2512 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Notices 

all of the information necessary to 

calculate dumping margins for these 

sales, we find it appropriate to rely on 

partial facts available pursuant to 

section 776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, 

because Poly Plast possessed the 

necessary records to provide a complete 

U.S. sales list but did not do so, we find 

that it did not act to the best of its ability 

to comply with our request for 

information. 

Accordingly, because Poly Plast failed 

to cooperate in reporting all of its U.S. 

sales of subject merchandise, we find 

that use of information adverse to the 

interests of Poly Plast, as facts otherwise 

available, is appropriate pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act. As adverse 

facts available we have applied the 

highest transaction–specific margin we 

determined for sales Poly Plast reported 

to the value of unreported U.S. sales. 

For a complete discussion on this issue, 

see Decision Memorandum at Comment 

2. 

Sales Below Cost in the Home Market 

For these final results of review, the 

Department disregarded home–market 

sales by NPG and Poly Plast that failed 

the cost–of-production test. 

Final Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that the following percentage 

weighted–average dumping margins 

exist on PCRBs from Thailand for the 

period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 

2007: 

Producer/Exporter Margin (percent) 

King Pac (aka King 

Pak) ........................... 122.88 

Master Packaging ......... 122.88 

NPG .............................. 32.67 

Poly Plast ...................... 8.94 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of these final results, 

the Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of these final results of 

review. 

We calculated importer/customer– 

specific duty–assessment amounts with 

respect to export–price sales by NPG 

and Poly Plast in the following manner. 

We divided the total dumping margins 

(calculated as the difference between 

normal value and the export price) for 

each exporter’s importer or customer by 

the total number of units the exporter 

sold to that importer or customer. We 

will direct CBP to assess the resulting 

per–unit dollar amount against each 

unit of merchandise on each of that 

importer’s or customer’s entries during 

the review period. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). Where the assessment 

amount is above de minimis, we will 

instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer or customer. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment– 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the period of review produced by 

companies included in these final 

results of review for which the reviewed 

companies did not know that the 

merchandise they sold to an 

intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading 

company, or exporter) was destined for 

the United States. In such instances, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the all–others rate 

if there is no rate for the intermediary 

involved in the transaction. See 

Assessment–Policy Notice for a full 

discussion of this clarification. 

Because we are relying on total 

adverse facts available to establish the 

dumping margins for King Pac and 

Master Packaging, we will instruct CBP 

to apply a dumping margin of 122.88 

percent to all entries of subject 

merchandise produced and/or exported 

by these companies. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of 

this notice of final results of 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication, consistent with section 

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash–deposit 

rates for the reviewed companies will be 

the rates shown above; (2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed 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 or a previous review or 

the original less–than-fair–value (LTFV) 

investigation but the manufacturer is, 

the cash–deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; (4) the cash–deposit rate 

for all other manufacturers or exporters 

will continue to be 2.80 percent, the all– 

others rate from the amended final 

determination of the LTFV investigation 

published on July 15, 2004. See Notice 

of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Thailand, 69 FR 42419 (July 15, 2004). 

These deposit requirements shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification Requirements 

This notice serves as a 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. See id. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and the terms of an APO is 

a sanctionable violation.We are issuing 

and publishing these results in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: January 7, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

1. Adverse Facts Available 

2. Unreported Sales by Poly Plast 

[FR Doc. E9–634 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–818] 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: 

Final Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2008, the 

U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register its preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on 

corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat 

products (‘‘CORE’’) from the Republic of 

Korea (‘‘Korea’’) for the period of review 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Notices 2513 

(‘‘POR’’) January 1, 2006, through 

December 31, 2006. See Corrosion– 

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review. 73 FR 52315 

(September 9, 2008) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). We preliminarily found that 

Pohang Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘POSCO’’) and Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Dongbu’’) received de minimis 

countervailable subsidies during the 

POR. We received comments on our 

preliminary results from POSCO, a 

respondent company. The final results 

are listed in the section ‘‘Final Results 

of Review’’ below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak or Gayle Longest, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and 

Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 

20230; telephone: (202) 482–2209 and 

(202) 482–3338, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 17, 1993, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

CVD order on CORE from Korea. See 

Countervailing Duty Orders and 

Amendments of Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determinations: 

Certain Steel Products from Korea, 58 

FR 43752 (August 17, 1993). On 

September 9, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of this order for the period 

January 1, 2006, through December 31, 

2006. See Preliminary Results, 73 FR 

52315. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), this administrative review 

covers POSCO and Dongbu, producers 

and exporters of subject merchandise. 

In the Preliminary Results, we invited 

interested parties to submit briefs or 

request a hearing. We received 

comments from POSCO, a respondent. 

We received no comments from United 

States Steel Corporation and Nucor 

Corporation, (‘‘petitioners’’), or Dongbu. 

The Department did not conduct a 

hearing in this review because none was 

requested. 

Scope of Order 

Products covered by this order are 

certain corrosion–resistant carbon steel 

flat products from Korea. These 

products include flat–rolled carbon steel 

products, of rectangular shape, either 

clad, plated, or coated with corrosion– 

resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, 

or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron– 

based alloys, whether or not corrugated 

or painted, varnished or coated with 

plastics or other nonmetallic substances 

in addition to the metallic coating, in 

coils (whether or not in successively 

superimposed layers) and of a width of 

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths 

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch 

or greater and which measures at least 

10 times the thickness or if of a 

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more 

are of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness. The merchandise subject 

to this order is currently classifiable in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 

7210.30.0000, 7210.31.0000, 

7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 

7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 

7210.60.0000, 7210.61.0000, 

7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 

7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 

7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 

7212.20.0000, 7212.21.0000, 

7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030, 

7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 

7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 

7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 

7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.9030, 

7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 

7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000, 

7217.19.5000, 7217.20.1500, 

7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 

7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 

7217.30.15.0000, 7217.32.5000, 

7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, 

7217.39.5000, 7217.90.1000 and 

7217.90.5000. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The POR for which we are measuring 

subsidies is from January 1, 2006, 

through December 31, 2006. 

Analysis of Comments 

On October 9, 2008, POSCO filed 

comments. Neither Dongbu nor 

petitioners filed a case brief or a rebuttal 

brief. All issues in POSCO’s case brief 

are addressed in the accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review on Corrosion–Resistant carbon 

Steel Flat Products from Korea 

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), issued 

concurrently and hereby adopted by this 

notice. A listing of the issues that 

parties raised and to which we have 

responded is attached to this notice as 

Appendix I. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of the issues raised in this 

review and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 

1117 of the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum, can be accessed 

directly on the World Wide Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy 

and the electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Review 

After reviewing POSCO’s comments, 

we have not changed our findings from 

the Preliminary Results as explained in 

our Decision Memorandum. Consistent 

with the Preliminary Results, we find 

that POSCO and Dongbu received de 

minimis countervailable subsidies 

during the POR at the rates below: 

Company Net Subsidy Rate 

Pohang Iron and 

Steel Co. Ltd. 

(POSCO) ............... 0.09 percent ad 

valorem (de minimis) 

Dongbu Steel Co. 

Ltd. (Dongbu) ........ 0.22 percent ad 

valorem (de minimis) 

Assessment Rates/Cash Deposits 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 15 days 

after the date of publication of these 

final results of review to liquidate 

shipments of subject merchandise by 

POSCO and Dongbu entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after January 1, 

2006, through December 31, 2006, 

without regard to countervailing duties. 

We will also instruct CBP not to collect 

cash deposits of estimated 

countervailing duties on shipments of 

the subject merchandise produced by 

POSCO and Dongbu, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of these final results of 

review. 

For all non–reviewed companies, the 

Department has instructed CBP to assess 

countervailing duties at the cash deposit 

rates in effect at the time of entry, for 

entries between January 1, 2006, and 

December 31, 2006. The cash deposit 

rates for all companies not covered by 

this review are not changed by the 

results of this review. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
2514 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Notices 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

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

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: January 7, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I - Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

Company–Specific Issue 

Whether Certain Research and 

Development (‘‘R&D’’) Grants Under the 

Industrial Development Act (‘‘IDA’’) Are 

Tied to Non–Subject Merchandise 

[FR Doc. E9–633 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Basing the U.S. Marine Corps Joint 

Strike Fighter F–35B on the East Coast 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 

(102)(2)(c) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, as implemented by the Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations (40 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 

1500–1508), the Department of the Navy 

NEPA regulations (32 CFR Part 775), 

and Marine Corps NEPA directives 

(Marine Corps Order P5090.2A, change 

1), the Department of the Navy intends 

to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) and conduct public 

scoping meetings for the proposed 

basing and operation of 13 Joint Strike 

Fighter (JSF) F–35B squadrons at Marine 

Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort, in 

Beaufort, South Carolina and MCAS 

Cherry Point in Havelock, North 

Carolina. 

DATES: Public scoping meetings, 

following an informal open house 

format, will be held from 4 p.m. to 7 

p.m. on the dates indicated below, at the 

following locations: 

(1) February 3, 2009, Holiday Inn 

Resort, Conference Room, 2225 

Boundary St., Beaufort, SC. 

(2) February 4, 2009, Senior Center, 

15 Thornton Drive, NE., Ludowici, GA. 

(3) February 5, 2009, McIntosh 

County Middle School, Cafeteria, 500 

Green Street, Darien, GA. 

(4) February 10, 2009, Havelock 

Tourist and Event Center, 201 Tourist 

Center Drive, Havelock, NC. 

(5) February 11, 2009, Emerald Isle 

Community Center, 7500 Emerald Isle 

Dr., Emerald Isle, NC. 

(6) February 12, 2009, Fred A. 

Anderson Elementary School, Cafeteria, 

507 Anderson Dr., Bayboro, NC. 

Federal, state, and local agencies, and 

interested parties and persons are 

encouraged to attend any of the open 

house scoping meetings. At these open 

houses, proposal-related displays and 

material will be available for public 

review; Marine Corps and Navy staff 

will be present to address questions; 

and the public will have an opportunity 

to submit written comments on 

environmental concerns that should be 

addressed in the EIS. 

ADDRESSES: All are encouraged to 

provide comments on the proposed 

action and alternatives at any public 

scoping open houses and anytime 

during the 30-day scoping comment 

period, which ends February 16, 2009. 

There are three ways in which 

comments can be submitted: (1) By 

attending one of the public scoping 

open houses, (2) by e-mail using the 

project public Web site at http:// 

www.usmcJSFeast.com or (3) by mail. 

All written comments on the scope of 

the EIS should be submitted and 

postmarked no later than February 16, 

2009. Comments submitted by mail 

should be sent to: USMC F–35B East 

Coast Stationing EIS, P.O. Box 56488, 

Jacksonville, FL 32241–6488. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

F–35B EIS Project Manager at 757–444– 

1126. Please submit requests for special 

assistance, sign language interpretation 

for the hearing impaired, or other 

auxiliary aids needed at the public 

meeting to the F–35B EIS Project 

Manager by January 28, 2009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Marine Corps variant of the JSF, the F– 

35B, is a short take-off/vertical landing 

(STOVL), multi-role fighter aircraft 

whose primary emphasis is air-toground combat. The aircraft is designed 

to replace existing fleets of F–18 A/C/D 

Hornets (strike fighter), AV–8B Harriers 

(attack), and the EA–6B Prowler 

(electronic warfare) aircraft. The F–35B 

East Coast basing proposal would take 

approximately 11 years to implement 

and would begin in 2012. The proposal 

would base up to 216 aircraft (i.e., 10 

active-duty and 1 reserve squadron of 

up to 16 aircraft each and 2 Pilot 

Training Center (PTC) squadrons at 20 

aircraft each) at MCAS Beaufort and 

MCAS Cherry Point. Facility 

construction and modifications would 

occur prior to and continue throughout 

F–35B squadron arrivals; the F–35B 

would operate within existing airspace 

and at training ranges currently used by 

Marine Corps Hornet, Harrier, and 

Prowler aircraft. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action would base and 

operate a total of 13 F–35B (the Marine 

Corps variant of the JSF) squadrons at 

both MCAS Beaufort and MCAS Cherry 

Point. This F–35B is a next generation, 

stealth, supersonic, multi-role fighter 

aircraft that will replace aging Marine 

Corps fleets of F–18 A/C/D Hornets, 

AV–8B Harriers, and EA–6B Prowlers in 

the 2nd and 4th Marine Air Wings. 

Specifically, the squadrons would 

include up to 10 F–35B active-duty 

squadrons of up to 16 aircraft per 

squadron, 1 reserve F–35B squadron 

comprising up to 16 aircraft, and 2 PTC 

F–35B squadrons composed of up to 20 

aircraft per squadron. 

Purpose and Need 

To meet any crisis or conflict that may 

arise both now and into the future, 

Marine Corps Aviation must be manned, 

trained, and equipped to conduct worldwide air combat operations. For this 

reason, technological superiority in its 

air fleet is an essential requirement. The 

purpose of the proposed action, 

therefore, is to provide state-of-the art 

F–35B aircraft to Marine Corps fleets by 

replacing aging aircraft inventories. The 

basing action would provide both the 

facilities and functions to support and 

maintain these new aircraft as well as 

the airfields, airspace, and ranges to 

train air crews in these next-generation 

aircraft. 

Preliminary Alternatives 

The Marine Corps developed a range 

of reasonable basing alternatives in a 

three-tiered alternatives development 

process. The process applied the 

purpose and need to identify potential 

sites that could maximize JSF 

integration into existing Marine Air 

Ground Task Force organizations, 

maximize utilization of existing 

infrastructure, and provide efficient use 

of existing ranges. The alternative 

development process identified five 

preliminary basing alternatives. These 

alternatives distribute differing 

combinations of F–35B active-duty, 

reserve, and PTC squadrons at MCAS 

Beaufort and MCAS Cherry Point. The 

basing alternatives include: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES