’’ dated January 9, 2012, for more 

details which contain DSM’s businessproprietary information. Accordingly, 

we preliminarily treated DSM’s home 

market sales to DSC as sales to an 

affiliated party and performed the arm’slength test for these sales. See the 

‘‘Arm’s-Length Test’’ section, infra. 

B. Home Market Viability 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(c) of the Act, in order to 

determine whether there was a 

sufficient volume of sales of steel plate 

in the comparison market to serve as a 

viable basis for calculating the normal 

value, we compared the volume of the 

respondent’s home market sales of the 

foreign like product to its volume of the 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 

DSM’s quantity of sales in the home 

market was greater than five percent of 

its sales to the U.S. market. Based on 

this comparison of the aggregate 

quantities sold in the comparison 

market, i.e., Korea, and to the United 

States and absent any information that 

a particular market situation in the 

exporting country did not permit a 

proper comparison, we preliminarily 

determine that the quantity of the 

foreign like product sold by the 

respondent in the exporting country was 

sufficient to permit a proper comparison 

with the sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. See 

section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, we 

determine that DSM’s home market was 

viable during the POR. Id. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

2034 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2012 / Notices 

of the Act, we based normal value for 

the respondent on the prices at which 

the foreign like product was first sold 

for consumption in the exporting 

country in the usual commercial 

quantities and in the ordinary course of 

trade and, to the extent practicable, at 

the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. 

C. Overrun Sales 

Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act 

provides that normal value shall be 

based on the price at which the foreign 

like product is first sold, inter alia, in 

the ordinary course of trade. Section 

771(15) of the Act defines ‘‘ordinary 

course of trade’’ as the ‘‘conditions and 

practices which, for a reasonable time 

prior to the exportation of the subject 

merchandise, have been normal in the 

trade under consideration with respect 

to merchandise of the same class or 

kind.’’ 

DSM reported home market sales of 

‘‘overrun’’ merchandise, i.e., sales of 

products that failed to meet the original 

customer’s order specifications because 

of differences in size, chemical 

components, and/or strength. In the 

past, the Department has examined 

various factors to determine whether 

‘‘overrun’’ sales are in the ordinary 

course of trade. See China Steel Corp. v. 

United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d. 1339, 

1364–65 (CIT May 14, 2003). See also, 

e.g., 2007–08 Prelim, 73 FR at 77616, 

unchanged in 2007–08 Final. The 

Department has the discretion to choose 

how best to analyze the many factors 

involved in determining whether sales 

are made within the ordinary course of 

trade. See Laclede Steel Co. v. United 

States, 19 CIT 1076, 1078 (1995). These 

factors include, but are not limited to, 

the following: (1) Whether the 

merchandise is ‘‘off-quality’’ or 

produced according to unusual 

specifications; (2) the comparative 

volume of sales and the number of 

buyers in the home market; (3) the 

average quantity of an overrun sale 

compared to the average quantity of a 

commercial sale; and (4) price and profit 

differentials in the home market. 

Based on our analysis of these factors 

and the terms of sale, we preliminarily 

determine that DSM’s overrun sales are 

outside the ordinary course of trade. 

Because our analysis includes businessproprietary information, the analysis is 

available in a separate decision 

memorandum. See the memorandum 

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

Republic of Korea: Home Market 

Overruns’’ dated January 9, 2012. 

D. Cost-of-Production Analysis 

In the most recently completed 

administrative review, the Department 

determined that DSM sold the foreign 

like product at prices below the cost of 

producing the merchandise and, as a 

result, excluded such sales from the 

calculation of normal value. See 2007– 

08 Prelim, 73 FR at 77616–17, 

unchanged in 2007–08 Final. Therefore, 

in this review, we have reasonable 

grounds to believe or suspect that 

DSM’s sales of the foreign like product 

under consideration for the 

determination of normal value may have 

been made at prices below COP as 

provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 

the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of 

the Act, we have conducted a COP 

investigation of DSM’s sales in the 

comparison market. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the COP based 

on the sum of the costs of materials and 

labor employed in producing the foreign 

like product, the selling, general, and 

administrative expenses, and all costs 

and expenses incidental to packing the 

merchandise. In our COP analysis, we 

used the comparison market sales and 

COP information provided by DSM in 

its questionnaire response. 

We analyzed DSM’s affiliated 

transactions in accordance with sections 

773(f)(2) and (3) of the Act. During the 

POR, DSM purchased slabs, which are 

a major input in the production of steel 

plate, from its affiliates. Section 

773(f)(3) of the Act (the major input 

rule) states: 

If, in the case of a transaction between 

affiliated persons involving the production 

by one of such persons of a major input to 

the merchandise, the administering authority 

has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that an amount represented as the value of 

such input is less than the cost of production 

of such input, then the administering 

authority may determine the value of the 

major input on the basis of the information 

available regarding such cost of production, 

if such cost is greater than the amount that 

would be determined for such input under 

paragraph (2). 

Paragraph 2 of section 773(f) of the Act 

(transactions disregarded) states: 

A transaction directly or indirectly 

between affiliated persons may be 

disregarded if, in the case of any element of 

value required to be considered, the amount 

representing that element does not fairly 

reflect the amount usually reflected in sales 

of merchandise under consideration in the 

market under consideration. If a transaction 

is disregarded under the preceding sentence 

and no other transactions are available for 

consideration, the determination of the 

amount shall be based on the information 

available as to what the amount would have 

been if the transaction had occurred between 

persons who are not affiliated. 

In accordance with the major input 

rule, and as stated in Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

45708, 45714 (August 6, 2008), 

unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 6365 (February 9, 2009), 

it is the Department’s normal practice to 

use all three elements of the major input 

rule, i.e., transfer price, COP, and 

market price, where available. See, e.g., 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 36519, 36521–22 (June 

22, 2011), unchanged in Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From the 

Netherlands: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 66687 (October 27, 2011). 

We adjusted DSM’s cost of 

manufacturing to reflect the results of 

our analysis. See the DSM preliminary 

analysis memorandum dated January 9, 

2012, for more details which contain 

DSM’s business proprietary information. 

Based on our review of the record 

evidence, DSM did not appear to 

experience significant changes in the 

cost of manufacturing during the POR. 

Therefore, we followed our normal 

methodology of calculating an annual 

weighted-average cost. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Prices 

After calculating the COP, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act, we tested whether comparison 

market sales of the foreign like product 

were made at prices below the COP 

within an extended period of time in 

substantial quantities and whether such 

prices permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. See 

section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We 

compared model-specific COPs to the 

reported comparison market prices less 

any applicable movement charges, 

discounts, and rebates. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, when less than 20 percent of DSM’s 

sales of a given product were at prices 

less than the COP, we did not disregard 

any below-cost sales of that product 

because the below-cost sales were not 

made in substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time. When 20 

percent or more of DSM’s sales of a 

given product during the POR were at 

prices less than the COP, we 

disregarded the below-cost sales 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2012 / Notices 2035 

because they were made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act and because, based on 

comparisons of prices to weightedaverage COPs for the POR, we 

determined that these sales were at 

prices which would not permit recovery 

of all costs within a reasonable period 

of time in accordance with section 

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

In this review, we found that, for 

certain products, more than 20 percent 

of DSM’s home market sales were at 

prices less than COP and, in addition, 

such sales did not provide for the 

recovery of cost within a reasonable 

period of time. Therefore, we excluded 

these sales and used the remaining sales 

as the basis for determining normal 

value in accordance with section 

773(b)(1) of the Act. 

E. Arm’s-Length Test 

The Department may calculate normal 

value based on a sale to an affiliated 

party only if it is satisfied that the price 

to the affiliated party is comparable to 

the price at which sales are made to 

parties not affiliated with the exporter 

or producer, i.e., sales at arm’s-length 

prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). For 

affiliated-party sales, we excluded from 

our analysis sales to affiliated customers 

for consumption in the comparison 

market that we determined not to have 

been made at arm’s-length prices. To 

test whether these sales were made at 

arm’s-length prices, we compared the 

prices of sales of comparable 

merchandise to affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, 

movement charges, and direct selling 

expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) 

and in accordance with our practice, 

when the prices charged to an affiliated 

party were, on average, between 98 and 

102 percent of the prices charged to 

unaffiliated parties for merchandise 

comparable to that sold to the affiliated 

party, we determined that the sales to 

the affiliated party were at arm’s-length 

prices. See Antidumping Proceedings: 

Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary 

Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 

(November 15, 2002). We included in 

our calculations of normal value those 

sales to affiliated parties that were made 

at arm’s-length prices. 

F. Price-to-Price Comparisons 

We based normal value on 

comparison market sales to unaffiliated 

purchasers and sales to affiliated 

customers that passed the arm’s-length 

test. DSM’s comparison market prices 

were based on the ex-factory or 

delivered prices. When applicable, we 

made adjustments for differences for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

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

We also made adjustments for 

differences in cost attributable to 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.411 and for differences in 

circumstances of sale in accordance 

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to 

CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale 

adjustments by deducting comparison 

market direct selling expenses from 

normal value. 

Level of Trade 

To the extent practicable, we 

determine normal value for sales at the 

same level of trade as CEP sales. See 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.412. When there are no sales at 

the same level of trade, we compare CEP 

sales to comparison market sales at a 

different level of trade. The normal 

value level of trade is that of the 

starting-price sales in the comparison 

market. 

To determine whether comparison 

market sales are at a different level of 

trade than DSM’s U.S. sales in this 

review, we examined stages in the 

marketing process and selling functions 

along the chain of distribution between 

the producer and the unaffiliated 

customer. Based on our analysis, we 

have preliminarily determined that 

there is one level of trade in the United 

States and one level of trade in the 

home market and that the U.S. level of 

trade is at a less advanced stage than the 

home market level of trade. Therefore, 

we have compared U.S. sales to home 

market sales at different levels of trade. 

Because there is only one level of 

trade in the home market, we were 

unable to calculate a level-of-trade 

adjustment based on DSM’s home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

and we have no other information that 

provides an appropriate basis for 

determining a level-of-trade adjustment. 

For DSM’s CEP sales, to the extent 

possible, we determined normal value at 

the same level of trade as the U.S. sale 

to the unaffiliated customer and made a 

CEP-offset adjustment in accordance 

with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The 

CEP-offset adjustment to normal value is 

subject to the so-called offset cap, which 

is calculated as the sum of home market 

indirect selling expenses up to the 

amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses 

deducted from CEP. 

For a detailed description of our levelof-trade analysis for DSM in these 

preliminary results, see the DSM 

preliminary analysis memorandum 

dated January 9, 2012. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 

based on the exchange rates in effect on 

the dates of the relevant U.S. sales as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

These exchange rates are available on 

the Import Administration Web site at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

weighted-average dumping margin for 

DSM is 1.64 percent for the period 

February 1, 2010, through January 31, 

2011. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties in this review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. 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 

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 

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. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results of 

this review. The Department will 

consider case briefs filed by interested 

parties within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Interested parties may file 

rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs. The Department will 

consider rebuttal briefs filed not later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing case briefs. Parties who submit 

arguments are requested to submit with 

each argument a statement of the issue, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

2036 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 2012 / Notices 

1See 2007–08 Final, 74 FR at 19048. 

a brief summary of the argument, and a 

table of authorities cited. Further, we 

request that parties submitting written 

comments provide the Department with 

a diskette containing an electronic copy 

of the public version of such comments. 

We intend to issue the final results of 

this administrative review, including 

the results of our analysis of issues 

raised in the written comments, within 

120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results in the Federal 

Register. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 

calculated an importer-specific 

assessment rate for these preliminary 

results of review. We divided the total 

dumping margins for the reviewed sales 

by the total entered value of those 

reviewed sales for the importer. We will 

instruct CBP to assess the importerspecific rate uniformly, as appropriate, 

on all entries of subject merchandise 

made by the relevant importer during 

the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). The 

Department intends to issue instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the publication of 

the final results of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties). This clarification 

will apply to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by DSM for which DSM did not know 

its merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries of DSM-produced merchandise 

at the all-others rate if there is no rate 

for the intermediate company(ies) 

involved in the transaction. See 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties for a 

full discussion of this clarification. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of steel plate 

from Korea entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication, as provided by 

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

cash-deposit rate for DSM will be the 

rate established in the final results of 

this review; (2) for previously reviewed 

or investigated companies not listed 

above, the cash-deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; 

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 

in this review, a prior review, or the 

less-than-fair-value investigation but the 

manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer has its 

own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 

0.98 percent,1 the all-others rate 

established in the less-than-fair-value 

investigation, adjusted for the exportsubsidy rate in the companion 

countervailing duty investigation. This 

deposit requirement, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: January 9, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–613 Filed 1–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[Application No. 92–10A001] 

Export Trade Certificate of Review 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an Export 

Trade Certificate of Review to 

Aerospace Industries of America 

(‘‘AIA’’) (Application No. 92–10A001). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce issued an amended Export 

Trade Certificate of Review to 

Aerospace Industries of America on 

September 27, 2011. The Certificate has 

been amended ten times. The previous 

amendment was issued to AIA on 

November 29, 2010, and a notice of its 

issuance was published in the Federal 

Register on December 7, 2010 (75 FR 

75963). The original Export Trade 

Certificate of Review No. 92–0001 was 

issued on April 10, 1992, and published 

in the Federal Register on April 17, 

1992 (57 FR 13707). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of 

Competition and Economic Analysis, 

International Trade Administration, by 

telephone at (202) 482–5131 (this is not 

a toll-free number) or email at 

etca@trade.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of 

the Export Trading Company Act of 

1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001–21) 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to 

issue Export Trade Certificates of 

Review. The regulations implementing 

Title III are found at 15 CFR Part 325 

(2010). The U.S. Department of 

Commerce, International Trade 

Administration, Office of Competition 

and Economic Analysis (‘‘OCEA’’) is 

issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 

325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of 

Commerce to publish a summary of the 

issuance in the Federal Register. Under 

Section 305(a) of the Export Trading 

Company Act (15 U.S.C. 4012(b)(1)) and 

15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved 

by the Secretary’s determination may, 

within 30 days of the date of this notice, 

bring an action in any appropriate 

district court of the United States to set 

aside the determination on the ground 

that the determination is erroneous. 

Description of Certified Conduct 

AIA’s Export Trade Certificate of 

Review has been amended to: 

1. Add the following new ‘‘Members’’ 

of the Certificate within the meaning of 

section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 

CFR 325.2(1)): 

Aero-Mark, LLC (Ontario, CA); Aero 

Vironment, Inc (Monrovia, CA); AGC 

Aerospace & Defense (Oklahoma City, 

OK); AlliedBarton Security Services 

LLC (Conshohocken, PA); Castle 

Metals Aerospace (Oakbrook, IL); 

CERTON Software, Inc (Melbourne, 

FL); CIRCOR International, Inc. 

(Burlington, MA); Colt Defense, LLC 

(West Hartford, CT); Comtech 

AreoAstro, Inc. (Ashburn, VA); Crown 

Consulting, Inc. (Arlington, VA); 

Cubic Defense Applications, Inc. (San 

Diego, CA); DigitialGlobe, Inc. 

(Longmont, CO); Galactic Venutres, 

LLC (Las Cruces, NM); Gentex 

Corporation (Zeeland, MI); HCL 

America Inc. (Sunnyvale, VA); HiShear Technology Corporation 

(Torrance, CA); Hydra Electric 

Company (Burbank, CA); IEC 

Electronics Corporation (Newark, NJ); 

Infotech Enterprises America Inc. 

(East Hartford, CT); Kemet Electronics 

Corporation (Simpsonville, SC); 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES